Cold Reading Demos at TAM2

[T'ai Chi]

Are you kidding?

No, I'm T'ai Chi.

As far as I can see it, Schwartz is just unhappy with Randi's journalism (if the result is pro or con), not any other skeptics. It doesn't appear that Schwartz is outright banning skeptics, just Randi's writing of the experimental results. Perhaps Schwartz would have no problem letting other skeptics write about it? Then Randi could read their commentary and write about their commentary.

Anyway, here is what Schwartz said.

"Hence, we told him that we are happy for his consultation, but not his journalism, PRO OR CON the research. Randi does not like it when people question his questionable ethics. We have no need or interest in Randi's praise or propaganda; however, we do respect his suggestions on experimental design."

I don't agree with Schwartz on this, but this is just what he said.

So Bill, I take it that no skeptic anywhere has sat in Schwartz's chair yet? Why? It should be so easy to do.....

 

[BillHoyt]

No, I'm T'ai Chi.

As far as I can see it, Schwartz is just unhappy with Randi's journalism (if the result is pro or con), not any other skeptics. It doesn't appear that Schwartz is outright banning skeptics, just Randi's writing of the experimental results. Perhaps Schwartz would have no problem letting other skeptics write about it? Then Randi could read their commentary and write about their commentary.

Anyway, here is what Schwartz said.

"Hence, we told him that we are happy for his consultation, but not his journalism, PRO OR CON the research. Randi does not like it when people question his questionable ethics. We have no need or interest in Randi's praise or propaganda; however, we do respect his suggestions on experimental design."

I don't agree with Schwartz on this, but this is just what he said.

So Bill, I take it that no skeptic anywhere has sat in Schwartz's chair yet? Why? It should be so easy to do.....

Yep, I figured you hadn't been keeping up with events here. Schwartz has added new rules beyond the "only I decide if, when where and how the results get published rule." You see, the offer he extends to other skeptics is the "game show" scenario. But he added another layer before anybody could take him up on that. He must qualify each prospective contestant beforehand on matters paranormal to decide whether or not they are sufficiently intelligent to be tested.

Gee, guess what? Nobody bothered to go through his inquisition.

So now he gets to exclude anybody he wants from the test, and gets to control publication of the results.

 

[T'ai Chi]

Ian,
(snip)

Is there anything more recent than from the 1980's?!

If not, that would tell me that paraspychology experiments and methods are indeed improving! Or that magicians etc. are getting worse.

 

[BillHoyt]

Is there anything more recent than from the 1980's?!

If not, that would tell me that paraspychology experiments and methods are indeed improving! Or that magicians etc. are getting worse. [/B]

Really, it tells you that? The depths of your fallacious logic are astounding.

Edited to add: I also suggest glasses or increased font size on your screen. The paper cited is from 1990.

 

[CFLarsen]

No, I'm T'ai Chi.

No, you're Whodini.

As far as I can see it, Schwartz is just unhappy with Randi's journalism (if the result is pro or con), not any other skeptics. It doesn't appear that Schwartz is outright banning skeptics, just Randi's writing of the experimental results. Perhaps Schwartz would have no problem letting other skeptics write about it? Then Randi could read their commentary and write about their commentary.

Me thinks you are confusing journalism with facts. If Randi had gone and butchered Schwartz' data unfairly, it would have been a major coup for Schwartz to have pointed this out, while referred to the data.

However, Schwartz chose to reject Randi's analysis, before Randi had even looked at the data.

(Schwartz "Hence, we told him that we are happy for his consultation, but not his journalism, PRO OR CON the research. Randi does not like it when people question his questionable ethics. We have no need or interest in Randi's praise or propaganda; however, we do respect his suggestions on experimental design."

"Respect"? Why did Schwartz agree that Randi had excellent points about the experimental design, but chose to ignore all of them? Because Schwartz knew, that if he included Randi's suggestions, the mediums would fail.

So Bill, I take it that no skeptic anywhere has sat in Schwartz's chair yet? Why? It should be so easy to do.....

What, exactly, do you mean by "sitting in Schwartz' chair"? Do you mean conduct an experiment like Schwartz'?

 

[BillHoyt]

"Respect"? Why did Schwartz agree that Randi had excellent points about the experimental design, but chose to ignore all of them? Because Schwartz knew, that if he included Randi's suggestions, the mediums would fail.

Or following Ian's noble suggestion, perhaps he conducted the experiment, it failed, and he decided not to publish it. "If the parapsychologists had discovered the conjurers I scarcely think they would have bothered shouting it from the rooftops ."


Ian, would you care now to argue against yourself? Use one of your many sock puppets to keep it interesting.

 

[BillHoyt]

Can't you just hear the jaws of Ian's fallacious logic trap snapping? If you think about his claim, and walk it through the "why didn't Schwartz improve the controls and re-test" question, Ian's assertion gives a very unkind conclusion.

 

[Lucianarchy]

Really?

Which cold reader has turned Schwartz down?

All of them by default, for not accepting the research chair challenge put out by GS.

Can you point out why Schwartz' experiments were scientifically solid?

Irrelevant. If the experiments are leaky, then there's more chance of a CR tapping them.

 

[CFLarsen]

All of them by default, for not accepting the research chair challenge put out by GS.

Whoa, just a second. What "challenge"??

Irrelevant. If the experiments are leaky, then there's more chance of a CR tapping them.

It is "irrelevant" whether an experiment claiming to be scientific, actually is? Do you realise how stupid an argument that is?

 

[thaiboxerken]

GS has a stunt out there challenging skeptical cold-readers to outperform mediums. Schwartz is basically shifting the burden of evidence to the skeptics AND he's controlling allt he cards of his challenge. GS is a fool.

 

[T'ai Chi]

No, you're Whodini.

Cantata,

Does my current account read "Whodini" or "T'ai Chi"? Let us know...

I leave it up to you to again focus on a user instead of the issue of Schwartz and cold reading.

Me thinks you are confusing journalism with facts. If Randi had gone and butchered Schwartz' data unfairly, it would have been a major coup for Schwartz to have pointed this out, while referred to the data.

I just pasted what Schwartz said on the issue.

Why did Schwartz agree that Randi had excellent points about the experimental design, but chose to ignore all of them? Because Schwartz knew, that if he included Randi's suggestions, the mediums would fail.

Schwartz said that he implemented at least some of Randi's suggestions. That isn't "ignore all of them" as you claim.

This is what Schwartz said on the issue. It can be found by doing a Google search for "Schwartz" and "Randi", and is on the first page of results:
(bold added by me)

"We came to Randi to get his suggestions about our planned multi-center, double-blind experiment. Randi made some suggestions which we have incorporated in the design. For example, Randi likes the idea of having sitters guess which is their reading (a binary, yes-no decision). We prefer having every item scored, for hits and misses. We told Randi we would add his scoring request even though we consider it to be less precise.
...
Our multi-center, double-blind procedure has been approved by the IRB at the University of Arizona, and we are pilot testing it right now. It includes Randi's suggestions."

What, exactly, do you mean by "sitting in Schwartz' chair"? Do you mean conduct an experiment like Schwartz'?

I think it is more along the lines of skeptics make comments that so and so is happening, then Schwartz says no that is not the case, etc., but the skeptics still say yes it is, and cold readers could take advantage of it, etc. Schwartz then says yeah, well prove it if it is so easy. It should be easy, right? ...

 

[BillHoyt]

Schwartz said that he implemented at least some of Randi's suggestions. That isn't "ignore all of them" as you claim.

This is what Schwartz said on the issue. It can be found by doing a Google search for "Schwartz" and "Randi", and is on the first page of results:
(bold added by me)

"We came to Randi to get his suggestions about our planned multi-center, double-blind experiment. Randi made some suggestions which we have incorporated in the design. For example, Randi likes the idea of having sitters guess which is their reading (a binary, yes-no decision). We prefer having every item scored, for hits and misses. We told Randi we would add his scoring request even though we consider it to be less precise.
...
Our multi-center, double-blind procedure has been approved by the IRB at the University of Arizona, and we are pilot testing it right now. It includes Randi's suggestions."

Uh, no. Schwartz did not implement Randi's suggestion. He merged it into his study design, diluting the effects of what Randi suggested. That is not the same. Randi said to abandon the vagaries of the old scoring system and to substitute a binary approach. Schwartz tries to combine them. No deal. It lets in exactly the sitter bias Randi's suggestion aimed to remove.

Care to try again?

I think it is more along the lines of skeptics make comments that so and so is happening, then Schwartz says no that is not the case, etc., but the skeptics still say yes it is, and cold readers could take advantage of it, etc. Schwartz then says yeah, well prove it if it is so easy. It should be easy, right? ...

Yes, the skeptic test would be easy. If Schwartz did not demand that he has the right to remove candidates at the outset. If Schwartz did not stipulate that the sitting skeptic can't publish the results in any way shape or form. The setup is transparent: He can remove anybody he thinks may be able to perform well at the beginning. Then he gets the opportunity to eliminate data at the back end of the study. And no participant can blow the whistle because they've signed the keep-your-mouth-shut agreement.

Care to try again?

 

[T'ai Chi]

Uh, no. Schwartz did not implement Randi's suggestion. He merged it into his study design, diluting the effects of what Randi suggested. That is not the same.

Ok. He just "merged" it, he didn't implement it.

Yes, the skeptic test would be easy.

Blinding could easily be done (and yes, triple blind does make sense and is a common term, despite peoples' protest otherwise), so where are the skeptics? Shouldn't they be lining up to show how easy it is and how flawed Schwartz's design/etc. supposedly is?

So what are you waiting for? I think I know...

 

[NoZed Avenger]

So what are you waiting for? I think I know... [/B]

So before anyone can come to an opinion regarding any protocals, we have to become cold readers and haggle with Schwartz?

May I have a grant to put my life on hold?

N/A

PS Garrette did attempt to accept the offer -- I think his last message indicated that he had not received a reply from Dr. Schwartz, but as Garrette will not be available for a bit, there may be a delay, anyway.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Considering that Schwartz doesn't release the raw data of his experiments for scientific review, his credibility is questionable at best. It's my opinion that Schwartz would cheat in his challenge, and he suspects that the skeptics know it.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Shouldn't they be lining up to show how easy it is and how flawed Schwartz's design/etc. supposedly is?

No need to. Schwartz has a claim, it's up to him to provide the evidence. With GS's challenge, he is simply trying to shift the burden of evidence upon the skeptics. If GS had real evidence of mediumship, it would withstand scientific scrutiny AND his results should be replicable by other scientists.

 

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian

If the parapsychologists had discovered the conjurers I scarcely think they would have bothered shouting it from the rooftops . And even if they had it is implausible that the skeptical community would have banged on about how they tried to fool parapsychologists but dismally failed!


Billy Bean

Who cares what you scarcely think.

Oh right. They would have shouted it from the rooftops then? Silly me for thinking otherwise.

That you scarcely think is abundantly obvious. Read Hansen's The Journal of the American Society for Psychical Research paper on deception in parapsychology Then read his references, including papers on psi researcher-discovered fraud.

Ummm . .impressive non-sequitur! I'm sure this is all vewry interesting Billy, but it has s*d all to do with what we're discussing

You know I find it quite amazing. You're the one who keeps banging on about informal logical fallacies, yet :

• You continually commit them yourself
• And you continually falsely accuse others of committing them!
  [/list=a]
  
  Not impressive I'm afraid BillyBean
  
  

  That you would try to beat skeptics over the head by telling us of the ethical deficiencies of some or many of, and by impugning the motives of nearly all psi researchers is a psichedelic trip. Welcome to our side of the argument anyway, and be careful of overstating our case as you just have.

  
  Is the above supposed to make any remotest sense?? Anyone help me here?

 

[BillHoyt]

Oh right. They would have shouted it from the rooftops then? Silly me for thinking otherwise.



Ummm . .impressive non-sequitur! I'm sure this is all vewry interesting Billy, but it has s*d all to do with what we're discussing

Ian,

This is your usual ploy after making a mockery of yourself. Let me break down for you: you claimed that parapsychologists would never have published when they discovered fraud in their test subjects. I cited a paper discussing this very subject. Of course, you read it, right? Sure you did.

You know I find it quite amazing. You're the one who keeps banging on about informal logical fallacies, yet :

• You continually commit them yourself
• And you continually falsely accuse others of committing them!
  [/list=a]
  
  Not impressive I'm afraid BillyBean

• 
  Well, let's see. You don't read the paper I cited. You assert it is a non-sequitur. Then you bounce from your incorrect instance to this hasty generalization. Man, your 0 for what... a thousand. Have another drink.
  

  Is the above supposed to make any remotest sense?? Anyone help me here?

  Your aldehyde levels are too high. Sleep it off.
  
  If and when, Ian, you are ever prepared to truly discuss something and to cease this ranting and raving about how much bigger your pea brain is than anybody else's here at JREF, I'm ready to discuss issues such as the incredible hole you dug for yourself with this crap. Meanwhile, get a book on logic and be sure to read it while sober.

 

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
"Respect"? Why did Schwartz agree that Randi had excellent points about the experimental design, but chose to ignore all of them? Because Schwartz knew, that if he included Randi's suggestions, the mediums would fail.


BillyBean
Or following Ian's noble suggestion, perhaps he conducted the experiment, it failed, and he decided not to publish it. "If the parapsychologists had discovered the conjurers I scarcely think they would have bothered shouting it from the rooftops ."

WOW!! Do you have no integrity whatsoever?? I have no idea if Schwartz is not publishing negative results. If he isn't, that clearly shows he is not being honest and should not be taken seriously. I have no hesitation in stating that.

I was talking about the scenario where people are discovered to be cheating. If people are cheating the results are clearly worthless. Presumably therefore such results should be discarded? Yes? I can't understand your problem here. Please tell me Bill, if people are discovered cheating then what should we do with the data? You're opposed to discarding it, so what should we do with such results???

 

[Interesting Ian]

Ian,

This is your usual ploy after making a mockery of yourself. Let me break down for you: you claimed that parapsychologists would never have published when they discovered fraud in their test subjects.

Not at all. They should mention it. What I'm saying is that I wouldn't imagine they'd make a song and dance about it. You know, sort of along the lines "ha ha ha, the skeptics tried to fool us, but they failed! ". I imagine they would simply take note of the fact, learn from the experience, and move on.

Interesting Ian

You know I find it quite amazing. You're the one who keeps banging on about informal logical fallacies, yet :


1. You continually commit them yourself
2. And you continually falsely accuse others of committing them!



Not impressive I'm afraid BillyBean

BillyBean
Well, let's see. You don't read the paper I cited.

I didn't, I'm well aware of fraud in parapsychological research. More pertinently, it's wholly irrelevant to our discussion. Of course it's interesting in its own right. I have no hesitation in admitting it's very difficult indeed to come to a definitive decision that something anomalous is going on. I think this is absolutely clear and it's something I absolutely wouldn't deny.

You assert it is a non-sequitur.

Yes that's right! WOW, please don't dazzle me with your awesome comprehension ability!!

Then you bounce from your incorrect instance to this hasty generalization. Man, your 0 for what... a thousand. Have another drink.

Hmmm . . I've made a hasty generalisation?? I am truly mortified But tell me so I can learn. What is this hasty generalisation I made?

Is the above supposed to make any remotest sense?? Anyone help me here?


Your aldehyde levels are too high. Sleep it off.

OK, anyone help me? What on earth was Billy talking about?