"The Unstoppable Schwartz"

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Hey, I'm famous!

~~ Paul

 

[CFLarsen]

Hey that is what I way saying in the paragraph before the one you quoted. Coincidence or what !!!

According to Schwartz, it's a paranormal phenomenon that you and I agree on anything...

 

[Beth]

All coincidences are astounding.

No, not all coincidences are astounding. At least, not in my opinion.

When you are asked to look for coincidences between two subjects it would be even more astounding if none could be found. However multiplying the coincidences that do exist does not make it more special nor does it mean there is a link, especially when the coincidences are not commonly shared.

Several of the coincidences detailed in the paper are shared. I suggest you give it a read if you are interested.

I understand that Schwartz found 2- 5 coincidences in each patient. It would be more impressive if the same coincidence appeared time and time again. If most patients found their musical tastes changed that would be interesting, but even then it would need to be compared to a control group.

Yes, that would be more impressive. And yes, further research of the type you describe needs to be done. Still, before undertaking that sort of research project, it needs to be established that there is cause to suspect something might be going on. Schwartz's paper provides that.

I agree that most people don’t switch musical tasted in the mid 40s but from what I understand there is only one person out of 28,000 has changed preferences post operation. That fits in with most people not changing.

2 of 10 cases detailed included change in musical tastes similar to the donor's tastes (although one was young enough it's not terribly unusual). Another two of the cases were children too young to have developed strong musical preferences (donors were also children).

Going about it the way Schwartz does if very iffy and it is difficult to come up with a meaningful comparison but I see it as being similar to someone looking at the effects of marriage, and finding that after marriage quite a few people changed their preferences for some activities. Some of those people had dramatic changes but the dramatic changes they had varied from person to person. So far nothing surprising however Schwartz goes a step further and claims that the change is not part of the normal changes we all go through but are caused by the married couple eating their own wedding cake !

Sure, he can always measure a correlation but can he prove the causation?

Actually, he hasn't even measured a correlation yet. All he has done is document some surprising personality changes that parallel the donor's personality and tastes. Whether a strong correlation actually exists would require more research. Establishing causation far more than that.

 

[Hastur]

It was stated on the site with the journal article.

So it must be peer-reviewed because it says so? Also, who does the peer-review? Properly skeptical scientists or "scientists" in the mold of Targ and Puthoff who are looking for anything to validate their beliefs? Why publish in this journal (if it can be called that) rather than JAMA or Nature or a university journal?

 

[Lothian]

Several of the coincidences detailed in the paper are shared. I suggest you give it a read if you are interested.

Interested but not so interested I will spend £30 on it.

Yes, that would be more impressive. And yes, further research of the type you describe needs to be done. Still, before undertaking that sort of research project, it needs to be established that there is cause to suspect something might be going on. Schwartz's paper provides that.
2 of 10 cases detailed included change in musical tastes similar to the donor's tastes (although one was young enough it's not terribly unusual). Another two of the cases were children too young to have developed strong musical preferences (donors were also children).

Unless you are counting the two young kids as people whose taste would have changed we have 1 'unusual' change in taste.

Actually, he hasn't even measured a correlation yet. All he has done is document some surprising personality changes that parallel the donor's personality and tastes. Whether a strong correlation actually exists would require more research. Establishing causation far more than that.

Don't tell me he hasn't found anything yet tell him. After all it was him that said

"When the organ is placed in the recipient, the information and energy stored in the organ is passed on to the recipient. The theory applies to any organ that has cells that are interconnected. They could be kidneys, liver and even muscles. The stories we have uncovered are very compelling and are completely consistent."

 

[Beth]

So it must be peer-reviewed because it says so? Also, who does the peer-review? Properly skeptical scientists or "scientists" in the mold of Targ and Puthoff who are looking for anything to validate their beliefs? Why publish in this journal (if it can be called that) rather than JAMA or Nature or a university journal?

Sorry, I don't know any more about it than that. It's not a journal I regularly read. I don't know who does the reviews or how they are conducted. Of course, I don't know that about any other peer-reviewed journal. Where would you expect to find such information out about any other peer-reviewed journal?

