John Edward - psychic or what?

[Robin1]

Exminister, true, no one is immune to woo. But, I think it is fair to say that a Harvard trained brain scientist who actually personally had a problem with her brain, should be thought of as more credible than just any old woo. Which reminds me of the book, "Proof of Heaven" by Eben Alexander, who of course was the neurosurgeon who had a NDE. Since , as a neurosurgeon, he has an expertise in the brain, his explanation of why his NDE is real should be given more credence than any regular Joe Schmoe who had an NDE....which by the way there are an estimated 13 million of those Joe Schmoes in the United States : )

And Dr.Taylor, being a brain scientist and actually having experienced a problem with her brain also gives her an advantage over the mere : ) brain scientists who have not experienced a problem with their brains.
And if anyone says "confirmation bias, " my brain will hurt.

 

[Robin1]

And Dr.Taylor, being a brain scientist and actually having experienced a problem with her brain also gives her an advantage over the mere : ) brain scientists who have not experienced a problem with their brains.
And if anyone says "confirmation bias, " my brain will hurt.

Or maybe she is not remembering it correctly : )
Or lying..
Or...

 

[kerikiwi]

Since , as a neurosurgeon, he has an expertise in the brain, his explanation of why his NDE is real should be given more credence than any regular Joe Schmoe who had an NDE....which by the way there are an estimated 13 million of those Joe Schmoes in the United States : )

How is that estimated arrived at?
(I have struck out the 'which' because such cruel and unusual -- well, actually not so unusual-- use of the word is one of my favourite hates)

 

[ExMinister]

Exminister, true, no one is immune to woo. But, I think it is fair to say that a Harvard trained brain scientist who actually personally had a problem with her brain, should be thought of as more credible than just any old woo. Which reminds me of the book, "Proof of Heaven" by Eben Alexander, who of course was the neurosurgeon who had a NDE. Since , as a neurosurgeon, he has an expertise in the brain, his explanation of why his NDE is real should be given more credence than any regular Joe Schmoe who had an NDE....which by the way there are an estimated 13 million of those Joe Schmoes in the United States : )

Yes I read his book recently too. In fact, from http://www.salon.com/2012/11/26/dr_eben_alexanders_so_called_after_life/ here is a good example of a neuroscientist and a neurosurgeon being somewhat at odds:

The claim that his neocortex was totally kaput during his coma is the principal — in fact only — scientific hook on which he hangs “Proof of Heaven”: “During my coma my brain wasn’t working improperly — it wasn’t working at all.” If his brain was not functioning, the consciousness that rode the “butterfly through paradise” existed outside the body, and the door to immortality is wide open. So far, so logical. Only Dr. Alexander has already changed position on this issue. We probably have Sam Harris to thank for that. Harris, author of “The End of Faith and Letter to a Christian Nation,” responded to Dr. Alexander’s Newsweek piece by seeking the opinion of neuroscientist Mark Cohen, whose reply was unequivocal. According to Cohen, the neocortical inactivity described by Dr. Alexander is “brain death, a 100 percent lethal condition.” By the time I met Dr. Alexander and mentioned his inactive neocortex, his line had changed. He told me, “Well, the thing is I would not say completely inactive.”

Just goes to show that even the experts can disagree.

I have studied NDEs for years. They used to be some of favorite evidence in favor of an afterlife. But then after quite a bit of research, not anymore. Sad to me at first, but true. Here is a great link if you are interested in NDEs:

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/keith_augustine/HNDEs.html

 

[ExMinister]

Or maybe she is not remembering it correctly : )
Or lying..
Or...

You know it's funny, and I'm pretty sure you're being a little facetious here because of the rest of the thread, but when I read her book years ago I couldn't help wondering how she could possibly recall that much incredible detail when she was in the midst of a stroke. It was the only thing that kept me from recommending the book to others. My husband found a talk by her the other day and really enjoyed it. Again, I guess I found her experience fascinating, but that one part just didn't sit right. To each his own, I guess.

 

[meg]

... Which reminds me of the book, "Proof of Heaven" by Eben Alexander, who of course was the neurosurgeon who had a NDE. Since , as a neurosurgeon, he has an expertise in the brain, his explanation of why his NDE is real should be given more credence than any regular Joe Schmoe who had an NDE....which by the way there are an estimated 13 million of those Joe Schmoes in the United States : )

There are an estimated 20.2 million people in the US that believe in Santa.

Citing the large number of believers to a belief does not aid your argument that the belief is therefore "true". It's a logical fallacy called "argumentum ad populum" meaning "appeal to the people."

 

[carlitos]

And Dr.Taylor, being a brain scientist and actually having experienced a problem with her brain also gives her an advantage over the mere : ) brain scientists who have not experienced a problem with their brains.
And if anyone says "confirmation bias, " my brain will hurt.

You just said that someone who has suffered a massive stroke and brain damage has an advantage over other neuroscientists.

Are you sure that you want to stick with that?

 

[dafydd]

Or maybe she is not remembering it correctly

That does happen to people now and again, believe it or not. I met some old friends, I hadn't seen any of them for thirty years and our recollections of shared events back then were wildly different.

 

[Robin1]

There are an estimated 20.2 million people in the US that believe in Santa.

Citing the large number of believers to a belief does not aid your argument that the belief is therefore "true". It's a logical fallacy called "argumentum ad populum" meaning "appeal to the people."

Just curious how many of those 20.2 million people who believe in Santa Claus are adults?

 

[dafydd]

Just curious how many of those 20.2 million people who believe in Santa Claus are adults?

At least children have a good excuse for believing in Santa.

 

[John Jones]

Yes, it would be quite fair to say that Dr Tayler is probably more credible than any old woo.

It might interest you to read some reviews of her talk from other brain scientists, physiologists, and the like, though.

Here's one link:

http://westallen.typepad.com/idealawg/2008/04/some-critical-t.html

From the link:

The only reason I can think of that she [Dr Taylor] used the left-brain/right-brain metaphor is that she must have gone to school in the 1970s when we really did think that the brain worked like that, and then didn't read anything relevant after that (that happens more than you think in academia). By 1980 it had become obvious that the brain didn't work like that even though the left-brain/right-brain distinction persisted in new age books and popular culture for quite some time after that. If you don't believe me that there is no left-brain/right-brain duality then read the following two articles:

Yates, F. E. (1980). Two minds about brain asymmetries. American Journal of Physiology, 238, R1-R2.

Ellenberg, L. & Sperry, R. W. (1980). Lateralized division of attention in the commissurotomized and intact brain. Neuropsychologia, 18, 411-418. [Note here that Sperry was one of the people who STARTED the left-brain/right-brain metaphor in the first place.]

Also I'm not sure why she misleads viewers about the interconnections between the cerebral hemispheres, which are multiply connected, most notably through the brain stem and massa intermedia in addition to the corpus callosum. The problem is that that sort of professional blundering discredits the rest of what she says for those who do know brain physiology

Emphasis added.

 

[meg]

Just curious how many of those 20.2 million people who believe in Santa Claus are adults?

An admittedly small percentage, I am sure. However, one could ask a similar question of your statistic. How many have not be diagnosed with a mental disease? How many are reliable accounts? etc.


But the truth is, it doesn't really matter that much, because it still does not mean that a thing is true or not.

For example, there is a recently oft cited statistic that 46% of Americans believe in creationism. Does that mean that evolution is not true? Of course not. Even if 100% of Americans believed in creationism, evolution would still be true.


Evidence is evidence. And how many people believe in a thing is not evidence that the thing in fact exists.

 

[Robin1]

From the link:



Emphasis added.

My interpretation would be Dr.Taylor was well aware of current theories about the way the brain works but her personal experience made her realize that the old way of thinking did indeed have merit. Don't know much about interconnections in the brain...is that something scientists disagree on maybe? Or did she try to oversimplify for audience? The fact the person who wrote that didn't understand that DR.Taylor may have used right brain left brain as I tried to explain, makes me wonder about the validity of the rest of what he wrote.

 

[RemieV]

It absolutely amazes me how much power skeptics are willing to give to cold reading. If people were really able to cold read the way folks here are suggesting, it would be paranormal. It's like you think 'Lie To Me' and 'The Mentalist' are documentaries.

The part you're not considering, here, is that the way John Edward does his readings means everyone is reacting all the time because they're wracking their brains trying to figure out how such and such name or letter or concept applies to them. They want to be read - they don't want Liam to be read. There were people in the audience sobbing their way through the entire show - and there was actually a really sad story as well. The ticket prices are divided into levels, and they say that your seating doesn't mean you'll be read any more than someone in nosebleed, but people will still throw down the ludicrous amounts of money to be in the 'Golden Circle' (the area right up by the stage) because those people are allowed to participate in a Q&A toward the end of the show. The rule about the Q&A is "no reading-type questions".

Well, at this show, there was a woman at the front who ignored that rule and during the Q&A got up and gave her story and cried her way through it. From what she said, I was even able to find articles on what she was talking about.

Her husband had run off with her two kids in some custody issue thing, but then later their car was found in a body of water (can't remember if it was a pond or a lake or what), and all three of them were dead.

She wanted to know why her husband had done that; whether her kids had suffered and drowned or if they were dead first, etc. Of course, Edward floundered and had nothing to say other than the usual "They're with god and not in pain and want you to be happy" crap.

This woman was clearly in agony, and John Edward charged her hundreds of dollars. That's so messed up there aren't even words.

And for goshsakes, my "disguise" wasn't a Groucho getup. It was a real wig - a fancy wig - and different make-up than I normally wear. That's it. Also, I wasn't running around hissing in everyone's ears in line trying to get the skinny on them. Liam was alone in line, and so was I. He is the one who began speaking to me, because that's a natural thing to do when you're single people in a line right next to one another.

And I didn't run around to tables feeling them up before the show began, either. I waited until it was over so no one could possibly notice or care.

I keep saying "unknown mechanism; probably hot reading". Why is that explanation not good enough?

One more thing on the folks who think that he was gesturing wildly at half the audience when he said the name at first - here's the thing -

I was in the middle level, at the table in the same general "wildly gesturing" area as Liam's, and yet I was turned and looking at his table before he had raised his hand. That's the level of specificity the gesture had. Even though I was there to hopefully get a reading based upon false information, I never got the opportunity because he wasn't gesturing wildly.

 

[ynot]

It absolutely amazes me how much power skeptics are willing to give to cold reading. If people were really able to cold read the way folks here are suggesting, it would be paranormal. It's like you think 'Lie To Me' and 'The Mentalist' are documentaries.

Absolutely amazes me too. It's like they're cold reading believers.

I keep saying "unknown mechanism; probably hot reading". Why is that explanation not good enough?

Absolutely good enough as long as "dumb luck" and not "possible psychic ability" is the only other possible mechanism to be considered.

 

[Old man]

He pointed toward the table behind me, where Liam was sitting, and said that he was getting the name 'Joshua'.

Did JE point at 'Liam's' table, and then say "that he was getting the name 'Joshua'", or was it the other way around?

I was turned and looking at his table before he had raised his hand. That's the level of specificity the gesture had. Even though I was there to hopefully get a reading based upon false information, I never got the opportunity because he wasn't gesturing wildly.

You used the pronouns 'his' and 'he' several times in the above quote. Do they always refer to 'Liam', or sometimes to 'Liam', and sometimes to JE? I.e., Were you looking at (Liam's) table before (JE) had raised his hand, or before (Liam) had raised his hand?

 

[Pixel42]

There's a natural tendancy when faced with a puzzle to pile in and try to solve it, but when it's something that happened in the past which can't easily be reproduced there usually just isn't enough information to do so. We can make some guesses, but maybe we should all be more prepared to simply say we don't know what the explanation is, but that doesn't mean there's any reason to assume it was paranormal.

 

[RemieV]

Did JE point at 'Liam's' table, and then say "that he was getting the name 'Joshua'", or was it the other way around?

You used the pronouns 'his' and 'he' several times in the above quote. Do they always refer to 'Liam', or sometimes to 'Liam', and sometimes to JE? I.e., Were you looking at (Liam's) table before (JE) had raised his hand, or before (Liam) had raised his hand?

It was like this, so far as I can remember:

JE pointed at Liam's table and said "I am getting the name whatever-fake-one-I-made-up-to-protect-the-guy's-identity" and Liam raised his hand immediately thereafter. I turned to look at where JE was pointing when he began the sentence, because the pointing was specific even though I was in the same general area as Liam's table, just not on the same level.

 

[ExMinister]

There's a natural tendancy when faced with a puzzle to pile in and try to solve it, but when it's something that happened in the past which can't easily be reproduced there usually just isn't enough information to do so. We can make some guesses, but maybe we should all be more prepared to simply say we don't know what the explanation is, but that doesn't mean there's any reason to assume it was paranormal.

Exactly the point I was trying to make earlier!

Anyway, RemieV seems to have settled on it being a case of probable hot reading in that one instance. Seems just as reasonable as anything else. Sounds like since then, she has had a pretty good team of advisors to discuss it with.

I agree with her totally that JE usually is just not that good for hot reading to be something he normally does. I've been to one of his shows in person too. But he was caught in it with the camerman years ago, so it's quite possible he may just use it every once in awhile when opportunity presents.

 

[jadebox]

It absolutely amazes me how much power skeptics are willing to give to cold reading. If people were really able to cold read the way folks here are suggesting, it would be paranormal.

Some can and it isn't.

I saw a mentalist's act at the first The Amazing Meeting. His act was much more impressive than anything I've seen of John Edward's and the mentalist didn't claim any paranomal powers.

-- Roger