Ian Rowland is a Friendly Guy
- Thread starter Clancie
- Start date
-
- Tags
- ian rowland
Sure, Clancie,
Let's disperse with the personal attacks (which you have been doing a lot of lately), and focus on some hard issues.
Like these:
"Questions for Clancie"
Let's disperse with the personal attacks (which you have been doing a lot of lately), and focus on some hard issues.
Like these:
"Questions for Clancie"
Lucianarchy
Banned
- Joined
- Oct 28, 2001
- Messages
- 2,105
QUOTE]Originally posted by Ian Rowland
It's true that, based on what I know of Gary Schwarz's work, I don't see any useful role that I could play in his research, nor am I interested in participating. But maybe that's because I'm not a trained scientist and can't understand these things. But this is not said with any disrespect to Dr. Schwarz, who has always been perfectly polite and approachable in his personal email to me, and I wish him and his team the very best with their research.
- Ian [/QUOTE]
Ian, as you are an expert at your craft, you could play an extremely valuable part by acting as a control for these experiments. Only the 'mediums' like JE can do what they do under DR Schwartz's conditions, and from their description of how they get their information, it is not from a mundane medium it is literaly a paranormal medium. This surely needs research and co-operation from those who have the skills to help. Many skeptics have claimed that Cold Readers (or even hot readers) could replicate this. You are one of the best CR's, and obviously your time is precious, but if funding could be found to remunerate you for your time and expertise, would you offer your help? If there are other reasons why you wouldn't do it, that's OK, I respect you have a life outside CR
Speaking of which, best wishes for your road-trip (and enjoy having as many girlfriends as you bloody well wish!)
It's true that, based on what I know of Gary Schwarz's work, I don't see any useful role that I could play in his research, nor am I interested in participating. But maybe that's because I'm not a trained scientist and can't understand these things. But this is not said with any disrespect to Dr. Schwarz, who has always been perfectly polite and approachable in his personal email to me, and I wish him and his team the very best with their research.
- Ian [/QUOTE]
Ian, as you are an expert at your craft, you could play an extremely valuable part by acting as a control for these experiments. Only the 'mediums' like JE can do what they do under DR Schwartz's conditions, and from their description of how they get their information, it is not from a mundane medium it is literaly a paranormal medium. This surely needs research and co-operation from those who have the skills to help. Many skeptics have claimed that Cold Readers (or even hot readers) could replicate this. You are one of the best CR's, and obviously your time is precious, but if funding could be found to remunerate you for your time and expertise, would you offer your help? If there are other reasons why you wouldn't do it, that's OK, I respect you have a life outside CR
Speaking of which, best wishes for your road-trip (and enjoy having as many girlfriends as you bloody well wish!)
SteveGrenard
Philosopher
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2002
- Messages
- 5,528
While it is true that no highly proficient CR has been used as a control and this was the objective of this phase of this thread which, sadly, resulted in a refusal or declination on the part of a highly skilled CR, the conditions to which Luci refers sort of precludes the methodology of cold reading from ocurring although it would be important to find out:
1. No verbal feedback-precludes cold reading hypohesis
2. No visual feedback-precludes warm reading hypothesis
3. Sitter anonymous to reader-precludes hot reading hypothesis
4. Reader anonymous to sitter
Mediums have functioned to a high level of accuracy, even at 100%, but without condtrols, under the above circumstances.
The cynics, super skeptics and critics have called for a control
for cold reading by a proficient cold reader (Randi, Shermer,
Jaroff as well as Penn Jilette all say they are not that good;
actually Penn is not a cold reader at all. the good ones demure because they say they can't operate under the above conditions; 8 have declined Schwartz, now including Ian Rowland). There is an inescapable conclusion in here somewhere that cold readers can't duplicate a genuine medium's performance but that doesn't stop scientists and inquiring minds from wanting to see if that is true as there is two hypotheses left to test for fraudulence: guessing and generalization.
1. No verbal feedback-precludes cold reading hypohesis
2. No visual feedback-precludes warm reading hypothesis
3. Sitter anonymous to reader-precludes hot reading hypothesis
4. Reader anonymous to sitter
Mediums have functioned to a high level of accuracy, even at 100%, but without condtrols, under the above circumstances.
The cynics, super skeptics and critics have called for a control
for cold reading by a proficient cold reader (Randi, Shermer,
Jaroff as well as Penn Jilette all say they are not that good;
actually Penn is not a cold reader at all. the good ones demure because they say they can't operate under the above conditions; 8 have declined Schwartz, now including Ian Rowland). There is an inescapable conclusion in here somewhere that cold readers can't duplicate a genuine medium's performance but that doesn't stop scientists and inquiring minds from wanting to see if that is true as there is two hypotheses left to test for fraudulence: guessing and generalization.
SteveGrenard said:
Explain how this protocol precludes the possibility of cold reading.
SteveGrenard said:
Well, if it was without controls, that 100% is worthless, no?
SteveGrenard said:
So, since no one's done it yet it can't be done?
Translation: Absence of evidence is evidence of absence.
SteveGrenard
Philosopher
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2002
- Messages
- 5,528
TLN - it depends on how you define cold reading. Do that and I will revise my statement. Right now I define it as the game of 20 questions, requiring feedback from a sitter for it to work.
If you have some broader definition covering things I did not cover above which were:
cold
warm
hot
generalization
guessing
then please advise......
IR is an authority on this so perhaps when he gets to read this he can help us out.
If you have some broader definition covering things I did not cover above which were:
cold
warm
hot
generalization
guessing
then please advise......
IR is an authority on this so perhaps when he gets to read this he can help us out.
I'm sorry, I don't see how that addressed any of my questions or points.
Explain how this protocol precludes the possibility of cold reading. Is it the lack of feedback?
But without controls, these results are worthless, correct?
So, since no one's done it yet it can't be done?
Translation: Absence of evidence is evidence of absence.
No?
Explain how this protocol precludes the possibility of cold reading. Is it the lack of feedback?
SteveGrenard said:
But without controls, these results are worthless, correct?
SteveGrenard said:
So, since no one's done it yet it can't be done?
Translation: Absence of evidence is evidence of absence.
No?
Lucianarchy
Banned
- Joined
- Oct 28, 2001
- Messages
- 2,105
TLN said:
So far, the only people who can do it are the mediums. If you believe a cold reader can do it, please nominate one so this important issue can be resolved.
SteveGrenard
Philosopher
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2002
- Messages
- 5,528
TLN: Explain how this protocol precludes the possibility of cold reading. Is it the lack of feedback?
Reply: Yes, but this is what I AM TOLD by people who cold read.
That phase of a fraudulent reading requires feedback......which is
the game of 20 questions.
TLN: But without controls, these results are worthless, correct?
Reply: If something cannot be done and the investigators have made a very public and strenuous effort to accomplish and still
are trying to accomplish, right up to this very moment, the results suffer from a lack of this type of control. On the other hand as Xouper has pointed out, he does not see how a control for cold reading using a cold reader would rule this out. So if its present, it should be apparent. If there is no feedback, well, then it isn't present. There are only two areas of fraudulent mediumship remaining with the design proposed that could be generated by a cold reader: generalization and, of course, guessing. Generalization can be ascertained by other means; the absence of guessing, any guessing, can be ascertained by determinng probabilities, especially probabilities for clusters of correct information.
TLN: So, since no one's done it yet it can't be done?
Reply: I am glad you phrased that as a question. You know the answer as well as anyone. Of course it can be done, but first we need someone (e.g. a proficient cold reader) to agree to do it.
TLN: Translation: Absence of evidence is evidence of absence.
Reply: A control for cold reading is not evidence in of itself. Xouper made that argument and I agreed with him.
Reply: Yes, but this is what I AM TOLD by people who cold read.
That phase of a fraudulent reading requires feedback......which is
the game of 20 questions.
TLN: But without controls, these results are worthless, correct?
Reply: If something cannot be done and the investigators have made a very public and strenuous effort to accomplish and still
are trying to accomplish, right up to this very moment, the results suffer from a lack of this type of control. On the other hand as Xouper has pointed out, he does not see how a control for cold reading using a cold reader would rule this out. So if its present, it should be apparent. If there is no feedback, well, then it isn't present. There are only two areas of fraudulent mediumship remaining with the design proposed that could be generated by a cold reader: generalization and, of course, guessing. Generalization can be ascertained by other means; the absence of guessing, any guessing, can be ascertained by determinng probabilities, especially probabilities for clusters of correct information.
TLN: So, since no one's done it yet it can't be done?
Reply: I am glad you phrased that as a question. You know the answer as well as anyone. Of course it can be done, but first we need someone (e.g. a proficient cold reader) to agree to do it.
TLN: Translation: Absence of evidence is evidence of absence.
Reply: A control for cold reading is not evidence in of itself. Xouper made that argument and I agreed with him.
A professional or amateur cold reader is not an adequate control. A proper control is someone who cannot do it at all.
Besides, the object is to show that alleged mediums do not use cold-reading to achieve their results. This goal should be attainable without having to resort to the use of a professional cold reader.
Still, I do wish one or two non-psychic cold readers would participate. Perhaps it all ought to be handled anonymously, so that nobody -- mediums included -- need fear having their names used to promote someone else's agenda. Nobody gets dissed in public, and nobody gets to brag that they've been tested in a scientific study. Of course, that means giving up some potentially valuable publicity, but what should that matter in the name of science?
Besides, the object is to show that alleged mediums do not use cold-reading to achieve their results. This goal should be attainable without having to resort to the use of a professional cold reader.
Still, I do wish one or two non-psychic cold readers would participate. Perhaps it all ought to be handled anonymously, so that nobody -- mediums included -- need fear having their names used to promote someone else's agenda. Nobody gets dissed in public, and nobody gets to brag that they've been tested in a scientific study. Of course, that means giving up some potentially valuable publicity, but what should that matter in the name of science?
As I understand it, guessing and generalization are aspects of cold reading, which do not require verbal feedback. If there is a problem with the definition of "cold reading" then that needs to be sorted out first.
Please clarify what definition of the word "control" you are using here? Are you referring controls in the sense of tigher protocols, or are you referring to controls as additional readers who are self-professed non-mediums to compare results against?
Also, when has any alleged medium ever passed a test with protocols tight enough to preclude sensory leakage, guessing, etc?
Oops, I see in another post that you defined what you meant, "Right now I define it as the game of 20 questions, requiring feedback from a sitter for it to work." I think the definition of cold reading is broader than that. But I am willing to be wrong.
Agreed. I am puzzled why others have called for coldreaders to be used as controls in testing mediums. When testing spoon benders, for example, it is not sufficient or necessary to use magicians as controls. It is necessary, however, to use protocols tight enough to preclude trickery, including stastitical sleight of hand. I claim no expertise in the design or evaluation of the specific details of such protocols, deferring instead to those who are more qualified.
SteveGrenard
Philosopher
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2002
- Messages
- 5,528
P: A professional or amateur cold reader is not an adequate control. A proper control is someone who cannot do it at all.
Reply: Okay. That's interesting because that is exactrly who Schwartz originally used for the HBO experiment(s). You will
have to expand on this for me to understand why a professional or (proficient) amateur cold reader is not an adequate control.
P: Besides, the object is to show that alleged mediums do not use cold-reading to achieve their results. This goal should be attainable without having to resort to the use of a professional cold reader.
Reply: You are probably right. The absence of a cold reader as a control is Hyman and other skeptic's criticism. Cold reading can be juduciously ascertained through judging -- but wait, no judging is allowed or is it only allowed from one side of the fence?
P: Still, I do wish one or two non-psychic cold readers would participate. Perhaps it all ought to be handled anonymously, so that nobody -- mediums included -- need fear having their names used to promote someone else's agenda. Nobody gets dissed in public, and nobody gets to brag that they've been tested in a scientific study. Of course, that means giving up some potentially valuable publicity, but what should that matter in the name of science?
Reply: A lot of people share your wish including myself but try as we have we have not succeeded. I agree the issue of anonymity for the cold reader (as well as the mediums) is important but then there are some who think they should have their names revealed.
If only one cold reader participated and everyone knew that, it wouldn't be hard to guess who it was ...what are the odds for that? LOL. And the final report would have to include the results of the cold reading control. Throwing in the cold reader into the mix with a half dozen purported mediums is fine for the operational phase of the experiment but sooner or later the data attributable to the cold reader would have to be singled out and compared with the data from the mediums and identified as such: cold reader data.
Schwartz revealed the names of the sitters and the mediums but did not release the data because everyone knew who the sitters were; he also did not attribute hit rates to particular mediums.
He found after the fact he could not release the data as it was personal information that could easily be attributed to the sitters because their participation-in-name was revealed. I would suggest to him next time to keep the sitters names confidential so their data could be released and get consent to do that......
similar to any medical study. We collect data on patients, publish it but certainly don't put their names in the publication. There are a few here also that don't think we should keep this confidential either but, oh well, everyone is entitled to their two cents.
Of course some data is so personal, like names and relationships or other known factors that anyone who knows the sitter could probably identify them by some or all of the information revealed.
And if everybody was anonymous and nothing was revealed, there would be skeptics who would even doubt the existence of the exercise let alone its validity if there is validity. You can't win.
Reply: Okay. That's interesting because that is exactrly who Schwartz originally used for the HBO experiment(s). You will
have to expand on this for me to understand why a professional or (proficient) amateur cold reader is not an adequate control.
P: Besides, the object is to show that alleged mediums do not use cold-reading to achieve their results. This goal should be attainable without having to resort to the use of a professional cold reader.
Reply: You are probably right. The absence of a cold reader as a control is Hyman and other skeptic's criticism. Cold reading can be juduciously ascertained through judging -- but wait, no judging is allowed or is it only allowed from one side of the fence?
P: Still, I do wish one or two non-psychic cold readers would participate. Perhaps it all ought to be handled anonymously, so that nobody -- mediums included -- need fear having their names used to promote someone else's agenda. Nobody gets dissed in public, and nobody gets to brag that they've been tested in a scientific study. Of course, that means giving up some potentially valuable publicity, but what should that matter in the name of science?
Reply: A lot of people share your wish including myself but try as we have we have not succeeded. I agree the issue of anonymity for the cold reader (as well as the mediums) is important but then there are some who think they should have their names revealed.
If only one cold reader participated and everyone knew that, it wouldn't be hard to guess who it was ...what are the odds for that? LOL. And the final report would have to include the results of the cold reading control. Throwing in the cold reader into the mix with a half dozen purported mediums is fine for the operational phase of the experiment but sooner or later the data attributable to the cold reader would have to be singled out and compared with the data from the mediums and identified as such: cold reader data.
Schwartz revealed the names of the sitters and the mediums but did not release the data because everyone knew who the sitters were; he also did not attribute hit rates to particular mediums.
He found after the fact he could not release the data as it was personal information that could easily be attributed to the sitters because their participation-in-name was revealed. I would suggest to him next time to keep the sitters names confidential so their data could be released and get consent to do that......
similar to any medical study. We collect data on patients, publish it but certainly don't put their names in the publication. There are a few here also that don't think we should keep this confidential either but, oh well, everyone is entitled to their two cents.
Of course some data is so personal, like names and relationships or other known factors that anyone who knows the sitter could probably identify them by some or all of the information revealed.
And if everybody was anonymous and nothing was revealed, there would be skeptics who would even doubt the existence of the exercise let alone its validity if there is validity. You can't win.
SteveGrenard
Philosopher
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2002
- Messages
- 5,528
X: Oops, I see in another post that you defined what you meant, "Right now I define it as the game of 20 questions, requiring feedback from a sitter for it to work." I think the definition of cold reading is broader than that. But I am willing to be wrong.
Reply: It may be broader. But I have included all the alleged tricks used by frauds:
1. feedback = game of 20 questions/pigeon holing/flattery and Barnum like exchanges - I call cold reading
2. warm reading = picking up sensory cues from dress, appearance, gender, inflection of voice, mannerisms
3. hot reading = prior research based on knowledge of who sitter is
4. generalization = requires analysis
5. guessing = requires probability analysis
or any combination of the above. e.g. medium sees Italian looking woman and says there is an issue with church or who is Sal?
He uses warm reading and 20 questions (feedback).
Now if there is anything else specifically included in the definition of cold reading let me know what it is. The key issue wth any experiment is to secure against any and all of the above regardless of what you want to call it. The cold reader and the mediums must each be subject with the same measures.
If there is no feedback, verbal or visual and the subjects are
mutually anonymous, you can control for first three. The last two
require judging.
Reply: It may be broader. But I have included all the alleged tricks used by frauds:
1. feedback = game of 20 questions/pigeon holing/flattery and Barnum like exchanges - I call cold reading
2. warm reading = picking up sensory cues from dress, appearance, gender, inflection of voice, mannerisms
3. hot reading = prior research based on knowledge of who sitter is
4. generalization = requires analysis
5. guessing = requires probability analysis
or any combination of the above. e.g. medium sees Italian looking woman and says there is an issue with church or who is Sal?
He uses warm reading and 20 questions (feedback).
Now if there is anything else specifically included in the definition of cold reading let me know what it is. The key issue wth any experiment is to secure against any and all of the above regardless of what you want to call it. The cold reader and the mediums must each be subject with the same measures.
If there is no feedback, verbal or visual and the subjects are
mutually anonymous, you can control for first three. The last two
require judging.
The reason for a non-cold-reader is to establish a baseline. Can't do that with someone who can cold read. The cold-reader should be part of the reader pool, along with the mediums. The non-cold-reader is the control for all concerned. At least, I think so. Time for me to sit back and lurk -- I've reached the limit of my competence in this area.SteveGrenard said:
SteveGrenard
Philosopher
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2002
- Messages
- 5,528
Thanks Pyrrho. That was invaluable where establishing a baseline is concerned. Thank you.