• 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

Put up or shut up Luci.

Taunting us by calling us "psuedo-skeptics" is just childish and trollish.

Prove you're a skeptic. Examine your claims.
 
SteveGrenard: If a cold reader rates as high or better on the hits than a purportedly genuine medium ... 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. <span style="background-color: #ffc">But nobody on the skeptic side can provide truly convincing evidence of this</span>
Click to expand...
I disagree with that last assertion, but that's not my point. What I am saying is that it doesn't matter whether coldreaders can do as well as a medium or not. The real question is whether an alleged medium can get personal information via paranormal means while protocols are in place that preclude cold reading.

So Xouper what you are saying (now) is that controls for cold reading using a super-star cold reader ... doesn't prove JE ... is not cold reading.
Click to expand...
Yes, seems like you interpreted correctly. Even if a cold reader can do better than a medium, that is not proof that the medium is cold reading. It does however, demonstrate that when testing a medium, there MUST be protocols in place to prevent cold reading by the medium.

I offer spoon bending as an analogous example. Just because Randi can bend spoons using trickery does not prove that Geller is using trickery to bend spoons. And I think Randi has said this. What Randi has shown, however, is that it is incumbent upon Geller to prove he can bend spoons while protocols are in place that preclude trickery.

Nit: I am not clear what you are saying when you use a parenthetical (now) since I don't recall that my opinion on this has changed any. I am aware that other people have called for using coldreaders as controls when testing mediums, but I disagree that this is necessary or even sufficient.
 
X: I am aware that other people have called for using coldreaders as controls when testing mediums, but I disagree that this is necessary or even sufficient.

Okay. Did you look at the brief description of the protocol and rating system I posted above? Do you think this precludes or
prevents the use of cold and/or warm reading? Even with these safeguards, properly applied, even more than a floor to ceiling screen with a crack in it, sitter silence, your cynic would then call upon generalities and guessing as the final straw even though such information might in no way be "general" and where specific information given has odds against guessing which exceed probability by a wide margin. This leaves us with the cold reading asserton and the claims of cold readers and those who back them that an experienced, highly proficient cold reader such as Ian (and by his own admission) can out-cold read a medium such as JE.

Let's dismiss hot reading for the moment based on the mutual
anonymity of sitters and mediums and the fact that the pairing was also drawn at random out of a proverbial hat.
 
SteveGrenard: 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.
Click to expand...
Begging your pardon, but how do we know that Schwartz's experiments actually adhered to the reported protocols? I see no reason to take his word for it.

The reason I say this is because there are plenty of examples of protocols reported by other paranormal researchers that were later discovered to be flawed descriptions of what actually occurred.

In other words, who else besides Schwartz (or you) has seen enough of the raw data and can confirm that the reported protocols are an accurate description of what really happened?

Did you look at the brief description of the protocol and rating system I posted above? Do you think this precludes or prevents the use of cold and/or warm reading?
Click to expand...
I'm going to chicken out here and defer to those who are more qualified to evaluate the validity of those protocols. I claim no expertise in designing the specific details of such protocols.

This leaves us with the cold reading asserton and the claims of cold readers and those who back them that an experienced, highly proficient cold reader such as Ian (and by his own admission) can out-cold read a medium such as JE.
Click to expand...
I would say that such assertions only serve to demonstrate why the possibility of cold reading must be precluded by properly designed protocols.

Such assertions also demonstrate why TV shows or seminars of JE doing his schtick are not proof of any paranormal ability. I know you personally are not claiming that "Crossing Over" proves paranormal ability, but let's realize that when Rowland says he can cold read better than JE, he is addressing a much wider audience than simply Schwartz's studies. He is also refuting those who mistakenly think JE's TV show proves JE can talk to the dead.
 
xouper said:
I'm going to chicken out here and defer to those who are more qualified to evaluate the validity of those protocols. I claim no expertise in designing the specific details of such protocols.
Click to expand...

An admission of ignorance. There goes a skeptic.

Anyone paying attention here?
 
The mediums sat behind a floor to ceiling screen, with their backs to the screen facing video cameras.
Click to expand...
REALLY?
03-23-01-edwardlab.jpg
 
Darat said:


Neofight - I wanted to avoid getting embroiled in any of these emotional exchanges but I am surprised that you consider it "much ado about nothing".

Your comments caused Ian to make a post to correct any false impressions he believed your post could have caused! I would suggest it was anything but "much ado about nothing" for Ian.

And unless I've missed it I've yet to see a "sorry" from you to Ian.
Click to expand...

Hi, Darat. Yes, it's true that Ian posted here to make sure that nobody had gotten the wrong impression, but I would suggest that any wrong impression would have been given more from what renata posted than from what I, myself, posted.

Here is my quote.......

Re: Ian Rowland is a Friendly Guy

Yes, he sure is, Clancie! lol If RC is serious, I'd be interested to know if he would take RC up on his offer. Why do I get the impression that he's looking to hook up with one, or several, of his attractive female fans? lol ....neo
Click to expand...


And here are renata's quotes......

Recall that neo implied RC may not meet Ian because RC is male, and that Ian is looking to "hook up" ( which I interpret have one night stand sex) with female posters.
Click to expand...


Followed by this......

JE is married, so why is an allegation of infidelity worse than an allegation of promiscuity? Or feigning interest in women so that he could have sex while ignoring the men? Because that logically follows from Neo's comment.
Click to expand...


And as if that weren't bad enough, she dug in even deeper with this.......

You think I am making too much of Neo's comment. So do you then agree with her that Ian wants to f*** several female posters and will avoid the men?
Click to expand...


So please, Darat, give me a break! If anyone has been offensive on this thread, it's renata. Even Ian would not have taken what I said the way that she did, as evidenced by his following quote......

As for the phrase 'hook up with', it's just a term which I, as a Brit, have picked up from my American friends. As far as I'm aware, it means to meet, to spend time together socially, to make friends. I was not aware it had any other connotation, and it certainly doesn't when I use it.
Click to expand...


I just hope that Ian read the thread, and didn't attribute those crude comments to me, because he doesn't mention renata at all, and she is the one who misinterpreted what I said in the first place. :( .......neo
 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

X: Begging your pardon, but how do we know that Schwartz's experiments actually adhered to the reported protocols? I see no reason to take his word for it.

The reason I say this is because there are plenty of examples of protocols reported by other paranormal researchers that were later discovered to be flawed descriptions of what actually occurred.

In other words, who else besides Schwartz (or you) has seen enough of the raw data and can confirm that the reported protocols are an accurate description of what really happened?


Reply: Okay, who would you trust to provide the oversight necessary to insure the integrity of the protocol?

(edited to add: this is about some future experiment and protocol involving a cold reader control and NOT any previously conducted and published research)



X: I'm going to chicken out here and defer to those who are more qualified to evaluate the validity of those protocols. I claim no expertise in designing the specific details of such protocols.

Reply: Fair enough.



X: I would say that such assertions only serve to demonstrate why the possibility of cold reading must be precluded by properly designed protocols.

Such assertions also demonstrate why TV shows or seminars of JE doing his schtick are not proof of any paranormal ability. I know you personally are not claiming that "Crossing Over" proves paranormal ability, but let's realize that when Rowland says he can cold read better than JE, he is addressing a much wider audience than simply Schwartz's studies. He is also refuting those who mistakenly think JE's TV show proves JE can talk to the dead.

Reply: I have always said this so gladly agree. You can tell nothing by debating a TV show or performance on a call in talk show. It is proof of nothing. Ditto for a 90 second snippet of cold reading on a newsmagazine show (e.g. Dateline).

Ideas for a "properly designed protocol" are welcome.
 
neofight: Yes, it's true that Ian posted here to make sure that nobody had gotten the wrong impression, but I would suggest that any wrong impression would have been given more from what renata posted than from what I, myself, posted.
Click to expand...
I disagree. I found your comment (edited to add - somewhat) offensive even before renata commented on it. To me, your comment implied that Ian might have been looking for some one night stands (sex). That's what "hooking up" can sometimes mean, depending on the context. Regardless whether my impression was justified or not, Ian needed to clarify the issue preciesly because it is too easy for someone to misinterpret what you meant.
 
How do i know...I don't....i spend most nights sleeping in the open...

Dont ask me questions....Ive got enough trouble with the local cats that pi*s over me when i'm asleep...

You try buying a beer when you smell of cats pis*....

DB

( I am listening to "Mule Train" by Frankie Laine...that might explain a few things...Clippety clop...)
 
SteveGrenard: I have always said this so gladly agree. You can tell nothing about debating a TV show or performance on a call in talk show. It is proof of nothing. Ditto for a 90 second snippet of cold reading on a newsmagazine show (e.g. Dateline).
Click to expand...
Yes, I would agree that Ian's TV appearances do not prove that mediums are using cold reading. What his TV appearances do accomplish, however, is provide a valid basis for being skeptical of any claim of talking to dead people. Nothing new about that notion, though.
 
Lucianarchy said:


Yes, really. So why are you showing a picture which is not from the test :confused: ?
Click to expand...

Oh, for cripes sake, Luci, do your freaking homework. It is right under your nose. This picture has everything to do with what we are talking about, who we are talking about and the research about which we are talking. If you wish to either gain credibility or learn something, then do your freaking homework. It has appeared in print as well. Look closely. Figure it out.
 
SteveGrenard said:
Hoyt: REALLY?

http://www.randi.org/images/03-23-01-edwardlab.jpg


Agreed. Thank you for this valuable input. Instead of the tall screen motif we will suggest that the medium and sitter be placed in separate, non-adjoining rooms with no possibility of any type of sensory leakage between them.
Click to expand...

Apparently you also missed the import of this picture. Hint: it was not a suggestion for your muddled research suggestion. Hint II: it was a direct response to your assertion about previous research.

Hint III: when will you restract your attempt to impugn Sue Blackmore's motives?

Cheers,
 
Darat said:

And unless I've missed it I've yet to see a "sorry" from you to Ian.
Click to expand...

I missed this comment before. Ian and I have exchanged personal e-mails, Darat, and everything is copacetic, but thanks for your concern. ;) ......neo
 
neofight said:


Hi, Darat. Yes, it's true that Ian posted here to make sure that nobody had gotten the wrong impression, but I would suggest that any wrong impression would have been given more from what renata posted than from what I, myself, posted.

...snip...

I just hope that Ian read the thread, and didn't attribute those crude comments to me, because he doesn't mention renata at all, and she is the one who misinterpreted what I said in the first place. :( .......neo
Click to expand...

Neo - I believe from what I have read in this thread that it was your words that caused Ian to post. It may be that he read Renata's comments and thought "Whoa!" however it was your words that caused the "chain" of events that led to Ian posting, your words are what started any "misunderstanding", therefore the initial "fault" lies in what you wrote, just because other people may have compounded that "fault" doesn't alter that.

The straightforward way to deal with a situation like this is to make a simple apology for your choice of words and move on. However all your posts since then about this matter seem (to me) trying to justify your actions rather then admit you may have made an error of judgment.

There is no shame attached to admitting an honest mistake or fault and apologising for it, in fact I would say it shows strength of character.

I doubt you will agree with my view on this matter.
 
neofight said:


I missed this comment before. Ian and I have exchanged personal e-mails, Darat, and everything is copacetic, but thanks for your concern. ;) ......neo
Click to expand...

I presume you are being sarcastic however to give you the benefit of the doubt I'll point out that I was not concerned I was making a point and criticising your subsequent mishandling of your error of judgment.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom