Interesting JE Hits....

CFL: Give just one example of "highly specific information" that JE has ever come up with, without homing in on the sitter.


Can you expand on "homing in on a sitter please?" I am at a loss to understand how one can give specific information for a specific person without homing in on them. Are you suggesting he should say Gramps from Long Island is here and is saying where he hid his will to the entire audience? Isn't this trolling? Net casting?
In large groups you will find people with similar family histories, deceased relatives with the same names and so on.


The problem with this is venue. With hundreds and even, at seminars 1000s in attendance, such information is likely to produce multiple persons to claim the information. If he gets the name, location and relationship, I know I saw people in the audience of the taping I was at speak up. I am not sure I have ever seen this phase of a reading on air which is why, once again, using the tube to study mediumship and concentrating on a single person (e.g. JE) is not a scientifically valid way to prove anything and this is by your own definition of "evidence." In fact you claim the show is edited to make him look good. Although the performance he gave which I witnessed in person seemed no better or no worse than what I have seen televised, if this is true, there is no possible way you can scientifically deduce the validity or non-validity of the process by studying JE in this venue. In the research paper thread we are about done because of the hidden flaws argument. There is simply no way to scientifically or logically respond to the possible or suggested presence of hidden flaws or the use of editing, which is tantamount to a "hidden flaw."
 
Steve,

Does JE ever walk up to a sitter and start with "highly specific information"?

Or does he ask general questions first, and then, when a sitter bites, starts working his way to "highly specific information"?

The latter? Then why is he not cold reading? First, you say that JE can get "highly specific information" in a huge crowd, then you start explaining that the information can fit many people.

Can you please make up your mind??

(I thought you had me on ignore?? :D)
 
L: Does JE ever walk up to a sitter and start with "highly specific information"?

I granted he was cold reading or asking questions to determine identity of the communicator. Did you miss that?

L: Or does he ask general questions first, and then, when a sitter bites, starts working his way to "highly specific information"?

Exactly. See above.

C: The latter? Then why is he not cold reading? First, you say that JE can get "highly specific information" in a huge crowd, then you start explaining that the information can fit many people.

Same answer. You brought up the fact that he does not get highly specific information unless homing in on someone. You didn't expand on this unless this was it. I question how one can get highly specific info for a large crfowd......and if he does throw out highly specific information it was the same as casting a net or trolling.


C: Can you please make up your mind??

My response is self explanatory. I don't understand this.

You are on ignore for posts containing irrelevant ad hominems and baseless accusations.
 
SteveGrenard,

In the research paper thread we are about done because of the hidden flaws argument. There is simply no way to scientifically or logically respond to the possible or suggested presence of hidden flaws ...
Click to expand...
You are wrong about this IMO. The "hidden flaws" argument is similar in nature to the "hidden variables" in QM debates. There *is* a scientific way forward - you design new experiments that examine specific aspects of the phenomenon being inverstigated, and try to build an overall picture that shows "hidden flaws/variables" is an unsustainable argument. The *only* reason this cannot be done with mediumship is because the mediums will not allow it. They will only participate in experiments that they believe they can pass.

Why not have JE read 10 people consecutively, but make it a 'silent' reading - he simply writes down the 'images' the spirits send him ('older male', 'white feather', 'cutting down tree'). Then shuffle the 10 readings and have each sitter identify the one they feel is "for them".

Why not have JE do 10 readings (sight unseen - over a phone line, for instance) yet have only 5 sitters - each is read twice, in a random order. Have JE identify whether this is the 'first' or 'second' reading for each sitter. And/or again show all readings to the sitters and have them pick the two that are for them.

The scientific answer to "hidden flaws" is more methodologies, relating to the same phenomena, but varying the protocol. Constant solid results eliminates the argument.
 
SteveGrenard said:
My response is self explanatory. I don't understand this.
Click to expand...

So, you are saying that JE never talks to dead people?

SteveGrenard said:
You are on ignore for posts containing irrelevant ad hominems and baseless accusations.
Click to expand...

So, you scan the posts to see if they contain "irrelevant ad hominems and baseless accusations", is that it? :rolleyes:
 
LOKI: You are wrong about this IMO. The "hidden flaws" argument is similar in nature to the "hidden variables" in QM debates. There *is* a scientific way forward - you design new experiments that examine specific aspects of the phenomenon being inverstigated, and try to build an overall picture that shows "hidden flaws/variables" is an unsustainable argument. The *only* reason this cannot be done with mediumship is because the mediums will not allow it. They will only participate in experiments that they believe they can pass.

