Ian Rowland is a Friendly Guy
- Thread starter Clancie
- Start date
-
- Tags
- ian rowland
Guest
Unregistered
G
"I see that Whodini is still stalking me, and still using deliberately deceptive and illicit claims in an attempt to cause harm to my professional reputation."
LOL, I post to other people on the board, including you, and you call it stalking?
Your pseudo-Even fake for Law and Order-speak needs work.
All I've said to you here is:
"jj, we don't want your theories, we want you or any cold reader who says there are flaws, that cold readers can duplicate it, etc., to shut up and do what you claim you can do.
Sound familiar?"
-In response to you posting things like:
"Why would anyone with any understanding agree to be in an experiment with such serious methodological flaws?"
That is nothing about any attempt on my part to cause harm to your professional reputation, and there never will be.
There is no "deliberately deceptive" claims. In fact, above, YOU'VE made the claim of "such serious methodological flaws", and I'm asking you to provide evidence for it. Unless I've missed it, I haven't seen any.
Expect people to post responses critical of your own when you participate on a public bulletin board. If you go around calling things "bullcrap", expect others to do similar things.
And maybe you're stalking me? In the 'mirror' thread, you posted about ME, after I made a legitimate comment, first:
"Bot, don't waste your time with Whodini. He is an expert at asking questions that imply specific, often absurd, and sometimes insulting things, without actually taking such positions, and he has yet to offer support for any of the implications he makes."
Please quit using deliberately deceptive and illicit claims in attempts to cause harm to MY professional reputation, for crying out loud.
Let's also get this thread back on track..
-Who
LOL, I post to other people on the board, including you, and you call it stalking?
Your pseudo-Even fake for Law and Order-speak needs work.
All I've said to you here is:
"jj, we don't want your theories, we want you or any cold reader who says there are flaws, that cold readers can duplicate it, etc., to shut up and do what you claim you can do.
Sound familiar?"
-In response to you posting things like:
"Why would anyone with any understanding agree to be in an experiment with such serious methodological flaws?"
That is nothing about any attempt on my part to cause harm to your professional reputation, and there never will be.
There is no "deliberately deceptive" claims. In fact, above, YOU'VE made the claim of "such serious methodological flaws", and I'm asking you to provide evidence for it. Unless I've missed it, I haven't seen any.
Expect people to post responses critical of your own when you participate on a public bulletin board. If you go around calling things "bullcrap", expect others to do similar things.
And maybe you're stalking me? In the 'mirror' thread, you posted about ME, after I made a legitimate comment, first:
"Bot, don't waste your time with Whodini. He is an expert at asking questions that imply specific, often absurd, and sometimes insulting things, without actually taking such positions, and he has yet to offer support for any of the implications he makes."
Please quit using deliberately deceptive and illicit claims in attempts to cause harm to MY professional reputation, for crying out loud.
Let's also get this thread back on track..
-Who
Guest
Unregistered
G
xouper said:
Ouch.
Whodini got dissed. I am willing to accept that his claims are valid, I just haven't seen much or any evidence.
Maybe I missed or overlooked it, I'm honestly not too sure. I'll go back and check.
-Who
Lucianarchy
Banned
- Joined
- Oct 28, 2001
- Messages
- 2,105
TLN said:
So you even posted it without even knowing where it came from?
Do what I have said. In the meantime, the irony of your own words, which you followed that deceptively used, unrelated quote, which you attributed to this author, will remain on page 4 of this thread, for all to see for the projection that it is.
SteveGrenard
Philosopher
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2002
- Messages
- 5,528
Ian:
Obviously if you exchanged e-mails with Schwartz, I stand corrected.
Insofar as I am aware, and I had lunch with Schwartz the other day in NYC he never had any further contact with you and I am trying to encourage that in relation to a future mediumship trial which is being designed and planned right now by Schwartz and a number of collaborators under th purview of a new doctorial student at the University of Arizona.
If you would e-mail me privately at: sgrenard@si.rr.com I would
be happy to give you Schwartz' home telephone number so you can discuss this further. I have advised him I am doing this.
If you are in Vegas you are in the same time zone as he is in
Tucson right now.
I cannot comment on your opinion that you have nothing to offer in such an experiment. The inclusion of a talented cold reader as a control has been called for by skeptics such as Hyman as well as a number who post here. On my making the above offer to you, they immediately relented in an effort to downplay this control. You may agree with Xouper that a cold reading control does not prove a medium is not also cold reading. I happen to agree it proves nothing but that hasn't stopped critics from calling for this and criticizing the control that was used. To that end one would gather statistics that under identical secure protocols and conditions, both the cold reader (e.g. yourself) and the purported medium get the same or nearly the same % of hits.
If the cold reader and the medium get a significant amount of disparity on hit rates (as determined by the sitter and a third dispassionate rater) this may validate the call by skeptics to include this control ...one way or the other. I am no expert on
what is expected or what would be statistically significant differences so won't comment further. Such numbers would, on publication, be open to scrutiny of course just as they were in the previous studies and those of Robertson and Roy in Edinburgh who may also be interested in including a cold reading control if they thought it worthwhile.
Steve Grenard
Obviously if you exchanged e-mails with Schwartz, I stand corrected.
Insofar as I am aware, and I had lunch with Schwartz the other day in NYC he never had any further contact with you and I am trying to encourage that in relation to a future mediumship trial which is being designed and planned right now by Schwartz and a number of collaborators under th purview of a new doctorial student at the University of Arizona.
If you would e-mail me privately at: sgrenard@si.rr.com I would
be happy to give you Schwartz' home telephone number so you can discuss this further. I have advised him I am doing this.
If you are in Vegas you are in the same time zone as he is in
Tucson right now.
I cannot comment on your opinion that you have nothing to offer in such an experiment. The inclusion of a talented cold reader as a control has been called for by skeptics such as Hyman as well as a number who post here. On my making the above offer to you, they immediately relented in an effort to downplay this control. You may agree with Xouper that a cold reading control does not prove a medium is not also cold reading. I happen to agree it proves nothing but that hasn't stopped critics from calling for this and criticizing the control that was used. To that end one would gather statistics that under identical secure protocols and conditions, both the cold reader (e.g. yourself) and the purported medium get the same or nearly the same % of hits.
If the cold reader and the medium get a significant amount of disparity on hit rates (as determined by the sitter and a third dispassionate rater) this may validate the call by skeptics to include this control ...one way or the other. I am no expert on
what is expected or what would be statistically significant differences so won't comment further. Such numbers would, on publication, be open to scrutiny of course just as they were in the previous studies and those of Robertson and Roy in Edinburgh who may also be interested in including a cold reading control if they thought it worthwhile.
Steve Grenard
Note to those who want to know how to do this: pay close attention to what is missing. This is always a critical component of critical thinking. When the commercial comes on that says, "We have exactly the same active ingredient as Brand X, but it only takes two of ours to give you the same zip as four of theirs", ask yourself: what's missing? In this case, what is the cost per pill? If two of ours costs more than four of theirs, then you've gained nothing.
In the case of Grenard's statement, you must also look for what is missing, and ask what is the deflection. Here's what it said:
2. Note, secondly, that I asked it several times on the iniitial thread, to respond to me, and that it never answered.
3. Now, thirdly, and most importantly, note that it reframed the problem as being about its claim that her recent research focus was about memes.
4. Note now, that it actually said this:
It has no idea what it is blathering about. When caught, it squeals and points its little head and many arms into as many directions as it can. It then produces as loud a screech as possible. It is pathetic. It is disingenuous. It is, once again, only deserving of heckling.
It is a pathetic puke. It resembles nothing more than an addle-brained ass. It seems to be a prevaricating pretender to the throne of the puny psi. A Laughable lout. A Ridiculous runt. It should go away.
Jeers,
In the case of Grenard's statement, you must also look for what is missing, and ask what is the deflection. Here's what it said:
1. Note, first of all, that it elected, finally, to respond to me on this, rather than on the initial thread.
2. Note, secondly, that I asked it several times on the iniitial thread, to respond to me, and that it never answered.
3. Now, thirdly, and most importantly, note that it reframed the problem as being about its claim that her recent research focus was about memes.
4. Note now, that it actually said this:
5. Furthermore, note that I responded with this:
6. Observe that it impugned her research motives, and that I clearly called it on this. Observer also that it tries to change the discussion to one about her current focus.
It has no idea what it is blathering about. When caught, it squeals and points its little head and many arms into as many directions as it can. It then produces as loud a screech as possible. It is pathetic. It is disingenuous. It is, once again, only deserving of heckling.
It is a pathetic puke. It resembles nothing more than an addle-brained ass. It seems to be a prevaricating pretender to the throne of the puny psi. A Laughable lout. A Ridiculous runt. It should go away.
Jeers,
TLN said:
Why, of course!
Source: http://disc.server.com/discussion.cgi?id=119104&article=220
Added:
Source: http://disc.server.com/discussion.cgi?id=119104&article=224
Lucianarchy
Banned
- Joined
- Oct 28, 2001
- Messages
- 2,105
CFLarsen said:
Why, of course!
Source: http://disc.server.com/discussion.cgi?id=119104&article=220
Added:
Source: http://disc.server.com/discussion.cgi?id=119104&article=224
Thank you. Anyone can see that is not from me and can also see what sort of spurious tactics pseudo-skeptics like TLN will stoop to in order to discredit what they can't deal with in a rational manner. It wouldn't surprise me if it was TLN who planted it in the first place.
Thanks.
Lucianarchy
Banned
- Joined
- Oct 28, 2001
- Messages
- 2,105
Now, can anyone nominate a cold reader willing to take the challenge and provide measurable evidence to support the claims of the cr believers?
SteveGrenard
Philosopher
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2002
- Messages
- 5,528
Oops sorry abut the inconclusive results remark .....for evidence of that see SB's study of Chris Robinson. But that was before during her phase when she dealt directly in testing people who could pick horses or, as in Robinson's case, claimed precognitive dreams. It was widely contended that her and Richard Wiseman were vying for the title of James Randi of England. But yes, she has dropped out of that race. Now she studies memes or does a lot of thinking and writing about them. As a scientist and PW fellow she is far more qualified than Randi to conduct such investigators an has he background and training to not only conduct a proper scientific study but to get it published in a peer reviewed journal such as the JSPR that deals with this subject.
In the case of Robinson while she may've made conclusions which negate his claims, the evidence she presented in the paper boded the opposite. It was a rather a strange and, to be polite, "inconclsuive" mini-study of this guy.
So I am still not apologizing about anything nice I said about Blackmore or anything I said which is the truth (see her biblio) and I am not apologiziing for the "inconclusive" remark other than to say sorry I did not cite the instance I am familiar with which has caused that opinion to be rendered.
In the case of Robinson while she may've made conclusions which negate his claims, the evidence she presented in the paper boded the opposite. It was a rather a strange and, to be polite, "inconclsuive" mini-study of this guy.
So I am still not apologizing about anything nice I said about Blackmore or anything I said which is the truth (see her biblio) and I am not apologiziing for the "inconclusive" remark other than to say sorry I did not cite the instance I am familiar with which has caused that opinion to be rendered.
SteveGrenard said:
Okay, it won't respond appropriately, but prefers, instead to portray its remarks as "nice."
So how long before it responds to this one. I will make the question clearer for it:
Describe for us, please, how you would design a triple-blind study of mediums. In detail. Including how the evaluators evaluate. Stop ducking this question.
[edited to add: Please respond on the thread newly created by Claus.]
Let us take that to a new thread:
Designing a triple-blind experiment?
Designing a triple-blind experiment?
SteveGrenard
Philosopher
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2002
- Messages
- 5,528
I described the triple blind procedure in brief. A detailed description, including rating parameters, will take several pages to describe. I will start dowloading my notes and material on
this tonight. I am not ducking the question as several designs have been discussed but I wasn't sure you all wanted this kind of detail. I will be happy to provide it. AFter this is done , I would hope that it will be read and commented on (not just poo-bahed) with constructive criticisms. Thank you.
Larsen: How would you design - in detail - a triple-blind experiment of mediums? Including how the evaluators evaluate.
this tonight. I am not ducking the question as several designs have been discussed but I wasn't sure you all wanted this kind of detail. I will be happy to provide it. AFter this is done , I would hope that it will be read and commented on (not just poo-bahed) with constructive criticisms. Thank you.
Larsen: How would you design - in detail - a triple-blind experiment of mediums? Including how the evaluators evaluate.
SteveGrenard said:
Steve,
The question is very simple. It does not require great detail. It certainly does not require notes. Think about it a bit and answer generally, but focus on the evaluation portion, sir. We're all ears.
I shall cross-post this to the thread Claus created.
Cheers,
SteveGrenard
Philosopher
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2002
- Messages
- 5,528
The non-detailed version of the triple blind protocol has been posted already. Mr. Larsen asks, and this is his word "in detail."
I will do so tonight and I will do so on the new thread established by Larsen for this purpose. Thank you for diverting attention once again, moving the goalpost forward instead of back, but I will take Larsen at his word and supply those details. It will not include a cold reading control because, as we have just seen, we still cannot recruit a highly proficient cold reader to serve as a control.
Sheesh -- can't you guys ever stop contradicting each other? Make up your minds. Detail, no detail...LOL.
I will do so tonight and I will do so on the new thread established by Larsen for this purpose. Thank you for diverting attention once again, moving the goalpost forward instead of back, but I will take Larsen at his word and supply those details. It will not include a cold reading control because, as we have just seen, we still cannot recruit a highly proficient cold reader to serve as a control.
Sheesh -- can't you guys ever stop contradicting each other? Make up your minds. Detail, no detail...LOL.