John Edward: Biggest Douche In The Universe
pz
half-hour long excoriation of John Edward, culminating in his award as
the Biggest Douche In The Universe. Along the way, we also get a lovely
explanation of cold reading and Edward's silly act.
--
pz
Patrick L. Humphrey
...and you'll never get near the pot roast again.
--PL"oh, my God! They ate Kenny! YOU BASTARDS!"H
Ragnar
"pz" <pzm...@pharyngula.org> wrote in message
news:pzmyers-5C3932...@news.fu-berlin.de...
I saw it! It was hilarious. I wonder how many lawsuits they'll get from
Edwards and his cronies?
DrPostman
with The Prophecy and "For Entertainment Purposes Only" availed us of their
wisdom with:
I hope they do. That show is used to dealing with bullshit complaints and
has survived well so far.
--
Dr.Postman USPS, MBMC, BsD; "Disgruntled, But Unarmed"
Member,Board of Directors of afa-b, SKEP-TI-CULT® member #15-51506-253.
You can email me at: jamie_eckles(at)hotmail.com
"Your name is "Bruce," and my first name is also "Bruce.""
-Idiot The Bruce
Garrison Hilliard
Yep... Matt and Trey (the "South Park" creators) are on-target again!
John Enockson
It was amazing how a cartoon could so perfectly explain and refute the
Edwards Douchbag and his lame methods. All hail South Park!
Fred Garvin
Maybe they can ask the dead people for the answer!
I forgot to watch Wednesday, I caught the last 5 seconds of it. Looks
like a riot.
KERSPLOSH
>Edwards Douchbag and his lame methods. All hail South Park!
Actually, I don't really like John Edward. I find him to be a manipulative,
pushy New Yorker type. But many of the things he does on his show cannot be
explained by cold reading or private detectives. Perhaps the sitters are just
actors, or a combination all of these things. But how do you keep all of those
actors from talking to the press? Hmmm...Far more interesting than John Edward
is the following;
http://www.openmindsciences.com/whitecrow-exp.htm
http://www.openmindsciences.com/hbo-exp.htm
Everybody says that the "Amazing Randi" proves John Edward is a fake, but his
explanations wouldn't cover one-fourth of the data displayed. The "Amazing
Randi" has not said anything that will explain the bulk of John Edward, or any
of the studies done at the University of Arizona.
The "Amazing Randi" has of course talked about it, but has not explained it
except to say that "it cannot be true." (Or, "If you won't let me make money
off of you with my one million dollar stunt then you must be a fake." One
million dollars isn't even that much money. I am sure that he makes a profit
whether he wins or loses.) I used to like the "Amazing Randi," but he has
become tired self-designed charlatan. Read for yourself what he says about the
studies done at the University of Arizona, he explains or proves nothing;
http://www.survivalscience.org/debunk/randilettertoua.shtml
http://www.randi.org/jr/03-30-2001.html
http://www.randi.org/jr/04-06-2001.html
http://www.randi.org/jr/04-20-2001.html
I find all of this stuff hard to believe too, but nobody has disproved
anything, or even explained how it could be done. (Unless you used paid actors
or private detectives for most of it.)
And I like South Park too. Let them poke fun, they poke fun at everything. I
love that show.
All hail South Park!
Mark Plus
Even if dead people could talk to us, you'd think they'd have
something more interesting or profound to say than the kinds of
platitudes you hear from the dullard mass of living humanity. (Unless
the dead stay or become stupid, that is.)
I'd like to see Edwards receive a detailed message from a dead
mathematician to his living mathematical colleagues about some proof
he was working on before he died. Unless Edwards has studied
graduate-level mathematics, he couldn't fake a message like that! It
would be like the sorts of people who wrote the New Testament trying
to forge a supposedly lost mathematical manuscript of Archimedes.
KERSPLOSH
>something more interesting or profound to say than the kinds of
>platitudes you hear from the dullard mass of living humanity. (Unless
>the dead stay or become stupid, that is.)
>
>I'd like to see Edwards receive a detailed message from a dead
>mathematician to his living mathematical colleagues about some proof
>he was working on before he died. Unless Edwards has studied
>graduate-level mathematics, he couldn't fake a message like that! It
>would be like the sorts of people who wrote the New Testament trying
>to forge a supposedly lost mathematical manuscript of Archimedes.
I see the humor in your statements, But that is not the point. Edward's and
others have stated information that no one else could know, that was specific
to that individual and the dead person on far to many occasions to find
yourself safe in a haven of disbelief. Sometimes stuff that the person, the
"sitter" did not even know, and had to be validated through other means.
Sometimes they figure out stuff before they meet the person they read, like the
dead know what will happen in the future. Watch the show. Read the links. Read
the odds. These f*ckers are doing a thing I cannot replicate with one million
dollars, ten million dollars. Maybe I'm wrong, but I would really like to hear
something that is not the same old tired explanation of "cold reading."
Read the links to the U of A studies. (poorly done website by the way, looks
like a student did it for extra credit) I put it to you and "Amazing Randi" -
You do it. Replicate what they are doing. That is always the proof of a
magician. Otherwise you are merely talking. Doing an example of a fifth of the
data contained in a reading and then calling it proof, (Cold reading, etc) is
exceedingly lame.
I find this stuff hard to believe as well. I find it harder to believe that
even people I respect cannot replicate it, and yet still call it incorrect
based on a knee jerk reaction. I don't believe in an afterlife, but now I
question those beliefs. What if this information is valid?
BTW - I can only say that I have thought of every ruse that John Edward could
come up with that I can think of, and still found far too many things that
would involve paid actors. The financial upkeep of this scenario is too much to
believe. But how do you shut up all of those actors without paying them? I can
believe that the University of Arizona lied, remember piltdown man. Repeat the
experiment.
I want to see those studies redone by another university. I don't want the
"Amazing Randi" involved. He has now become a "horse and pony show" unto
himself.
George Black
"Mark Plus" <mark...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4886cf3e.02112...@posting.google.com...
or some-one who spoke a distinct but very rare language like one of the
Tibetan dialects........
--
_________________________________________
George Black
ICQ#: 6963409
More ways to contact me: http://wwp.icq.com/6963409
_________________________________________
http://homepages.ihug.co.nz/~gblack/index.htm
pz
kers...@aol.comnojunk (KERSPLOSH) wrote:
> >It was amazing how a cartoon could so perfectly explain and refute the
> >Edwards Douchbag and his lame methods. All hail South Park!
>
[..]
> I find all of this stuff hard to believe too, but nobody has disproved
> anything, or even explained how it could be done. (Unless you used paid actors
> or private detectives for most of it.)
>
> And I like South Park too. Let them poke fun, they poke fun at everything. I
> love that show.
>
> All hail South Park!
What is really astounding is that that show also rather pointedly
demonstrated how the people who make excuses for John Edward have to be
oblivious nitwits.
I think you watched, but did not understand.
--
pz
Carcass
Nah, all dead people speak in English.
"George Black" <gbl...@ihug.co.nz> wrote in message
news:as6m2u$kv6$1...@lust.ihug.co.nz...
John
"Carcass" <car...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:IRBF9.1223$ic6...@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...
> John Edward speaking in toungues?
>
> Nah, all dead people speak in English.
>
I ca just see the counter-arguments already.. "No, dead people talk in
images/thoughts"...
Mark VandeWettering
>>It was amazing how a cartoon could so perfectly explain and refute the
>>Edwards Douchbag and his lame methods. All hail South Park!
>
> Actually, I don't really like John Edward. I find him to be a
> manipulative, pushy New Yorker type. But many of the things he does on
> his show cannot be explained by cold reading or private detectives.
> Perhaps the sitters are just actors, or a combination all of these
> things. But how do you keep all of those actors from talking to the
> press?
*sigh*
> Hmmm...Far more interesting than John Edward is the following;
>
> http://www.openmindsciences.com/whitecrow-exp.htm
>
> http://www.openmindsciences.com/hbo-exp.htm
>
> Everybody says that the "Amazing Randi" proves John Edward is a
> fake, but his explanations wouldn't cover one-fourth of the data
> displayed. The "Amazing Randi" has not said anything that will explain
> the bulk of John Edward, or any of the studies done at the University
> of Arizona.
>
> The "Amazing Randi" has of course talked about it, but has not
> explained it except to say that "it cannot be true." (Or, "If you
> won't let me make money off of you with my one million dollar stunt
> then you must be a fake." One million dollars isn't even that
> much money. I am sure that he makes a profit whether he wins or
> loses.) I used to like the "Amazing Randi," but he has become tired
> self-designed charlatan. Read for yourself what he says about the
> studies done at the University of Arizona, he explains or proves
> nothing;
>
> http://www.survivalscience.org/debunk/randilettertoua.shtml
>
> http://www.randi.org/jr/03-30-2001.html
>
> http://www.randi.org/jr/04-06-2001.html
>
> http://www.randi.org/jr/04-20-2001.html
>
> I find all of this stuff hard to believe too, but nobody has disproved
> anything, or even explained how it could be done. (Unless you used
> paid actors or private detectives for most of it.)
*Bing!*
Mark
Matt Giwer
Not bad in showing how psychoanalysis works either.
What people believe depends upon what what people expect.
--
ADL attacks anti-tax group as extremist. Proving what?
Jews are behing high taxes? Smart move that.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 2225
KERSPLOSH
>> something more interesting or profound to say than the kinds of
>> platitudes you hear from the dullard mass of living humanity. (Unless
>> the dead stay or become stupid, that is.)
>>
>> I'd like to see Edwards receive a detailed message from a dead
>> mathematician to his living mathematical colleagues about some proof
>> he was working on before he died. Unless Edwards has studied
>> graduate-level mathematics, he couldn't fake a message like that! It
>> would be like the sorts of people who wrote the New Testament trying
>> to forge a supposedly lost mathematical manuscript of Archimedes.
>
>or some-one who spoke a distinct but very rare language like one of the
>Tibetan dialects........
>What is really astounding is that that show also rather pointedly
>demonstrated how the people who make excuses for John Edward have to be
>oblivious nitwits.
>
>I think you watched, but did not understand.
>--
>pz
Did anybody even bother to read the studies done by the University of Arizona?
http://www.openmindsciences.com/whitecrow-exp.htm
http://www.openmindsciences.com/hbo-exp.htm
Snap judgments and knee jerk reactions based merely on the words of you peers
prove nothing but your ability to ape the words of others. I find this stuff
hard to believe as well, but you guys reduce it to "conspiracy theory."
Does anybody know how the U of A did this? Twice? How would you repeat it?
By the way, John Edward HAS come up with phrases in other languages. Who cares.
John Edward is not even the only bozo talking to the dead, or even the best one
according to U of A. He is just the one making money at it. And what makes you
think that Archimedes would have anything to say today? To you, a skeptic?
The question is how can you replicate the work that was done at the University
of Arizona.
Cardinal Chunder
> These f*ckers are doing a thing I cannot replicate with one million
> dollars, ten million dollars.
That's because they are immoral leeches. They see nothing wrong with
exploiting bereaved people for their TV shows and tours.
> Maybe I'm wrong, but I would really like to hear
> something that is not the same old tired explanation of "cold reading."
Well that is the explanation. Obviously you need to be pretty observant
and clued into peoples emotions but you just take a few guesses and let
them fill in the blanks. People write books on how to do it. People have
masqueraded on tv as clairvoyants demonstrating how to do it before
revealing themselves.
> I find this stuff hard to believe as well. I find it harder to believe that
> even people I respect cannot replicate it, and yet still call it incorrect
> based on a knee jerk reaction.
I watched the Amazing Johnathon pull a bowling ball out of a thin
briefcase. Therefore he must really have magic powers! Or perhaps it was
a trick - what do you think?
> BTW - I can only say that I have thought of every ruse that John Edward could
> come up with that I can think of, and still found far too many things that
> would involve paid actors.
His scam is a sum of all parts - cold reading, selective editing, loose
tongues, willing victims, shills and more. Even with all that he puts on
a barely convincing act.
> I want to see those studies redone by another university. I don't want the
> "Amazing Randi" involved. He has now become a "horse and pony show" unto
> himself.
Randi is a magician and a trickster and it takes one to know one. If
Edwards were genuine then he should welcome any protocols or suggestions
that Randi could provide to a scientific test to ensure it was fair with
no room for error. After all, the more stringent the test, the more
irrefutable the proof of his powers would be.
But then if Edwards is just a cheap conman, hoodwinking, gullible,
vulnerable people and the terminally stupid then he has a lot to fear.
Of course he wouldn't want Randi anywhere near the test because a lax
test and inexperienced researchers increases his chances of being able
to cheat.
More probably though he would never submit to testing and will simply
utter one bullshit excuse after another for not doing so. After all, why
ruin a good thing? Why risk exposure as a fraud when idiots are paying
$60 to see your show and thousands of dollars for private consultations?
It's the same with all these 'mediums', Sylvia Browne agreed to take the
Randi test live on TV over a year ago and the huckster still hasn't yet.
It is not hard to guess why.
KERSPLOSH
>> dollars, ten million dollars.
>
>That's because they are immoral leeches. They see nothing wrong with
>exploiting bereaved people for their TV shows and tours.
You miss the point. It is impossible to duplicate, regardless of money. John
Edward works for cash, but not all of them do. The U of A study was done for
$30,000. Nobody is making any money.
>I watched the Amazing Johnathon pull a bowling ball out of a thin
>briefcase. Therefore he must really have magic powers! Or perhaps it was
>a trick - what do you think?
Collapsible bowling pin. So?
>His scam is a sum of all parts - cold reading, selective editing, loose
>tongues, willing victims, shills and more. Even with all that he puts on
>a barely convincing act.
His crap is not so easy to explain. But also - He is not the only one. Read the
U of A studies. If I though JE (or Van Praagh *shudder*) was the only game in
town I would guess that it was just another collapsible bowling pin. But one
fake story does not make all of the stories fake.
>But then if Edwards is just a cheap conman, hoodwinking, gullible,
>vulnerable people and the terminally stupid then he has a lot to fear.
>Of course he wouldn't want Randi anywhere near the test because a lax
>test and inexperienced researchers increases his chances of being able
>to cheat.
Read this, and then tell me how "amazing" Randi is.
http://www.survivalscience.org/debunk/randilettertoua.shtml
Or just read his rants verbatim.
http://www.randi.org/jr/03-30-2001.html
http://www.randi.org/jr/04-06-2001.html
http://www.randi.org/jr/04-20-2001.html
He is just out to make buck, he is like Rush Limbaugh. And he makes even less
sense, if that's possible.
>It's the same with all these 'mediums', Sylvia Browne agreed to take the
>Randi test live on TV over a year ago and the huckster still hasn't yet.
>It is not hard to guess why.
But one fake story does not make all of the stories fake. Remember Piltdown
man. After that, they said Leakey was a fraud.
I don't pretend to know - but I have only really heard Randi's words
regurgitated or rephrased. All over the net, it's the same. "Cold reading,
etc." Everyone says it is not true because it can't be true. Everyone is an
expert without investigating. No one even reads the study. Read the U of A
study. If you only read one side, then you only hear one side.
http://www.openmindsciences.com/whitecrow-exp.htm
http://www.openmindsciences.com/hbo-exp.htm
I didn't miss the point on South Park. It was funny. I like the show. It's just
a show. I don't have to believe what they say. I don't really believe a little
boy can really die every episode either. It's just a cartoon.
Matt Giwer
> By the way, John Edward HAS come up with phrases in other languages.
Cold reading again. Does he say what language or what phrase before coming up
with them? And is what he said compared with the actual pronunciation after it
is identified?
"Marco Polo"
"Si, mi uncle Mateo cared for his neighbor's chickens when he was child."
Say anything and leave the free association to the audience. Same as Fraudian
psychotherapy.
--
Ever wonder why American citizens can murder Palestinians
without penalty under American law? Did you even know it
was possible? Those squatters in the West Bank are murderers
and American citizens.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 2235
Matt Giwer
In other words you are challenging his skill at the method rather than dealing
with the method itself. The method depends upon the audience. Try it on a room
full of mathematicians from the Royal College in 1900 when spiritualism was
going strong and you will get a different result from trying it today.
So he goes to the black board and asks for help in formulating the question and
gets some thing written. Then he has trouble understanding. "Forgive me, I don't
know much math and can't understand much of what he is saying. Could he mean and
epsilon or rho?" A credulous audience will jump to make the right suggestions.
Quickly they will be suggesting to each other and he will be writing down the
consensus.
In the end it will be inconclusive. And that is all he needs.
--
Want to murder Palestinians? Go settle in the West Bank and the
Israeli Occupation Forces will protect while you murder them.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 2236
pz
kers...@aol.comnojunk (KERSPLOSH) wrote:
The work of Schwartz is infamous for its incompetence and for the
overblown claims he has made for it.
I think you were a model for one of the people in the TV studio on the
South Park show, weren't you?
--
pz
Matt Giwer
> BTW - I can only say that I have thought of every ruse that John Edward could
> come up with that I can think of, and still found far too many things that
> would involve paid actors. The financial upkeep of this scenario is too much to
> believe. But how do you shut up all of those actors without paying them? I can
> believe that the University of Arizona lied, remember piltdown man. Repeat the
> experiment.
Have you considered the most obvious ruse of them all? That each half hour
episode (22.5 minutes after commercials) is a cut from over an hour of material?
Meaning only one in three have to be suggestive to fill an episode. Do you think
the production company is being rigorously scientific or do you think they want
a hit show and higher pay?
With that method I can guess birth month with 100% TV accuracy. Give me a
hundred people and by chance I will get six right. I edit it to show only those
six. Do I get my own show?
--
How many realize Israel has never repaid a loan made to it
by the US?
-- The Iron Webmaster, 2249
Cardinal Chunder
George Black
"KERSPLOSH" <kers...@aol.comnojunk> wrote in message
news:20021129092232...@mb-cs.aol.com...
> >> These f*ckers are doing a thing I cannot replicate with one million
> >> dollars, ten million dollars.
> >
> >That's because they are immoral leeches. They see nothing wrong with
> >exploiting bereaved people for their TV shows and tours.
>
> You miss the point. It is impossible to duplicate, regardless of money.
John
> Edward works for cash, but not all of them do. The U of A study was done
for
> $30,000. Nobody is making any money.
And the $30,000 isn't money eh ?
> >I watched the Amazing Johnathon pull a bowling ball out of a thin
> >briefcase. Therefore he must really have magic powers! Or perhaps it was
> >a trick - what do you think?
>
> Collapsible bowling pin. So?
Bowling BALL... can't you read...............
> >His scam is a sum of all parts - cold reading, selective editing, loose
> >tongues, willing victims, shills and more. Even with all that he puts on
> >a barely convincing act.
>
> His crap is not so easy to explain. But also - He is not the only one.
Read the
> U of A studies. If I though JE (or Van Praagh *shudder*) was the only game
in
> town I would guess that it was just another collapsible bowling pin. But
one
> fake story does not make all of the stories fake.
His crap is very easy to explain.. The previous poster just did that..
It is all fake... at no time have the properly controlled tests produced
anything.
After some 200 years of 'psychic' claims the evidence is still zero.
DrPostman
<c...@foo.no.spam.xyzabcfghllaa.com> in accordance with The Prophecy and "For
Entertainment Purposes Only" availed us of their wisdom with:
>pz wrote:
I loved the "Norton Really Fucking Personal Firewall".
KERSPLOSH
hour
>episode (22.5 minutes after commercials) is a cut from over an hour of
>material?
>Meaning only one in three have to be suggestive to fill an episode. Do you
>think
>the production company is being rigorously scientific or do you think they
>want
>a hit show and higher pay?
>
> With that method I can guess birth month with 100% TV accuracy. Give me
a
>hundred people and by chance I will get six right. I edit it to show only
>those
Oh, well. I had hoped someone would be able to come up with something original,
yea or nay. Every response has been merely regurgitation of the "Amazing" Randi
and such. I regret that your crowd is unable to rise to the occasion. You might
as go back to trying to prove that the holocaust did not take place.
I never said it was true, merely that a large amount of it is unexplained or
cannot be duplicated. To discount it or explain it, you must be familiar with
subject. The words quoted above only shows the most vapid of responses, and the
statements merely prove that you are not aquainted with the material. Knowing
this, how can I even discuss the subject with you? The U of A study is of
interest, and everybody's obvious lack knowledge of it makes any discussion of
no value.
<> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
**If JE was just guessing birth months, he would not have a show. Editing has
little merit when compared to some of the info presented. Even if it's all
actors, the U of A studies are hard to discount. But what is the use, man never
set foot on the Moon, the holocaust never took place, and if man were meant to
fly he would have been born with wings and a bag of peanuts.
KERSPLOSH
>dealing
>with the method itself. The method depends upon the audience. Try it on a
>room
>full of mathematicians from the Royal College in 1900 when spiritualism was
>going strong and you will get a different result from trying it today.
I am not only talking about JE, but the U of E studies. This is a very good
explanation of cold reading. A large portion of what I am talking about is not
possible with cold reading. If you have not read the U of A study, then the
discussion is of little value. You have wriiten a very good example though.
KERSPLOSH
Comparatively, no.
>Bowling BALL... can't you read...............
My error. I am sorry that I did not qoute your incredibly original and
important point correctly.
>His crap is very easy to explain.. The previous poster just did that..
No, he did not. He regurgitated popular opinion without the facts.
>It is all fake... at no time have the properly controlled tests produced
>anything.
properly controlled tests were done at the U of A. The "Amazing" Randi even
worked on the methods with them. Forgive me for assuming you were able to rise
to challange of actually reading something.
KERSPLOSH
This is great!
KERSPLOSH
>overblown claims he has made for it.
I have already supplied links to the only person who has openly discounted the
studies. His word are foolish and ranting. (He also supplied some of the
methods used.) Can you find any other detractors, that aren't just parroting
the "Amazing" Randi? I would like to read them. I just want coherent
information, yea or nay.
Danny Kodicek
"KERSPLOSH" <kers...@aol.comnojunk> wrote in message
I read the material you posted and I agree it's interesting. While there are
clearly several flaws in the experiment (which are acknowleged in the
paper), Randi's rebuttal is very weak indeed. But without the full data from
the experiment (ie, the complete transcript), it's hard to make a real
judgement, as it all hinges very much on how the guesses were scored - what
counts as a guess and what doesn't? And I'd certainly like to see an
experiment with tighter controls over the choice of sitter - fraud is
definitely *not* ruled out here.
Still, a good example of skepticism gone wrong - failing to analyse a
serious study on its own merits, instead prejudging it and going for
personal abuse against the experimenter. And for Randi to say outright that
he has 80 emails from the experimenter and hasn't read any of them is pretty
outrageous - so much for open debate.
Danny
Mark Plus
>And what makes you
> think that Archimedes would have anything to say today? To you, a skeptic?
>
I wasn't talking about "channeling" Archimedes, or whatever. I was
making a literary analogy. Any literate person in "New Testament"
times could have knocked off a "gospel" or a "letter" attributed to
some apostle or other, and possibly get it accepted as real. Just as
John Edward can tell one of his suckers some commonplace about the
departed that would register with most people's hunter-gatherer
understanding. (Dealing with grief, like writing about theology,
doesn't require much in the way of IQ or knowledge.) No one in ancient
times could have gotten away with forging a mathematical document
attributed to Archimedes unless he were comparably talented as a
mathematician, in which case he might just as well have published his
discoveries under his own name. Archimedes, unlike the founders of
religions, belonged to an elite order of human intelligence that the
majority of humanity can't understand, much less credibly imitate.
George Black
"KERSPLOSH" <kers...@aol.comnojunk> wrote in message
> >And the $30,000 isn't money eh ?
>
> Comparatively, no.
So $30,000 is nothing to you huh.....?
> >Bowling BALL... can't you read...............
>
> My error. I am sorry that I did not qoute your incredibly original and
> important point correctly.
You got it wrong. ..........
>
> >His crap is very easy to explain.. The previous poster just did that..
>
> No, he did not. He regurgitated popular opinion without the facts.
That is your opinion which by now has a threadbare appearance....
> >It is all fake... at no time have the properly controlled tests produced
> >anything.
>
> properly controlled tests were done at the U of A. The "Amazing" Randi
even
> worked on the methods with them. Forgive me for assuming you were able to
rise
> to challange of actually reading something.
Were such a thing as reading not a challenge you would know that I am not
the original poster as you presume.
KERSPLOSH
>clearly several flaws in the experiment (which are acknowleged in the
>paper), Randi's rebuttal is very weak indeed. But without the full data from
>the experiment (ie, the complete transcript), it's hard to make a real
>judgement, as it all hinges very much on how the guesses were scored - what
>counts as a guess and what doesn't? And I'd certainly like to see an
>experiment with tighter controls over the choice of sitter - fraud is
>definitely *not* ruled out here.
Thank you for your interest. I would agree that fraud is not ruled out, with or
without transcripts. The book the guy is selling is supposed to have them, and
the second set of experiments were aired on HBO. (It was obviously not a very
popular show.) But Schwartz said:
"All media who come to the lab have seen the raw footage. So have magicians,
visiting scientists, and others. Randi could have come to the lab, he could
have come to the conference. Instead, he complains that we do not give him the
raw data. Given all the misinformation presented by Randi above, can anyone
blame us?"
"We told Randi he should come to the lab, and we would film him watching the
raw video, and then film him commenting on the data. We also invited him to try
to be a medium, and see if he can do as well as our mediums can. Randi declined
both offers."
I don't think Randi likes that idea because he would not be able to make money
on it. He would not be the star.
>And I'd certainly like to see an
>experiment with tighter controls over the choice of sitter - fraud is
>definitely *not* ruled out here.
Yes, but one of the sitters was chosen by HBO with no real difference in score.
I would like to see the whole thing done by a different university.
>And for Randi to say outright that
>he has 80 emails from the experimenter and hasn't read any of them is pretty
>outrageous - so much for open debate.
And Schwartz said that there were that many emails because he as "CCing" Randi
regarding what others were saying that was pertinent. He was trying to keep
Randi in the loop. It sound kind of like Randi was miffed that he was not the
star of the show.
Randi aside, I guess I will have to buy the book. They do post a considerable
amount information on their website, but the format sucks. It looks like a
student did it. The table widths are fixed, so it does not print properly.
(Lots of websites are like that, I think it's all of the damn WYSIWYG HTML
editors nowadays. Nobody hand codes anymore.) I had to download it and change
the table widths so that they weren't fixed to print it out.
If any of this stuff is true, it is pretty amazing. I can see why nobody
studies this stuff. It must be like the kiss of death for funding. The big
money is in weapons research or the study of anything related to sex or weight
loss.
KERSPLOSH
>the original poster as you presume.
I am sure that if the words had had any merit I would have looked more closely
to find the correct author. Forgive me if you feel slighted though. Now, if you
still have not looked at the material or investigated any further, our
discussion can serve no further purpose.
KERSPLOSH
>making a literary analogy. Any literate person in "New Testament"
>times could have knocked off a "gospel" or a "letter" attributed to
>some apostle or other, and possibly get it accepted as real. Just as
>John Edward can tell one of his suckers some commonplace about the
>departed that would register with most people's hunter-gatherer
>understanding. (Dealing with grief, like writing about theology,
>doesn't require much in the way of IQ or knowledge.) No one in ancient
>times could have gotten away with forging a mathematical document
>attributed to Archimedes unless he were comparably talented as a
>mathematician, in which case he might just as well have published his
>discoveries under his own name. Archimedes, unlike the founders of
>religions, belonged to an elite order of human intelligence that the
>majority of humanity can't understand, much less credibly imitate.
Yes, and I would agree. But your point is still cold reading. That can only
account for a small portion of JE's show and really none of the data compiled
by the University of Arizona. The nature of the experiment did not allow the
mediums to "fish" like that. Your point is still very well put, well written
and well thought out. In the "White Crow" experiments they very clearly point
out odds and statistics. It shows you just how easy it would be to fix the odds
by playing likely letters or names. But these mediums were getting hit after
hit after hit. The odds grow astronomically in the other direction. I'm not
saying it has to be true - maybe it's a lie - but so far it looks very
interesting. If the "Amazing" Randi is the only repesentative for the skeptic
in this case, I would say you need a new repesentative.
John Enockson
> I find this stuff hard to believe as well. I find it harder to believe that
> even people I respect cannot replicate it, and yet still call it incorrect
> question those beliefs. What if this information is valid?
>
> BTW - I can only say that I have thought of every ruse that John Edward could
> come up with that I can think of, and still found far too many things that
> would involve paid actors. The financial upkeep of this scenario is too much to
> believe. But how do you shut up all of those actors without paying them? I can
> believe that the University of Arizona lied, remember piltdown man. Repeat the
> experiment.
>
shower.
John Enockson
>>It was amazing how a cartoon could so perfectly explain and refute the
>>Edwards Douchbag and his lame methods. All hail South Park!
>
>
> Actually, I don't really like John Edward. I find him to be a manipulative,
> pushy New Yorker type. But many of the things he does on his show cannot be
> explained by cold reading or private detectives. Perhaps the sitters are just
> actors, or a combination all of these things. But how do you keep all of those
> is the following;
>
As Kyle would say to John Edwards, "You're still a douchebag".
KERSPLOSH
Yes, but it is not all about him. It was funny.
John Enockson
>
> Oh, well. I had hoped someone would be able to come up with something original,
> yea or nay. Every response has been merely regurgitation of the "Amazing" Randi
> and such. I regret that your crowd is unable to rise to the occasion. You might
> as go back to trying to prove that the holocaust did not take place.
>
Cold reading is unoriginal. I'd rather ignore him than bother examining
another fakir.
> I never said it was true, merely that a large amount of it is unexplained or
> cannot be duplicated.
You couldn't duplicate a coin flip series of one hundred by me without
spending tremendous man hours of tedious work. Why bother? Edwards is
just as lame as a coin tossing but exploits the vunerable for profit so
he deserves to be thrown out of any decent community. He deserves tar
and feathers the Douchebag!
KERSPLOSH
>shower.
Thank you for your valuable input. I'm glad to see the internet is continuing
in its tradition of recruiting the brightest and the best.
John Enockson
Yup. It seems you can't explain to some how simple the universe is to
some people. Douche bags exist and you just have to learn to recognize
them. John Edwards while not the reigning standard douche bag like Uri
Geller is a form of douche bag. That is the message of South Park. It is
true. Know it. Learn it. Live it. Save your energies for something
important. You can defend Edwards, Geller, Michael Jackson or any form
of douche bag but the result is the same. You have defended a DOUCHE.
Your are wasting your time. Quit wasting your time.
KERSPLOSH
The only time I am wasting is in conversing with you.
"When you argue with a fool, chances are he is doing just the same."
George Black
"KERSPLOSH" <kers...@aol.comnojunk> wrote in message
Seeing that you are unable to read a post as to who said what I find your
claims of presenting an argument that James Randi did or didn't do when
confronted with biased data to be somewhat amusing...
John R. Rybock
wrote:
>>It was amazing how a cartoon could so perfectly explain and refute the
>>Edwards Douchbag and his lame methods. All hail South Park!
>
>Actually, I don't really like John Edward. I find him to be a manipulative,
>pushy New Yorker type. But many of the things he does on his show cannot be
>explained by cold reading or private detectives. Perhaps the sitters are just
>actors, or a combination all of these things. But how do you keep all of those
>actors from talking to the press?
Editing is key. Have you seen him live? Has he been so specific? He
talks for a couple hours, then they edit it down to 30 minutes....
think they are cutting out hits? Let's take a look at an unedited
session - oh, wait, we can't - they won't allow anyone to see the
unedited video footage. Take the cold reading, edit out mistakes, and
you have John Edwards.
John R. Rybock
wrote:
>>And the $30,000 isn't money eh ?
>
>Comparatively, no.
>
>>Bowling BALL... can't you read...............
>
>My error. I am sorry that I did not qoute your incredibly original and
>important point correctly.
>
>>His crap is very easy to explain.. The previous poster just did that..
>
>No, he did not. He regurgitated popular opinion without the facts.
>
What facts do you have that Edwards is successful? What is his score,
before he edits his show? How many times does he put something out
that gets no response? Guess what - he won't let anyone evalutate him
unedited!
Meanwhile, this "opinion" of yours has been demonstrated time and
again by people who know how to do it. They've been put in front of
people who were told they were a psychic, and fooled them. Even later,
when the people were told of what was really going on, and the man
explained what he was doing, and how he got no "mental messages" or
whatever, they still believed he showed psychic powers.
People want to believe. There is no evidence for Edward's ability, and
plenty against it, yet people don't care - they don't want to believe
so-and-so is gone, so they believe, even when clearly told by the
person who's been doing it that they are wrong.
John R. Rybock
wrote:
>> Have you considered the most obvious ruse of them all? That each half
>hour
>>episode (22.5 minutes after commercials) is a cut from over an hour of
>>material?
>>Meaning only one in three have to be suggestive to fill an episode. Do you
>>think
>>the production company is being rigorously scientific or do you think they
>>want
>>a hit show and higher pay?
>>
>> With that method I can guess birth month with 100% TV accuracy. Give me
>a
>>hundred people and by chance I will get six right. I edit it to show only
>>those
>>six. Do I get my own show?**
>
>Oh, well. I had hoped someone would be able to come up with something original,
>yea or nay. Every response has been merely regurgitation of the "Amazing" Randi
>and such. I regret that your crowd is unable to rise to the occasion. You might
>as go back to trying to prove that the holocaust did not take place.
>
Because you refuse to listen to it, it has to be repeated. It all is
explained. Call Edwards and ask to see his unedited footage. See what
response you get. Look at what access media has to him and his show,
and how much tighter it is for him than any other show host giving
publicity and backstage access. He knows part of his apparent success
is the failures on the cutting room floor, and won't let anyone see
those. Is this repeating? Yes. But you just gave generalizations, so
we need to refute with the generalizations of what he is doing.
Get specific: give us a specific example. Give us the entire run-up.
Preferably a video file. Let's show you where they've edited, where he
led people, where he gives out a general idea, and people volunteered
specific information, and everyone gives the credit to him for hitting
the specifics.
John R. Rybock
wrote:
>John Edward speaking in toungues?
>
>Nah, all dead people speak in English.
>
Like the Animal Psychic - I'm always amazed that not only does a Dog
and Horse speak the same language, but an Iguana raised in a Tropical
clime and a prarie dog from the U.S. do as well. I'd at least have
figured the Iguana would speak Spanish or something like that.
Matt Giwer
> Have you considered the most obvious ruse of them all? That each half
>
> hour
>
>>episode (22.5 minutes after commercials) is a cut from over an hour of
>>material?
>>Meaning only one in three have to be suggestive to fill an episode. Do you
>>think
>>the production company is being rigorously scientific or do you think they
>>want
>>a hit show and higher pay?
>> With that method I can guess birth month with 100% TV accuracy. Give me
>> a
>>hundred people and by chance I will get six right. I edit it to show only
>>those
>>six. Do I get my own show?**
> Oh, well. I had hoped someone would be able to come up with something original,
> yea or nay. Every response has been merely regurgitation of the "Amazing" Randi
> and such. I regret that your crowd is unable to rise to the occasion.
The show is in fact edited to fit in the time available. You could not get an
audience off the street for 22.5 minutes of sitting time. It is clearly
incomplete. There are more cuts and camera angle changes than in a bad chopsaki
movie. Randi is not needed at all.
> You might
> as go back to trying to prove that the holocaust did not take place.
I have never attempted any such thing. Why create such a lie?
--
Hasbara, a Hebrew word meaning propaganda whose official English
translation is information. Zionist Newspeak in action.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 2254
KERSPLOSH
>explained. Call Edwards and ask to see his unedited footage. See what
>response you get.
Unedited footage would only show errors. Even the edited footage shows errors.
He still pulls many rabbits out of the hat. Many things on the show cannot be
explained by cold reading alone. You would have to have privated detectives
and/or actors. But as I keep stating, what he does on his show is one thing,
what 5 readers do in the experiments done at the University of Arizona bears
examination.
>Look at what access media has to him and his show,
>and how much tighter it is for him than any other show host giving
>publicity and backstage access.
I can imagine. If you take all the mistakes and focus on them, you could pull a
James Randy. But look at the figures stated in the "White Crow" experiments at
the University of Arizona.
>But you just gave generalizations, so
>we need to refute with the generalizations of what he is doing.
The nature of JE's TV show is not exact. I don't like that either. He is just
trying to make millions of dollars.
>
>Get specific: give us a specific example.
The experiments done at the University of Arizona. I have stated that
repeatedly.
http://www.openmindsciences.com/whitecrow-exp.htm
http://www.openmindsciences.com/hbo-exp.htm
http://www.survivalscience.org/debunk/randilettertoua.shtml
http://www.randi.org/jr/03-30-2001.html
http://www.randi.org/jr/04-06-2001.html
http://www.randi.org/jr/04-20-2001.html
>Give us the entire run-up.
>Preferably a video file. Let's show you where they've edited, where he
>led people, where he gives out a general idea, and people volunteered
>specific information, and everyone gives the credit to him for hitting
>the specifics.
Oh, give me a break. Your ability to pick apart any one thing proves nothing.
That is like a question asked by someone with control issues. If you want to
play armchair skeptic, just watch the show. Then explain how each piece of
information that JE came up with it through careful manipulation of hits and
misses. You can't, not the specific stuff. He would still need private
detectives and/or actors. And that's very possible. I would agree that under
the conditions of a TV show, the possibility for deception is far greater, but
read the experiments done at the University of Arizona. Maybe it's all a fake,
but nobody seems to be able to replicate it, at least not yet. The "Amazing"
Randi was invited to be a reader to show how it could be done, or to point out
errors. He declined. And he contributed to the setup of the experiment.
KERSPLOSH
>> Oh, well. I had hoped someone would be able to come up with something
>original,
>> yea or nay. Every response has been merely regurgitation of the "Amazing"
>Randi
>> and such. I regret that your crowd is unable to rise to the occasion.
>
> The show is in fact edited to fit in the time available. You could not
get
>an
>audience off the street for 22.5 minutes of sitting time. It is clearly
>incomplete. There are more cuts and camera angle changes than in a bad
>chopsaki
>movie. Randi is not needed at all.
The editing means nothing when JE gets specific, that would require private
detectives and actors. Which is why I repeatedly point your attention to the
experiments done at the University of Arizona. Randi has proven entirely
ineffectual in this regard.
>> You might
>> as go back to trying to prove that the holocaust did not take place.
>
> I have never attempted any such thing. Why create such a lie?
I was addressing the group at large. I was being sarcastic.
KERSPLOSH
>before he edits his show? How many times does he put something out
>that gets no response? Guess what - he won't let anyone evalutate him
>unedited!
Yes, he was.
http://www.openmindsciences.com/hbo-exp.htm
>Meanwhile, this "opinion" of yours has been demonstrated time and
>again by people who know how to do it. They've been put in front of
>people who were told they were a psychic, and fooled them. Even later,
>when the people were told of what was really going on, and the man
>explained what he was doing, and how he got no "mental messages" or
>whatever, they still believed he showed psychic powers.
That does not explain the specific things that JE comes upwith. To explain
those things, you would need private detectives or actors. I don't discount
that possiblility.
>People want to believe. There is no evidence for Edward's ability, and
>plenty against it, yet people don't care - they don't want to believe
>so-and-so is gone, so they believe, even when clearly told by the
>person who's been doing it that they are wrong.
Actually, there is evidence of not only JE's ability, but others as well. JE
did not even score the highest. And the U of A experiment does not even prove
life after death, merely that some phenomonon may be taking place, it states
that clearly. Or maybe it's all a scam. Maybe not. I am extremely curious
though.
KERSPLOSH
>closely
>> to find the correct author. Forgive me if you feel slighted though. Now,
>if you
>> still have not looked at the material or investigated any further, our
>> discussion can serve no further purpose.
>
>Seeing that you are unable to read a post as to who said what I find your
>claims of presenting an argument that James Randi did or didn't do when
>confronted with biased data to be somewhat amusing...
But your opinion is based upon only what one side says. I deliberately posted
links to from both sides of the coin. I also state that I don't know for sure
which side is correct, only that James Randi does not provide a convincing
argument in my opinion. I did not propose that Randi did or did not do much of
anything. I just pointed to his own words and actions. I suggested that you
look at the experiments done at the University of Arizona. If you are not
familiar with both sides - and do not want to be, then any attempt at
conversation with you on this topic will only be an uphill battle. Thus, our
discussion can really serve no further purpose. I apologize if I offend your
sense of fair play in some way.
KERSPLOSH
>talks for a couple hours, then they edit it down to 30 minutes....
>think they are cutting out hits? Let's take a look at an unedited
>session - oh, wait, we can't - they won't allow anyone to see the
>unedited video footage. Take the cold reading, edit out mistakes, and
>you have John Edwards.
Actually, you can't explainall of the information that JE comes up with it
merely with careful manipulation of hits and misses. You can't, not the
specific stuff. He would still need private detectives and/or actors. And that
is certainly possible. I would still direct you to the experiments done at the
University of Arizona, and in counterpoint the word of James Randi.
KERSPLOSH
>and Horse speak the same language, but an Iguana raised in a Tropical
>clime and a prarie dog from the U.S. do as well. I'd at least have
>figured the Iguana would speak Spanish or something like that.
Oh, of course they all speak the same language! It's just like Star Trek. The
hard part must be all of those accents and dialects. Doctor Dolittle had it all
wrong. Somebody should talk to him about that.
George Black
"KERSPLOSH" <kers...@aol.comnojunk> wrote in message
> >Editing is key. Have you seen him live? Has he been so specific? He
> >talks for a couple hours, then they edit it down to 30 minutes....
> >think they are cutting out hits? Let's take a look at an unedited
> >session - oh, wait, we can't - they won't allow anyone to see the
> >unedited video footage. Take the cold reading, edit out mistakes, and
> >you have John Edwards.
>
> Actually, you can't explainall of the information that JE comes up with
it
> merely with careful manipulation of hits and misses. You can't, not the
> specific stuff. He would still need private detectives and/or actors. And
that
> is certainly possible. I would still direct you to the experiments done at
the
> University of Arizona, and in counterpoint the word of James Randi.
>
Cold reading. Okay. He 'sees' something and waits for a response if that
doesn't elicit a response he then changes the 'claim' that he sees until he
gets a response.
You don't know anything about psychology do you?
You think that there are no commonality between people in an audience?
Go get a book on childrens names, see how many names are common to a
generation...
Or the last census figures. You then work on the fact that they will try to
fit your claim with their belief....
KERSPLOSH
>Cold reading. Okay. He 'sees' something and waits for a response if that
>doesn't elicit a response he then changes the 'claim' that he sees until he
>gets a response.
Yes, I do know about cold reading. Many things on his show cannot be explained
with cold reading. Perhaps he is using private detectives or actors? Perhaps
scientific studies have taken place regarding this subject that are of
interest? Oh, wait - I think that's been mentioned!
Mentalists have been around for years. Did you ever see Hitchcock's "the
Thirty-Nine Steps?"
Your post merely repeats information previously posted. I regret that you are
unable to rise to the question at hand.
George Black
"KERSPLOSH" <kers...@aol.comnojunk> wrote in message
news:20021130170113...@mb-fu.aol.com...
> >Yes the 'hits' of this charlatan can be explained..
> >Cold reading. Okay. He 'sees' something and waits for a response if that
> >doesn't elicit a response he then changes the 'claim' that he sees until
he
> >gets a response.
>
> Yes, I do know about cold reading. Many things on his show cannot be
explained
> with cold reading. Perhaps he is using private detectives or actors?
Perhaps
> scientific studies have taken place regarding this subject that are of
> interest? Oh, wait - I think that's been mentioned!
And all found wanting .. but then that has been covered
> Mentalists have been around for years. Did you ever see Hitchcock's "the
> Thirty-Nine Steps?"
A film? Is that it?
> Your post merely repeats information previously posted. I regret that you
are
> unable to rise to the question at hand.
What we want is evidence.
You know, those horrible things called facts.
Where this Edward character is 'channelling' a Greek and producing the
idiomatic Greek peculiar to that area then 'channels ' a Russian with the
same language effect and so on there would be more chance of him being taken
seriously.
There is a sceptic on the net who is very good at channelling and she is
devastatingly good even while telling people that it's a scam..and they
don't believe that she is just 'cold reading' them....
With her 'knowledge' of them they claim that she must be psychic...
KERSPLOSH
>> interest? Oh, wait - I think that's been mentioned!
>
>And all found wanting .. but then that has been covered
No it hasn't. The only thought expressed by you and others has been cold
reading, hardly original. That is all you have "covered." I said that myself
upfront. I said it had to be actors and/or private detectives as well due to
what is exhibited on the show, or something else. For what I said to have been
found wanting you would have actually had to say something of merit - or at
least something thought provoking, something that made sense in a new way,
something that I did not cover, something original, or at least said something
funny. But you bring nothing to the table. I regret that you are unable to rise
to the question at hand.
>> Mentalists have been around for years. Did you ever see Hitchcock's "the
>> Thirty-nine Steps?"
>
>A film? Is that it?
Is that what? I merely pointed out that mentalists have been playing these
tricks for years. DUH.
>What we want is evidence.
http://www.openmindsciences.com/whitecrow-exp.htm
http://www.openmindsciences.com/hbo-exp.htm
>You know, those horrible things called facts.
If it was already a fact, then there would be no discussion, would there? I
never said it was fact. I only said that there was intriguing evidence that was
interesting and worth a look. That's a whole lot more than you said.
>There is a skeptic on the net who is very good at channelling and she is
>devastatingly good even while telling people that it's a scam..and they
>don't believe that she is just 'cold reading' them....
>With her 'knowledge' of them they claim that she must be psychic...
Yes, I am aware of this possibility, as stated above. I would like to see her
and Randi take the same test that the did at the University of Arizona. I would
like to see the study done at a different university. But she is not
"channeling." She is cold reading. "channeling" is some goofy psychic word, or
what you do with a remote control I guess.
Garrison Hilliard
kers...@aol.comnojunk (KERSPLOSH) wrote:
The "Amazing
>Randi" has not said anything that will explain the bulk of John Edward, or any
>of the studies done at the University of Arizona.
Simply put, you are lying, and an extremely stupid individual to make such a demonstrably faolsifiable claim to boot!
Feel like putting your money where your mouth is?
KERSPLOSH
>Simply put, you are lying, and an extremely stupid individual to make such a
>demonstrably faolsifiable claim to boot!
>
>Feel like putting your money where your mouth is?
What are you going to do, challenge me to a duel? PC's at dawn? Simply put,
you're not even qualified to carry on a simple conversation.
George Black
"KERSPLOSH" <kers...@aol.comnojunk> wrote in message
> >> scientific studies have taken place regarding this subject that are of
> >> interest? Oh, wait - I think that's been mentioned!
> >
> >And all found wanting .. but then that has been covered
>
> No it hasn't. The only thought expressed by you and others has been cold
> reading, hardly original. That is all you have "covered." I said that
myself
> upfront. I said it had to be actors and/or private detectives as well due
to
> what is exhibited on the show, or something else. For what I said to have
been
> found wanting you would have actually had to say something of merit - or
at
> least something thought provoking, something that made sense in a new way,
> something that I did not cover, something original, or at least said
something
> funny. But you bring nothing to the table. I regret that you are unable to
rise
> to the question at hand.
They don't need anything except the publics gullibility.................
You have read Flim Flam?
Randi (and others) have fooled the 'experts' and 'scientists'
George Black
"KERSPLOSH" <kers...@aol.comnojunk> wrote in message
news:20021130220041...@mb-mh.aol.com...
You of course have heard of the Challenge by JREF?
Sign up and see how you do... It seems that the existence of that Challenge
has wiped out all psychic ability on the face of the Earth....
John Enockson
> What are you going to do, challenge me to a duel? PC's at dawn? Simply put,
> you're not even qualified to carry on a simple conversation.
Kerploshie now you are qualifying people's abilities. That adds you to
the douchebag list. Frankly you accept science about as well as a frog
does friday. Go play with yourself. At least you'll get some results you
can quantify.
KERSPLOSH
>Sign up and see how you do... It seems that the existence of that Challenge
>has wiped out all psychic ability on the face of the Earth....
The links I supplied talk about that quite clearly. Give me a break. Thats your
big news? Perhaps the "Amazing" Randi has just wiped out your ability to think
rationally, or for yourself. Or maybe that is not something we can blame on
the "Amazing" Randi.
KERSPLOSH
>Randi (and others) have fooled the 'experts' and 'scientists'
Actually, no, is that a book? You have actually brought up a reference. Is it
good? Does it state more than everybody already knows about cold reading, or
can it explain the work done at the University of Arizona? I am aware and have
stated that JE could certainly perform his show with cold readings, private
detectives and actors. I do not think that it could be done with cold reading
alone based on the content I have seen. But I also feel that the work done at
the University of Arizona bears inspection, and the work there could not be
done with cold reading.
KERSPLOSH
Oh, please. All of your posts state that I am stupid or foolish, and you offer
no real content to speak of. But now I am offending you?
>That adds you to the douchebag list. Frankly you accept science
>about as well as a frog does friday. Go play with yourself. At least
>you'll get some results you can quantify.
I am blinded by your wit. Don't let the door hit you on the way out.
George Black
"KERSPLOSH" <kers...@aol.comnojunk> wrote in message
You have made the claim that there are 'psychic' trials that have
succeeded..
The $1,000,000 offered for such an event has not been collected...
http://www.skeptics.ca/challenge.html
It's not only Randi or the JREF who are challenging the 'psychic' claimants
George Black
"KERSPLOSH" <kers...@aol.comnojunk> wrote in message
That's the point. You do not need any more facts than those supplied by the
people..
Have you ever listened (critically) to a 'reading' ?
It's amazing how people do not realise just how much they talk and what
about..
George Black
"George Black" <gbl...@ihug.co.nz> wrote in message news:...
http://skepdic.com/coldread.html
and this is the sort of lowlife who uses cold reading to get rich
http://skepdic.com/vanpraagh.html
Matt Kriebel
kers...@aol.comnojunk (KERSPLOSH) wrote:
> >> I am sure that if the words had had any merit I would have looked more
> >closely
> >> to find the correct author. Forgive me if you feel slighted though. Now,
> >if you
> >> still have not looked at the material or investigated any further, our
> >> discussion can serve no further purpose.
> >
> >Seeing that you are unable to read a post as to who said what I find your
> >claims of presenting an argument that James Randi did or didn't do when
> >confronted with biased data to be somewhat amusing...
>
> But your opinion is based upon only what one side says.
Not to speak for George, but...
That is what you would like to think, but you are wrong.
<snip>
>I just pointed to his own words and actions. I suggested that you
>look at the experiments done at the University of Arizona. If you are
>not
>familiar with both sides
The experiments from U of A are useless, as pretty much stated by the
guy who ran them. Of course, he seems to think that worthless
experiements that get results are a breakthrough in science. Rnadi
points this out, and somehow Randi is to blame for pointing out the
flaws. Its a twisted world that woowoo's live in, full of control
freaks, excuse mongering, and if you cry when the big bad Randi
crticizes you, you are lauded as a hero.
--
Matt Kriebel * Oooops!
mkr...@cruzio.com *
*********************************************************************
Now 90% closer to 80% of the world's kooks!
KERSPLOSH
>http://skepdic.com/coldread.html
>
>and this is the sort of lowlife who uses cold reading to get rich
>http://skepdic.com/vanpraagh.html
Those are both very good references. I would disagree with this quote from one
of the links:
{Michael Shermer of Skeptic magazine calls Van Praagh "the master of
cold-reading in the psychic world."}
The man is not a master, he is terrible at what he does. Any direct hits he
gets have got to be obtained off camera. As I have stated, JE could be doing
the same.
I kept stating that it could not be done by cold reading alone, a large portion
of the information was too accurate to be obtained without PI's or actors. One
of the links led to this quote:
{When he finally appeared, he looked at the audience as if he were trying to
spot people he recognized. He also had ringers in the audience. I can tell
because about fifteen people arrived in a chartered van, and once inside they
did not sit together."}
But that's not the first time I have read that idea, and I have said all along
that other method beside cold reading would be needed to pull off what JE does.
If this is true, how does he keep his PI's and actors quiet though? I don't say
it is impossible to carry it off, but any large news magazine would give at
least a million dollars for that story. It would seem that he does not have
enough money to pay off that many people. It is still certainly possible. It
still does not explain how JE and four other people were able to do the same
feat at the U of A on camera under conditions that would eliminate cold
reading, PI's and actors. I do not claim that it is not possible, merely that
no one has explained it or replicated it.
KERSPLOSH
>
>That is what you would like to think, but you are wrong.
OK. That's your opinion. I only state that the U of A studies have not been
explained or replicated, and bear further examination. I am not 100% sure of
either side.
>The experiments from U of A are useless, as pretty much stated by the
>guy who ran them. Of course, he seems to think that worthless
>experiements that get results are a breakthrough in science.
That is not what he said.
>Rnadi
>points this out, and somehow Randi is to blame for pointing out the
>flaws.
Randi just ranted and raved. He did not say anything. He complained about a
curtain. The rest was emotional hot air.
>Its a twisted world that woowoo's live in, full of control
>freaks, excuse mongering, and if you cry when the big bad Randi
>crticizes you, you are lauded as a hero.
Perhaps when the "Amazing" Randi speaks, you salute and follow in step blindly.
When somebody criticizes his words, you have a knee jerk reaction.
KERSPLOSH
>be
>> done with cold reading.
>
>That's the point. You do not need any more facts than those supplied by the
>people..
>Have you ever listened (critically) to a 'reading' ?
If you had read about the studies, you would know that cold reading would not
have been possible under their conditions.
>
>It's amazing how people do not realise just how much they talk and what
>about..
That phrase actually applies to you very directly. See above, you obviously did
not read about it, and yet ventured an opinion base on what you though you
knew.
KERSPLOSH
>succeeded..
I have only claimed that the U of A studies bear further examination. It is
ridiculous trying to correct what you say I said. You will just misquote again
in the next posting.
Matt Kriebel
kers...@aol.comnojunk (KERSPLOSH) wrote:
> >Not to speak for George, but...
> >
> >That is what you would like to think, but you are wrong.
>
> OK. That's your opinion. I only state that the U of A studies have not been
> explained or replicated, and bear further examination. I am not 100% sure of
> either side.
Not really, they are poorly designed and hvae insufficient controls. The
very fact that the targets did the scoring speaks volumes.
> >The experiments from U of A are useless, as pretty much stated by the
> >guy who ran them. Of course, he seems to think that worthless
> >experiements that get results are a breakthrough in science.
>
> That is not what he said.
Not in so many words, no. But he admitted there were problems and said
that future experiements would be double blind and triple blind. If the
experiments were so dang good in the first place, why does he need to
add more controls?
> >Rnadi
> >points this out, and somehow Randi is to blame for pointing out the
> >flaws.
>
> Randi just ranted and raved. He did not say anything. He complained about a
> curtain. The rest was emotional hot air.
Randi did a lot more than complain about the curtain. Your prejudice is
showing. Its seems you did not read all Randi had to say.
> >Its a twisted world that woowoo's live in, full of control
> >freaks, excuse mongering, and if you cry when the big bad Randi
> >crticizes you, you are lauded as a hero.
>
> Perhaps when the "Amazing" Randi speaks, you salute and follow in step
> blindly.
> When somebody criticizes his words, you have a knee jerk reaction.
I've seen plenty of good criticism of Randi, Schwartz and his supporters
are not good critics.
--
Matt Kriebel * Oooops!
mkr...@cruzio.com *
*********************************************************************
Now 90% closer to 80% of the world's kooks!
Matt Kriebel
kers...@aol.comnojunk (KERSPLOSH) wrote:
> >You have made the claim that there are 'psychic' trials that have
> >succeeded..
>
> I have only claimed that the U of A studies bear further examination.
Let's see how they hold up when real controls are added. So far Schwartz
has demonstrated no desire to impliment real security, adequate scoring,
or an adequate control group. In fact he seems determined to avoid such
controls. His comments regarding a cold reader brought in for a TV
special speaks volumes.
Matt Kriebel
kers...@aol.comnojunk (KERSPLOSH) wrote:
> >> the University of Arizona bears inspection, and the work there could not
> >be
> >> done with cold reading.
> >
> >That's the point. You do not need any more facts than those supplied by the
> >people..
> >Have you ever listened (critically) to a 'reading' ?
>
> If you had read about the studies, you would know that cold reading would not
> have been possible under their conditions.
I have read the studies, and what you say is simply not true. You do not
understand cold reading and are very arogant to make such a claim.
Schwartz apparently does not understand it either.
Matt Kriebel
kers...@aol.comnojunk (KERSPLOSH) wrote:
> t is still certainly possible. It
> still does not explain how JE and four other people were able to do the same
> feat at the U of A on camera under conditions that would eliminate cold
> reading, PI's and actors.
Very simple: The conditions, despite the claims of you and Scwartz, did
not prevent cold reading.
lanny budd
> I kept stating that it could not be done by cold reading alone, a large portion
> of the information was too accurate to be obtained without PI's or actors. One
> of the links led to this quote:
Jesus H. Christ. You keep saying that his pathetic act couldn't be
done by cold reading alone, but even in the heavily edited shows he
doesn't come right out and say "You there, your dead father whose name
was Wilcox Julius Snard wants me to tell you that he buried the money
in the back yard under the willow." He says, "I'm getting the letter
W." Is the transmission that bad? Are the dead that unintelligible?
Are you that gullible? Or is JE the biggest douche in the universe?
KERSPLOSH
>has demonstrated no desire to impliment real security, adequate scoring,
>or an adequate control group.
One quote from one experiment:
[Note that the blind sitter-silent phase eliminates possible visible and
olfactory cues (and hence cold reading, subtle cueing, and fraud) as well as
useful auditory cues (the sitter could not hear LC; and LC was not using
sporadic distracting auditory cues to shape her responses).]
-----------------
From the results:
[The combined probability of names and relationships reported by LC during the
pre-reading and sitter-silent periods is highly statistically significant. It
is estimated conservatively as p < one in 2.6 trillion (1 in 2,624,400,000,000
).]
-----------------
So I still say it bears looking into. In the case above, **the sitter was
unable to see or hear the reader.** How would you control it? How would you do
it? This is just one experiment. James Randi helped come up with the controls
for some of these experiments.
>In fact he seems determined to avoid such
>controls.
Explain in detail. Quote something from the experiment. Point it out.
>His comments regarding a cold reader brought in for a TV
>special speaks volumes.
What did he say? I would like to read it.
KERSPLOSH
>understand cold reading and are very arogant to make such a claim.
>Schwartz apparently does not understand it either.
If you have not read the studies then you are unable to make qualified answer.
I am sorry that you are unable to rise to the task at hand.
>and are very arogant to make such a claim.
Like your an expert? You have'nt even read it.
KERSPLOSH
>Not really, they are poorly designed and hvae insufficient controls.
Where are the flaws? Quote experiment in question.
>The
>very fact that the targets did the scoring speaks volumes.
Thats crazy. Who else is going to know about your dead relatives except you?
>If the
>experiments were so dang good in the first place, why does he need to
>add more controls?
Where are the flaws? Quote experiment in question.
>Randi did a lot more than complain about the curtain. Your prejudice is
>showing. Its seems you did not read all Randi had to say.
What did he say of value that was not just an emotional outburst?
>I've seen plenty of good criticism of Randi, Schwartz and his supporters
>are not good critics.
Schwartz and his supporters are not critics of Randi at all, they used him for
part of the experiments. I am a critic of James Randi. I used to like him, I
remember him 20 years ago.
KERSPLOSH
>done by cold reading alone, but even in the heavily edited shows he
>doesn't come right out and say "You there, your dead father whose name
>was Wilcox Julius Snard wants me to tell you that he buried the money
>in the back yard under the willow." He says, "I'm getting the letter
>W." Is the transmission that bad?
If you watched the damn show you would see that he also gets direct hits that
could only be explained away as the work of PI's or actors. If all you are
capable of is repeating what others have already covered, than you are merely a
parrot.
>Are the dead that unintelligible?
>Are you that gullible?
Your the one merely repeating others. Are you that gullible? Obviously so.
KERSPLOSH
>Very simple: The conditions, despite the claims of you and Scwartz, did
>not prevent cold reading.
OK, I'll bite. How? Quote one of the experiments and explain.
Matt Kriebel
kers...@aol.comnojunk (KERSPLOSH) wrote:
Three words: Targets did scoring.
KERSPLOSH
>
>Three words: Targets did scoring.
But who else is qualified to know about their dead relatives? I certainly
couldn't decide a score about yours. How does that explain away the whole
experiment? Be specific. Use than three words.
Matt Kriebel
kers...@aol.comnojunk (KERSPLOSH) wrote:
> >
> >Not really, they are poorly designed and hvae insufficient controls.
>
> Where are the flaws? Quote experiment in question.
Damn near all of them. The very use of subject scoring reduces this to a
uselsess game.
> >The
> >very fact that the targets did the scoring speaks volumes.
>
> Thats crazy. Who else is going to know about your dead relatives except you?
That's automatic judging bias right off the bat.
> >If the
> >experiments were so dang good in the first place, why does he need to
> >add more controls?
>
> Where are the flaws? Quote experiment in question.
Where was his control group? Where was any sort of control reader?
> >Randi did a lot more than complain about the curtain. Your prejudice is
> >showing. Its seems you did not read all Randi had to say.
>
> What did he say of value that was not just an emotional outburst?
http://www.randi.org/jr/03-30-2001.html
"why does he conduct, by his own admission, "experiments" that are not
double-blinded?"
Just one of many, if there is emotion involved it is due to frustration
and bewilderment.
> >I've seen plenty of good criticism of Randi, Schwartz and his supporters
> >are not good critics.
>
> Schwartz and his supporters are not critics of Randi at all, they used him for
> part of the experiments. I am a critic of James Randi. I used to like him, I
> remember him 20 years ago.
Schwartz claims to have used some of Randi's sugestions, which like a
contract saying they installed some of the support columns in a building
and insisting it will stand.
Matt Kriebel
kers...@aol.comnojunk (KERSPLOSH) wrote:
> >I have read the studies, and what you say is simply not true. You do not
> >understand cold reading and are very arogant to make such a claim.
> >Schwartz apparently does not understand it either.
>
> If you have not read the studies then you are unable to make qualified answer.
> I am sorry that you are unable to rise to the task at hand.
I have read the studies. What makes you think his controls prevent cold
reading?
> >and are very arogant to make such a claim.
>
> Like your an expert? You have'nt even read it.
Yes I have. You won't win this way. Sorry.
George Black
"Matt Kriebel" <mkriebNOS...@cruzio.com> wrote in message
news:mkriebNOSPAMDAMMIT-D...@cnews.newsguy.com...
how much more do we need to classify it/him :-))
--
Matt Kriebel
kers...@aol.comnojunk (KERSPLOSH) wrote:
> >Let's see how they hold up when real controls are added. So far Schwartz
> >has demonstrated no desire to impliment real security, adequate scoring,
> >or an adequate control group.
>
> One quote from one experiment:
>
> [Note that the blind sitter-silent phase eliminates possible visible and
> olfactory cues (and hence cold reading, subtle cueing, and fraud) as well as
> useful auditory cues (the sitter could not hear LC; and LC was not using
> sporadic distracting auditory cues to shape her responses).]
That barely scratches the surface.
Read the "Sensory Leakage" portion of this article to get an idea:
http://www.csicop.org/si/2001-11/mediums.html
Several cold readers have laughed at these alleged controls.
> -----------------
> From the results:
>
> [The combined probability of names and relationships reported by LC during the
> pre-reading and sitter-silent periods is highly statistically significant. It
> is estimated conservatively as p < one in 2.6 trillion (1 in 2,624,400,000,000
> ).]
> -----------------
Moot. You might also read the judging bias
> So I still say it bears looking into. In the case above, **the sitter was
> unable to see or hear the reader.** How would you control it? How would you do
> it?
The sitter was certainly able to hear the sitter.
> This is just one experiment. James Randi helped come up with the controls
> for some of these experiments.
Sorta, Schwartz used a handful of controls. This, his most popular of
experiments (the one touted so much) was not controlled.
> >In fact he seems determined to avoid such
> >controls.
>
> Explain in detail. Quote something from the experiment. Point it out.
Who did Schwartz use as a control cold reader? Answer me that.
> >His comments regarding a cold reader brought in for a TV
> >special speaks volumes.
>
> What did he say? I would like to read it.
Its in his book, The Afterlife Experiements, he claims a desire to use a
cold reader as a control, yet fails to lcoate one. He didn;t try very
hard, since all he did was make a weak inquiry about a a cold reader HBO
(or FOX, can't remember, don't have book in front of me) brought in.
That lack of effort for a verrry important control group tells me he
didn't want a cold reader aroud to spoil the party.
Matt Kriebel
kers...@aol.comnojunk (KERSPLOSH) wrote:
> >> OK, I'll bite. How? Quote one of the experiments and explain.
> >
> >Three words: Targets did scoring.
>
> But who else is qualified to know about their dead relatives?
This is the porblem you will have when you have such an open ended
"experiment". Its one of the reasons Schwartz is doing bad science. His
selection of targets was poor as well.
http://www.csicop.org/si/2001-11/mediums.html
Read the "judging bias" part this time.
Matt Kriebel
"George Black" <gbl...@ihug.co.nz> wrote:
> The splosh wasn't aware of Flim Flam...
> how much more do we need to classify it/him :-))
No evidence that he's read Ian Rowland or an equivelant for that matter.
Yet feels qualifed to say a curtain is proof vs. cold reading.
KERSPLOSH
>
>http://www.csicop.org/si/2001-11/mediums.html
This is a great article. I wish that you had sent the link right off and saved
all the back and forth. Thank you. I still don't think it explains away the
studies, but neither does it claim to. It states:
"In short, the Schwartz et al. study did not employ blind judging, employed an
inappropriate control group, and had insufficient safeguards against sensory
leakage. As such, it is impossible to know the degree to which their findings
represent evidence for mediumistic ability."
I would say that it was "impossible to know the degree to which their findings
represent evidence" before reading the article. To say the evidence presented
was not compelling would also be shortsighted, though.
>Several cold readers have laughed at these alleged controls.
What is there website? I want to know. I would like to read articles like this
one that are not James Randi drivel.
>> olfactory cues (and hence cold reading, subtle cueing, and fraud) as well as
>> useful auditory cues
Which I understand, and yet using only yes or no questions, how could you still
reach a score of 80% - 90% - according to the sitter. I can see why you would
want to eliminate those factors to create a better study, but the data still
strikes me as impressive. If you say the combination of sight/sound/odor can
make up for that, 30 - 40% - that seems unlikely to me.
>Moot. You might also read the judging bias
"In short, the mediums in the Schwartz et al. study may have been accurate, in
part, because they simply produced statements that would have been endorsed by
many sitters."
I would agree with that in spirit, but really the sitter is the only judge that
is qualified as to the veracity of the reading. Also, even the sitter would
know if everything sounded like a generality, even if they were a moron. In the
context of this article it does not mean that much. Even the example they give,
"twice, thrice" does not really support the position. It's well written though.
Also, that would not guarantee correct data. If the reader said "wagon," and
the sitter said "yes," the skeptic judge could still say "He didn't say red
wagon."
Also, you would certainly agree that the data presented is filled with
information that is not generalities.
>Sorta, Schwartz used a handful of controls. This, his most popular of
>experiments (the one touted so much) was not controlled.
It was not without controls. Your article goes far in explaining how it could
have been improved and why.
>Who did Schwartz use as a control cold reader? Answer me that.
Obviously he did not use one.
>Its in his book, The Afterlife Experiements, he claims a desire to use a
>cold reader as a control, yet fails to lcoate one. He didn;t try very
>hard, since all he did was make a weak inquiry about a a cold reader HBO
>(or FOX, can't remember, don't have book in front of me) brought in.
>That lack of effort for a verrry important control group tells me he
>didn't want a cold reader aroud to spoil the party.
Yeah, well somebody like Randi would have certainly spooked all the chickens. I
can see why he would not have been a good choice. Are there people readily
available, self professed cold readers for hire? I guess that there is this
"Hyman, R." in the credits. A cold reader would have been a very good idea.
What about a weak inquiry for a cold reader from HBO? I have not heard about
that. Where did you read that? Was that in the book? I have only read the
website, I'll have to read the book.
Just as I would agree that the study was flawed, especially after reading the
article you presented, you must be interested by the data gathered. You must
agree it's unlikely that information that was presented can be easily explained
away.
The three points brought up:
*Judging Bias - I only agree with that to a small point. The sitter has to be
the judge, really.
*Control Group - The control group bit was lame, the only thing that really
took place was reading by 5 mediums, with nothing to judge them against. The
student questionaires I thought were just to be cheap. I can see why it really
served no purpose. but it did not really affect any of data that *was*
presented. Randi could certainly set up his own study and prove that he could
do as well, or he could have taken up Scwartz's offer to be tested. It would
have been far better (without, it's half done) to use a cold reader as a
control as the article suggests. "vital that the readings are judged
"blind"-the sitters should be unaware of whether they are evaluating a "target"
or "decoy" reading." It would have made a much better study, but figures
presented are still there, and don't go away - unless someone else can repeat
them.
*Sensory Leakage - Well, they did have that in varying degrees. It's a good
point, but it cannot explain away the whole thing.
George Black
"Matt Kriebel" <mkriebNOS...@cruzio.com> wrote in message
news:mkriebNOSPAMDAMMIT-3...@cnews.newsguy.com...
> In article <asem2l$u47$1...@lust.ihug.co.nz>,
> "George Black" <gbl...@ihug.co.nz> wrote:
>
> > The splosh wasn't aware of Flim Flam...
> > how much more do we need to classify it/him :-))
>
> No evidence that he's read Ian Rowland or an equivelant for that matter.
> Yet feels qualifed to say a curtain is proof vs. cold reading.
>
I gave him a couple of URL's that, had he read the associated articles, he
would have gotten a better idea of the cold reading explanation. Oh well
(sigh)
KERSPLOSH
>how much more do we need to classify it/him :-))
No, I haven't read your stupid book. Only followers of the great Randi Horde
allowed in your all-male-woman-haters club? I suppose Rush Limbaugh is your
savior, as well. Why don't you go classify something, like your childish
mentality. Tell us when you graduate from the fourth grade...Have fun on the
little bus!
KERSPLOSH
>would have gotten a better idea of the cold reading explanation. Oh well
>(sigh)
You did not supply any URLs of value, only lip service. Mr. Kriebel did though.
KERSPLOSH
>"experiment". Its one of the reasons Schwartz is doing bad science. His
>selection of targets was poor as well.
>
>http://www.csicop.org/si/2001-11/mediums.html
>
>Read the "judging bias" part this time.
Yes, yes...
"It is widely recognized that the sitter's endorsement of such statements
cannot be taken as evidence of mediumistic ability, as seemingly accurate
readings can be created by a set of psychological stratagems collectively
referred to as "cold reading" (Hyman 1977; Rowland 1998). It is therefore vital
that any investigation into the possible existence of mediumistic ability
controls for the potential effect of these stratagems."
http://www.csicop.org/si/2001-11/mediums.html
Then it proves itself, the sitter can't interpret it, neither can any judge
because he does not know about the sitter's past, thus it must not be possible.
Case closed. It can't be done because the sitter is incapable, and so is
anyone else. The snake eats it's tail.
Perhaps it's all a scam, but to only say that it is false because the sitter
interprets it, regardless of the score...These people reviewed the videos 3
months later. I have a strong feeling that you feel the paragraph above is
imperial so I won't argue the point. You must see the corner it creates,
though.
What about this - it's at least interesting:
One of the mediums purportedly received communication from the deceased mother
of one of the sitters a few days before traveling to Tucson. The mother
purportedly conveyed to the medium a favorite prayer that she had regularly
recited to her daughter as a child. Moreover, according to the deceased mother,
the daughter was secretly continuing to offer this prayer for her. An assistant
to the medium was instructed to locate the prayer, have it laminated, and gift
wrapped.
When the reading was about to begin with the sitter, the medium unexpectedly
reported to the experimenters that he had forgotten to bring into the
laboratory a present he had brought for this sitter from her deceased mother.
Surprised by the claim of such a gift, we instructed the medium that he could
have his assistant bring it in after the reading had officially ended and the
formal data had been collected.
The gift was brought into the laboratory at the end of the session and passed
around the screen to the sitter. Upon opening the present, the sitter, in
tears, confirmed that this was a special prayer her mother had taught her as a
child. Moreover, she shared that she silently continued to say this prayer for
her deceased mother.
Since the medium purportedly did not know who the sitters were ahead of time,
and also did not know who was behind the screen, the observation of the medium
receiving anomalous communication three days before the experiment and giving
this particular sitter this particular gift raises challenging questions.
KERSPLOSH
>
>http://www.csicop.org/si/2001-11/mediums.html
This is a great article. I wish that you had sent the link right off and saved
all the back and forth. Thank you. I still don't think it explains away the
studies, but neither does it claim to. It states:
"In short, the Schwartz et al. study did not employ blind judging, employed an
inappropriate control group, and had insufficient safeguards against sensory
leakage. As such, it is impossible to know the degree to which their findings
represent evidence for mediumistic ability."
I would say that it was "impossible to know the degree to which their findings
represent evidence" before reading the article. To say the evidence presented
was not compelling would also be shortsighted, though.
>Several cold readers have laughed at these alleged controls.
What is there website? I want to know. I would like to read articles like this
one that are not James Randi drivel.
>> olfactory cues (and hence cold reading, subtle cueing, and fraud) as well as
>> useful auditory cues
Which I understand, and yet using only yes or no questions, how could you still
reach a score of 80% - 90% - according to the sitter. I can see why you would
want to eliminate those factors to create a better study, but the data still
strikes me as impressive. If you say the combination of sight/sound/odor can
make up for that, 30 - 40% - that seems unlikely to me.
>Moot. You might also read the judging bias
"In short, the mediums in the Schwartz et al. study may have been accurate, in
part, because they simply produced statements that would have been endorsed by
many sitters."
I would agree with that in spirit, but really the sitter is the only judge that
is qualified as to the veracity of the reading. Also, even the sitter would
know if everything sounded like a generality, even if they were a moron. In the
context of this article it does not mean that much. Even the example they give,
"twice, thrice" does not really support the position. It's well written though.
Also, that would not guarantee correct data. If the reader said "wagon," and
the sitter said "yes," the skeptic judge could still say "He didn't say red
wagon."
Also, you would certainly agree that the data presented is filled with
information that is not generalities.
>Sorta, Schwartz used a handful of controls. This, his most popular of
>experiments (the one touted so much) was not controlled.
It was not without controls. Your article goes far in explaining how it could
have been improved and why.
>Who did Schwartz use as a control cold reader? Answer me that.
Obviously he did not use one.
>Its in his book, The Afterlife Experiements, he claims a desire to use a
>cold reader as a control, yet fails to lcoate one. He didn;t try very
>hard, since all he did was make a weak inquiry about a a cold reader HBO
>(or FOX, can't remember, don't have book in front of me) brought in.
>That lack of effort for a verrry important control group tells me he
>didn't want a cold reader aroud to spoil the party.
Yeah, well somebody like Randi would have certainly spooked all the chickens. I
can see why he would not be a good choice. Are there people readily available,
self professed cold readers for hire? I guess that there is this "Hyman, R." in
the credits. A cold reader would have been a good idea. What about a weak
inquiry for a cold reader from HBO? I have not heard about that. Where did you
read that? Was that in the book? I have only read the website, I'll have to
read the book.
Just as I would agree that the study was flawed, especially after reading the
article you presented, you must be interested by the data gathered. You must
agree it's unlikely that information that was presented can be easily explained
away.
The three points brought up:
*Judging Bias - I only agree with that to a small point. The sitter has to be
the judge, really.
*Control Group - The control group bit was lame, the only thing that took place
was reading by 5 mediums, with nothing to judge them against. but it did not
really affect any of data that was presented. Randi could certainly set up his
own study and prove that he could do as well, or he could have taken up
Scwartz's offer to be tested. It would have been far better to use a cold
reader as a control as the article suggests. "vital that the readings are
judged "blind"-the sitters should be unaware of whether they are evaluating a
"target" or "decoy" reading." It would have made a much better study, but
figures presented are still there, and don't go away.