Humphreys
Supercalifragilisticskepticalidocious
- Joined
- Nov 8, 2002
- Messages
- 1,613
Anyone read this book yet?
I decided to see what the opposition were up to, and this seems to be an example of some of the "best" available evidence for an afterlife. I'd already heard a LOT of bad things about this book, the experiments, and Dr Schwartz himself, but I figured maybe, just MAYBE some mean old skeptics were giving him an extra hard time because they felt he was some kind of threat...or something.
Boy was I wrong!
I wouldn't trust this guy to prove the existence of his own arse scientifically.
He shows the very worst characteristics for reliable testing:
1) Gullibility
2) Bias
3) Little knowledge of tried and tested experimentation methods
4) Nice, trusting personality
5) A very dodgy beard
I'll let number 5 go, but the other 4 are unforgivable for a man in his position, doing such potentially important and life-changing investigation.
Some of his biggest gaffes are as follows:
1) He clearly decided early on that he believed in the after-life, yet refused to admit it. He would clearly act as though he was a believer, and I think this caused him to be an easy target for fraudsters.
2) Taking clear failures and somehow twisting them into successes at a later date. This guy could find a connection between 9/11 and his Grandma if he put his mind to it. Truly a genius at tenuous linking.
3) He watched the success rate of his mediums crash from 90-100% to something very close to chance as he tightened controls, yet somehow managed to find every set of results unbelievable. When he FINALLY conducted what seemed to be a tight, double-blind experiment, the results showed no evidence of survival of consciousness, yet he still found them "breathtaking" confirmation. His deceitfullness really shone through here too, because he KNEW these experiments were evidence against his claims, yet decided to give them just a couple of paragraphs mention in his book, and never gave away the fact that the test was a resounding failure.
The funniest part of the whole book came after he decided himself and Linda (his wife) were going to live their whole life as if survival of consciousness was a reality, though, reasoning that if they were wrong, they'd never know about it, but if they were right, they'd have knowledge in the afterlife that they lived their life in the right way.
Gee, who has heard a certain philosopher reasoning that way before?
Not Scwhartz, it appears! Seemingly ignorant of Pascal, when told about Blaise's Wager, Dr. Schwartz stated "Well, if it's good enough for Pascal, it's good enough for me!".
Priceless idiocy! You just can't buy stupid like that.
I decided to see what the opposition were up to, and this seems to be an example of some of the "best" available evidence for an afterlife. I'd already heard a LOT of bad things about this book, the experiments, and Dr Schwartz himself, but I figured maybe, just MAYBE some mean old skeptics were giving him an extra hard time because they felt he was some kind of threat...or something.
Boy was I wrong!
I wouldn't trust this guy to prove the existence of his own arse scientifically.
He shows the very worst characteristics for reliable testing:
1) Gullibility
2) Bias
3) Little knowledge of tried and tested experimentation methods
4) Nice, trusting personality
5) A very dodgy beard
I'll let number 5 go, but the other 4 are unforgivable for a man in his position, doing such potentially important and life-changing investigation.
Some of his biggest gaffes are as follows:
1) He clearly decided early on that he believed in the after-life, yet refused to admit it. He would clearly act as though he was a believer, and I think this caused him to be an easy target for fraudsters.
2) Taking clear failures and somehow twisting them into successes at a later date. This guy could find a connection between 9/11 and his Grandma if he put his mind to it. Truly a genius at tenuous linking.
3) He watched the success rate of his mediums crash from 90-100% to something very close to chance as he tightened controls, yet somehow managed to find every set of results unbelievable. When he FINALLY conducted what seemed to be a tight, double-blind experiment, the results showed no evidence of survival of consciousness, yet he still found them "breathtaking" confirmation. His deceitfullness really shone through here too, because he KNEW these experiments were evidence against his claims, yet decided to give them just a couple of paragraphs mention in his book, and never gave away the fact that the test was a resounding failure.
The funniest part of the whole book came after he decided himself and Linda (his wife) were going to live their whole life as if survival of consciousness was a reality, though, reasoning that if they were wrong, they'd never know about it, but if they were right, they'd have knowledge in the afterlife that they lived their life in the right way.
Gee, who has heard a certain philosopher reasoning that way before?
Not Scwhartz, it appears! Seemingly ignorant of Pascal, when told about Blaise's Wager, Dr. Schwartz stated "Well, if it's good enough for Pascal, it's good enough for me!".
Priceless idiocy! You just can't buy stupid like that.