Reply: Mediumship was not under discussion in the research paper thread, telepathy/esp was using ganzfeld techniques.
I don't know who you are taking to but I did not sign on to this thread to design a new experiment. You are going pretty far afield here and changing Mark Tidwell's original objective which was to nominate a paper. We did. Dicussion has ended or is at an impasse because of the Hyman argument. Thread over.


LOKI: Why not have JE read 10 people consecutively, but make it a 'silent' reading - he simply writes down the 'images' the spirits send him ('older male', 'white feather', 'cutting down tree'). Then shuffle the 10 readings and have each sitter identify the one they feel is "for them".

Reply: LOL. Why not write him and suggest it? If you're talking to me, please be informed I have nothing whatsoever to do with him or testing him.

LOKI: Why not have JE do 10 readings (sight unseen - over a phone line, for instance) yet have only 5 sitters - each is read twice, in a random order. Have JE identify whether this is the 'first' or 'second' reading for each sitter. And/or again show all readings to the sitters and have them pick the two that are for them.

Reply: Go ahead and suggest it to JE.


LOKI: The scientific answer to "hidden flaws" is more methodologies, relating to the same phenomena, but varying the protocol. Constant solid results eliminates the argument.

Reply: I see you are not familiar with Hyman's Razor. As there have been 42 ganzfeld studies and 1000s of trials already including minor variations in protocol, tightening up of controls including the 2000 paper done by Parker of 5 studies which was nominated for discussion and still refuted on the basis of hidden flaws, what exactly is the point? There is none. There is not now and there never will be a honest dialogue between Hymanists and researchers. Hymans Razor cannot be scientifically refuted because of its nature. He knows it. I know it and the peope who invoke it know it.

Loki .. for more information on Hyman's philosophy, check out:

http://www.tricksterbook.com/ArticlesOnline/HymanReview.htm
 
SteveGrenard said:
Reply: I see you are not familiar with Hyman's Razor.
Click to expand...

Neither is Google.

So you can stop pretending you have superior knowledge, Steve.
 
SteveGrenard,

Why not write him and suggest it? If you're talking to me, please be informed I have nothing whatsoever to do with him or testing him.
Click to expand...
Gee Steve...what a surprise! You have no opinion on why JE (or any other medium) won't sit such tests. I wasn't inferring *you* should/could conduct such test - I thought it fairly obvious that I was asking for your opinion (since we are on an internet forum exchanging opinions). Let me be more clear then...why do *you*, personally, in your opinion only, feel that such tests have not been done? Why do mediums not arrange such tests themselves? What, in your opinion, does it suggest (not prove, but suggest) that when tests are conducted such simple protocols are overlooked in favour of protocols that supply much greater "flexibility" to the medium?

As there have been 42 ganzfeld studies and 1000s of trials already including minor variations in protocol, tightening up of controls including the 2000 paper done by Parker of 5 studies which was nominated for discussion and still refuted on the basis of hidden flaws, what exactly is the point?
Click to expand...
This belongs on the other thread I woud think. But since we're here...what would be the point, you ask? How about you answer this one simple question, Steve. If you and I were to set up an AutoGanzfeld experiment tomorrow, using a readily available protocol, and using recievers who had previously scored well, would you *guarantee* an above chance result? Would you bet your house on getting better than 25%? If the answer is *no*, then in what way can *you* say there cannot be "hidden flaws"?
 
LOKI: Gee Steve...what a surprise! You have no opinion on why JE (or any other medium) won't sit such tests. I wasn't inferring *you* should/could conduct such test - I thought it fairly obvious that I was asking for your opinion (since we are on an internet forum exchanging opinions). Let me be more clear then...why do *you*, personally, in your opinion only, feel that such tests have not been done? Why do mediums not arrange such tests themselves? What, in your opinion, does it suggest (not prove, but suggest) that when tests are conducted such simple protocols are overlooked in favour of protocols that supply much greater "flexibility" to the medium?

Reply: There are many mediums interested in participating in research. Insofar as I am aware JE was never one of them and he was cajoled even into doing the HBO experiments. His attitude toward critics and skeptics is well known. This is why I feel such further testing of JE, per se, as an individual, has not been done. Some people don't mind being lab rats, apparently he does. I will not infer from the absence of any willinness or solicitation on his part to engage in further resarch as a sign of anything. Unlike Hyman, I do not believe that the absence of evidence is evidence..........to borrow a phrase from the cynics. For myself it is the process that is important, not whether some platform medium with a TV show is the real deal or not. I appreciate that there are others here who believe this is important. I am not one of them.
Never was. I am interested, however, in truthful representations concerning him or anyone.

