Interesting Ian
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 9, 2004
- Messages
- 7,675
Luke T. said:
It just means read aloud.
Interesting Ian
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 9, 2004
- Messages
- 7,675
Luke T. said:
Ah!
I've just obtained 2 of his books btw, but have so much to read it will be some time before I read them.
Interesting Ian
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 9, 2004
- Messages
- 7,675
Luke T. said:
I don't know, I haven't read it. I'll get round to reading it eventually.
Interesting Ian
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 9, 2004
- Messages
- 7,675
Luke T. said:Originally posted by TLN
Probably right after you finish that web site, right?
Luke T.
Hey, this is a topic to bash Gary Schwartz who is unable to defend himself, not Interesting Ian.[/B]
You'll need to try and curb your enthusiasm TLN. It will be ready in the fullness of time.
Re: Re: Is Schwartz on Crack?
Many apologies, Dogwood! Sorry!
Yes, folks. Another champion was in that ring. The one, the only, Dogwood.
Man, those were good times. Is the tvtalkshows board still around? You still over there?
I miss RC. I wish he'd come back here.
Dogwood said:
Many apologies, Dogwood! Sorry!
Yes, folks. Another champion was in that ring. The one, the only, Dogwood.
Man, those were good times. Is the tvtalkshows board still around? You still over there?
I miss RC. I wish he'd come back here.
Cleon said:Well, this is the fruitcake who claimed that his tests were "triple blind," and never really explained what that meant.
Obviously, it's supposed to mean "everyone's blind to the fact that I'm pulling a fast one."
No. But funny.
Actually, a triple blind is a real thing.
In the setting of testing a drug:
1) the people getting the drug are blinded
2) the people administering the drug are blinded
3) the people who analyze the data are blind to the group information (who gets the actual drug and who got placebo). So instead of seeing "Drug Group" and "Placebo Group", for example, they could see "Group A" and "Group B".
Luke T. said:
Well skepticism is fine, but why deep anger?
Giving out the name Veronica spoils the trial for me. It wasn't necessary to do so. All that does is turn it into speculating how much Du Bois knew about Keen and his wife's name.
On the positive side ...... *if* Du Bois didn't know Keen's wife's name (which is a big *if* and assuming honesty elsewhere) ..... it is interesting in places and contains some information that cannot be dismissed easily as just cold reading
Open Mind said:Well skepticism is fine, but why deep anger?
Giving out the name Veronica spoils the trial for me. It wasn't necessary to do so. All that does is turn it into speculating how much Du Bois knew about Keen and his wife's name.
On the positive side ...... *if* Du Bois didn't know Keen's wife's name (which is a big *if* and assuming honesty elsewhere) ..... it is interesting in places and contains some information that cannot be dismissed easily as just cold reading
If you read the actual transcript, it is classic cold reading. I especially like the way she shotgunned/fished for names while using the names of countries so she would get more hits (she related to Germany and England.) The ever gullible Schwartz takes "England" to be the name of a known researcher he was friends with, then comments how "England" transformed in the reading from the country to the name of his friend. What an idiot, again, this is typical, old, boring cold reading.
Also, knowing GS previous methods of feeding info to the mediums (specifically John Edwards) so they do not completely strike out this is a very reasonable assumption. But to be fair to our belived GS, scientifically he should publish the raw data and make it available. He simply refuses to do so then only publishes the graphs showing how great his raw data is. So, if you can provide GS raw data please do so, until then he is not to be trusted. He is so far out of legitimate academic study and science, what we are really talking about is a hyped up circus act manager/promoter.
The Mighty Thor
Muse
- Joined
- Sep 27, 2003
- Messages
- 961
Schwartz and his co-conspirators are truly paranormal. They are caught in a TIME WARP. They are doing exactly what Psi investigators of old (from Oliver Lodge to William James) did. They make the same false assumptions:
1. That mediums have had no contact with, or received information from other mediums, other sitters, from their own"research" and from spies.
2. That mediums do not know the key figures in Psychical Research.
This is so naive. It was naive in Sir Oliver Lodge's time, 1851-1940, when postal services, telegram, and then telephone were becoming inter-continental. It is extremely naive in the modern world where communications and information-seeking are much easier and faster. The group involved were really part of a tight-knit mutual support society. The whole thing stinks of academic fraud, or self delusion so strong as to be bordering on the pathological.
The scientific community should be up in arms over Schwartz. Academic freedom is one thing: disseminating falsehoods derived from using bad research techniques and calling this "science" is another.
Why is this allowed to go on?
1. That mediums have had no contact with, or received information from other mediums, other sitters, from their own"research" and from spies.
2. That mediums do not know the key figures in Psychical Research.
This is so naive. It was naive in Sir Oliver Lodge's time, 1851-1940, when postal services, telegram, and then telephone were becoming inter-continental. It is extremely naive in the modern world where communications and information-seeking are much easier and faster. The group involved were really part of a tight-knit mutual support society. The whole thing stinks of academic fraud, or self delusion so strong as to be bordering on the pathological.
The scientific community should be up in arms over Schwartz. Academic freedom is one thing: disseminating falsehoods derived from using bad research techniques and calling this "science" is another.
Why is this allowed to go on?