Interesting Ian
Unregistered
I
Oh yes, and I admit I am drunk. Just got in from a nightclub and I've had about 9 pints. But I can still outargue you Billy me boy! 
LOL
LOL
Ian,Interesting Ian said:
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???
How about you set this aside for a time when you are neither drunk nor hung over, eh? Then you might be able to follow the logic. You asserted that you scarcely think the discovery of cheaters would ever be published. Now we have a case of a parapsychologist who published positive results on JE, was roundly criticized for having so many holes in his methods and was given specific suggestions to repeat tightened testing of JE. Now, Ian, what happens if he finds JE fails? The dilemma is yours, I'm afaid. You said you scarcely think a finding of cheating would be published. But Schwartz published glowingly of the impressive success of JE. The differences between the last test and this test would all center around eliminating the possibility of JE cheating or of sitter bias. Schwartz would have to conclude that one of those things must have happened in his previous studies. But Ian's logic says such a revelation would scarcely happen. Ian's logic, in fact, would lead to the conclusion that these psi studies run in waves. Something looks hot for a while, then the big oops discovery happens, and nothing more is heard on the topic.
Welcome to our side, Ian!
No, Ian, here is what you said:Interesting Ian said: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.
"note that if the conjurors had have been detected we would never have heard of it! '
We would never have heard of it. That means they would never have published detected frauds or hoaxes. By this logic, then, Ian, if Schwartz finds out JE is simply a "conjuror," we would never hear of it. Now in the above post, you're actually advocating burying the data. "They should mention it" defies all research ethics normally followed by scientists. If a scientist uncovers trip-up points that can jeopardize experiments, the normal procedure is to publish a cautionary paper so that this information can be spread throughout the community. In the case of these so-called star psi guys, I fail to see why they should simply and lamely "mention it." Where, at a noisy bath house? While sailing with friends? No, they publish. Moreover, if they have had the misfortune to have published one study claiming a so-called star psi guy really can lift snotballs off tissues with only his mind and then discover they had been duped, it is imperative that they publish the research that retracts the previous results. This is normal procedure amongst those honestly trying to uncover truth.
"They should mention it." How lamely disingenuous can you get?
Interesting Ian
Unregistered
I
BillHoyt said:
Why? It's scarcely going to improve your idiocy now is it?
To be perfectly serious though, I think it is clear that you are simply making a fool of yourself. Whether I am sober or drunk will not alter that fact BillyBean
BillyBean, in the past 20 months I have been conversing with you on here, I have never known you to display any consistent logic. Are you to expect me to believe that things are about to miraculously change???
LOLI did not state that. I said that no doubt it would be noted, but that they would not shout about it from the roof tops. Do you understand the difference BillyBeany Poos?
Well then he fails
Quite honestly though I really don't have much interest in JE Billy Poos. It certainly wouldn't effect my belief in an afterlife one iota You really are a laugh a minute aren't you?
I'd never heard of JE, or Sylvia Brown, or these other guys you skeptics keep hysterically ranting about until I came on this board. Yet you expect me to abandon my belief in survival should these guys get exposed as frauds! 
Do you have any notion whatsover how stupid you sound?? You keep banging on about Schwartz and JE for the rest of your post. I cannot address this issue because I have never seen JE perform, nor any of the other mediums that skeptics love to discuss. I've only heard about the mediums that books discuss. I have a life long interest in the paranormal and the question of whether we survive the death of our bodies. I have read many many books. Yet, before coming on here, I have never heard of any one of these mediums that skeptics hysterically rant on about. Yes that's right. You heard correctly. Maybe it's because I'm from the UK. That and the fact I have little interest in that which other people find so engrossing. The point is I do not know anything about JE and SB, and the other guy. Nor have I any interest. Nor am I interested whether they get exposed as frauds. Hey!! Am I getting though to you yet??
NoZed Avenger said:
Well certainly people can have opinions on something, but don't expect your opinions to be taken too seriously if you are a cold-reading skeptic who keeps claiming that it is so easy or so flawed, but yet doesn't want to 'sit in the chair'.
The people who get challenged for the million dollar challenge could say the same thing. Yes, they might have the million, but if you beat Schwartz's design, you'd also probably have a career booster.
Garrette are you reading this? What has been done up to date?
NoZed is correct.
I e-mailed Schwartz offering to be tested under the same conditions he tested JE. I did this after Steve Grenard said he had already spoken with Schwartz about it and Schwartz (according to Steve) was receptive.
I have not heard back. I will e-mail again at some point.
I e-mailed Schwartz offering to be tested under the same conditions he tested JE. I did this after Steve Grenard said he had already spoken with Schwartz about it and Schwartz (according to Steve) was receptive.
I have not heard back. I will e-mail again at some point.
T'ai Chi said:I leave it up to you to again focus on a user instead of the issue of Schwartz and cold reading.
I leave it up to you to again not refer to your user ID, then.
T'ai Chi said:
And? You have no opinion of it?
T'ai Chi said:
I refer you to page 164 in "The Afterlife Experiments". Here, Pat Price is read by John Edward. He asks repeatedly "Do you understand that?", which is perhaps the oldest trick in the cold reading book.
You can also find examples of this on pages 85-105 (George Anderson).
Often, the "yes/no" questions are so vague and cover such a wide area that it would be very difficult not to answer "yes".
That is not a true binary test. That is rigging the results.
Ergo, Schwartz did not include that suggestion from Randi. If you can find other suggestions that Randi made, and that Schwartz used, you are most welcome to tell us. Not just claimed to use, but actually used.
T'ai Chi said:
Yes, it is. You can simply read the various walk-throughs of transcripts here. And here. And here.
However, Schwartz is the one making the claim, so he must provide positive evidence. You know that.
T'ai Chi said:
I can. I posted an example just before Xmas.
I have others, if you want them.
NoZed Avenger said:
This is the same lame argument I have heard from astrologers: We have to study for decades, before they will even begin discussing astrology with us.
It's simply a feeble attempt of making those darn questions go away.
T'ai Chi said:
Since you imply that things have changed since the 80s, let us move forward into the 90s.
“In fact, the formal tests were vulnerable to cheating in many ways. This and other problems have not been previously recognized. The technical shortcomings of the research are symptomatic of deeper difficulties. A few prominent parapsychologists are vocally promoting research involving known tricksters. These advocates have been aggressive in publishing their articles in professional forums, but they have no knowledge of conjuring. Several have trained many students and have thereby bequeathed a legacy of ignorance about magic.”<sup>1</sup>
So, as of 1992, some prominent parapsychologists vocally promote research with known, fradulent subjects. Not simply being tricked by tricksters, mind you, but utterly ignoring the fact they have already been detected as frauds, and promoting their continued use in research. More pointedly, these deluded researchers were training, as of 1992, the next generation of researchers. So let's move forward some years and see if things have changed.
This time, we will hear from a decidedly non-skeptical author. In this otherwise pro-postmodernist, anti-skeptical, we find the author beginning his concluding paragraph with this startling admission:
“In the final analysis what fairly can be said of parapsychology? As far as spontaneous cases are concerned it seems likely that there are numerous instances ofself-deception, delusion, and even fraud. Some of the empirical literature like-wise might be attributable to shoddy experimental procedures and to fraudulent manipulation of data.”
So as of 1999, this parapsychologist continues to describe both hoaxsters being investigated by parapsychologists as if the hoaxes are real and directly fraudulent manipulation of the data by the researchers themselves.
Of course, that was 1999. Things have changed greatly since then.
______
<sup>1</sup>Hansen, George P, THE RESEARCH WITH B.D. AND THE LEGACY OF MAGICAL IGNORANCE. Journal of Parapsychology, Vol. 56, December 1992.
<sup>2</sup>Irwin, HJ. “An Introduction to Parapsychology. Mcfarland, 1999.
on-line
Interesting Ian
Unregistered
I
BillHoyt said:
An important question here is do non-skeptics agree with him?
Prominant parapsychologists actually want to involve known tricksters? So why do they want to do this Billy? I'm not denying that they may want to, I'm just wondering why they want to. I could email them to ask them, but unfortunately you've neglected to mention their names. Could you rectify this error?
Thank you.
Right, so you're saying they want to use tricksters in order to get positive results?
WOW!! that's quite an accusation Billy! Does Hansen himself also believe this? Hmmmm . .why not just directly covertly manipulate the results rather than shouting to the world they intend to manipulate the results?? Come on Billy bean, give me their names.This paragraph is absolutely fine LOL We all know this. What are you trying to prove? I acknowledge the foregoing but am convinced of the reality of some paranormal phenomena.
So H.J. Irwin is anti-skeptical and a pro-postmodernist? Can you substantiate this? I honestly don't know if he is or not. Hmmmm . . pity dharlow isn't around. He'd know.
Yeah, it's an unfortunate fact of life that some people will try to fraudulently manipulate data whatever area of science we're talking about. This is why parapsychology employs tighter experimental protocols than in any other area of science.
Interesting Ian
Unregistered
I
Mercutio said:
Chapters 1 6 12 and 17 are available of that book online. Incidentally this is one of the 3 books that dharlow recommended a few weeks back
http://www.mcfarlandpub.com/textbooks/irwin/Images/Chapter1.pdf
http://www.mcfarlandpub.com/textbooks/irwin/Images/Chapter6.pdf
http://www.mcfarlandpub.com/textbooks/irwin/Images/Chapter12.pdf
http://www.mcfarlandpub.com/textbooks/irwin/Images/Chapter17.pdf
Interesting Ian
Unregistered
I
Interesting Ian said:
This is of relevance from Ch 17
One other feature of a genuine science should be mentioned, distasteful
though it is. Occasionally professional scientists break the rules of the game
and have to be expelled from the Þeld. Such an incident arose in parapsychology
with the Levy aÝair in Á974 (McConnell, Á987, Ch. ÁÁ; Rhine, Á974, Á975).
Dr. W. J. Levy had worked in RhineÕs laboratory for a few years and was interested
primarily in psi research with animals (anpsi). In Á974 some students
observed Levy tinkering with the automatic recording apparatus being used
in one of the laboratoryÕs anpsi experiments. Secret recordings of the data
were arranged and on comparison with LevyÕs reported results, discrepancies
were found. When confronted by Rhine, Levy acknowledged his fraudulent
activity and was dismissed. Parapsychologists known to be planning to use any
of LevyÕs published work in their papers immediately were advised not to do
so. Rhine (Á974) published a statement in the Journal of Parapsychology giving
the details of the aÝair and advising that all of LevyÕs publications should now
be regarded as unacceptable (although Levy claimed he resorted to fraudulent
manipulation only when his recent experiments yielded nonsigniÞcant data).
In the Levy case parapsychology was shown to be capable of keeping its house
in order and not to be inclined to cover up indiscretions for appearanceÕs sake".
Hmmm . .the text has come out weird. Anyway, it's the last link I provided on page 310 in that link.
Interesting Ian
Unregistered
I
OK this is very interesting
In Ch 17 Irwin states:
What do you say to that Billy Bean??
In Ch 17 Irwin states:
What do you say to that Billy Bean??
Interesting Ian
Unregistered
I
And this project Alpha discussed earlier
Well this is not the impression I was getting from skeptics earlier on! Apparently the conjurers had not been successful in tightly controlled experiments. They'd simply been taken as encouraging results in an unrefereed conference research brief.
Now do people understand why I don't take what skeptics say at face value? When you actually investigate their claims one tends to invariably discover that they have either exaggerated or simply told flat out lies!
Irwin goes on to say:
Well this is not the impression I was getting from skeptics earlier on! Apparently the conjurers had not been successful in tightly controlled experiments. They'd simply been taken as encouraging results in an unrefereed conference research brief.
Now do people understand why I don't take what skeptics say at face value? When you actually investigate their claims one tends to invariably discover that they have either exaggerated or simply told flat out lies!
Irwin goes on to say:
Interesting Ian
Unregistered
I
This is SO true
And might I add this is also what all the skeptics do on this board. Which begs the question how seriously can we take anything they say??
And might I add this is also what all the skeptics do on this board. Which begs the question how seriously can we take anything they say??
This paper was reviewed by parapsychologists. The job of a reviewer, one would hope even in this sullied field, is to call out unreasonable and unfounded assertions. It was written by Hansen, who worked in parapsychology labs for eight years.Interesting Ian said:
Well, you could easily have dug this up yourself, had you read the article and followed its trail of references. Be that as it may:
"The early Society for Psychical Research (SPR) instituted a policy of refusing to work with psychics and mediums who were known to have engaged in deceptive activity. Recently, Inglis (1984) has vehemently and
bitterly denounced that policy, and a number of people seem to agree with him (e.g., Braude, 1986; Gregory, 1982). Several leaders of the field seem to agree. Beloff (1985) has pleaded with the skeptics to examine the Palladino mediumship. He has stated that Glenn Falkenstein deserves investigation (Beloff, 1984a). (Falkenstein is a well-known mentalist; for example, see Booth, 1984.) Presently Beloff (1988) is promoting the Margery mediumship. Recently Azuma and Stevenson (1987) have advocated further study of the notorious psychic surgeons.
This greater willingness to study (alleged) psychic functioning of reported frauds was exemplified at the 1986 Parapsychological Association (PA) convention, where three papers presented work with persons previously reported to have engaged in fraudulent activity (Egely & Vertesy, 19863; Stewart, Roll, & Baumann, 19864; Warren & Don, 19865). This is not an isolated instance. As seen in the Table, every annual convention of the PA since 1980 has included papers reporting positive results from subjects who later admitted to or were reported as having used trickery at some point in their careers."<sup>1</sup>
I cleaved close to the facts, and would thank you to do the same. I could only speculate as to the motives behind advocating the continued use of known frauds. I have not engaged here in such speculation.Right, so you're saying they want to use tricksters in order to get positive results?
Okay, so you read neither the Hansen article nor the Irwin chapter. Chapter 17 (and thank you for providing the unmangled link, btw) includes passages such as this:
"In any event, a more extensive accommodation of 'feminine' values in general science, as advocated by feminists, may provide a context in which a greater variety of parapsychological studies are received as scientically legitimate. The feminization of science would in part entail the implementation of a pluralistic approach (White, 1992), that is, a recognition of the value of many different research paradigms and a rejection of the view that the laboratory experiment is the epitome of the scientiic method. White (1991, 1994) hasurged parapsychologists to join in the process of transforming contemporary science to this end. Thus parapsychology could be the first point of implementation of a significant revolution in the philosophy of science."
This was, by the way, the paragraph immediately preceding the one I quoted before. For those who don't recognize the PoMo jargon here, Irwin is wrapping up a discussion about abandoning science and embracing the postmodernist / feminist feint that claims the truth can be found by abandoning the methods of science. That is, toss out the controls. I invite those who doubt that that is what is being proposed here to begin on the previous page to see the discussion of what Irwin feels postmodernism and postmodernist philosophy of science's strong programme (not identified as such) have to offer.
Interesting Ian
Unregistered
I
BillHoyt said:
He then goes on to say:
"Be this as it may, there is sound phenomenological
evidence of parapsychological experiences and experimental evidence of anomalous
events too, and to this extent behavioral scientists ethically are obliged to
encourage the investigation of these phenomena rather than dismissing them out
of hand."
Why did you neglect to mention this Billy?
Re: OK this is very interesting
I introduced Irwin as a hostile witness. I am aware Irwin thinks there is something real about the paranormal. This is a red herring, though, Ian, and you know it. Focus on the discussion.Interesting Ian said:In Ch 17 Irwin states:
What do you say to that Billy Bean??