The research selected for evidence of the paranormal on that other thread were ganzfeld studies involving esp and telepathy, something upon which mediumship is based or theoretically based. The argument between the parapsychologists and those who espouse survival is whether the informatgion obtained by mediums is obtained from telepathy with the living or physically extant objects anywhere in the world, universe even I guess or
if they are really getting that information from the surviving consciousness of people who have died. As the evidence for telepathy and esp mounts it is predicted that the field will polarize (if it hasn't done so already) into those espousing ESP or super ESP/PSI and those espousing survival and those espousing the probability of both being possible.


LOKI: This belongs on the other thread I woud think. But since we're here...what would be the point, you ask? How about you answer this one simple question, Steve. If you and I were to set up an AutoGanzfeld experiment tomorrow, using a readily available protocol, and using recievers who had previously scored well, would you *guarantee* an above chance result? Would you bet your house on getting better than 25%? If the answer is *no*, then in what way can *you* say there cannot be "hidden flaws"?

Reply: I did not say there were not hidden flaws. I said if there were flaws, and they were hidden, then it is impossible to validate or refute any ganzfeld study. So no, I would not bet my house on that. LOL. I was not the person who accepted the task of examining the data, Hyman was. If anyone should be betting, it should be him. If Hyman accepts the task of assesing such studies then I think we have the right for him to be more than rhetorically vague. I would like to know what those flaws are that remained after every conceivable source of sensory leakage was plugged. I would like to know that if "it must not be psi" then what is it........? If Hyman, after examining and auditing the raw data doesn't know, how do you expect us data impoverished debaters to know? That's the point. There is no point, it is a useless exercise.
 
Hyman's Razor? Is that where you can absolutely assume conclusions even though the evidence doesn't support it?
 
btw, voidx, I may have some other live and unedited readings that we can actually watch here, but will post them next week when neo's back.
Click to expand...
Is it next week yet?

If Sylvia passed the Challenge Randi’s designed for her, people could say it was lucky guesswork. Its very poorly designed and no scientific journal would consider it worth anything as far as establishing the existence of mediumship.
Click to expand...
I answered this question for you in the Michael Shermer thread. It would prove that she was not merely cold-reading. After checking the protocol to rule out flaws as previously mentioned, we would have to acknowledge that she was not using cold-reading techniques to gain her hits as we suspect, and therefore would have to begin evaluating just how she was able to get her hits. It is not meant to be proof of mediumship, but it would be a strong start in making those of us who are skeptical of it, start to reconsider our view of these peoples "talents".

Actually, he’s said it doesn’t matter whether its radio, television, remote or in person.
Click to expand...
Remote. So bad phone connections on LKL are dismissed then agreed? Or wait. Can he pick and choose for specific readings and sitters whether or not radio,television,remote or in person is better for that specific instance? I say no, he can't pick.

Posted by Neo:
There have been obvious sound/technical problems from time to time on LKL, including a person calling in while a train was passing by, and poor telephone connections, as well as the caller being disconnected too quickly to validate something that John said............neo
Click to expand...
Is it safe to say then that you 2 disagree on this point?

Well, is he the best cold reader? Or is he a mediocre cold reader? I wish critics would make up their minds!
Click to expand...
We can't because his performance varies! You say at seminars he's fantastic, come critics say that on CO his performances are better than on LKL. I say his LKL performances are decidedly poor and on par with cold-reading. I'd say he's an average cold-reader, who can be made to look better when he has more control over his own environment. Which incidentantly you have him saying doesn't matter. Radio, TV, in person, it doesn't matter says JE. When we ask why he does poorly on LKL its because of bad phones, or getting cut off (maybe a valid reason for 1 or 2 readings, but not the majority, and Renanta's transcripts don't carry this through) or the hurried pace of LKL. But then you quote later that JE says these things don't matter, they shouldn't affect his performance. And yet his performance is still poor, and he makes no excuse for it! He doesn't even attempt, he just passes off the invalidated by user, go home and think on it excuse and carries on. You have to acknowledge this, I don't see how you could not.

The seperate debate going on in here concerning psi and telepathy is where people really wanting to prove mediumship should concentrate. I think, especially in the course of this thread and others, that JE just cannot be differianted enough from cold-reading, lucky guesswork, potential editing to make hits look more impressive, to be seen as a real medium. I haven't been shown a transcript of a special hit that couldn't be more logically explained by one of these three phenomenon. Why jump to ADC? I remain unconvinced.

On a side note, either Loki or Claus, can't remember which sorry, came up with an excellent example. Has JE or any other medium passed off specific personal information to a person without saying anything else to them. Eg. "You there, no, don't say a word. You're uncle Jesse from Edmonton says not to worry about the cut on your ass you got in grade 3." No cold-reading to home in on sitter details and information, no asking of questions, or validations of guesses tossed out. Plain and simple, you there, I know its you, here's your message. Has this ever happened? If he's speaking to the dead I cannot see how it couldn't have, at least once. But nope, every single reading must be validated by the reader, which is the achilles heel of this entire charade. Unless someone can convince me otherwise.
 
T: Hyman's Razor? Is that where you can absolutely assume conclusions even though the evidence doesn't support it?

You fell asleep in class. Hyman's Razor states that for anything paranormal that is statistically, mathematically and scientifically proven there must be a flaw to account for it, but we (he) don't know what it is. Or another way: the simplest explanation for any study that proves a paranormal phenomenon statistically, mathematically and scientifically is that the study is flawedbut "he still don't know"what that flaw is.

off topic:

Is it true that you can kill someone with a single toe using thai boxing?
 
Is it true that you can kill someone with a single toe using thai boxing?
Click to expand...
You can kill someone with a pool noodle if one were so inclined to put in the effort. But as to their being a mystical "place thai boxing toe here to incur instant death" the answer is no. Not that someone couldn't be kicked to death by a toe, but there's no way it would be intentional.
 
T: Hyman's Razor? Is that where you can absolutely assume conclusions even though the evidence doesn't support it?

You fell asleep in class. Hyman's Razor states that for anything paranormal that is statistically, mathematically and scientifically proven there must be a flaw to account for it, but we (he) don't know what it is. Or another way: the simplest explanation for any study that proves a paranormal phenomenon statistically, mathematically and scientifically is that the study is flawedbut "he still don't know"what that flaw is.

Ahh..Hyman's strawman is more like it. This must be something that you quacks use to try and discredit skeptics and science.


Is it true that you can kill someone with a single toe using thai boxing?

We don't use our toes as weapons.
 
T: We don't use our toes as weapons.


__________________


You don't know how to read a question. It wasn't asked if you use your toes as weapons, it was asked if it was possible to kill someone with a single toe using thai boxing. A simple yes or no would suffice or I will find out elsewhere. Thanks.

Hyman's Razor is based on what Hyman says so it is hardly made of straw. If you have read his conclusions on a number of studies involving the paranormal you would know this.
 
SteveGrenard said:

Hyman's Razor is based on what Hyman says so it is hardly made of straw. If you have read his conclusions on a number of studies involving the paranormal you would know this.
Click to expand...

I've read his conclusions and I don't ever remember seeing this. I recall that, concerning Ganzfeld, Hyman stated that the statistical significance did not necessarily mean that the cause was due to paranormal phenomena. He did suggest some possible contributing flaws, but admitted clearly that there was no evidence of such flaws. Can you provide a link where he makes the claim you describe?
 
M: He did suggest some possible contributing flaws, but admitted clearly that there was no evidence of such flaws.

Reply: Exactly. He suggests flaws but says there is no evidence for them. He also has suggested flaws but says he doesn't know what they are; he did this in the Utts/Hyman CIA debate.


M: Can you provide a link where he makes the claim you describe.

Reply: Not precisely. He makes these kinds of statements all the time when evaluating experiments such as the CIA/AIR/SAIC/SRI studies and the ganzfeld work. I guess you are familiar with them because you just sorta paraphrased him on this above. I am not sure this is a claim so much as it is an "opinion." I myself never used the word claim nor did I imbue it in Hyman.

Hyman's Razor aka Skeptic's Razor is not a term Hyman devised. It was devised to describe the above outlook by others reading his wishy washy escape clauses and fall back position when he can't find anything wrong. Hyman is not alone in this but is probably best known for it.
 
Originally posted by SteveGrenard

Reply: Exactly. He suggests flaws but says there is no evidence for them. He also has suggested flaws but says he doesn't know what they are; he did this in the Utts/Hyman CIA debate.

Offering possible answers is part of what a critic does. In the Utts/Hyman debate, he also suggested that paranormal phenomena might account for the statistical results. Unlike Utts however, he did not conclude that the explanation was necessarily a paranormal one.


He makes these kinds of statements all the time when evaluating experiments such as the CIA/AIR/SAIC/SRI studies and the ganzfeld work. I guess you are familiar with them because you just sorta paraphrased him on this above. I am not sure this is a claim so much as it is an "opinion." I myself never used the word claim nor did I imbue it in Hyman.

Hyman's Razor aka Skeptic's Razor is not a term Hyman devised. It was devised to describe the above outlook by others reading his wishy washy escape clauses and fall back position when he can't find anything wrong. Hyman is not alone in this but is probably best known for it.


No you didn't use the word "claim". You did state the following (emphasis mine).

"Hyman's Razor states that for anything paranormal that is statistically, mathematically and scientifically proven there must be a flaw to account for it, but we (he) don't know what it is. Or another way: the simplest explanation for any study that proves a paranormal phenomenon statistically, mathematically and scientifically is that the study is flawed but "he still don't know"what that flaw is."

I have never observed Hyman to state that positive results must be due to flaws. When you so devise a phrase, you do imbue the person you are talking about. You are putting words in his mouth. Hyman, to my knowledge, has never expressed such a sentiment. Can you provide a reference to the contrary?

Regarding "wishy washy escape clauses", I've always found his criticisms to be highly specific, as they were with Ganzfeld and with Schwartz.
 
NOTICE: This is getting so far off the subject of this thread, I have copied the following to a new thread. sg





OK Mark, here are some nuggets written by Hyman which have been preserved at:

http://www.mceagle.com/remote-viewing/refs/science/air/hyman.html

This “rare” document was on the University of Oregon server but mysteriously disappeared but not before others preserved it and Joe McMoneagle decided to continue making it available.

You (Mark) state it was Hyman’s job as a “critic.” I did not know critic was in his Job description. He was hired to evaluate the data, not play a rhetorical critic but I agree it is important to call a spade a spade: he was nothing more than a critic, given the level and nature of his rhetoric.

There are not , to my knowledge any scientific experiments or series of experiments in which the world of all possible unknown flaws result in their invalidation and if science had questioned every finding, statistically significant result or substantive conclusion by saying something must be wrong with it but we don’t know what it is but here are some suggestions but I can’t prove them and I have no evidence for their existence. So we waited to to find out if these unknown, unproven and impossible to prove non-existent flaws were valid, then we wouldn’t be where we are today. Think of the defense making this argument to impeach DNA evidence in a murder or rape trial or the prosecution doing likewise when the evidence exonerates a defendant. Hyman should be on every capital murder defense team. Can you say “O-J”?

It’s remarks like these which resulted in the satirical creation of the skeptic razor being named in Hyman’s honor. As a skeptic, I understand your desire to paint these kinds of comments by Hyman with a broad brush to minimize their absolute
silliness but they must be taken at face value.

Perhaps some others would care to take a crack at the following quotes after reading them in CONTEXT the above URL.


------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


“Because my report will emphasize points of disagreement between Professor Utts and me, I want to state that we agree on many other points. We both agree that the SAIC experiments were free of the methodological weaknesses that plagued the early SRI research. We also agree that the SAIC experiments appear to be free of the more obvious and better known flaws that can invalidate the results of parapsychological investigations. We agree that the effect sizes reported in the SAIC experiments are too large and consistent to be dismissed as statistical flukes.”


“Obviously I do not agree that all possibilities for alternative explanations of the non-chance results have been eliminated. The SAIC experiments are well-designed and the investigators have taken pains to eliminate the known weaknesses in previous parapsychological research. In addition, I cannot provide suitable candidates for what flaws, if any, might be present. Just the same, it is impossible in principle to say that any particular experiment or experimental series is completely free from possible flaws. An experimenter cannot control for every possibility--especially for potential flaws that have not yet been discovered.”



“So, I accept Professor Utts' assertion that the statistical results of the SAIC and other parapsychological experiments "are far beyond what is expected by chance." Parapsychologists, of course, realize that the truth of this claim does not constitute proof of anomalous cognition. Numerous factors can produce significant statistical results. Operationally, the presence of anomalous cognition is detected by the elimination of all other possibilities. This reliance on a negative definition of its central phenomenon is another liability that parapsychology brings with its attempt to become a recognized science. Essentially, anomalous cognition is claimed to be present whenever statistically significant departures from the null hypothesis are observed under conditions that preclude the operation of all mundane causes of these departures. As Boring once observed, every success in parapsychological research is a failure. By this he meant that when the investigator or the critics succeed in finding a scientifically acceptable explanation for the significant effect the claim for ESP or anomalous cognition has failed.”


“However, I am willing to assume that the effect sizes represent true effects beyond inadequacies in the underlying model. Statistical effects, by themselves, do not justify claiming that anomalous cognition has been demonstrated--or, for that matter, that an anomaly of any kind has occurred.”
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom