Ian Rowland is a Friendly Guy

[CFLarsen]

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

This is the one I am talking about:

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 commit (I hate that term, it sounds like you're doing something criminal!) the fallacy called "False Dichotomy". E.g., you do not include the possibility of fairies materializing and writing the information with invisible ink on the inside of the brain.

Am I being humorous? Not really - my example is also paranormal, as your two are. So, why not fairies?

There may be other solutions, too. How do you know it has to be either ADC or ESP?

You are also fallacious (there might be a better English term) in your thinking, since you do not include the theories behind these two ideas. What's the difference?

And now, for some of my questions:


What does the "survival hypothesis" state?
How do we falsify this hypothesis?
How do we design an experiment that will produce verifiable, replicable results?

In your own words, please.

 

[SteveGrenard]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Lucianarchy

Luci: Yes, really. So why are you showing a picture which is not from the test ?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Hoyt: 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.


__________________



Luci is basically correct. No testing was going on at the time this scene ocurred. It is a single frame, 1/24th of a second, out of many hours of taping. However, the thrust of this discussion contrary to Hoyt's additional remarks on this , is that we are seeking to suggest design protocol changes to tighten up on the procedure in any future trials. It is agreed that sensory leakage could occur through this barrier and that separate rooms, with walls and solid doors, should be used in any future trials for this phase of the experiment which relies on anonymity and sitter silence in order to prevent warm and cold reading.

I noticed that Ian Rowland was logged onto Banter last night, reading no doubt this discussion so I am still wondering if he would be interested in participating in a future experiment?
If you're out there please PM or e-mail me via this board.....
thanks.

 

[CFLarsen]

Steve, yes or no: Do you deny that you called Ian Rowland a liar, someone who "wimps out", and someone who is full of "hot air"?

 

[SteveGrenard]

Once again, the people who wimped out were the 7 cold readers along with Penn Jilette who met with Schwartz in Los ANgeles when he tried to enlist their cooperation in an experiment.

Once again, Ian Rowland declined or for whatever reason failed to answer requests or o/w respond to myself and Schwartz via e-mail regarding involvement in future trials. BTW I can also arrange for him to do this in the U.K. as well.

And once again, the accounts given to me and others regarding the Dateline program by people who attended (in fact the producers tried to recruit me but I didn't meet their age requirement ... too old .....YES, you had to be between certain ages -- now I wonder what that was about? ...hmm, could it have been stacking the deck?) did not agree with the on-air performance and snippets shown. In fact one person interviewed afterwards said she knew he was a fake but was very convincing. They edited the very convincing snippet so it would appear and omitted the caveat she used). Is he a liar regarding this? If he isn't, he was cast in that position by the producers of the showand the comparison between what really happened and what he and the show protrayed differed. And also, now that Ian is reading these discussions, I would like to ask him point blank: since the producers had the names and particulars on the PRE-SELECTED participants, did they share any of that with him?

Having said that, here's his chance to redeem his performance.
Will he or will he not agree to be part of some future controlled experiment under the same experimental conditions as purportedly genuine mediums and be rated against them?
After all Larsen it was you and your friends who cried the loudest about not having a cold reading control phase to such experiments. What seems to be your problem now?

 

[CFLarsen]

What seems to be your problem now?

That it is impossible for you to answer a straight question:

Do you deny that you called Ian Rowland a liar, someone who "wimps out", and someone who is full of "hot air"?

Yes or no?

 

[richardm]

And also, now that Ian is reading these discussions, I would like to ask him point blank: since the producers had the names and particulars on the PRE-SELECTED participants, did they share any of that with him?

Considering you appear to be such an informed expert on the Dateline programme, I'm surprised you're not aware of this (from Ian's own comments on the programme, on his website)

3. They [the producers of the programme] were willing to take the experiment seriously, and to observe the relevant protocols. You can imagine the problems of trying to get an audience of 20 people ready, and at the same time make sure that I, while in the same building, have NO information whatsoever about any of them (not even what any of them look like).

 

[Interesting Ian]

This is the one I am talking about :


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Interesting Ian
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 commit (I hate that term, it sounds like you're doing something criminal!) the fallacy called "False Dichotomy". E.g., you do not include the possibility of fairies materializing and writing the information with invisible ink on the inside of the brain.

Of course I do! Would not "fairies materializing and writing the information with invisible ink on the inside of the brain" constitute getting information by anomalous means? I still think you're not understanding what I'm saying.

Am I being humorous? Not really - my example is also paranormal, as your two are. So, why not fairies?

There may be other solutions, too. How do you know it has to be either ADC or ESP?

I don't. But if it is not by ESP (which I believe would include ADC), then by definition you're not getting the information by anomalous means. Remember ESP doesn't propose any mechanism, so you're free to speculate it's fairies or whatever.

What does the "survival hypothesis" state?

Our consciousness persists after our physical bodies have ceased functioning.

How do we falsify this hypothesis?

Whether it is falsifiable or not can have no implications for its truth or falsehood.

The falsifiability criteria was introduced by Popper to try and ascertain whether a scientific theory is vacuous. The idea being that if a putative scientific theory cannot be falsified then the theory is compatible with all possible states of affiars and hence is vacuous. Popper never meant to apply it to metaphysical hypotheses. Besides which, in as much as the transmission theory is unfalsifiable, so is the generative theory. Anyway, the survival hypothesis is not compatible with all possible states of affairs because one can disprove it by dying and ceasing to exist!

 

[CFLarsen]

Of course I do! Would not "fairies materializing and writing the information with invisible ink on the inside of the brain" constitute getting information by anomalous means? I still think you're not understanding what I'm saying.

That is a possibility. Which doorstep should we lay that one on?

I don't. But if it is not by ESP (which I believe would include ADC), then by definition you're not getting the information by anomalous means. Remember ESP doesn't propose any mechanism, so you're free to speculate it's fairies or whatever.

So, to you, all "anomalous" information is ESP?

Imaging that you had no idea what electricity was. Would a lightbulb constitute ESP, then? By your definition, it would.

Our consciousness persists after our physical bodies have ceased functioning.

Thank you.

Whether it is falsifiable or not can have no implications for its truth or falsehood.

It nevertheless tells us if it is possible to determine whether it is true or false.

The falsifiability criteria was introduced by Popper to try and ascertain whether a scientific theory is vacuous. The idea being that if a putative scientific theory cannot be falsified then the theory is compatible with all possible states of affiars and hence is vacuous.

Then it cannot be falsified.

Popper never meant to apply it to metaphysical hypotheses.

How do you know that?

Besides which, in as much as the transmission theory is unfalsifiable, so is the generative theory. Anyway, the survival hypothesis is not compatible with all possible states of affairs because one can disprove it by dying and ceasing to exist!

Aha. So you can never determine whether it is true or false. Am I to understand that the only way it can be tested is by someone dying and stop existing?

How do you test that? I don't suggest that you die, but how do you test if someone else cease to exist?

 

[BillHoyt]

Luci is basically correct. No testing was going on at the time this scene ocurred. It is a single frame, 1/24th of a second, out of many hours of taping.

Repeated attempts to dodge the salient issue. Repeated attempts to deflect, Steve. You said:

The mediums sat behind a floor to ceiling screen, with their backs to the screen facing video cameras.

The critical import of that picture is to point out the essential information you managed to leave out from your description. Now Schartz has previously been criticized for doing the same thing. Perhaps you forgot about that. Reasonable people might, however, entertain the suspicion, based on past dialogues with you, that a certain deliberateness might be inferred here. Now to support Luci's assertion as "basically correct" tends to support this suspicion. The fact that no testing was occurring at that instant is utterly irrelevant to the question of why Schwartz, and, now, you and Luci all want us to infer from your protocol descriptions that it was impossible for JE to view the sitter. Clearly, that was not impossible. Clearly, that is not a floor-to-ceiling screen, but a floor-to-ceiling folding screen. That little, seemingly innocuous word. Oh, my, what a quibble.

However, the thrust of this discussion contrary to Hoyt's additional remarks on this , is that we are seeking to suggest design protocol changes to tighten up on the procedure in any future trials.

"Tighten up"? Are you kidding? The first order of business is for you and yours to correctly and accurately describe the protocol. The second order is to recognize the protocol flaws when they are pointed out to you, and not to dodge and deflect.

And the third order, for you alone, is to own up to and retract your attempt to impugn Susan Blackmore's motives. I am tired of waiting.

 

[CFLarsen]

"Tighten up"? Are you kidding? The first order of business is for you and yours to correctly and accurately describe the protocol. The second order is to recognize the protocol flaws when they are pointed out to you, and not to dodge and deflect.

And the third order, for you alone, is to own up to and retract your attempt to impugn Susan Blackmore's motives. I am tired of waiting.

Time for a "Questions for Steve Grenard"?

 

[BillHoyt]

Time for a "Questions for Steve Grenard"?

How about "Questions Steve Grenard Continues to Dodge"?

 

[CFLarsen]

How about "Questions Steve Grenard Continues to Dodge"?

Same thing

 

[Interesting Ian]

So, to you, all "anomalous" information is ESP?

Imaging that you had no idea what electricity was. Would a lightbulb constitute ESP, then? By your definition, it would.

Anomalous cognition to be precise. Yes it is conceivable there is a physical mechanism. On the other hand, I think this is normally regarded as being somewhat unlikely. For example, research suggests something like telepathy is unaffected by distance, where as with any physical influence, the influence diminishes to the inverse square of the distance concerned.

Not that this is really relevant. My understanding is that ESP is simply defined as anomalous cognition ie a person gaining information though unknown means. ESP does not rule out some sort of physical mechanism, it's just that a physical mechanism is difficult to reconcile with the "signal" being unimpaired by distance or any shielding. Of course, if there is some unknown artifact skewing the results of parapsychological research, then this would not be ESP.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Popper never meant to apply it to metaphysical hypotheses.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



How do you know that?

I read it somewhere. But apart from what Popper thinks, it would be very difficult to justify that it should apply to metaphysical hypotheses. We can appreciate why scientific theories, which are unfalsifiable, might be vacuous, it is more difficult to justify this with metaphysical hypotheses. But in any case, the issue of survival is clearly not vacuous. Either we survive our bodies or we don't! There must be a definite answer to that question, even under the scenario where we lose our individuality after death.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Besides which, in as much as the transmission theory is unfalsifiable, so is the generative theory. Anyway, the survival hypothesis is not compatible with all possible states of affairs because one can disprove it by dying and ceasing to exist!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Aha. So you can never determine whether it is true or false.

Whilst we are still alive? It would be difficult although I wouldn't say impossible. Outside deductive logic, to prove something beyond all doubt is incredibly difficult. Within science, for example, "falsified" theories can most often, if not always, be saved by the introduction of ad hoc auxiliary hypotheses. I think on the whole it might be useful at this time just to satisfy ourselves with weighing up the various types of evidence for each of the hypotheses (the generative hypothesis or transmission hypothesis), and thereby coming to a rational conclusion as to which hypothesis best explains all the relevant facts.

 

[CFLarsen]

Interesting Ian,

Stop. Right here.

Before we go any further, I would like to see the replicable experiments that show telepathy or any other ESP phenomenon.

I would also like to see your reference that Popper never meant it to apply to metaphysical hypotheses.

I also need to know how you are going to test a non-falsifiable hypothesis.

We cannot continue in a progressive manner, unless we have covered the points we build our arguments on.

We cannot continue this, unless these points are cleared up.

 

[Lucianarchy]

Clearly, that is not a floor-to-ceiling screen, but a floor-to-ceiling folding screen. That little, seemingly innocuous word. Oh, my, what a quibble.

What an idiot. You clearly don't understand the scientific method.

In any form of para / psychological test you need to at least make people comfortable whilst maintaining rational controls. In the context of the development of these tests, the controls of having JE on the other side of a screen and the sitter on the other, back to the wall, facing the video, is a perfectly appropriate protocol. ( did you get that bit, Billy? - maybe JE is a superman able to lean forward right off his chair and peek around the screen without it being caught on continuous video footage. Or maybe he can climb up on his chair and crane his neck over, surreptitiously, unseen of course) In future experiments the trust and positivity will grow and the sort of controls which skeptics have called for can be introduced. Of course, Billy, you could eventually control things by wrapping the sitter and the medium in duct tape, you know, just to make sure.
However, scientific experiments can only be done in positive co-operation with living systems, otherwise stresses skew the results.

That picture of yours was deception on your part, presumably to infer that JE was peeking around a screen. Idiot.

Now, do you know of a cold reader capable and willing to do the same tests for Dr Schwartz under the same conditions as those set for other mediums? Should be a cinch to do, Billy, what's stopping you?

 

[BillHoyt]

What an idiot. You clearly don't understand the scientific method.

Heh, I'm just a bouncer at a local strip joint. Now that we've exchanged pleasantries, onto the assertions?

In any form of para / psychological test you need to at least make people comfortable whilst maintaining rational controls.

If the subjects and the controls are given the same environment, then there is no need to do this, sir. The experimental conditions are precisely the same. Now, if you are asserting something special about psi-guys, then you must demonstrate this need with other research. So, cough it up.

In the context of the development of these tests, the controls of having JE on the other side of a screen and the sitter on the other, back to the wall, facing the video, is a perfectly appropriate protocol. ( did you get that bit, Billy? - maybe JE is a superman able to lean forward right off his chair and peek around the screen without it being caught on continuous video footage. Or maybe he can climb up on his chair and crane his neck over, surreptitiously, unseen of course)

Interesting that you think having the medium's back to the sitter was sufficient while Schwartz apparently thought there needed to be a screen. Was Schwartz not being rational in this? More interesting is that you missed that this screen is supposedly "floor to ceiling", yet you rant on about JE craning his neck over it. Most interesting, of course, is that Schwartz and, now Grenard, both prominently mention the "floor-to-ceiling" screen as a control, curiously omit that there are several visible gaps in said screen and that you now maintain the screen was not only gapped, but not really floor-to-ceiling. Curious that you can't seem to imagine doing this experiment in two completely separated rooms and yet maintaining your perceived need for comfort.

In future experiments the trust and positivity will grow and the sort of controls which skeptics have called for can be introduced. Of course, Billy, you could eventually control things by wrapping the sitter and the medium in duct tape, you know, just to make sure.
However, scientific experiments can only be done in positive co-operation with living systems, otherwise stresses skew the results.

Really? Explain that to the centuries of experimenters who have done otherwise. Please provide the citations for this outlandish assertion. Please also explain again why this psi is so enormously powerful that we should all drop everything we're doing to investigate it, yet so puny, lame, weak and fragile, that we must have this "feel-good" environment to measure it.

That picture of yours was deception on your part, presumably to infer that JE was peeking around a screen. Idiot.

Are you maintaining that Schwartz did not use a gapped screen, and omit this detail in his reports? Are you asserting that this has no bearing on the strength or weakness of this study?

Now, do you know of a cold reader capable and willing to do the same tests for Dr Schwartz under the same conditions as those set for other mediums? Should be a cinch to do, Billy, what's stopping you?

Red herring. Answer the questions.

Cheers,

 

[BillHoyt]

I've got to ask. Is anybody else laughing as hard as I am at this latest outburst from Luci? Wow.

 

[jj]

Once again, the people who wimped out were the 7 cold readers along with Penn Jilette who met with Schwartz in Los ANgeles when he tried to enlist their cooperation in an experiment.

Bullcrap. Why would anyone with any understanding agree to be in an experiment with such serious methodological flaws?

The cold readers don't have to prove anything. The people who have to prove something is the "speaker for the dead" crowd, and they have to improve their methodology first.

 

[jj]

How about "Questions Steve Grenard Continues to Dodge"?

That's the title I'd go for.

 

[Darat]

Lucianarchy,

I agree with part of what you wrote. How come skeptics, who say that something is obivous and a cold reader could duplicate it under the same conditions, etc., haven't? In fact, they seem to avoid Schwartz' challenge like the plague. (excuses abound)

-Who

Which challenge?