Montague Keen

[CFLarsen]

SteveGrenard,

The onus is on the claimant - you. The rest is just a smoke screen from you.

Again, you make a claim you cannot back up. And it's ALL OUR FAULT!!

 

[Pyrrho]

The reference for the specific claims by Randi are both implicit and explicit depending on your viewpoint. He has gone on TV in the UK and and has made this claim. He makes it regularly in his weekly column, in his print (Skeptic) columns and whenever and wherever he can. He has made it on LKL during a panel discussion several years ago. He makes this claim in his lectures. He makes these statements ALL the time. Do you and Pyrrho really believe Randi does not claim he can dismantle, disprove, debunk or otherwise shred any paranormal or supernatural claim? This is funny. Its his stock in trade. It is his bet, his gambit, his whole existence and public relations. Its how the man makes his living. Its what he does. Wake up. Get real.

If indeed Randi has explicitly claimed that he can explain anything paranormal by natural means, then by all means, hold his feet to the fire. If he has not, then all you and Keen are doing is cheap posturing instead of providing proof.

Or are you guys saying Randi can't do this and has never claimed to be able to do this so therefore he is backing out of Keen's request for him to evaluate any one or more of 20 documented cases?
In short, is this a ploy to explain why Randi is chickening out? Okay, I'll buy that.

Just wondering.

Ask Randi. We don't speak for him. Seriously, I doubt Randi is so stupid as to claim that he can provide a natural explanation for paranormal claims. I also doubt Randi is so stupid as to waste his time on Keen's silly challenge.

BUT ...I am not going to waste my time yet again for a couple of nit picky trolls whose egos are trying to gain them some sort of friggin imaginary points in their mindless games and go through thousands of Randi pages and excerpt all the times he has both implied and averred that there is nothing paranormal or supernatural and if anyone claims there is he can debunk it.
I am just not that big a fan. He was offered the list. Keen is waiting and so are a lot of others for his explanations.

Keen's silly list is just another paranormalist tactic to avoid having to prove anything. The point is, if Randi has not explicitly made such a claim, you and Keen have no grounds on which to challenge him.

You made the claim. Back it up with proof, or shut up.

 

[NoZed Avenger]

Disappointing Diningenuous Disassembling Diatribe.

I'll take it that:

(1) You cannot point out any examples of an explicit claim such as Keen says prompted his list -- note that HIS "challenge" says nothing about "implicit." (Of course, neither did your comments until the crawfishing began)

(2) You cannot show that my earlier message labeled yours as either 'defensive' or 'derisive' as you claimed.

N/A

 

[Ed]

Originally posted by SteveGrenard


I am not sending messages back and forth between Keen and the members here. Keen is not interested in debating with individuals who have nothing whatsoever to do with this matter. It is between what Randi has said about him, and he about Randi. The peanut gallery's opinions have little interest or concern for him and I am sure Randi feels the same way or he would be responding to much more than the sum total of 23 posts he is credited with here in the life of the current forum.

OK, but it sure looks that way

In re the Poole case, all of Keen's responses were initiated in response to comments by Youens and Adrian Shaw
initially published elsewhere: The Skeptic (UK) and Youens' website.
I was happy to convey that information here so that both sides of those arguments could be discussed amongst yourselves. I have the permission of the editor of The Skeptic UK (Chris French) as well as Youens and Keen to do that.

Ah, yes. But it was more than that, was it not? You inculcated yourself into the discussion as Keen's homunculus, yes?

Anything I said in reference to comments about Schwartz on THIS forum have also been previously published in other sources including Randi's own commentary and on sites used by Schwartz. I added nothing to those discussions here which could not be found elsewhere. Some of this information's existence is not known to all so why is it so terrible to make it known? (Rhetorical question - I know the answer- see below)

I am not sure that I specified this forum. I was reflecting on your somewhat toadying behavior. Were you and Schwartz not planning an "experiment"? Maybe it is a style thing.

Surely you can see that this is no different than other discussions, involving other personalities and subject matter, as goes on here every day. This is and was no different.

On the other hand your pithy and derogatory ad hominem remarks are clearly designed to discourage revelation of opposing information.

Pithy, yes. But short of derogatory. I might suggest the word "insinuating". You might look at, and learn from Pyyro's postings. When he acts as a mod it is clear, when he acts as a poster it is clear. You sorta slip back and forth between speaking for and speaking about, if you follow. That lack of clarity suggests that you get a certain unwholesome pleasure from the illusion of playing with the big boys

If preaching to the choir is your thing, go ahead but the choir has a right to hear both sides.

Certainly so

By attempting this tactic (Yahtzo just tried it again in a completely off topic discussion ...what a troll) you are making yourself and your motives transparent. Does it do your ego good to disabuse others of theirs?
Is this an ego thing with you? I gave my reasons why not give yours? eh? Your real motivations.

Steve, Steve, Steve. Argueing with you is like hunting kittens.
I have your best interests at heart, really. I am, at my core, beneficent. I will help you now. Take notes. Posting rampant paranoia does you no good. See? I helped.

My single Keen-sourced informative post here, if that is okay with you, your majesty, was to repost (with Keen's permission), his response to Randi's diatribe on Keen and the UPC on British TV. I did not start this thread, arcticpenguin did. It was all one sided. Keen prepared and published a response to Randi which is on other sites and listservs. With Keen's permission, I posted it here end of story.

Excellent explication. One minor point, trivial really. I am not a magesty, I am The Supreme Lord of the Universe. Your Oneness or "SLU" (pronounced "sloo") will work just fine

 

[SteveGrenard]

ED: Ah, yes. But it was more than that, was it not? You inculcated yourself into the discussion as Keen's homunculus, yes?

Yes, perhaps its a style thing but the answer is again, No. I have formed my own opinions based on my knowledge of the matter, sometimes in error, sometimes not. If the latter, rapidly corrected. I was careful always to attribute what Keen wrote to Keen. Keen writes letters to The Skeptic and prepares responses for websites and circulates them to many people including myself. I have his permission to share such here.

I ended the Poole debate for myself when I said I will not comment further until I am able to read the published paper of the investigation. That has not been pre-released to me or anyone involved in this save for Keen/Playfair (authors), the journal's referees and obviously, its editor(s).

I reserve, so to speak, the right to comment further on the matter when that becomes available (Jan 2004 JSPR).
Hopefully it will go up rapidly online somewhere so that all interested in this can access and read it easily.

 

[Ed]

ED: Ah, yes. But it was more than that, was it not? You inculcated yourself into the discussion as Keen's homunculus, yes?

Yes, perhaps its a style thing but the answer is again, No. I have formed my own opinions based on my knowledge of the matter, sometimes in error, sometimes not. If the latter, rapidly corrected. I was careful always to attribute what Keen wrote to Keen. Keen writes letters to The Skeptic and prepares responses for websites and circulates them to many people including myself. I have his permission to share such here.

I ended the Poole debate for myself when I said I will not comment further until I am able to read the published paper of the investigation. That has not been pre-released to me or anyone involved in this save for Keen/Playfair (authors), the journal's referees and obviously, its editor(s).

I reserve, so to speak, the right to comment further on the matter when that becomes available (Jan 2004 JSPR).
Hopefully it will go up rapidly online somewhere so that all interested in this can access and read it easily.

Yeah, and someone (Stumpy?) was supposed to post the "Predictions" or what ever to call them. Let's try to keep any discussion of Poole over there.

 

[SteveGrenard]

ED: Yeah, and someone (Stumpy?) was supposed to post the "Predictions" or what ever to call them. Let's try to keep any discussion of Poole over there.


There is a tangential relationship between the Poole case and this thread since the topic of this thread is one of the author's of that investigation. Det. Adrian Shaw, aka Stumpy (here), collaborated with Tony Youens in their effort to answer Keen's specific challenge which was to provide a non-paranormal or non-supernatural (e.g. normal) explanation for the medium's involvement as published in the Police Federation (UK) magazine. The Poole Murder Case thread, as you may recall, grew out of an earlier thread and was taken to a new thread by me. The previous thread dealt with the more general issue of psychic involvement in police investigations.

I agree however that any conversation of substance re this case should be referred to that thread which is , for now, inactive.


Exactly what "predictions" are you talking about?

 

[Ed]

These

Ed,



quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I suppose that it would be interesting to see, in columner fashion, the following
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Tony Batters has done such a list and I'm a happy to publish it here. However I would have to edit out names and other information that would mean even more [TEXT REMOVED] sections and thus be on the receiving end of more Genard criticism.

However my understanding from Tony Batters is that Keen will also be omitting the same segments so perhaps Genard will moan about that as well.

I'll have a look at what I can do. I would also want to publish my own comments along side.

I'll look into it.

Tony

 

[SteveGrenard]

Okay, thanks. Actually these are not predictions per se. They were lines of information given by the medium referencing the murder. These have been published on Youen's website already and previously referenced.

I already stated in that thread I was not moaning or groaning about the lines marked TEXT OMITTED, of which there were quite a few. I understood the reason Det. Batters wanted them omitted and accepted that. It had to do with the family's wishes which take precedence above all else. What I did say was that it makes a complete assesment and analysis from a scientific perspective impossible. This is a simple factual statement or opinion.

 

[SteveGrenard]

Let me throw out one case (#17) on Keen's list, that involving Mrs. Piper and George Pellew (not "Pelham" ). Pellew was a friend of Piper's highly skeptical investigator, Hodgson. Five years earlier he attended a session with Piper but did so under an assumed name. Pellew never had any further contact with her after that until he died, that is, when he suddenly appeared, identified by his correct iniitals (G.P.) (by Piper). and in all other respects fitting Pellew's personage.

This was in Cambridge, England where Piper was brought by Hodgson from the U.S. Piper had no knowledge of or familiarity with any of the people she was confronted with as sitters by her investigators. In fact they all were introduced under assumed names to insure she had learned nothing about their backgrounds.

So one of this first bunch was George Pellew (G.P.)., who after his death attached himself to Piper and ostensibly became her control or guide, replacing Phinuit and others who came before him.

Hodgson now wanted to test Piper and her G.P communicator so he arranged for a further onslaught of 150 anonymous sitters, 30 of whom knew Pellew when he was alive. Out of these 30, 29 were correctly acknowledged by the spirit Pellew. The 30th was not since he knew her as a child and she was now a grown woman and he did not recognize her. It is believed that these 29 recognitions, as well as the lack of recognition of the 30th and the reason why, finally led to Hodgson's acceptance of the survival hypothesis and in the veridicality of Piper's communicators and ability to "hear" them.

How does Randi (or anyone in his place if they'd like to) care to explain this in terms of a non-paranormal scenario.

 

[apoger]

Let me throw out one case (#17) on Keen's list, that involving Mrs. Piper and George Pellew (not "Pelham" ).

"Throw out" would be the correct way to state that indeed!

This is anecdotal evidence and as such is not very worthwhile from a scientific or skeptical viewpoint. The sheer age of the story doesn't help either.

If you want proper evidence, find someone (anyone!) that can do the same thing *TODAY*. Explain what this person claims to be able to predict, and then demonstrate the ability in controlled conditions. If the results match the predictions, then you would have some evidence of quality.

Telling hundred year old stories isn't science... it's gossip.

This has been explained to you before Steve. Is there any particular reason that you insist on dragging up and presenting nonsense? Do you really not understand the concepts involved or are you simply obfuscating?

 

[Mike D.]

"Throw out" would be the correct way to state that indeed!

This is anecdotal evidence and as such is not very worthwhile from a scientific or skeptical viewpoint. The sheer age of the story doesn't help either.

If you want proper evidence, find someone (anyone!) that can do the same thing *TODAY*. Explain what this person claims to be able to predict, and then demonstrate the ability in controlled conditions. If the results match the predictions, then you would have some evidence of quality.

Telling hundred year old stories isn't science... it's gossip.

This has been explained to you before Steve. Is there any particular reason that you insist on dragging up and presenting nonsense? Do you really not understand the concepts involved or are you simply obfuscating?

apoger,

Have you read the original case reports on this by Hodgson? In my opinion, only one who has done so is qualified to have an opinion on whether or not what he (Hodgson) presents is anecdotal evidence, scientific evidence, or something else. Reading the original studies would also be prerequisite for assessing the adequacy of the controls that Hodgson employed in his investigations. Indeed, reading them would even be the only way to know for sure if Steve has adequately or accurately summarized the case here.

It's also my opinion that old evidence is not necessarily bad evidence. I think that one has to look at the quality of the study and the adequacy, etc. of the controls employed. As far as Mrs. Piper goes, she freely permitted herself to be studied by investigators for some 25 years, and there consequently is a huge volume of original published material on these investigations. To try to discuss specific aspects of Piper's mediumship without firsthand knowledge of this material would be analagous to trying to discuss John Edward without ever having seen him in action or having read any of his transcripts.

Mike

 

[apoger]

>In my opinion, only one who has done so is qualified to have an opinion on whether or not what he (Hodgson) presents is anecdotal evidence, scientific evidence, or something else.

If someone made a claim that their grandfather invented a perpetual motion machine that created free energy, a hundred years ago, and went so far as to insist that the story of this discovery is enough to "prove" that grandpa was correct, then such a claim would earn every bit as little respect from the skeptical community. We would insist that the device or it's designs be tested TODAY under controlled conditions. We would only offer acceptance after proper testing.

The same goes for this mediumship story. It's anecdotal, and as such generates little confidence. Offering this story as credible evidence only shows that you lack understanding of science and skepticism.

Please see http://skepdic.com/testimon.html
for a well written essay on testimonials and anecdotal evidence.



>To try to discuss specific aspects of Piper's mediumship without firsthand knowledge of this material would be analagous to trying to discuss John Edward without ever having seen him in action or having read any of his transcripts.

Good call.
To verify the abilities of John Edward we would not have to see him in action nor read any transcripts. All he would have to do is show his ability in controlled testing.

Anecdotes may lead researchers to do tests, but without those tests the anecdotes are without scientific value.

 

[Ed]

Let me throw out one case (#17) on Keen's list, that involving How does Randi (or anyone in his place if they'd like to) care to explain this in terms of a non-paranormal scenario.

17. Mrs Leonore Piper and the George "Pelham" communicator. Hodgson, R. 1897-8. A Further Record of Observations of Certain Phenomena of Trance. PSPR, 13, 284-582.

Are you really serious?

 

[Mike D.]

Offering this story as credible evidence only shows that you lack understanding of science and skepticism.

apoger,

I did not "offer" this story as evidence at all, either credible or otherwise. Nowhere in my post did I say that.

Mike

 

[SteveGrenard]

These case histories are no more anecdotal than Marie and Pierre Curie's discovery of x-rays, the Wright brother's lst flight, the inventions of Leonard DaVinci, Pasteur's development of rabies vaccine, Fleming's discovery of pencilllin, so on. These are old cases of scientific observation . Are you suggesting we "throw them out" just because they are old? Because the people involved are no longer around for you to talk to? I think not. The same is true of these 20 cases selected by Professor Archie Roy of the University of Edinburgh. Roy selected them because they were well documented by credible scientists who could be trusted to give an accurate account of their details. I agree with Miike I may not be doing them justice or providing all the details so if you are worried about that you can search the literature and research them yourself.

But if you don't want to learn from history, that is your problem.

 

[apoger]

These case histories are no more anecdotal than Marie and Pierre Curie's discovery of x-rays, the Wright brother's lst flight, the inventions of Leonard DaVinci, Pasteur's development of rabies vaccine, Fleming's discovery of pencilllin, so on. These are old cases of scientific observation .

All of these cases lead to further investigation which proved fruitful, and provided practical applications which are used (tested) a multitude of times every day. We have very good reason to have confidence in this evidence.

Reserch into mediumship has not been fruitful and has not provided practical application (beyond defrauding the credulous). We have good reason to remain skeptical of this evidence.

Can you really not see the difference?

 

[apoger]

I did not "offer" this story as evidence at all, either credible or otherwise. Nowhere in my post did I say that.

Mike

Very good, I stand corrected. I withdraw that line and instead submit;

Offering a vigorous defence of this anecdote only shows that you lack understanding of science and skepticism.

 

[Mike D.]

Very good, I stand corrected. I withdraw that line and instead submit;

Offering a vigorous defence of this anecdote only shows that you lack understanding of science and skepticism.

apoger,

I did not "defend" it. The whole point of my post is that one cannot, in my opinion, validly comment on a claim unless one has read the original studies. I am making no "defense" whatsoever of this claim.

Mike

 

[apoger]

It's a hundred year old story that hasn't shown any fruitful discovery nor practical application in all that time. I don't need to read every word of the story to be qualified to comment, since I know it's results.

If you think there is some aspect that science has overlooked, then by all means point it out.