• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Ian Rowland is a Friendly Guy

Clancie said:
I will say that I find it strange that a skeptic would purport to want to see a comparison of a cold reader and John Edward and then try to discredit the person who is trying to arrange it (a person who won't even be conducting the experiment himself).
Click to expand...

Clancie, would you agree that if Steve made the statement that Claus claims he did it would be relevant towards any experiment Steve might run with Ian?

Do you even care if Steve made that statement at all?
 
Clancie said:
At a minimum, CFL's action seems very counterproductive to shedding light on mediumship and cold reading--that is, if he sincerely wants to see such an experiment take place, which is the claim.
Click to expand...

Now, how could you possibly know - if you have me on ignore - that I have made the claim that I would want such an experiment to take place? :)

You are sooooo busted, Clancie....
 
renata said:
And since we like ancient references, Claus, do you see yourself as Alecto, Megaera or Tisiphone?
Click to expand...

None of them. And I know what they are.... :)
 
CFLarsen said:


None of them. And I know what they are.... :)
Click to expand...


Hehe.. trick question- I am busted! :D

But actually, there are some similarities, don't you think? The whole dogged pursuit of unavenged crimes/unanswered questions?
 
Posted by TLN

Clancie, would you agree that if Steve made the statement that Claus claims he did it would be relevant towards any experiment Steve might run with Ian?
Click to expand...

TLN, it's an irrelevant statement, as Steve wouldn't be running any experiment. Gary Schwartz would. (Steve isn't a scientist and doesn't even work for the U of A; he's a friend of GS who lives in New York, offers friendly ideas from time to time about the work, sometimes helps GS round up participants...that's it.).
Posted by TLN

Do you even care if Steve made that statement at all?
Click to expand...

I would care (if it is true, which I'd have to go back to the original transcript to see).

However, true or false, it wouldn't change the fact that the only reason to bring it up now seems to be malicious--simply due to Claus' animosity toward Steve (which apparently is so deep that he would even risk sabotaging an important scientific opportunity for someone else in order to express it).
 
Clancie said:
However, true or false, it wouldn't change the fact that the only reason to bring it up now seems to be malicious--simply due to Claus' animosity toward Steve (which apparently is so deep that he would even risk sabotaging an important scientific opportunity for someone else in order to express it).
Click to expand...


I highly doubt Ian Rowland, who has his own methods and ideas would be turned off this important scientific opportunity for the sole reason that Claus brought up Steve's old negative comments. I doubt he would be so petty, so if he does reject that important scientific opportunity, there is probably another reason.
 
xouper said:
I disagree that such a test is necessary. Regardless of the outcome of that kind of test, it would not validate Schwartz's claim that JE can talk to dead people. I disagree that using cold readers as controls validates JE's alleged psychic ability.
Click to expand...


Indeed, but it would eliminate one possibility. A possibility which it seems many Skeptics currently believe is how JE and many other mediums operate. Of course the biggest problem with mediums is that even if we conclude that a given medium could only have got the information by anomalous means, what compels us to conclude that they got the information from dead people rather than general ESP?
 
Interesting Ian said:


Indeed, but it would eliminate one possibility. A possibility which it seems many Skeptics currently believe is how JE and many other mediums operate. Of course the biggest problem with mediums is that even if we conclude that a given medium could only have got the information by anomalous means, what compels us to conclude that they got the information from dead people rather than general ESP?
Click to expand...

You really need to work on your logical fallacies....
 
CFLarsen said:


Originally posted by Interesting Ian


Indeed, but it would eliminate one possibility. A possibility which it seems many Skeptics currently believe is how JE and many other mediums operate. Of course the biggest problem with mediums is that even if we conclude that a given medium could only have got the information by anomalous means, what compels us to conclude that they got the information from dead people rather than general ESP?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



You really need to work on your logical fallacies...
Click to expand...

As far as I am aware I never make any. But I confess I am puzzled since I am admitting that it would be very difficult to conclusively demonstrate that mediums are genuinely communicating with the dead. I am also puzzled at your need to insult me when I have never insulted you.
 
Interesting Ian said:
As far as I am aware I never make any.
Click to expand...

That doesn't mean you don't make any. :)

Interesting Ian said:
But I confess I am puzzled since I am admitting that it would be very difficult to conclusively demonstrate that mediums are genuinely communicating with the dead.
Click to expand...

Exactly.

Interesting Ian said:
I am also puzzled at your need to insult me when I have never insulted you.
Click to expand...

No insult needed. Just go back and see if you can figure out what is wrong with your post. You almost solved it with this one.
 
Interesting Ian: Indeed, but it would eliminate one possibility.
Click to expand...
Eliminating the possibility of cold reading by JE does not require coldreaders as controls.
 
Sorry about this...but i have some respect for Steve Grenard..

He may be a woowoo...but not of the first kind..

I have read some of his posts...in the past and present...

Some of it makes sense...some of it lives in the "Twilight Zone"

But i think he can hold his own regarding debating skills...

BUT,... Steve... there are people on this board who are talking you, up your own a**...and you can't see it...

And CFLarsen is doing a pretty good job at it...

Steve...you better get your "Facts straight" and your research "100% right"...

Or get slammmed...

You may think im insane...but i know when to stop...thats why im still allowed to post here...

Steve..for all your intelligence..and believe me, i know you are, i think you are gonna lose this one...

Stand down...

DB
 
CFLarsen said:
No insult needed. Just go back and see if you can figure out what is wrong with your post. You almost solved it with this one. [/B]
Click to expand...

No you'll need to enlighten me. If I've made any mistake I'll admit it.
 
Interesting Ian...

Show me one post where you have totally admitted you were wrong...

( You're the only poster i know that can start a flame war in a thread about "Scooby doo"..)

Thanks..

DB
 
CFLarsen said:
(to Interesting Ian)

You really need to work on your logical fallacies....
Click to expand...

Now, that's ambiguous, do you mean:

1) He needs to make better fallacies.
2) He needs to make them less obvious
3) He needs to stop making them.
4) He needs to learn what they are.

Or what?

I'll be kind (to Ian) and not presume. :)
 
X: Eliminating the possibility of cold reading by JE does not require coldreaders as controls.

and now more of the same as above. I am fascinated by earlier (and we do have a history on this subject) calls for controls using one or more cold readers by skeptics and now assertions that such controls would NOT prove a medium, any medium (we are not necessarily talking about JE here...pleez) uses cold reading.


If a cold reader rates as high or better on the hits than a purportedly genuine medium (and I am careful now and here to use "purportedly" genuine) then one is forced to conclude that the sitter and third parties doing the blind ratings cannot discern the difference and that cold reading can produce results as good or on a par with purportedly genuine medium readings. After all the argument on the other side is that they cannot. But nobody on the skeptic side can provide truly convincing evidence of this and I don't mean 90 second snippets on Dateline (with no purportedly true medium to compare it with) or on B*S which also suffered from a lack of a that kind of input.


So Xouper what you are saying (now) is that controls for cold reading using a super-star cold reader such as Ian who actually says he can out cold-read JE (as an example) doesn't prove JE or anyone(?) is not cold reading......did I get this right or can you expand and correct me if not? Talking about JE cold reading or deciding if how he conducts a reading is cold reading is fine but it is hardly as objective as pitting JE or any medium against a super cold reader like Ian.
 
DB: i think you are gonna lose this one... Stand down...

First of all I am not doing the experiment. Schwartz or others may be doing it. Secondly I personally don't respond well to premonitions. If Ian Rowland declines to contact me or make the call, you can decide who wins or who loses. To me its not about this. It's about the critics who say such experiments should include cold reading controls and input by cold readers proficient at this art. Included among these are some of the very persons or person who made this critcism or back others who have (e.g. Hyman) who now seem bent at sabotaging any attempt to do so. I can only conclude that they are afraid of something but I am not sure what it is.....

I outlined above, in response to TLNs request, a brief descriptiopn of the experiment(s) JE as well as others participated in at Arizona. I would expect a cold reader to agree to no less than this plus any further suggestions from either side to design a meaningful experiment.

TLN: the description comes straight from the published journal paper on this experiment.
 
You notice how all these protocols use purported mediums and various kinds of controls to try to identify a difference between mediums and normal humans? In other words, to try to scrounge some anomalous events on which we can hang our hat and claim some kind of paranormal source? Why don't we do more direct experiments, where the medium reports something that we all agree can't possibly be due to cold or warm reading?

~~ Paul
 
Paul ... the word purportedly is used advisedly since skeptics claim here are NO genuine mediums. Direct experiments, w/o controls, are not acceptable to the critical skeptics and cynics but I agree. In fact the very thing you mention has been demonstrated but such demonstrations are then critciized as anecdotal. They are certainly not replicable or repetable since one cannot use the same purported medium twice with the same sitter to get the same information. Now that would be a fallacy, albeit an illogical one.
 
De_Bunk said:
Sorry about this...but i have some respect for Steve Grenard..

He may be a woowoo...but not of the first kind..

I have read some of his posts...in the past and present...

Some of it makes sense...some of it lives in the "Twilight Zone"

But i think he can hold his own regarding debating skills...

BUT,... Steve... there are people on this board who are talking you, up your own a**...and you can't see it...

And CFLarsen is doing a pretty good job at it...

Steve...you better get your "Facts straight" and your research "100% right"...

Or get slammmed...

You may think im insane...but i know when to stop...thats why im still allowed to post here...

Steve..for all your intelligence..and believe me, i know you are, i think you are gonna lose this one...

Stand down...

DB
Click to expand...

Debs, Claus is certainly not "slamming" anyone here, unless you see insinuation as slamming :confused: .

If the cr's can replicate what JE does under Dr Schwartz's conditions then they prove the claims of the pseudo-skeptics that they (Dr Schwartz proc and meth) are "crap" and full of "holes". It should be easy to do if Dr S is as sloppy as Claus would have you believe. Has Claus got any suitable candidate he'd like present who could actually do it? Maybe, but if so he's keeping schtum and colluding with the "scam" he's claiming exists.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom