Proof of Life After Death!!

[Garrette]

From Robin's blog

"I searched for comfort wanting to know for sure my dad still existed and was a part of all of our lives. This in turn led me to psychic mediums in search of proof. I attended psychic fairs, conferences, and had some private readings as well. What I learned is something I always knew in my heart...your soul lives on, love truly is eternal, and your deceased loved one is closer than you know!"

So you were not open minded, you wanted it to work. You kept going because...

"What I also learned unfortunately is that there are plenty of fake "psychic mediums" out there pretending to connect with your loved ones. I for one am not easily fooled by the fishing and general statements and questions and answers of fake mediums. The biggest test...I have to be told something very specific to me by the medium that there is no way he could have known unless my father told him."

...so you were not convinced of any of them until....

"....John Edward. His comments directed to me only as I stood there were spot on. He gave a lot of correct information about my dad...."

So finally you met one you were convinced by as he came out with the type of information you were looking for, details you say no one else could know.

But, random on its own could account for that, go to loads of mediums and random says you will meet one who can give you the information you were looking for. Meanwhile others will not have got the information they were looking for from Mr Edward and so will be off finding solace with the mediums you say are fake.

For Mr Edward to be truly convincing he would have to be spot on with way, way more than just you and all the others would have to be wrong all the time. You must understand that and realise that is why you have had the reaction so far you have had.

When you said your initial doubts faded as....

"He gave a lot of correct information about my dad such as family names and that his name has an ST sound...his name was Salvatore. And correct information about my dad having a problem with his brain. Impressive but I was not totally convinced. UNTIL.... He said my dad told him I just bought a new refrigerator....."

..we see a medium doing the usual medium tricks and with you he got on a roll and so you are convinced.

But it is not scientific at all to take that one occasion and to then declare he is a true medium. He needs to do it again and again and again under very rigorous conditions. It is not closed minded to say, we want more evidence before Mr Edward is declared a true medium who really can talk to the dead.

Welcome to a sceptic's forum and see how we function.

Nice summary. It brings up the law of large numbers, too. Even if we discard warm reading and hot reading (and we really can't), then eventually Edward will have one or two or three amazingly accurate hits just by chance. Add in all the mediums who do this and the number of incidents that appear to be irrefutable proof skyrocket; that a number of them appear on blogs or the occasional video is less than impressive.

ETA: I also note, as I did when I visited Robin's blog, that there are exactly zero misses listed. I find this difficult to believe, that absolutely everything John Edward said was a hit. There's the confirmation bias for you.

 

[Garrette]

There is nothing else in the psychic realm.

I don't fully agree, except in the literal sense. Like Skeptic Ginger, I do see some value in specific cases regarding grief counseling, but I reserve that for the several I know who were not conscious frauds as John Edward is. Most of those I know whom I believe honestly think they are psychic are legitimately concerned about the emotional well being of their sitters, and their skills at cold reading, their intuition, and their empathy often allow at least temporary improvements in the emotional state of their sitters. I suspect that this benefit is less than the benefit to be expected from coming to grips with reality, but it is still better than sitting home and grieving alone, at least for some.*

*The above is completely unsupported speculation on my part. I have no qualifications as a psychologist or psychiatrist.

 

[dafydd]

I went a counselor after my wife died. He didn't pretend to get in touch with her. That would have been obtaining money under false pretenses.

 

[Garrette]

I went a counselor after my wife died. He didn't pretend to get in touch with her. That would have been obtaining money under false pretenses.

Sorry about your loss. In my hour of need I would not go to someone who thought they were contacting the dead, but you are mixing ethics and results.

 

[Garrette]

--snip--

With regard to pointing people to my blog and ALL the comments...it has mostly all been said and questioned and answered there already so that saves me the time of having to do it all over again!

You came here with a claim; we did not go there. Suppose I pop over to your house and tell you I make the world's best ham sandwich. All you have to do is run down to my house, sort through the refrigerator for the ingredients I refuse to list for you and then put it together with the secret sauce I won't divulge.

Hey cut me some slack I have 3 kids!

And you think we don't have other demands on our time?

Also I must say some of the comments and back and forth should give a chuckle to anyone interested in the subject.

That's the point. Most comments are not relevant to your argument yet you want us to read through them anyway because you have three kids and can't be bothered to support the claim that you came here to make.

And no I have personally nothing to gain from people reading my blog.

So the ads I had to close provide no benefit to you at all? You simply allow other companies to put ads on your blog because you're terribly nice that way?

But of course if you have a question or point that was not adequately addressed there then we can discuss it here.

Okay. The point that was not adequately addressed is the claim that John Edward is an authentic medium. Please discuss.


Note: This post is a bit snarky, but I did it to demonstrate something. I hope you can decipher what that is.

 

[dafydd]

Sorry about your loss. In my hour of need I would not go to someone who thought they were contacting the dead, but you are mixing ethics and results.

It would be fine with me if the counselors who claim to be in touch with the dead actually had to pass a test to prove it. Now where could such a test be found?

 

[Nessie]

Robin, do you really not have any alarm bells ringing from having been to so many false mediums until you found a true one?

Was there anything that Edward did that was completely different from all the other mediums? (I do not mean he was right and they were wrong, I mean in terms of technique)

 

[GregInAustin]

I have a fundamental question: How does one person's personal experience with a psychic "prove" that there is life after death? Even if Edward were a real psychic, it still comes down to his word against yours. Memories and experiences hardly constitute proof of something as extraordinary as life after death.

Before you can even prove life after death, you have to prove 100 other things that we have no evidence for. Such as:
1. Proof that souls exist.
2. wait... where's the proof for #1?
3. see #2
...

Regarding John Edward: I was very sick recently, and could do nothing else but lay on the couch and watch tv. There was a daytime talk show with Edward on it (can't remember which show right now, as I had not seen it before, nor have since.) The host said she was skeptical of psychics and mediums (good for her) but she allowed these 2 "mediums" to do their thing anyway.

During their talk, John Edward admitted that even though he made a living as a psychic, he had NO IDEA that his mother was dying of cancer. He even told his mother's doctor that if she really had cancer, he (John) would know, because he was psychic. Somehow this story was supposed to explain why he learned how to talk to the dead, not show that obviously he did not posses the abilities he claimed to.

He then proceeded to do cold readings of the audience, making vague statements, waiting for a hit, then narrowing his questions down to what seemed like specifics. I didn't take notes, but it his hit to miss ratio was pathetic. Laughable even. I did not watch the rest of the show, so I have no idea how it turned out.

 

[lopeyschools]

Are we talking about the same John Edwards who won biggest douche in the universe award?

I just watched that episode of south park yesterday and I was thinking about how he would be taken apart on JREF forums. Now it is happening.

Does that make me psyhic?

 

[poblob14]

ETA: I also note, as I did when I visited Robin's blog, that there are exactly zero misses listed. I find this difficult to believe, that absolutely everything John Edward said was a hit. There's the confirmation bias for you.

I agree with you in principle, but it seems to me that there was in fact a miss listed: the ST thing. As pointed out before, "Salvatore" has no ST sound, nor anything close to an ST sound. It has the letters ST, but not together, and that (apparently) isn't what was said anyway. That sounds like a complete miss to me.

Also, the two "stomach procedures" . . . we aren't told much about the "feeding tubes" that were put in; some of those could be considered "stomach procedures," some not. I don't know if that's really a hit or not.

 

[Garrette]

I have a fundamental question: How does one person's personal experience with a psychic "prove" that there is life after death? Even if Edward were a real psychic, it still comes down to his word against yours. Memories and experiences hardly constitute proof of something as extraordinary as life after death.

Before you can even prove life after death, you have to prove 100 other things that we have no evidence for. Such as:
1. Proof that souls exist.
2. wait... where's the proof for #1?
3. see #2
...

Regarding John Edward: I was very sick recently, and could do nothing else but lay on the couch and watch tv. There was a daytime talk show with Edward on it (can't remember which show right now, as I had not seen it before, nor have since.) The host said she was skeptical of psychics and mediums (good for her) but she allowed these 2 "mediums" to do their thing anyway.

During their talk, John Edward admitted that even though he made a living as a psychic, he had NO IDEA that his mother was dying of cancer. He even told his mother's doctor that if she really had cancer, he (John) would know, because he was psychic. Somehow this story was supposed to explain why he learned how to talk to the dead, not show that obviously he did not posses the abilities he claimed to.

He then proceeded to do cold readings of the audience, making vague statements, waiting for a hit, then narrowing his questions down to what seemed like specifics. I didn't take notes, but it his hit to miss ratio was pathetic. Laughable even. I did not watch the rest of the show, so I have no idea how it turned out.

I am not certain, but I think John Edward is the one who pioneered a technique that is becoming more common and which adds to the air of authenticity. He occasionally insists a miss is a hit, not just by glossing over it, but by almost rudely insisting that a certain statement applies to the person he is talking to and they should remember it later (this applies to Robin and the "hit" regarding Valerie Harper and Robin's brother). He knows he is safe for at least three reasons:

1. If it really is a miss, most or all will forget it.

2. The pool of vague connections on which the sitter can draw has suddenly become infinite; the sitter is no longer under pressure to come up with something right there. Instead, they can concoct any connection they like at any time after the show and then turn it in to free publicity such as Robin has.

3. The standard reaction of believing observers is "If he were fake he wouldn't do that," ignoring the fact that conmen are smart enough to know that this is precisely how the marks will think. It is subtly tautological.

 

[Garrette]

I agree with you in principle, but it seems to me that there was in fact a miss listed: the ST thing. As pointed out before, "Salvatore" has no ST sound, nor anything close to an ST sound. It has the letters ST, but not together, and that (apparently) isn't what was said anyway. That sounds like a complete miss to me.

Also, the two "stomach procedures" . . . we aren't told much about the "feeding tubes" that were put in; some of those could be considered "stomach procedures," some not. I don't know if that's really a hit or not.

Ah. I agree. I should have said "There is nothing listed that Robin thought was a miss."

 

[Garrette]

Are we talking about the same John Edwards who won biggest douche in the universe award?

I just watched that episode of south park yesterday and I was thinking about how he would be taken apart on JREF forums. Now it is happening.

Does that make me psyhic?

Yes, but I will emphasize my nitpick again. It is John Edward. There is no S.

 

[Robin1]

Ok, now my kids are going to be mad...Why are there no presents Mommy?...well darlings Mommy got obsessed and trapped on a life after death thread...
K... NO way for John Edward to know about fridge or Valerie Harper connection or tooth in pocket...no talking about any of it before or during event...NO We did NOT offer ANY info to John or hints while being read...we didn't fill out any forms or talk to anyone there. Seating was random. Fridge and Valerie Harper statements made directly to me and my brother NOT thrown out to the entire group of 75 people just waiting for someone to bite. THAT is the proof...problem is not lack of proof but the lack of ability of some to even entertain the notion of life after death could ever be a possibility...EVER. Cause most certainly if you coud entertain that ridiculous notion you could also entertain the notion that communication is possible. NOW, I gonna go Chris..oh forget it..I gonna sit here and wait for responses...

 

[truethat]

Robin

I read your blog.

Your last name has an ST in it. And you are named Robin and are a blonde American looking for information about your dead father.

You say that they were married for 51 years. Let's see, your father would have been someone who was alive when Pearl Harbor happened. That's like someone doing a reading about me for my kids when I have died and based on their age they say "I'm seeing a 911 connection.'

You could have said something or indicated in some way that you had just bought a new refrigerator without realizing it or it would be a lucky guess.

Valerie Harper connection, based on your father's age, Mary Tyler Moore was a popular show when your father was younger.

Now consider, you don't think it is unusual that this medium happened to know the two things you just recently purchased? Things that would have left a receipt behind?

Seems to me that you may have spoken about these things and been overheard.

Next I have the same question that everyone else does. Your father comes back from the other side to discuss your fridge, tickets to a show and nothing at all about the other side or your life in ways that are meaningful?

Remember the end of the Sixth Sense, when the boy tells his mother what her mother had said, that's the kind of thing that would convince me.

 

[Garrette]

The problem is that we (or at least I) do in fact entertain the possibility. So seriously that some of us have shared that belief. The issue is not that we ignore proof. The issue is that we have looked at what is called proof and find it lacking. You case is the same. You can stridently insist all you like, but without a transcript and without far more info on the show and the lead up to it and without a discussion of things like the Forer Effect and the law of large numbers you cannot legitimately claim this as proof.

So do yo!u want to address specifics about JE or would you rather discuss Schwartz since you brought him up? I trust the fact that we already know about his book has not scared you off the topic.

And now I have to step away for a while.

Cheers

 

[Sledge]

So there are two possibilities here: the first is that our understanding of the universe is almost entirely incorrect, and that the dead hang around communicating with their loved ones via vague messages relayed through John Edward. The second is that John Edward is a calculating conman taking advantage of people's grief to line his pockets via parlour tricks. Which of these is most likely?

 

[truethat]

Let's see if I can do a psychic reading for you.

You are seeking some answer you didn't get from your father when he was alive. You seem to have had a very close relationship with your father. His illness was unexpected and shocking and you weren't able to find some sort of closure with some issues because you couldn't discuss anything with him.

You are worried for your mother and feeling responsible. He died a grusome illness that tore apart his brain and shut down his body. You watched over him as he suffered and always wondered if he could hear you speaking to him.

Your children ask you about him and you want to give a strong answer. This is based on some conversation or discussion you had as a child. I'm picking up on a "life shock" at a young age associated with death. One that you had difficulty understanding.

How am I doing so far?

 

[Resume]

Next time someone attends one of these events, and is "lucky" enough to get a reading, might you please ask about the afterlife? What's it like? Is there a big dog like a god or something? Is there beer? Pizza?

Who gives a **** about the fridge I just purchased? The watch I kept. The picture of us fishing. I know about all that truck already for crissake!

 

[carlitos]

I am not certain, but I think John Edward is the one who pioneered a technique that is becoming more common and which adds to the air of authenticity. He occasionally insists a miss is a hit, not just by glossing over it, but by almost rudely insisting that a certain statement applies to the person he is talking to and they should remember it later (this applies to Robin and the "hit" regarding Valerie Harper and Robin's brother). He knows he is safe for at least three reasons:

1. If it really is a miss, most or all will forget it.

2. The pool of vague connections on which the sitter can draw has suddenly become infinite; the sitter is no longer under pressure to come up with something right there. Instead, they can concoct any connection they like at any time after the show and then turn it in to free publicity such as Robin has.

3. The standard reaction of believing observers is "If he were fake he wouldn't do that," ignoring the fact that conmen are smart enough to know that this is precisely how the marks will think. It is subtly tautological.

Great points. Add to this - conmen like Edward have a set of excuses for being caught in lies, and they don't think like a moral person would. You or I think - If I tell a like, I might get caught. Edward is a serial liar; he just moves to the next lie or sucker to be conned.

Anyway, this is possibly the most boring special claim ever.

Robin, your dad wants to tell you something.

(anticipation)

He says that you have a new refrigerator.
​

I just don't find that compelling or interesting.