 

[Beth]

Interested but not so interested I will spend £30 on it.

Understandable. I got it via the library.

Unless you are counting the two young kids as people whose taste would have changed we have 1 'unusual' change in taste.

Yes, one unusal change, but two of the same type, which is what you were asking for.

Don't tell me he hasn't found anything yet tell him. After all it was him that said

I don't think he reads this forum.

 

[Lothian]

I don't think he reads this forum.

He doesn't

Well if you do want to contradict his claims and tell him he hasn't found anything yet you can try gschwart@u.arizona.edu

 

[Stellafane]

Schwartz is nuts

Since I’m a rank newbie, and thus have no reputation to protect, I’ll come out and say it: Dr. Gary Schwartz is a complete whack job. (“Departed hypothesized co-investigator”? Aww, come on!!) The only question is, what kind of a whack job is he? Is he a knowing fake and fraud? Or does he actually believe this nonsense? I’ll come back to that in a minute. But I must first pay tribute to Dr. Schwartz’s versatility, for who else has made two such breathtaking, paradigm-shattering discoveries in such utterly unrelated fields – the human consciousness surviving death, and organ transplants imparting the donor’s talents and memories upon the recipient? Isn’t this like discovering a new quasar, and then discovering a new species of dinosaur? The good doctor is surely a true Renaissance man -- the University of Arizona must be very proud. (Thank God I went to ASU.)

Actually, the more I think about it, aren’t these two discoveries diametrically opposed? I mean, if human consciousness survives death, why are pieces of it sticking around and inhabiting donated organs after the donor is dead? Say a piano virtuoso dies and donates her kidneys to a bricklayer. Does the surviving consciousness of the departed pianist lose her musical ability (assuming there’s some means to indulge it in the Hereafter) while her donated organs inhabit the recipient’s body? And when the bricklayer dies, will his acquired virtuosity be reunited with its original owner? Does any of this make a lick of sense?

I don’t know how anyone associated with the U of A can hear mention of Dr. Schwartz and not want to put a bag over their head. His VERITAS experiments (what an ironic name – Harvard should sue) could serve as a model for how not to do science. Good God, I could have devised a better protocol off the top of my non-tenured head. What not include some dummy sitters, with no close departed friends or relatives, to see whether or not the psychics could pick them out? ("Nope, got nothing here...next!") Why not have a few mentalists and magicians familiar with cold reading come in and see whether or not the sitters rated them as highly as the “real” psychics? Dr. Schwatrz’s findings are an utter joke, and I can’t see how any reasonable person can take any part of them even remotely seriously.

Returning to my earlier question: Dr. Schwartz, fake or loon? I actually think he’s somewhere in between, an example of that recent phenomenon, the knowingly self-deluded. On the surface, he probably sincerely believes what he says. But on another level, I suspect he knows perfectly well his evidence would never stand up to real, scientific scrutiny, so he makes sure it never has to. That way he can preserve his little fantasy world, within which he is a superstar. Hey, why labor in anonymity doing real science, when you can make a name for yourself by whoring your academic credentials and defecating on the reputation of the university that employs you?

 

[Ersby]

In the paper by Schwartz et al, it mentions a replication whereby some researchers will follow the course of 300 transplants. And where are these researchers based? Well, the University of Arizona!

I've got a sneaking suspicion that the findings will be positive. Call me psychic.

 

[Outhere]

No doubt heart recipients develop the traits of the donor, for as the ancient
Egyptians knew, the heart is the seat of the intelligence and emotions, the brain exists merely to cool the blood. This has been demonstrated in Prof. Schwartz's case. It's true!

 

[SteveGrenard]

edited......

The good doctor is surely a true Renaissance man -- the University of Arizona must be very proud. (Thank God I went to ASU.)

I don’t know how anyone associated with the U of A can hear mention of Dr. Schwartz and not want to put a bag over their head.

......and defecating on the reputation of the university that employs you?

The University of Arizona is a leading center for the study of consciousness. You can read their mission statement here:

http://www.consciousness.arizona.edu/mission.htm

Visit their hompage for links to the latest and prior conferences. You may find their abstracts section of interest, starting here:

http://www.consciousness.arizona.edu/abstracts.htm

The conference homepage is here:

http://www.consciousness.arizona.edu/tucson2006.htm

These conferences were founded and set up by Stuart Hameroff of the University of Arizona whose personal profile and research occurs here:

http://www.quantumconsciousness.org/


As a former ASU student, you may be interested in reviewing other activities of U of A, the other Arizona university, in light of these additional efforts and your conceptions, a few of which were quoted above.

On entirely different track you may like also to acquaint yourself with Dr. Andrew Weill of, er, yes the University of Aridzona:

http://www.drweil.com/u/Page/MeetDrWeil/

And don't forget this either:

http://integrativemedicine.arizona.edu/fellowship/index.html

 

[SteveGrenard]

What do you think, Steve?

I have no idea.

 

[Admiral]

I think most of this talk about statistics and total numbers of transplants has made this hypothesis far too open for data-hunting.

In any very large group, there are going to be a few unlikely coincidences. Dr. Schwartz just has to find a few of them- out of the thousands and thousands of organ transplants- and his paper sounds reasonable to some people.

Ian asked if anyone's conducted interviews with the thousands of other organ recipients to make sure they didn't receive any new traits. It's true, no one has, and that compromises the validity of the experiment. What also compromises the validity of the experiment is

a)Dr. Schwartz was picking from among the entire group, rather than taking a random selection of a predetermined size and studying them.

b)There were no controls to ensure that the recipient hadn't heard about the donor's interests, or hadn't been biased by hearing from friends before the transplant: "I heard you can pick up traits from the donor."

c)There is no way to quantify these experiments. What is the probability that someone will start liking classical music after an organ transplant? These numbers just can't be calculated (consider all the factors that affect the chances- hormonal changes, emotional changes, environmental factors.) Heck, I was never interested in jazz until two years ago, when I suddenly became a big fan, not to mention an amateur jazz trombonist.

Dr. Schwartz is not a scientist- he is a cheap publicity seeker, hoping to get subjective data to support unscientific assertions. I'm shocked that a respected institution like the University of Arizona supports this. Well, I'm not really shocked, considering the ridiculous things schools like Harvard and Princeton have become involved in. (I'm going to Harvard in September, and I'm pretty embarrased about Dr. Schwartz, who's an arrogant graduate of the school.)

Edit-Fixed typo.

 

[SteveGrenard]

And then there's this as well:

http://integrativemedicine.arizona.edu/directors/home/ibell_bio.html



Now by morning I am sure Claus Larsen will be here to ask me what the point is of the links I have just posted. Let's see if anyone can guess? Some of you seem to be engaged in bashing Schwartz and sending condolences to the University of Arizona while studiously ignoring or remaining ignorant that the institution has a much larger, in fact a huge agenda which includes Gary's work as a small but integral part, irrespective of how it pans out. I was a bit amazed that one "prominent" physician involved is not only running the school's alternative and integrative medicine program but is selling his "secret" vitamin formulas to the public on his own website as a sideline. But what the heck, why not? Everyone else is. Nothing surprises me anymore and he sincerely believes and has the benefit of his professional experience and training to "certify" his formulas will be panaceas for unresolved problem areas in medicine. If Randi would take the time to research all the programs at the University of Arizona and at many other highly respected colleges and universities here and abroad he would find that bashing a single person while giving him some personal satisfaction doesn't work in light of both the politics and larger agendas at play which he would find much more questionnable.

I know Gary quite well. He is sincerely interested in the niche he was afforded at the U of A and was enticed to leave opportunities both at his alma mater, Harvard and at Yale to pursue the investigations he now undertakes. He invites and is open minded to criticism but rejects cynicism

 

[CFLarsen]

I have no idea.

You were the one posting the link, Steve.

 

[CFLarsen]

Now by morning I am sure Claus Larsen will be here to ask me what the point is of the links I have just posted.

Of course.

Let's see if anyone can guess? Some of you seem to be engaged in bashing Schwartz and sending condolences to the University of Arizona while studiously ignoring or remaining ignorant that the institution has a much larger, in fact a huge agenda which includes Gary's work as a small but integral part, irrespective of how it pans out.

No, Steve. We are "bashing" Schwartz because he is utterly incompetent, and performs experiments straight out of a lunatic asylum. Calling that "science" is a travesty and an insult to real scientists.

I was a bit amazed that one "prominent" physician involved is not only running the school's alternative and integrative medicine program but is selling his "secret" vitamin formulas to the public on his own website as a sideline. But what the heck, why not? Everyone else is. Nothing surprises me anymore and he sincerely believes and has the benefit of his professional experience and training to "certify" his formulas will be panaceas for unresolved problem areas in medicine. If Randi would take the time to research all the programs at the University of Arizona and at many other highly respected colleges and universities here and abroad he would find that bashing a single person while giving him some personal satisfaction doesn't work in light of both the politics and larger agendas at play which he would find much more questionnable.

As you well know, Randi would love to see what Schwartz is doing. The only one preventing that is Schwartz himself, by insisting on putting a gag on Randi. Schwartz wanted to control what Randi said, something Randi naturally refused.

Do you think it is scientific of Schwartz to want to control what his critics say?

I know Gary quite well. He is sincerely interested in the niche he was afforded at the U of A and was enticed to leave opportunities both at his alma mater, Harvard and at Yale to pursue the investigations he now undertakes. He invites and is open minded to criticism but rejects cynicism

No, he is not open minded to criticism. He wants to control what his critics say. He has flatly refused (also through you) to make his data available.

Do you find that having a "departed hypothesized co-investigator" in an experiment is particularly scientific, Steve?

 

[Interesting Ian]

Actually, the more I think about it, aren’t these two discoveries diametrically opposed? I mean, if human consciousness survives death, why are pieces of it sticking around and inhabiting donated organs after the donor is dead? Say a piano virtuoso dies and donates her kidneys to a bricklayer. Does the surviving consciousness of the departed pianist lose her musical ability (assuming there’s some means to indulge it in the Hereafter) while her donated organs inhabit the recipient’s body? And when the bricklayer dies, will his acquired virtuosity be reunited with its original owner? Does any of this make a lick of sense?

All the evidence is perplexing and challenging, but it is far from clear that it is nonsense.

Hey, why labor in anonymity doing real science, when you can make a name for yourself by whoring your academic credentials and defecating on the reputation of the university that employs you?

Such is the attitude of a typical "skeptic". Why bother doing any science at all since we already know precisely what exists and how the world must work?

 

[Stellafane]

Such is the attitude of a typical "skeptic". Why bother doing any science at all since we already know precisely what exists and how the world must work?

Hi Ian. With all due respect, how on Earth did you derive that conclusion from what I wrote? I'm all for Dr. Schwartz doing science. The problem is, he isn't, certainly not in any way real scientists define that word. The way he goes about it, the only data his research produces is entirely subjective and anecdotal. There are absolutely no measures to prevent bias, to establish a control baseline against which to compare results, or to ensure any kind of objectivity (even though it would have been trivially easy to put such measures in place). Dr. Schwartz's sloppy and unscientific protocol should shame a college freshman, never mind a full-fledged professor.

You think I wouldn't like to believe Dr. Schwartz is onto something? You think I prefer not to believe that after I die, my consciousness will remain functioning and intact forever, apparently happy, and with some ability to interact with my loved ones? Of course I would -- who wouldn't? But no matter how much I'd desperately like to think all this is true, Dr. Schwartz's methods aren't the way to prove it to me. And now he's applying those same subjective, cherry-picking methods to the paradigm-shifting theory that organ transplants carry with them the talents and interests of the donors. Can't you see why I might be similarly skeptical of Dr. Schwartz's results in this area?

 

[CFLarsen]

Bumped for Steve Grenard:

Do you think it is scientific of Schwartz to want to control what his critics say?

Do you find that having a "departed hypothesized co-investigator" in an experiment is particularly scientific?