Ian Rowland is a Friendly Guy

[xouper]

Pyrrho: The reason for a non-cold-reader is to establish a baseline.

May I ask, how would having a "baseline" be useful in proving whether a medium got information from a dead person?

 

[jj]

May I ask, how would having a "baseline" be useful in proving whether a medium got information from a dead person?

Well, it depends, Xoup. Maybe if your intent is to attempt to turn experimental noise into "results".... (insert sarcasm warning somewhere here)

 

[Pyrrho]

May I ask, how would having a "baseline" be useful in proving whether a medium got information from a dead person?

The only reason I mention it is because there has been discussion regarding a scoring system for reponses, and there has been some talk about levels of performance. I suppose one reason for establishing a "baseline" is to determine how often a person can get "hits" without being a medium. This should fall within random chance. It also provides a means to determine bias levels -- if a non-medium is consistently scored high on the performance end, perhaps something is wrong with the process.

I could be completely wrong in my thinking, however. I freely admit that I would not know how to properly set up a protocol.

 

[xouper]

Pyrrho: I suppose one reason for establishing a "baseline" is to determine how often a person can get "hits" without being a medium.

I am unclear how this would help. Let's consider the three main possibilities.

• The coldreader scores a higher hit percentage than the medium. Does this disprove that the medium got his hits by paranormal means? No.
  
• The coldreader scores a similar hit percentage as the medium. Does this disprove that the medium got his hits by paranormal means? No.
  
• The coldreader scores a lower hit percentage than the medium. Does this prove that the medium got his hits by paranormal means? No.

What am I missing here? What is gained by having coldreaders as controls?

I suppose one reason for establishing a "baseline" is to determine how often a person can get "hits" without being a medium. <span style="background-color: #ffc">This should fall within random chance</span>.

If so, then "random chance" is the baseline and you don't need a control reader to establish this.

I could be completely wrong in my thinking, however. I freely admit that I would not know how to properly set up a protocol.

I claim no such expertise either.

 

[dharlow]

What is gained by having coldreaders as controls?

You're quite right. A comparision of cold readers versus mediums does not establish anything paranormal. I have read more than once, from texts by eminent magicians, that to become a great performer, one only needs to learn and "perfect" a couple of tricks. Once one has done that, you can fool almost anyone. There are very few in this world who solely devote their lives to cold reading. Mentalists' acts consists of a variety of tricks to keep their audience entertained. If cold reading were the only act, the audience would become bored. However, one can view, and should view, JVP and JE as solely cold readers (whether they really are or not). One should view them as people who have worked solely on one trick, and honed their skills very well. While they might be genuine, that is not how they should be viewed if they want their "powers" to gain scientific acceptence. If they are viewed as "masters" of cold reading, then they will surely score higher than any mentalist in such a comparison, thus rendering any significant correlation over their competitors as useless as regards paranormal powers. What such a comparision would show , assuming a positive result, is that they are vastly better at what they do than other mentalists are.

That being said, I think that those that assert cold reading need to back up their claim with actual evidence, since they themselves are indeed making a claim, rather than simply putting forth the possibility.

I should also add that "talking to the dead" is something that cannot be decided on any test. The concept of telepathy, "if" one were to come to accept it (and the evidence for it far outweighs that for survival, however one wants to judge the evidence), can override any evidence for communication with the deceased due to current lack of knowledge as to its limits.

 

[Lucianarchy]

You're quite right. A comparision of cold readers versus mediums does not establish anything paranormal. [...]

That being said, I think that those that assert cold reading need to back up their claim with actual evidence, since they themselves are indeed making a claim, rather than simply putting forth the possibility.

Indeed. And you are correct in your assertion that it does not establish anything 'paranormal', but it does help to preclude the 'normal' / mundane from the issue. If the claim is that water is leaking from the sealed container, then we must fill it and observe and measure. If we find that water is still getting out, but not through any known scientific means, then that is a case for the scientific community to fund and research as a matter of urgency.

 

[BillHoyt]

You're quite right. A comparision of cold readers versus mediums does not establish anything paranormal.

I'm afraid nobody has asserted that it would. The test is simply to see if this "phenomenon" can be distinguished from cold reading. If the result were that it cannot be distinguished, then that tends to refute the psi claims. If the result were that it could be distinguished, then the question of the quality of cold reading ability is still open.

[bb]One should view them as people who have worked solely on one trick, and honed their skills very well. While they might be genuine, that is not how they should be viewed if they want their "powers" to gain scientific acceptence. If they are viewed as "masters" of cold reading, then they will surely score higher than any mentalist in such a comparison, thus rendering any significant correlation over their competitors as useless as regards paranormal powers. What such a comparision would show , assuming a positive result, is that they are vastly better at what they do than other mentalists are.[/b]

The many mentalists, skeptics and scientists who have commented on this nonsense are mostly agreed that the Sylvia Brownes, JVPs and others are pretty poor at it. JE is harder to pin down because his performances are so heavily edited. As for your last line, again, that is not what such a test would show.

That being said, I think that those that assert cold reading need to back up their claim with actual evidence, since they themselves are indeed making a claim, rather than simply putting forth the possibility.

This is wrong. The onus is always on the one making the extraordinary claim. Talking to the dead requires at least three violations of Occam's razor. Violation 1: The dead must still be available somehow for this conversation. There is no evidence that this is so, and all available evidence points to the opposite conclusion. Violation 2: That some people have some special sensory ability to tap phone calls from the graveyard. Violation 3: That the dead have some special sensory ability to answer the graveyard phones.

The onus is decidedly not on those who stick with what is known.

Cheers,

 

[xouper]

BillHoyt: The test is simply to see if this "phenomenon" can be distinguished from cold reading. If the result were that it cannot be distinguished, then that tends to refute the psi claims.

If by "refute" you mean "cast strong doubt upon", then I agree. However, even Randi does not claim that his demonstrations of spoonbending are proof that Geller is not doing it via paranormal means. Why waste time with coldreaders as controls when that won't falsify the claims made by mediums?

 

[BillHoyt]

• The coldreader scores a higher hit percentage than the medium. Does this disprove that the medium got his hits by paranormal means? No.
  
• The coldreader scores a similar hit percentage as the medium. Does this disprove that the medium got his hits by paranormal means? No.
  
• The coldreader scores a lower hit percentage than the medium. Does this prove that the medium got his hits by paranormal means? No.

What am I missing here? What is gained by having coldreaders as controls?

If so, then "random chance" is the baseline and you don't need a control reader to establish this.

I claim no such expertise either.

Xouper,

When the coldreader scores higher hits then the medium that it does tend to refute the paranormal hypothesis. If you cannot distinguish between cold reading and psi, then Occam's razor says choose the simpler hypothesis. Repeated instances of similar results would put nails in the psi coffin.

If the hit rates are similar, again the two hypotheses cannot be distinguished and Occam's razor again applies.

If the coldreader scores lower than the medium, this tends to support the psi hypothesis. But only partially, because it simply says the medium's performance can be distinguished from the coldreader's. If similar tests repeatedly get the same result, we must spin other hypotheses to distinguish this purported phenomenon from something more mundane.

Cheers,

 

[xouper]

BillHoyt: When the coldreader scores higher hits then the medium that it does tend to refute the paranormal hypothesis. If you cannot distinguish between cold reading and psi, then Occam's razor says choose the simpler hypothesis. Repeated instances of similar results would put nails in the psi coffin.

Agreed, Occam's razor says choose the simpler hypothesis, but it does not say the other hypothesis is false. Why waste time with coldreaders as controls when that won't falsify the claims made by mediums? Do we really need coldreaders acting as controls as a prerequisite to using Occam?

 

[BillHoyt]

Agreed, Occam's razor says choose the simpler hypothesis, but it does not say the other hypothesis is false. Why waste time with coldreaders as controls when that won't falsify the claims made by mediums? Do we really need coldreaders acting as controls as a prerequisite to using Occam?

Do we need coldreaders for this testing? No. Do we need to test this at all? Hardly, except that the woo-flies keep screaming their fool heads off that it is a real phenomenon. Could we design a test based on chance? Yes, but very carefully. The coldreader thing was brought up because of the first bumbling Schwartz test that pitted grad students versus mediums. The grad students were given no training in probability and practice in what to guess and how. Surpise, surprise, the Schartz test showed grad students were as good at pulling the wool over sitters eyes as mediums.

Can we eliminate medium controls altogether? Probably. Randi's protocol for Sylvia seems very good, so long as my clarification (or something comparable) is inserted. (I do not know that Randi does not already have this provision in there, of course, I simply haven't yet seen it.) The design is similar to some very good astrology tests that were done, wherein the "reading" was given to many subjects to whom it didn't apply, and said subjects said it did.

But even this gives the psi guys wiggle room. "You only proved subjects can't tell what's good and what's bad." Etc.

Cheers,

 

[neofight]

Originally posted by BillHoyt (to Steve Grenard)


THANK YOU for revealing you have been on that thread but dodged it by posting here! ROTFLMAO

Which reminds me, Bill, when you get a chance, could you please tidy up the loose ends that you left on the "An Appeal to Honest Skeptics" thread? Thanks! .......neo

 

[CFLarsen]

Which reminds me, Bill, when you get a chance, could you please tidy up the loose ends that you left on the "An Appeal to Honest Skeptics" thread? Thanks! .......neo

Which reminds me, neofight, when you get a chance, could you please tidy up the loose ends that you left on the ""Questions for neo"" thread? Thanks! .......Claus

 

[BillHoyt]

Which reminds me, Bill, when you get a chance, could you please tidy up the loose ends that you left on the "An Appeal to Honest Skeptics" thread? Thanks! .......neo

In case you hadn't noticed, neo, that thread died an agonizing death some days ago, except for you bumping it. Do you really feel it is necessary to belabor the quibbles over the meaning of "that", and "might"?

 

[neofight]

In case you hadn't noticed, neo, that thread died an agonizing death some days ago, except for you bumping it. Do you really feel it is necessary to belabor the quibbles over the meaning of "that", and "might"?

Well, actually, I thought it was an excellent thread, with some very excellent points that were made by your fellow skeptics, Bill, most of whom agreed with me, and not with you and Claus, BTW. My appeal to honest skeptics thread was quite reassuring and gratifying to me, since it proved to me what I already knew, and that is that there are many posters here who fit the description of "honest skeptics", and a few others........who do not!

Of course, if you'd prefer not to address my last post before the two bumps, where I pointed out exactly how you had totally distorted what Loki was saying, then I understand your reluctance to own up to your erroneous conclusions. I can only guess that it's just too embarrassing for you to acknowledge being wrong, or else you would have corrected your errors immediately, the way most adults would have done. ......neo

 

[CFLarsen]

Of course, if you'd prefer not to address my last post before the two bumps, where I pointed out exactly how you had totally distorted what Loki was saying, then I understand your reluctance to own up to your erroneous conclusions. I can only guess that it's just too embarrassing for you to acknowledge being wrong, or else you would have corrected your errors immediately, the way most adults would have done. ......neo

Do you think you could be an adult long enough to answer some questions?

 

[thaiboxerken]

Well, actually, I thought it was an excellent thread, with some very excellent points that were made by your fellow skeptics, Bill, most of whom agreed with me, and not with you and Claus, BTW. My appeal to honest skeptics thread was quite reassuring and gratifying to me, since it proved to me what I already knew, and that is that there are many posters here who fit the description of "honest skeptics", and a few others........who do not!

Yea, but we already have a word that applies to your definition of "honest skeptic" and that word is "believer".

Why do you insist on calling believers skeptics and skeptics dishonest skeptics? Are you ashamed that you are a believer? Ok, we'll compromise definitions here and call you a pseudoskeptic, how's that?