Is Schwartz on Crack?

[Psiload]

Look at this...

http://veritas.arizona.edu/support.htm

The VERITAS Research Program studies controversial topics and is not funded by government grants as other scientific studies are. As such, the program is supported completely by private donors and depends on these donors for any progress of the research.

The VERITAS Research Program would like to thank the following donors for their support:

Peter Hayes (benefactor: William James Post-doctoral Fellowship in Mediumship and Survival Research, Mediumship Communication Research Project)

Bill Kaspari (benefactor: The John Kaspari Foundation)

Now look at this...

http://veritas.arizona.edu/AQ Phase I.htm

Protocol:

The experimenter directs the medium to ask the discarnate (from Part 1b) 18 specific pre-written questions (below) about the discarnate’s life that can uniquely identify him/her. A list of questions was created by several individuals interested in this study including Bill Kaspari , Gary Schwartz, Julie Beischel, and Peter Hayes.

Even the guys who ponied up the dough to pay for this disgrace got to get in on the action.

 

[dharlow]

I will be attending that conference mentioned on the Schwartz paper at the end of this month. I will let the board know about any comments elicted on this work.

 

[Luke T.]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Is Schwartz on Crack?

errrr.... modesty prevents me from pointing out another glaring omission.

I suspect Jeff will be along momentarily to flame me...

 

[Luke T.]

Well skepticism is fine, but why deep anger?

First, because this "experiment" is going to be touted by psychics and believers everywhere as evidence in the paranormal. And I am not being psychic by predicting the future when I say that. It is a guarantee. Note the 93.2% score at the bottom of the paper.

Second, because an institute of higher learning is not only condoning, but financially supporting, this garbage.

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

Are you referring to this part?

In Part 1B (“Deceased-directed,” DD), the mediums were given some specific information related to the deceased. Since “Montague” and “Monty” are not common first names, the first medium, AD, was given the first name of the absent sitter (Veronica) and told that she wanted to hear from her deceased husband. [During the subsequent readings, the mediums were told that the absent sitter wished to contact her husband and that he usually called her “Darling” rather than using her first name.] It was hypothesized that more focused and detailed information regarding MK would be obtained in Part 1B compared to Part 1A.

Schwartz gives specific information about the deceased to the medium. He gives the first name of the deceased's wife and that she wants to hear about her husband. That pretty much tells the medium who the deceased is if the medium knows anything about Schwartz.

You are right. It wasn't a cold reading.

It was probably a smoking hot reading.

And this is Schwartz' idea of a double-blind experiment!

I recommend you read the second link I posted in my OP for further criticisms of the paper.

 

[Luke T.]

Consider this, Open Mind:

Veronica Keen (VK), MK’s wife, called GS in February, 2004. She shared some purported messages from multiple mediums who had contacted her. The mediums claimed that MK wanted GS’s laboratory to conduct research with him since he passed, especially involving cross-correspondence.

So some mediums contact Veronica and tell her her dead husband wants to talk to her, and wanted Schwartz to arrange it. The mediums initiated the contact! Hello?

Schwartz arranges it:

GS recognized that not only was this an important research opportunity for survival of consciousness research, but that it was a privilege (as well as responsibility) for him to conduct such research. When he was contacted in March of 2004 to participate in MK’s tribute, he decided to title his talk “Montague Keen’s vision of survival of consciousness: Then and now.” The title was chosen with the hope that some research data could be collected prior to the Tribute.

Remember that word. "Tribute."

Now are Schwartz and the medium (AD) strangers to each other?

Fourth, AD has participated in multiple previous experiments in the Human Energy Systems Laboratory where the blinding conditions were virtually cheat-proof. AD’s performance has been uniformly exceptional.

Now how freaking hard do you think it was for one of these mediums to figure out who the freaking dead mystery guest was when Schwartz told her they dead guy's wife is named Veronica and she wants to hear from her husband, the dead guy? Especially when it was the mediums who had called the dead guy's wife to get this ball rolling to begin with? Hello?

And how big a mystery is where this tidbit from the medium came from? GS is Schwartz, AD is the medium:

GS: Have things happened since he [MK] died that were surprises or different from what he expected in his life?

AD: He’s referencing either a book was dedicated to him but he’s referencing a dedication to him that he didn’t expect or some sort of an acknowledgement publicly of him as being important and he’s acknowledging the person paying homage to him, so to speak.

Homage. Tribute.

Flaming hot reading!


(edited to correct spelling and vBB errors)

 

[Luke T.]

These mediums who initiated this whole experiment rolled Schwartz like hookers with a drunken sailor. What a rube!

 

[CFLarsen]

These mediums who initiated this whole experiment rolled Schwartz like hookers with a drunken sailor. What a rube!

I don't think that Schwartz is a rube. He knows exactly what he is doing.

 

[Luke T.]

I don't think that Schwartz is a rube. He knows exactly what he is doing.

I can believe the mediums are frauds, but do you think Schwartz is knowingly and willingly performing a fraud?

I tried to PM you but it says your box is full. So I emailed you at your skepticreport address. I'd like to write an article for SkepticReport on this episode.

 

[Psiload]

Consider this, Open Mind:



So some mediums contact Veronica and tell her her dead husband wants to talk to her, and wanted Schwartz to arrange it. The mediums initiated the contact! Hello?

Schwartz arranges it:



Remember that word. "Tribute."

Now are Schwartz and the medium (AD) strangers to each other?




Now how freaking hard do you think it was for one of these mediums to figure out who the freaking dead mystery guest was when Schwartz told her they dead guy's wife is named Veronica and she wants to hear from her husband, the dead guy? Especially when it was the mediums who had called the dead guy's wife to get this ball rolling to begin with? Hello?

And how big a mystery is where this tidbit from the medium came from? GS is Schwartz, AD is the medium:



Homage. Tribute.

Flaming hot reading!


(edited to correct spelling and vBB errors)

Yeah, but Schwartz did blindfold AD and spin her around in four very fast circles before the experiment began...

The quadruple blind 'pin the tail on the donkey' protocol that Schwartz invented himself.

Oh, and btw...

nobody is "rolling" Schwartz. He is far from a victim, other than a victim of his own lack of scruples.

 

[Luke T.]

Ah! I just got your reply, Claus. Cool. I'm all over it.

 

[Psiload]

Does anyone know if Schwartz used his EEG equipment in this experiment? He was so enamoured of the scientificy pseudocredibility that it lent his last batch of "experiments", I can't imagine he'd do without it.

All of those cool wires, and the neato keen squiggly lines tracings on the computer, and all of the "data" that he could turn into charts and pie graphs... in color too! He was in his glory when he pored over the EEG readings, and announced his amazement of his stunning findings. If you didn't know better, you might actully think he had a single clue as to what he was actually looking at.

 

[CFLarsen]

I can believe the mediums are frauds, but do you think Schwartz is knowingly and willingly performing a fraud?

That's the problem I have with those who have been in the business for that long, and who are clearly intelligent: I simply cannot believe that they are not fully aware of what they are doing. Schwartz is highly knowledgable about how to design a solid experiment, but he simply chooses not to do it.

That cannot be involuntary. I know, I know: There are no limits to how people can deceive themselves....but still...

I tried to PM you but it says your box is full. So I emailed you at your skepticreport address. I'd like to write an article for SkepticReport on this episode.

I already remote-viewed it. It looks good!

 

[patnray]

No, I don't think he's on crack. But I do think he's addicted to the fawning attention he recieves from his gullible associates. And he's addicted to the research money his sponsors provide him to validate their beliefs.

 

[Ed]

No, I don't think he's on crack. But I do think he's addicted to the fawning attention he recieves from his gullible associates. And he's addicted to the research money his sponsors provide him to validate their beliefs.

Undergrad Woo-Chicks?

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

"departed hypothesized co-investigators"

What a wingnut. What a clown. What a circus.

~~ Paul

 

[Interesting Ian]

"departed hypothesized co-investigators"

What a wingnut. What a clown. What a circus.

~~ Paul

Whatever other reservations one might have (and I do have them although I have only skim read and need to examine in more detail), I see nothing wrong with this description

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Ian said:
Whatever other reservations one might have (and I do have them although I have only skim read and need to examine in more detail), I see nothing wrong with this description.

It would be fine if stated and left at that. But then to continue on and talk about these people as if they really are co-investigators is ludicrous: "The late Susy Smith ... served as a departed hypothesized co-investigator and was requested by GS (i.e., in his mind) to escort MK ...".

Okay, I've read half of this farce. I have some questions.

In the double-blind phase, who is blinded? I presume the medium. Also, I guess, Veronica Keen: "VK was not told who the mediums were or when the resarch readings were scheduled." However, since VK was not the actual sitter (Beischel was), this blinding is irrelevant.

In the single-blind phase, I presume only the medium is blinded.

So Allison Dubois is the medium. She knows Schwartz. She knows of Keen and how he died. She knows the absent sitter is Veronica. With two minutes of research she could find out that Schwartz is friends with the Keens. But she is blind to the identity of the deceased. Roight.

I strongly urge that we do not contact Schwartz's superiors and complain. We might end up missing out on some of the most uproarious nonsense in history.

~~ Paul

 

[The Mighty Thor]

Whatever other reservations one might have (and I do have them although I have only skim read and need to examine in more detail), I see nothing wrong with this description

There's nothing wrong with the description. Nobody said there was. What is wrong is why such phantoms should be included in a supposed scientific study?

Do you know where such lunacy can lead, Ian? Do you know that the courts that examined those accused in the Salem witch trials allowed "spectral evidence"? Those "departed hypothesized co-investigators" resulted in innocent people being tortured and hanged, or crushed to death. Do you think that was right?

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Schwartz is either deluded or a liar:

COMMENT Skeptics often reject the conclusion that a medium is acquiring information using paranormal means by concluding that s/he is using visual or auditory clues to “cold read” a sitter. As with most other experiments performed in the Human Energy Systems Laboratory, this experiment included double-blind sections to eliminate this as a possibility. In the phase described here, AD is involved in an open dialogue with GS yet still remains, even when encouraged to interpret the statements she is making, objective in her descriptions.

In both the single- and double-blind experiments, the actual sitter knows about Montague Keen. Cold reading is entirely possible (not to mention hot reading).

~~ Paul

 

[CFLarsen]

I strongly urge that we do not contact Schwartz's superiors and complain. We might end up missing out on some of the most uproarious nonsense in history.

You have a point. We should, however, contact Nature, Scientific American, and the other scientific publications.

Magazine: "So, Dr. Schwartz, tell us about your new experiment."

Schwartz: "Well, I asked a ghost if she would be one of the co-investigators, and she agreed..."

Magazine: "...say what?"