Medium to the Stars?

Pixel42 said:
It's not a controlled environment in the scientific sense, no.
Click to expand...

The paranormal and tv share something. Neither is science in a pure sense. One not at all. Both use (or try to use) it in various ways.
Tv shows are normally pre planned to prevent the disaster that could ruin a source of advertising revenue.
 
Frank McLaughlin said:
Scientists are often the last ones to accept a new idea
Click to expand...
There's nothing new here. This guy is just the latest in a very long line to make such claims. No-one has ever been able to demonstrate them under controlled conditions.

To paraphrase Richard Feynman, the first step in the scientific method is that you guess. I'm guessing. Testing happens each week on TV if you think about it.
Click to expand...
Scientific testing certainly does not happen.

Link: John Edwards, who does basically the same thing as Henry, has submitted to a series of studies at the Univ of AZ. Three of the studies are discussed in: "The Afterlife Experiments" by Gary Schwartz, Harvard Professor of Psychology, Surgery, Medicine, Neurology, Psychiatry.
Click to expand...
I've never been sure if Schwartz knows exactly what he's doing and is deliberately doing pseudoscience or is simply an extremely incompetent scientist. Either way his failure to control for the Forer Effect in his experiments renders them utterly worthless.

Bonus about the book is that it makes Randi apoplectic.
Click to expand...
It actually disgusts anybody with any understanding of the scientific method and even a modicum of integrity.
 
Garrette said:
I have no issue with the celebrity list, but I am interested in what is considered something he does that others cannot. Can you list one or two, preferably with a video?
Click to expand...

Garrette, I could be wrong, but I think he does some type of automatic drawing prior to his reading, and claims the drawing is related to the person he is 'reading'.
 
bytewizard said:
And there never will be, because it does not exist. If it did exist, there would be proof. This clown is no different from the thousands that preceded him. He is an ENTERTAINER, nothing more.
Click to expand...

You can't see it, but it exists. "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."

The problem with your ENTERTAINER claim is that none of the people who have had a reading with Henry agree with you. How does he fool so many people about so many private, intimate things? Better get Randi on it.
 
Frank McLaughlin said:
The problem with your ENTERTAINER claim is that none of the people who have had a reading with Henry agree with you. How does he fool so many people about so many private, intimate things?
Click to expand...
Cold reading, warm reading and hot reading.

Better get Randi on it.
Click to expand...
No need to bother a 90-year-old man who has already done more than enough to explain how such charlatans fool so many people.
 
Pixel42 said:
There's nothing new here. This guy is just the latest in a very long line to make such claims. No-one has ever been able to demonstrate them under controlled conditions.


Scientific testing certainly does not happen.


I've never been sure if Schwartz knows exactly what he's doing and is deliberately doing pseudoscience or is simply an extremely incompetent scientist. Either way his failure to control for the Forer Effect in his experiments renders them utterly worthless.


It actually disgusts anybody with any understanding of the scientific method and even a modicum of integrity.
Click to expand...

You don't need "controlled conditions" if you have visual evidence in front of your face.

>I've never been sure if Schwartz knows exactly what he's doing and is deliberately doing pseudoscience or is simply an extremely incompetent scientist.

You don't accept Schwartz with an exceptional list of papers on many subjects, a Professor at Harvard, but you accept Randi the magician? Really? This answers the question as to why mediums don't bother with scientific research. People without scientist credentials yell "fake" because Schwartz's conclusion is not what you want to hear.

>No-one has ever been able to demonstrate them under controlled conditions.

And yet we see the results Henry achieves.
 
Pixel42 said:
Cold reading, warm reading and hot reading.


No need to bother a 90-year-old man who has already done more than enough to explain how such charlatans fool so many people.
Click to expand...

You need to watch the show because your claims make no sense. There are no Cold or Hot readings, unless the Production Company and the Celebrities are in on a scam, which is unlikely (though possible).

After Uri Geller, Randi made his living for years "debunking" mentally challenged people who made silly claims that never needed debunking in the first place.

Has Randi debunked "flat earth" yet? That's the sort of nonsense that was his bread and butter. The hard stuff? Randi was nowhere to be found.
 
Frank McLaughlin said:
You don't need "controlled conditions" if you have visual evidence in front of your face.
Click to expand...
That's exactly when you need controlled conditions. To carefully and methodically eliminate the cognitive biases we all have which can fool us into believing we see things which are not actually there.

You don't accept Schwartz with an exceptional list of papers on many subjects, a Professor at Harvard, but you accept Randi the magician? Really?
Click to expand...
Yes I really accept findings obtained using the scientific method rather than those obtained without it, regardless of the credentials of those doing the experiments.

This answers the question as to why mediums don't bother with scientific research. People without scientist credentials yell "fake" because Schwartz's conclusion is not what you want to hear.
Click to expand...
What I want to hear is that paranormal abilities are real, that would be fantastic.

I dismiss Schwartz's results as either faked or simply incompetent because my understanding of the scientific method tells me that's what they are.

And yet we see the results Henry achieves.
Click to expand...
Not until he submits to tests performed using the scientific method. Until then all we see is an entertainer's act, to be taken no more seriously than the performances of David Copperfield.
 
Frank McLaughlin said:
You need to watch the show because your claims make no sense. There are no Cold or Hot readings, unless the Production Company and the Celebrities are in on a scam, which is unlikely (though possible).
Click to expand...
No-one needs to be in on the scam for Henry to produce apparently accurate readings. Though I'm sure the production team are well aware that it's just a performance.

After Uri Geller, Randi made his living for years "debunking" mentally challenged people who made silly claims that never needed debunking in the first place.
Click to expand...

Most of the MDC applicants were deluded rather than scammers it's true, but that's because the scammers knew they'd never be able to fool him and never applied.

Has Randi debunked "flat earth" yet? That's the sort of nonsense that was his bread and butter. The hard stuff? Randi was nowhere to be found.
Click to expand...
Randi tested quite a few psychics and mediums. Some are listed in the challenge applications subforum:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=43

None passed a controlled test.
 
Last edited:
Pixel42 said:
There's nothing new here. This guy is just the latest in a very long line to make such claims. No-one has ever been able to demonstrate them under controlled conditions.


Scientific testing certainly does not happen.


I've never been sure if Schwartz knows exactly what he's doing and is deliberately doing pseudoscience or is simply an extremely incompetent scientist. Either way his failure to control for the Forer Effect in his experiments renders them utterly worthless.


It actually disgusts anybody with any understanding of the scientific method and even a modicum of integrity.
Click to expand...

Speaking of the scientific method: I'm betting you've not read Schwartz's book or looked at the technical paper that presents the underlying data. I don't think you have watched the TV show. Do you have a peered reviewed paper that refutes Schwartz since that seems to be your holy grail?

Are you a study in close-mindedness?
 
Frank McLaughlin said:
You are claiming that Corbett Stern Productions, Michael Corbett and 44 Blue Productions are committing blatant fraud in collusion with E! Entertainment by editing a TV show to provide false and misleading information to 2 million people? Interesting.
If what you are telling me is true, it is curious that not one of these celebrities has stepped forward to object to the interview editing and the final product. Just the opposite, celebrities rave about the quality of the reading if the video is to be believed.

And no one on the TV crew, the background research team, the camera operators, the film editors, the kid holding the mike boom--no one comes forward after four years of this? Maybe. Not likely.

You would agree with me that eventually some celebrity will get pissed about the reading or just decide to be honest and expose what Corbett Productions is doing? It's been four years. I'll wait.
Click to expand...

I do not know if kali1137 is claiming what you hilited, but I will.

The man is a fraud, and the fraud is maintained by this tv show. The crew will not "come forward" because they know exactly what they are producing. They have agreed to do it and are getting well paid.

Any celebrity who is stupid enough to believe in mediums will not have any reason to get pissed about a reading. They will think it is genuine, especially if they "rave about the quality", which really just means that what he is telling them makes them happy.

Mediums do not exist, except as frauds.
 
Frank McLaughlin said:
Speaking of the scientific method: I'm betting you've not read Schwartz's book or looked at the technical paper that presents the underlying data.
Click to expand...
I've read extracts, papers and critiques.

I don't think you have watched the TV show.
Click to expand...
I'm not in the right country to watch it, but I've looked him up and he's clearly using the same tricks as all the others.

Do you have a peered reviewed paper that refutes Schwartz since that seems to be your holy grail?
Click to expand...
That's not how the burden of proof works.

Here's a sceptical review of his book: http://skepdic.com/refuge/afterlife.html

Are you a study in close-mindedness?
Click to expand...
Being open-minded means looking at all the evidence, both for and against, before reaching a conclusion. I have done that. Have you?
 
Pixel42 said:
No-one needs to be in on the scam for Henry to produce apparently accurate readings. Though I'm sure the production team are well aware that it's just a performance.

Most of the MDC applicants were deluded rather than scammers it's true, but that's because the scammers knew they'd never be able to fool him and never applied.


Randi tested quite a few psychics and mediums. Some are listed in the challenge applications subforum:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=43

None passed a controlled test.
Click to expand...

>No-one needs to be in on the scam for Henry to produce apparently accurate readings.

He needs to get his information somewhere. If it is not coming from a scam (people supplying information) then it is legit if it is accurate, which by all measures it is.

>Though I'm sure the production team are well aware that it's just a performance.

Maybe you should get a show. Your ability to know things at a distance about the production team is uncanny.

>scammers knew they'd never be able to fool him and never applied.

Scammers are typically low-level Madam LaRue's fortune telling and of course they didn't apply to fool Randi. If I'm making money with a scam, what good is Randi? Your list of "physics" Randi debunked is a list of nobodys no one has ever heard of.
 
Pixel42 said:
I've read extracts, papers and critiques.

I'm not in the right country to watch it, but I've looked him up and he's clearly using the same tricks as all the others.

That's not how the burden of proof works.

Here's a sceptical review of his book: http://skepdic.com/refuge/afterlife.html


Being open-minded means looking at all the evidence, both for and against, before reaching a conclusion. I have done that. Have you?
Click to expand...

You've looked him up? What's that supposed to mean? You read the Harvard paper or the book, or you didn't.

You are referencing me out to a skeptics source? Co'mon. That stuff is mostly junk to explain to us that Uri Geller and von Danken aren't real. Got that. Thanks (In fairness I didn't take the time to read your link beyond noting it was skeptic stuff, which I find to be shallow, which I've seen before. But I'll check it out). Presumably, given how you think, this rebuttal will have been peer reviewed with some independent credentialed scientists' names attached to the article. Usually the articles are ridiculous, but we'll see.

I don't think you've watched the show once.

>using the same tricks as all the others.

And what are those tricks? Tricks I guess you are going to tell me about without having actually watched the show.

>Have you?

I have not seen any evidence against Henry's show. I was hoping to obtain some here, but so far that ain't happening. You have presented none. Or did I miss it?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom