Mrs. Piper Mediumship Discussion

[CFLarsen]

One wonders why such weak examples were chosen if stronger examples exist.

Exactly. Where are those killer-readings?

 

[Kopji]

Mrs Piper has an almost saintlike status today. She is the gold standard by which all mediums are compared.

I not feeling any better about the possibility that there was fraud involved.

I found this while looking for the primary source for the account of the secret sitter material being returned. This was apparently done at the specific instruction of "Hodgson" at a séance shortly after his death.

I can't believe that over 100 years nobody seems to have questioned this very suspicious act.

On Jan. 23rd, 1906 Mrs. Wm. James, and W. James, Jr., had a sitting at which R. H. used the medium's voice and gave a very life-like impression of his presence. The record runs as follows:

Why, there's Billy! Is that Mrs. James and Billy? God bless you! Well, well, well, this is good I [Laughs.] I am in the witness-box [Laughs.] I have found my way, I am here, have patience with me? All is well with me. Don't miss me. Where's William? Give him my love and tell him I shall certainly live to prove all I know. Do you hear me? see me? I am not strong, but have patience with me. I will tell you all. I think I can reach you.
Something on my mind. I want Lodge to know everything. I have seen Myers. I must rest.
(After an interval he comes in again
Billy, where is Billy? What are you writing Billy? Are you having any sports? Would you like to take a swim? [R. H.'s chief association with W. J. Jr., had been when fishing or swimming in Chocorua Lake.] Well, come on I Get a good deal of exercise, but don't overdo it! Perhaps I swam too much. [He undoubtedly had done so.] - I learned my lesson, but I'm just where I wanted to be.
Do you play ball? - tennis? Men will theorize - let them do so! I have found out the truth. I said that if I could get over there I would not make a botch of it. If ever R. H. lived in the body, he is talking now. . . . William [James] is too dogmatic.
<span style="background-color: #ffff99">I want George (Dorr) to extricate all those papers and set those marked "private" aside. This has been on my mind George is to be trusted absolutely with all sincerity and faith. There are some rivate records which I should not wish to have handled. Let George (Dorr) and Piddington go through them and return them to the sitters. </span>The cipher! I made that cipher, and no one living can read it. [Correct.] I shall explain it later. Let Harry [James] and George keep them till then. [They had been appointed administrators of his estate, a fact probably known to Mrs. Piper.] This is the best I have been able to do yet. I spoke with Miss Pope, but this is the best. Remember, every communication must have the human element. I understand better now why I had so little from Myers. [To W. J., Jr.] What discourages you about your art? [W. J., Jr., was studying painting.] Oh what good times we had, fishing! Believe, Billy, wherever you go, whatever you do, there is a God.
http:\\www.survivalafterdeath.org/books/lodge/survival/chapter14.htm

 

[dharlow]

Mrs Piper has an almost saintlike status today. She is the gold standard by which all mediums are compared.

I not feeling any better about the possibility that there was fraud involved.

I found this while looking for the primary source for the account of the secret sitter material being returned. This was apparently done at the specific instruction of "Hodgson" at a séance shortly after his death.

I can't believe that over 100 years nobody seems to have questioned this very suspicious act.

What exactly is it that you find suspicious here?

 

[Oleron]

I have read the discussion with great interest and would like to agree with Kopji in pointing out the suspicious nature of the 'communication from Hodgson'.

It is certainly not proof of wrong-doing but it casts some doubt on Piper.

When added to her own 'admission', her highly unconvincing French doctor, Kopji listing of the opinions of Hodgson's peers and the prediction I believe she made for Hodgson (that he would marry, have children and live a long life - he died a few months later) - it all adds up to enough reason to doubt her abilities. All circumstantial, I know, but then so is her 'evidence'.

BTW is it not a bit insensitive, even for a medium, to predict someones long life then communicate with them after they are dead? Talk about adding insult to injury.

 

[voidx]

There seem to be two ways that have been proposed to deal with this situation (once again, assuming for the moment that fraud has been ruled out, and assuming that sufficient specific and accurate information about a deceased person has appeared during a seance). One involves the notion of "super psi," which obviously postulates that some sort of psi faculty can exist, but does not necessarily postulate survival of death or the existence of real spirits. In this case, the whole drama of the medium's control relaying information from a spirit is seen as an ultimately artificial dramatization of information about the deceased that the medium has picked up telepathically from perhaps the minds of the sitters, and then dramatized in such a way during the seance to more or less convincingly seem as though the actual spirit of the deceased is communicating, when in fact, no such thing is happening at all, and the deceased may no longer even exist.

This process has been brought up before, and it is still so convoluted that I think its pretty meaningless. Why would this process of deceit be necessary? This seems to me a very obvious attempt at making a complex process fit the results we generally see. While there's nothing wrong with that in a thought exercise, it doesn't make much sense when trying to explain a process of communication. There seems no reason for the dramatization to occur, other than to meld with what we see during seances and trance readings. If one asks the question, why the deceit? and the answer is "I dunno, but its internally consistent", then one has to ask, "yah but why do we posit it then in the first place?".

The other way of dealing with the problem has been called the theory of "overshadowing." This theory is definitely a survivalist theory and says that, while the whole trance drama involving a "control," (and put on by the mediums's subconscious mind) is artificial, somewhere behind it all is the real spirit of the deceased, and that the medium is picking up some information and thoughts of the deceased from the actual spirit. In this case, the medium's subconscious mind would be somewhat like a the mind of a talented author who is writing a play about a famous person. The author might interview the person and pick up many facts about that person as well as subtle aspects of that individual's personality. The resulting play would be to a great extent the creative work of the author but perhaps still manage to incorporate actual lines spoken during the interview with the famous person as well as conveying a sense of the famous person's personality. But the play as well could also include lines and action that would not quite ring true to those who knew the famous person.

Again we are making assumptions that merely fit what we see. This one seems to hinge on the idea that the medium needs a sub-conscious device for filtering the information. But why this is needed has no explanation, other than, well that's kind of like what we see. As mentioned, this theory is left wide open to account for pretty much anything, the last sentence makes that abundantly clear. So its not very good to test by because its so hard to narrow down whats allowed as a proper result through it, and what is not. Or more accurately, that any result coming through is acceptable under this process, so how does it help us narrow down whats going on?

I believe that taking many of the communications of trance mediums at face value is very problematic for reasons we have already discussed.

I most certainly agree.

If one comes to feel that conscious fraud is unlikely with a given medium, and also that anomalous cognition could possibly exist -- and the medium is producing impressive information -- then I think that one is inevitably forced to consider some of the ideas I discussed above.

Consider them certainly, but lets not get ahead of ourselves and start claiming that they are likely, or highly suggestive to be the likely scenario. (Not that you've done this)

Posted by Clancie
re: Piper's trance state. Actually, while I feel it would be interesting to me to -know- if brain waves change during a trance and if an EEG could consistently meaure that....in reality, I'm not sure it really matters to mediumship whether a trance state is a measurable state of "altered consciousness" or not.

Ultimately, I think the issue I might look at most in a reading isn't if someone is or isn't in trance but if we can (1) rule out cheating; (2) examine the information that comes through and eliminate things that would be consistent with cold reading; then (3) see if the accurate information that is left makes more sense as lucky guesses...sitter buy-in....super psi....spirit communication...or some combination thereof?

I strongly disagree that how the "process" works is somehow less important than correlating correct data hits for accuracy and consistency. Their equally as important. We concentrate on the results produced, not because its the better of the two ways of looking at it, but because its the only of the two ways we have a process for and can quantify. Figuring out the process, or having data suggesting possible explanations for the mediumship process itself are just as important. Strong data hits from results merely suggest that there is something going on that we cannot account for. It is not suggestive of an afterlife unless you assume it is. We've no idea whats going on here because we have no concept of how the process works. So anyone that says strong results are indicitive or highly suggestive of survival is off-base in my opinion. That its just telepathy with the sitter seems as likely as that its spirits. So even within the paranormal explanations, its not clear its more suggestive of survival. When you start taking into account potential mundance explanations, it gets muddied even further.

 

[Clancie]

Posted by voidx

I strongly disagree that how the "process" works is somehow less important than correlating correct data hits for accuracy and consistency. Their equally as important. We concentrate on the results produced, not because its the better of the two ways of looking at it, but because its the only of the two ways we have a process for and can quantify

Yes, we do disagree. I am increasingly convinced that the subjectivity cannot be removed from validations and, if science is interested in looking for something to measure, they should look at things that can be measured: EEG and apports being the only two I can think of.

Of course, even if EEG showed consistently unusual brain patterns during trance...and even if apports were found to be real and in no way fraudulent...neither of those pieces of information would necessarily impact the arguments pro/con re: survival.

Ultimately, with the kind of information available to us now, I think it will remain an individual judgment call.


(P.S. It can be a lot harder to rate mediums "hits" and "misses"--and even to clearly validate information--than you might think.)

 

[Clancie]

Kopji,

Thank you for the references. I must be reading this differently, because I don't see anything indicating that Hodgson interviewed people before their sitting and compiled information which, presumably, he passed on to Piper.

First, he was quite noted for exposing fraud, so it seems inconsistent for him to suddenly want to perpetrate one instead, and I can't see what would be gained by it, (plus having the reputation he'd spent so long to build be so easily destroyed).

Second, If he interviewed sitters in advance about their detailed personal informaiton (like came through in the sittings) and the same information was told to them by Piper, wouldn't someone get suspicious? Wouldn't some comments appear in the transcripts or elsewhere?

On the contrary, until you suggested this, there has never been a hint of fraud from Hodgson or Piper.

Lastly, I think the private information came -after- the sittings, not before them. I think sitters trusted him when they explained the information they validated from the readings.

Have you seen anything to indicate that information in these papers was obtained -prior- to the sittings?

 

[CFLarsen]

Yes, we do disagree. I am increasingly convinced that the subjectivity cannot be removed from validations and, if science is interested in looking for something to measure, they should look at things that can be measured: EEG and apports being the only two I can think of.

Rubbish. Of course we can objectively decide whether someone had a grandma with a scar on her left calf, or an aunt called Beulah.

We know that if we completely depend on the sitters' subjective validation, we will get a result that is higher than what it really is.

Case in point: Ian Rowland's two examples of cold reading: They were deemed "99,9% accurate" - by the sitters!

First, he was quite noted for exposing fraud, so it seems inconsistent for him to suddenly want to perpetrate one instead, and I can't see what would be gained by it, (plus having the reputation he'd spent so long to build be so easily destroyed).

Why would it seem inconsistent? We have actually seen people, who should know better, make a 180 degree turn, and start believing in the most ridiculous things. Doug Henning is one sad case.

Second, If he interviewed sitters in advance about their detailed personal informaiton (like came through in the sittings) and the same information was told to them by Piper, wouldn't someone get suspicious? Wouldn't some comments appear in the transcripts or elsewhere?

But isn't that what was supposed to happen?? The information Piper gave was the same as the sitters had already given??

Lastly, I think the private information came -after- the sittings, not before them. I think sitters trusted him when they explained the information they validated from the readings.

What do you base this on?

 

[voidx]

Yes, we do disagree. I am increasingly convinced that the subjectivity cannot be removed from validations and, if science is interested in looking for something to measure, they should look at things that can be measured: EEG and apports being the only two I can think of.

Of course we cannot remove subjectivity and that's my whole point. You are basically saying that the consistency and level of detail in the results produced are what should be concentrated on, but these are what are most affected by said subjectivity. Apports are a result. How the medium produces them from nothingness is the process. Any idea how this process works? If not, then how can we test that apports come from spirits in the afterlife? See my point. While if it could be shown we could say: Medium was able to produce apports even though restrictions were put in place to stop her from doing so in a physical sense. Her continuing to produce Apports would stand in contrast to our physical process'. Our process, under scrutiny, being defeated, that is all that could be assumed. Since you have no process for how the medium might PRODUCE the apport, you cannot test for it. All you can do is point at the failure of our process to explain it, and then assume it supports survival. But that's not a logical assumption at all.

Of course, even if EEG showed consistently unusual brain patterns during trance...and even if apports were found to be real and in no way fraudulent...neither of those pieces of information would necessarily impact the arguments pro/con re: survival.

But not knowing what your process is you cannot make this assumption. It could have an impact, since you have no way of knowing one way or the other, by what means do you dismiss it?

Ultimately, with the kind of information available to us now, I think it will remain an individual judgment call.

Individual judgement calls are fine for opinions. They are not fine for experimental controls, and for researching, or trying to find explanations for phenomenon. Unless of course their backed up by some sort of process that can be tested.

(P.S. It can be a lot harder to rate mediums "hits" and "misses"--and even to clearly validate information--than you might think.)

Having been in the threads discussing various transcripts of mediums I'm well aware of the disparity of what people consider "hits" and "misses".

 

[Mike D.]

Darat,

I just got back from the Boston Public Library, where I looked at Hodgson's paper. I still don't feel I have time to participate in this thread and this will be my last post, but I wanted to come back for a moment and post what I found rather than sending you a PM about it, which is what I said I'd do in an earlier post.

The PSPR back issues are bound into volumes, and this particular paper by Hodgson takes up a good portion of a thick volume.

In the body of the paper, I found the place where Hodgson spends several pages describing and analyzing the Sutton seances. There is a long appendix at the end of the paper where Hodgson has published a large number of transcripts of Piper seances. Most of them seemed to be complete and unabridged, although a few appeared to be summarized or abridged. In the case of the Suttons, there were two sittings, and they are presented with a detailed commentary by Mrs. Sutton, interspersed in brackets throughout the transcripts. It would appear that Mrs. Sutton was asked to report in detail on what was communicated during the seances. and she seems to have presented the original transcripts for the most part in full, with a few exceptions, such as summarizing where Phinuit describes Kakie's "lovely curls." She appears to indicate where she has abridged or summarized.

Although I read through the Sutton transcripts rapidly, I got the feeling that the very small portion quoted in this thread from Gauld's book is inadequate to really give a flavor for what they are like. The longer portion that Braude has presented in his book is better, but he also remarked that what Hodgson originally published is more impressive than even what he presented.

This is all I have to report, and if anyone has further questions, they'll have to have a look themselves. I did not have time to examine the paper and appendix in depth, and have nothing more to add.

Mike

 

[TLN]

Sorry, I've been occupied...

After all, I asked a question (which only ersby ever addressed). TLN responded by asking me who I thought was a medium worth considering and I said "Mrs. Piper".

When I answered TLN, I wasn't offering to prepare a thorough case of my own on Piper's behalf. At some point I think those who are interested--and have resources presented to them--should put enough of their own effort into reading and forming an opinion, then arguing it out.

It's always the same tried old refrain for you: you haven't researched the subject enough. Never mind this was a woman I had never heard of before you mentioned her, somehow I'm still at fault here. Oh well...

Clanice, I've reviewed everything on Mrs. Piper I can find on the internet from both sides of the debate. One thing bothers me though:

But if TLN or anyone wants to see an extensively studied medium whose readings were well-documented for many years under strict controls against cheating...Mrs. Piper is a good example and there is a wealth of information about her.

Where can I view these "strict controls"? I see plenty of anecdotal references to them, but nowhere can I find a description of the testing protocol used with Mrs. Piper.

Can you? May I see it please?

 

[Kopji]

Clancie & Mike
Hodgson is presented as a "skeptic" of the first rate, but he's just not. After about 1887 he is a firm believer, and has largely staked his reputation on Piper NOT being a fake.

I've looked at the abstracts of his Journal papers and they seem fairly sympathetic to psychic ability. An early journal indicates he is on an important committee studying mesmerism.

Before he joined the psychic investigations he was a follower of and taught the philosophy of Herbert Spencer. Spencer was an advocate of Social Darwinism, and actual coiner of the term 'survival of the fittest'. This is a fairly stark philosophy.
IMHO Hodgson was quite capable of promoting a hoax just for a private joke on humanity.

Anyway, he collected detailed papers about the sitters, and the papers were returned to them after his death. Maybe they are completely innocent records maybe not... but consider this: If Piper was a fraud (hard to imagine, but let's just suppose), then she KNEW about the existence of the sitter papers. After all she mentioned them a few days after his death and they seemed the main topic of this séance.

The alternative of course, is that she was actually possessed by the spirit of Hodgson and he was was deeply concerned for the privacy of the living.

Why not just conclude the simpler answer that she was aware of these secret papers containing details of the sitters? Had she also viewed them?

 

[TLN]

Where can I view these "strict controls"? I see plenty of anecdotal references to them, but nowhere can I find a description of the testing protocol used with Mrs. Piper.

Can you? May I see it please?

No?

 

[Darat]

Darat,

I just got back from the Boston Public Library, where I looked at Hodgson's paper. I...snip...

This is all I have to report, and if anyone has further questions, they'll have to have a look themselves. I did not have time to examine the paper and appendix in depth, and have nothing more to add.

Mike

Thank you VERY much for going to this effort Mike.

 

[Loki]

Mike D.

Mrs. Piper's transcripts are not of equal quality, as she seems to have had her off days, as well as days when she produced high quality information.
...
Once again, some of the safeguards included sitters being chosen at random at the last minute from far afield, anonymous sitters, and proxy sittings with the medium blinded to the identities of the people the proxies were sitting on behalf of.

Putting your two comments side by side creates a 'window of opportunity' for ambuguity about Mrs Piper, doesn't it? Not all transcripts are of high quality? Not all transcripts were made under the same level of 'safeguards'?

Surely then we need to try and map "quality of transcript" to "quality of safeguard"? It's like the JE debate - once he gets onto LKL the quality dives (even his followers admit this, they simply offer alternative explanations for the quality drop). If Piper did (for instance) 10 readings of "sitters being chosen at random at the last minute from far afield", how many of these are "high quality"? Ten? Five? Two??

 

[Clancie]

Posted by TLN

Where can I view these "strict controls"? I see plenty of anecdotal references to them, but nowhere can I find a description of the testing protocol used with Mrs. Piper.

Can you? May I see it please?

TLN,

I think Mike D. already described the controls for the Sutton reading. However, Piper had thousands of sittings that were documented by the SPR and the same controls may not have been used each time so if you're interested in the consistency, etc. of what he described, I suppose you would need to look at procedures for each and every reading. The ones for the Sutton reading have been mentioned already.

 

[Clancie]

Posted by Kopji

Before he joined the psychic investigations he was a follower of and taught the philosophy of Herbert Spencer. Spencer was an advocate of Social Darwinism, and actual coiner of the term 'survival of the fittest'. This is a fairly stark philosophy.
IMHO Hodgson was quite capable of promoting a hoax just for a private joke on humanity.

Wow, Kopji, With all due respect I don't see how being Spencerian and believing in Social Darwinism would make one likely to perpetrate a hoax and turn your whole career around to become someone knowingly promoting fraud. (Didn't he still like Spencer's ideas at the time he exposed Mme. Blavatsky as a fraud? Sorry, but this idea doesn't make any sense to me at all).

Anyway, he collected detailed papers about the sitters, and the papers were returned to them after his death.

Detailed papers, yes. Obviously papers the sitters already knew about, too. Let me ask you, if Hodgson was supporting fraud, why would he want to show sitters copious personal notes he'd taken about them to (presumably) share with Piper?

It makes more sense, as has been said, that this was information sitters gave him after the readings, personal information that explained how the information Piper had given them -was- evidential for them.

 

[TLN]

I think Mike D. already described the controls for the Sutton reading. However, Piper had thousands of sittings that were documented by the SPR and the same controls may not have been used each time so if you're interested in the consistency, etc. of what he described, I suppose you would need to look at procedures for each and every reading. The ones for the Sutton reading have been mentioned already.

I don't see any description beyond "cheating was 'controlled' for" and other such platitudes. I don't see an actual testing protocol anywhere, either here or on the sites offered or looked up myself.

I simply assumed since you stated clearly "...whose readings were well-documented for many years under strict controls against cheating," you'd know where I could find these controls in detail. You have seen these controls, haven't you? Or are you simply taking the scientists at their word?

 

[The Mighty Thor]

This is a very interesting thread.

I'd like to know if Clancie has changed her mind about Mrs Piper being a convincing case.

It is notable that Hodgson, as he became a believer, seems to have lessened any controls rather than strengthening them. He comes to view Mrs Piper and her daughters as intimate friends. (I wonder if the mother and girls were pretty?) Not a good idea for the researcher to become intimately involved with the subjects, surely?

Can Clancie (or anyone) think of any reasons why Hodgson might have become part of this fraud? Can she think of any ways Mrs Piper might be getting the information on sitters other than paranormally?

Does Clancie agree that we only have Hodgson's word that cheating did not take place?

 

[Clancie]

Posted by malcolmdk

I'd like to know if Clancie has changed her mind about Mrs Piper being a convincing case.

Um, no, malcolmdl. Why would I? No one here has even read -one- of her complete transcripts. I can't figure out what all these opinions of her work are based on.

It is notable that Hodgson, as he became a believer

Well, I think he became increasingly convinced that there might be something to ADC, the more he investigated Piper and the more he was convinced that, unlike Blavatsky and others he'd exposed, she was not cheating in any way.

... (he) seems to have lessened any controls rather than strengthening them.

Says who?

Can Clancie (or anyone) think of any reasons why Hodgson might have become part of this fraud?

Um...What fraud is that, Malcolm?

Unlike people here (none of whom have read a transcript--including, and forgive me if I'm wrong, you--Stephen Braude and Alan Gauld have -extensively- studied the research with Piper and found no evidence of fraud whatsoever.

Can she think of any ways Mrs Piper might be getting the information on sitters other than paranormally?

Let's assume that a sitter you have never seen before comes to you, Malcolm, under an assumed name....how would -you- have gotten prior information about her?

Does Clancie agree that we only have Hodgson's word that cheating did not take place?

No. We have Piper's.
(that was intended as a kind of joke Just so you know.).

Seriously, though. Hodgson wasn't the only one who studied her. NO investigator found evidence of fraud, not even once. Piper never put conditions on her seances, or how sitters were selected, that would indicate she was cheating.

There's absolutely no evidence of cheating, so it's kind of amusing (just kind of! ) to see how people would start to insist she must have been....based on, as far as I can tell, absolutely nothing but preconceived ideas!