Ian Rowland is a Friendly Guy

[BillHoyt]

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

"Dr. Schwartz fails to mention the reason for my refusal, which is based entirely on his insistence that I declare, in writing, that I will never share any of my observations or conclusions with anyone, in any way. I cannot operate under such onerous limitations, nor will I ever contemplate doing so. This man of science, who preaches loudly about forthrightness, openness, sharing, honesty, and evidence, will have none of it when it might damage his own cherished notions. This is not science, not in any degree."

Do you refute that Schwartz demands that the skeptical participants not share observations or conclusions with anybody? Do you not see what is wrong with that?

Cheers,

 

[BillHoyt]

By the way, Luci, Stevie and Who,

Please tell us what a "triple blind" experiment is, and why Schwartz should considered suspect for having suggested such a thing. Please follow any claims of its existence as a protocol with five citations from peer-reviewed journals of experiments having used "triple blind" protocols.

 

[Lucianarchy]

If the subjects and the controls are given the same environment, then there is no need to do this, sir.

Please read some basic scientific method, Billy.

Measurement of human cognition in interactive relationships fails if either of the co operators is stressed.

That's why Psychologists don't study the human mind by wrapping it up in duct tape.

Now, why can't you name even one cold reader who will operate under the conditions you are so worried about. If you think it's possible to jump over a screen without being seen in these tests, go ahead and do it, oh, you'll also need to cold read as well. My bet is that you will try to hide behind more spohistry instead of facing the challenge.

 

[Lucianarchy]

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

I know, weird. Lots of hyperbole and wishfull thinking but no substance to back up their beliefs. You'd think they'd be falling over themselves to provide these subjects in order to expose their alledged scam instead of colluding with it by keeping those names secret.

 

[BillHoyt]

Please read some basic scientific method, Billy.

Measurement of human cognition in interactive relationships fails if either of the co operators is stressed.

That's why Psychologists don't study the human mind by wrapping it up in duct tape.

Now, why can't you name even one cold reader who will operate under the conditions you are so worried about. If you think it's possible to jump over a screen without being seen in these tests, go ahead and do it, oh, you'll also need to cold read as well. My bet is that you will try to hide behind more spohistry instead of facing the challenge.

Address my points, puppy. Cut the crap. The conditions are the same for subjects and controls. Basic scientific method. Cite for me, please, peer-reviewed studies that demonstrate requirement that no psychology study be done while subjects are stressed.

Your question about me naming a cold reader has been addressed. The conditions for Schwartz' study are unscientific and unacceptable. I have addressed this red herring of yours.

NOW BACK TO YOUR BULLSH. The gaps, please? The screen, please? Separate rooms, please? Address these.

Cheers,

 

[TLN]

My bet is that you will try to hide behind more spohistry instead of facing the challenge.

Luci, you're the most disingenuous person I have ever encountered and a complete hypocrite.

Why not face a challenge of your own? Is it because you can't?

Yes...

 

[BillHoyt]

Measurement of human cognition in interactive relationships fails if either of the co operators is stressed

Milgram, Luci. Start with Milgram, you blowhard.

 

[Lucianarchy]

"Dr. Schwartz fails to mention the reason for my refusal, which is based entirely on his insistence that I declare, in writing, that I will never share any of my observations or conclusions with anyone, in any way. I cannot operate under such onerous limitations, nor will I ever contemplate doing so. This man of science, who preaches loudly about forthrightness, openness, sharing, honesty, and evidence, will have none of it when it might damage his own cherished notions. This is not science, not in any degree."

Do you refute that Schwartz demands that the skeptical participants not share observations or conclusions with anybody? Do you not see what is wrong with that?

Who said that, Randi, in the context of his reportage, or a cold reader applicant for Dr Schwartz's research chair challenge?

If it's Randi's comments on Dr Schwart'z negotiations about the enitre lab work and confidential sitter information then that's entirely irrelevant to the CR research chair challenge. It's also extraordinarily deceptive of you, Billy. One can only wonder why you are so desperate to commit such deception.

 

[Lucianarchy]

Your question about me naming a cold reader has been addressed. The conditions for Schwartz' study are unscientific and unacceptable.

I must have missed the name of the person you believe could demonstrate this is an actual measurement, rather than a mere opinion. Forgive me for asking again. Who was it? Is it a secret?

 

[TLN]

One can only wonder why you are so desperate to commit such deception.

You wouldn't know anything about deception, would you Luci? Posing as a woman and a skeptic, you're all about honesty, right?

And then there's this gem:

'I take great exception to James "The Amusing" Randi dismissing my faith. He is a right bastard and I urge you to help me shut his hate site down.'

No, the only person here who's desperate is you. The only person with an emotional stake in the outcome of these questions is you, hence your complete lack of objectivity and fair play.

 

[BillHoyt]

I must have missed the name of the person you believe could demonstrate this is an actual measurement, rather than a mere opinion. Forgive me for asking again. Who was it? Is it a secret?

Where should we begin, sir? The gapped screen? The utter lack of double-blinding? The outlandishly liberal declaration of hits, including the Schwartz claim that one apparent miss could actually be a hit if one permits it under the heading "precognition"?

Change your handle to Lucicredulity.

Cheers,

 

[Lucianarchy]

Where should we begin, sir? The gapped screen?

Is that a 'stage name'? I'd rather you just gave the name of a cold reader.

 

[Guest]

Please tell us what a "triple blind"
experiment is,

LOL.

A triple-blind sounds funny, but is a semi-well-known term. It means

-the experimenter is blinded and
-the experimentee is blinded AND
-the evaluator(s) is(are) blinded

Triple. Blind. This isn't just a word that Schwartz made up. The fact that you probably think it is is interesting. The fact that you feel perfectly comfortable about yapping on (sometimes rightly) about poorly designed experiments when you dont even know what a triple blind means is interesting.

By the way, regardless of anything else, if a skeptic claims that cold readers could do this and that, THAT is their claim, and they are subject to shutting up and providing evidence for it, or not.

-Who

 

[Guest]

Luci, you're the most disingenuous person I have ever encountered and a complete hypocrite.

We all are TLN. Why, you've been known to be the Troll Policeman, yet you post a lot to a person who you consider a troll.

Oh, but that isn't hypocritical, now is it?


Next time you type the word 'hypocrite', notice that you can see the reflection of your face in your computer monitor, but only in certain lighting conditions. The question is, will you, TLN, ever purposefully seek out those lighting conditions, or willingly turn on as many lights as you can to make sure no reflections are seen?

-Who

 

[BillHoyt]

A triple-blind sounds funny, but is a semi-well-known term. It means...

My apologies for not putting those questions in the right context. I meant a triple-blind in the context of mediums and sitters. Provide citations showing protocols for that. Think about it.

Cheers,

 

[TLN]

We all are TLN. Why, you've been known to be the Troll Policeman, yet you post a lot to a person who you consider a troll.

Oh, but that isn't hypocritical, now is it?

Sure.

 

[Girl 6]

You wouldn't know anything about deception, would you Luci? Posing as a woman and a skeptic, you're all about honesty, right?

Um, I may be wrong, but I don't recall Lucianarchy EVER claiming that he was a woman. That was a conclusion that a number of people here came to and STILL think.

Of course, I may be wrong on this.

G6

 

[Guest]

My apologies for not putting those questions in the right context. I meant a triple-blind in the context of mediums and sitters. Provide citations showing protocols for that. Think about it.

LOL, moving the goal posts...

You obviously didn't know what a triple blind is, then when informed, you say 'Oh, in the context of mediums and sitters.', etc. A triple blind is a triple blind is a triple blind. The context is irrelevant.

In fact, Bill, Sir, you asked:

" Please tell us what a "triple blind" experiment is, and why Schwartz should considered suspect for having suggested such a thing. Please follow any claims of its existence as a protocol with five citations from peer-reviewed journals of experiments having used "triple blind" protocols."

Oh, and here are those "five citations" (actually, MUCH more) from peer-reviewed journals of experiments having used triple blind protocols.

Go here:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?CMD=Search&DB=PubMed

and type in, with quotes: "triple blind"

and see what comes up.

Even places like

http://www.mercksource.com/pp/us/cn...zcommonzSzdorlandszSzdorlandzSzdmd_t_19zPzhtm

acknowledge the term, as does Cochrane.

If you want the SPECIFIC protocols for this SPECIFIC experiment, you OBVIOUSLY have to contact the scientists who used them. I suggest contacting Schwartz or his team and see if they can help you.

Oh, and the whole "Show me peer review!" is incredibly funny. Nothing at the JREF is ever peer reviewed in any respectable journal (of science or of anything). The only 'publishing' that goes on is Randi's weekely commentaries/Geller rants on his own webpage, or miscellaneous articles in SI or Skeptic. Hilarious. One can't even easily obtain their data to examine. Not science, not even close. So next time you ask for standards (peer review, scientific method, etc.), ask yourself those questions first.

-Who

 

[SteveGrenard]

It is obviously aparent by now that Mr Rowland's is not responding to a request for contact so he can serve as a
cold reading control as he's has logged on several times since I made this offer. It is his absolute privilege absolute privlege to do so just as it was when contact with him was attempted previously.

To Hoyt:
I will not apologize to Sue Blackmore for telling the truth about her work. LOLOLOL......can you read or are you one of those bumblers that selectively filters information to suit your agenda?
Susan Blackmore's bibliography including publications up to last year appear above. They answer any questions regarding Sue's
recent research interests, e.g. memes. You are impugning her by
stating otherwise. Oh, and when you read her new book on consciousness you will find that out. I suggest you, SIR, are the
deflecting one.

We have proved once again that when push comes to shove, the cool reading camp can't produce. But that's okay, we can wait.

 

[SteveGrenard]

A triple blind experiment in the context of mediumship involves blinding of medium, sitter and investigator. In simple terms,
the medium and sitter do not know each other, cannot see/hear each other and have no knowledge of each other; there is no feedback from sitter to medium. The investigator does not know which sitter is assigned to which medium because that pairing is randomly drawn by a fourth, uninvolved party and is only revealed after the trial and ratings (using numbers rather than names for sitter/medium) has taken place.