New study on mediumship (by Emily W. Kelly)

[BottledWater]

Garrette,

How did Kellar do that? I can't find anything about it.

 

[Ersby]

But why do you think that "the amount of information which psychics provide corresponds to the amount of information they obtain through normal means"? Why they could not provide much more informaton they could obtain through normal means? An example, Emilly Kelly says: "(1) In the
hope of focusing the reading on the intended deceased person, I sent photographs of the deceased to the mediums, but provided no other information;"

So, let's say this happened: the psychic see the photographs, and then the psychic says:

a) the full name of the deceased

b) the way which this person died

c) the year of the birth and death

d) the name of the relatives

e) the name of the pets

f) etc.

Isn't this MUCH MORE information than the psychic could obtain by normal means only seeing a photograph? I think we can say there are paranormal means involved.

But did this actually happen?

I think that all the Kelly has shown is that all you need is a photo and you can create a cold reading specific enough to be matched to a particular person. With what little information there is in the abstract, I think we can say there are no paranormal means involved.

 

[Vitor Moura]

Garrette,

do you have really read the original reports? There are clearly wrong statements in your "facts". You says:

Even Hodgson admits that some of Piper’s other controls were either fraudulent or unknowing extensions of her personality without real paranormal attributes (most notably Phinuit and the “Imperator Band.” Piper also claimed Johan Sebastian Bach as a control.)

This is clearly wrong. Phinuit had paranormal attributes, anf Hodgson admits this.

I have already stated my conviction of Mrs. Piper's honesty, and I hold further that the reports quoted here—not to speak of those already published in Vol. VI.—establish the existence of some faculty in Phinuit which goes at least as far as telepathy.

Another passage:

Admitting, then, and emphasising the shortcomings of Phinuit, and allowing that many statements correctly made by Phinuit might be accounted for on the supposition that Mrs. Piper had "got up" the information beforehand, I shall here assume that there is nevertheless a large residuum to be attributed to some supernormal faculty

This is in Proceedings 1892.

I really doubt that your statements and conclusions would be published in a peer-reviewed journal like The Journal of Scientific Exploration, since has so basic mistakes.

 

[Vitor Moura]

Now if you take the time to research this and thereby discover the method that Kellar used,

The explanation is in "A Magician Among the Spirits":

Kellar explained to me that while in Manila a few weeks previous he had
met an American traveler who, while they were discussing the different
theatrical companies in the Orient, had told him all the incidents he had
repeated to Mass in the supposed trance. This traveler had written home to Mass' mother telling her of her son's whereabouts and therefore Kellar felt
fairly safe in saying that a letter would arrive in a few days, but in spite of
Kellar's confession Mass continued to believe firmly that he was a genuine
psychic.

I suspect you will come back with an objection along the lines that neither Piper nor the recent subjects in Kelly's tests could or would have used such a method. To this, my response is that you have no way of knowing this and are instead merely presuming it. That is why the methodology is critical, as fls as pointed out.

I have ways of knowing this. Just have to read the original reports. There are many differences from one case to another. Piper was sent to a country which she never was and knew no one, the assistents were introduced by false names, some of them using masks, and all her conversation and correspondence were careful examined. In Kelly's case he was free to go where he wants, talk with anyone, no one examined his conversations, etc.

Hodgson was hardly an expert conjuror. I, too, am a magician, but that does not qualify me as an observer, just as having a Bachelor of Science in engineering would not qualify me to assess the structural integrity of a high rise.

http://www.answers.com/topic/richard-hodgson

His legal training and personal attainments made him especially qualified for the detection of fraud.

In November 1884, as a member of the SPR committee, he was sent to India to investigate the paranormal phenomena being reported from the heart of the theosophical movement, especially that initiated by Helena Petrovna Blavatsky. His "Report on Phenomena Connected with Theosophy," published in the Proceedings of the SPR in December 1885 charged Blavatsky with widespread fraud. The report created a pubic scandal for Theosophy and ensured Hodgson's place in the history of psychical research. (The report continues to embarrass Theosophists, and there were unsuccessful attempts to discredit it as recently as the mid-1980s.)

A short time later, in conjunction with S. T. Davey, Hodgson undertook important experiments into the possibilities of malobservation and lapse of memory in connection with séance phenomena. While not well known, this paper is actually his most original work in the field. He developed an extremely skeptical attitude toward all physical phenomena. He remarked that "nearly all professional mediums form a gang of vulgar tricksters, who are more or less in league with one another." All his early investigations ended with a negative opinion.

Hodgson was among the first to become convinced that Eusapia Palladino, whose sittings he attended at Cambridge in 1895, was an impostor, although investigations by other psychical researchers indicated that she produced genuine phenomena when properly controlled, but cheated on other occasions.

Again, Garrette, I really doubt that your criticisms would be published in a peer-reviewed journal.

 

[Vitor Moura]

Why must we always have antiquated claims? Leonora Piper died in 1950---it's far too late to test her now.

So what? You can test if someone can reproduce her performance by normals means. Until there, Piper will be regarded as a genuine psychic, or, at least, a real mystery.

How are we to investigate her claims, when she's been dead 60 years? All we can do is analyze anecdotes about her, and anecdotes aren't evidence.

Piper is perhaps the best case study of the history of paranormal phenomena. An anecdote has no control, one tells you a thing that you can't check. Piper's case is not anedoctal, many scientists studied her, you have wrtitten reports, controls, etc.

If Piper was really psychic and being visited by spirit guides, why was her French spirit guide, Phiniut, who was supposed to be a doctor in life, unable to recognize the French words for common remedies available in his own purported lifetime? The only French that "Phinuit" knew was the French that Ms. Piper knew, which she (and most Americans) were exposed to due to common usage. Even the anecdotes make Ms. Piper look like a charlatan.

From the article: "The Mysterious Dr. Phinuit" By Michael E.Tymn

While James and Dr. Walter Leaf both found Phinuit failing in French, Dr. Richard Hodgson, who was brought over from England to study Mrs. Piper, heard him speak fluent French with two different sitters (as discussed below). Thus, this aspect is especially mystifying.

(...)

J. Rogers Rich, one of the sitters to whom Phinuit spoke French, offered this description of his first sitting on September 5, 1888: "With little trouble she went into the trance...and after a moment's silence... I was startled by the remarkable change in her voice - an exclamation, a sort of grunt of satisfaction, as if the person had reached his destination and gave vent to his pleasure thereat by this sound, uttered in an unmistakably male voice, but rather husky. I was at once addressed in French..." (Holt, 419) Phinuit then spelled out Rich's original name in the French alphabet: Thames Rowghearce Reach.

(...)

Phinuit then began speaking in French to Katharine, who had lived in France and knew the language. (Hodgson noted that little of it was recorded as the stenographer did not know French.) Someone known to Mary Howard as Madame Elisa then interrupted Phinuit, speaking in Italian. Mary Howard responded in Italian.

If psychic powers really exist, then why aren't there any modern-day psychics that can prove their powers under laboratory conditions? Remove their ability to cheat and/or fish for information, and their powers magically dry up.

But there any modern-day psychics that can prove their powers under laboratory conditions. Sean Harribance was studied by years and was never caught in cheat.

Yes, brilliant, isn't it? By providing the pictures, they gave the so-called mediums so very many clues. It isn't that hard to look at a single photograph of an 80-year old woman and accurately guess that "She lost someone she cared deeply about in WWII."

If the photograph was of my grandmother, this statement would be wrong.

Whereupon the "proxy" says, "Yes, her husband," which gives the medium a whole host of information about how the dead woman must have lived.

The proxy knows nothing or very little about the deceased.

 

[Vitor Moura]

But did this actually happen?

I think that all the Kelly has shown is that all you need is a photo and you can create a cold reading specific enough to be matched to a particular person. With what little information there is in the abstract, I think we can say there are no paranormal means involved.

Hi, Ersby

I don't know if this actually happen, I was just given examples of informations that could not be extracted only by a photograph (unless the medium knew the deceased, of course).

You can be right, but as I said, I think is better to wait for Kelly's article publication to see all the strengths and weakness.

Best wishes.

 

[Vitor Moura]

Well, we don't really know that Gardner didn't read the report you refer to. There seems to be a great deal of flexibility in what was said about her, so any synthesis of this can differ from how someone else would put it together. Especially if one person is showing skepticism and the other belief.

He didn't read, there are mistakes that we can find only in his article, like the year of Hodgson's death and others. The fact is the his text was not peer-reviewed.

But clearly their tests would be irrelevant if they didn't represent the way she obtained information.

Irrelevant? These tests shows how she was not obtaining information, is this is very important. You have to exclude the normal explanations before going to paranormal explanations.

And again, if she doesn't go about gathering information in the way a detective would, who cares whether or not a detective was successful. Ruling out whether someone could obtain information through normal means is useless under these conditions.Linda

That's why the researches tested all the ways possible, and so they exclude the normal explanations.

 

[Vitor Moura]

Now I really have to translate some articles - in fact, many articles - and to wrote some. I will not be back in this thread, since I think there is much misinformation by people who never read the original reports, and is really boring to refute every wrong statement.

Best wishes.

 

[Jeff Corey]

But did this actually happen?

I think that all the Kelly has shown is that all you need is a photo and you can create a cold reading specific enough to be matched to a particular person. With what little information there is in the abstract, I think we can say there are no paranormal means involved.

And this, "In Stage 1, 4 mediums and 12 real sitters participated; each medium did 3 readings. The results were not significant. In Stage 2, therefore, I made 3 major changes: (1) In the hope of focusing the reading on the intended deceased person, I sent photographs of the deceased to the mediums, but provided no other information; (2) to see whether the proxy might play some role in the success or failure of a reading, another experimenter and I shared the role of proxy, each doing half the readings; and (3) I simplified the evaluation method and asked the real sitters to rate and rank transcripts globally rather than item by item."
Bolding mine.

Rosenthal Effect, anyone?

 

[Garrette]

Garrette,

How did Kellar do that? I can't find anything about it.

Sorry. I'm a magician, too, and while I can't equal Kellar, I'm not revealing it here.

ETA: Oops I see Vitor has posted it. Rather mundane and disappointing an explanation isn't it?

That's the point. It always is.

 

[Garrette]

Vitor,

Of course my comments would not be published in a peer reviewed journal. Neither would yours, so we are on equal footing. Your attempt at condescending dismissal on those grounds is misplaced.

And paranormal points to me for predicting your response to knowing the method.

 

[Garrette]

Sorry you will not be back to the thread, Vitor. There is both misinformation and misinterpretation regarding Piper and Hodgson, and some mistakes on the skeptic side, too, but you have yet to show that the weight of the evidence favors Piper.

 

[fls]

He didn't read, there are mistakes that we can find only in his article, like the year of Hodgson's death and others.

Well, those aren't the kinds of mistakes one makes if one hasn't read an article. People make errors in recalling or typing numbers even after reading an article.

The fact is the his text was not peer-reviewed.

That may be relevant. I am more likely to trust information which has passed muster from others who are just as knowledgeable as the author. And where someone's reputation will suffer if it is found that they did a poor job - that is that they are held responsible for the information and everyone who matters will hear about it if they get it wrong. Books and non-peer-reviewed articles don't do that.

That's partly why I don't think Gardner's review matters so much (I don't decide whether or not an idea is nonsense based upon what Randi or Gardner had to say about it in one of their popular books) since I wouldn't trust the information without further confirmation anyway. And like I said, none of that matters in the end, since the study of the individual, no matter how carefully done, is not the kind of study from which reliable and valid conclusions can be drawn anyway.

Irrelevant? These tests shows how she was not obtaining information, is this is very important. You have to exclude the normal explanations before going to paranormal explanations.

They are irrelevant because we aren't really interested in how she was not obtaining information. I agree that finding a normal explanation leads us to stop looking for a paranormal explanation. But failing to find a normal explanation just means that we failed to find a normal explanation. It does not tell us what explanations we missed, nor what is the nature of those missing explanations.

That's why the researches tested all the ways possible, and so they exclude the normal explanations.

Well, you and they are willing to pretend they tested all the ways possible. But how could you know that considering that these investigations seem to depend heavily upon whether or not the investigators are sufficiently clever and resourceful when many times they have been proven not to be?

Linda

 

[fls]

Hodgson was among the first to become convinced that Eusapia Palladino, whose sittings he attended at Cambridge in 1895, was an impostor, although investigations by other psychical researchers indicated that she produced genuine phenomena when properly controlled, but cheated on other occasions.

This is exactly what I'm talking about. Clearly these sorts of investigations are unreliable, since they depend upon whether or not the investigator is sufficiently clever and resourceful to discover fraud or other more mundane explanations. If the investigator is not, then they will conclude that the psychic is genuine even when they are not. That is, the method allows for your conclusions to easily be wrong. All this demonstrates is the Hodgson was sufficiently clever and resourceful to discover fraud on some occasions. But it doesn't tell us whether he can do so in all cases. And there is no reason to assume this. Just because I can figure out some of Derren Brown's tricks doesn't mean that he uses real magic to perform the ones I can't figure out.

Linda

 

[Jeff Corey]

This is exactly what I'm talking about. Clearly these sorts of investigations are unreliable, since they depend upon whether or not the investigator is sufficiently clever and resourceful to discover fraud or other more mundane explanations. If the investigator is not, then they will conclude that the psychic is genuine even when they are not. That is, the method allows for your conclusions to easily be wrong. All this demonstrates is the Hodgson was sufficiently clever and resourceful to discover fraud on some occasions. But it doesn't tell us whether he can do so in all cases. And there is no reason to assume this. Just because I can figure out some of Derren Brown's tricks doesn't mean that he uses real magic to perform the ones I can't figure out.

Linda

Good point. I use a class demonstration where I tell the class that I can predict their choices better than chance. I ask a volunteer to produce a random series of heads and tails as if they were tossing an imaginary coin. I ask them to write them down and complete 50 trials. I then guess each one, with feedback after each guess. I usually produce significantly more hits than 25.
Then I ask them how I did it. ("No, I wasn't watching your pencil move. That could work, but I had my back to you." "No, the window is not a mirror - if you can't see me, I can't see you.")
Then I tell them about the argument to ignorance, and the fallacy of concluding I must be psychic just because they can't explain it.
Then I explain it.

 

[Aepervius]

He didn't read, there are mistakes that we can find only in his article, like the year of Hodgson's death and others. The fact is the his text was not peer-reviewed.

I made an error entering my OWN BIRTHDATE in a formular once. I can't even count the number of time I had a typo I caught only after the 4th reading on number when I published, because that specific number was not important!

Bottom line, sometimes details are unimportant, some detail are important. The death day of the guy is NOT IMPORTANT. Whether the criticism of the methodlogy done is on target is important. I see you CAREFULLY tiptoed around that and concentrated on unimportant detail. This is much more telling than you would wish. And that is almost certainly the reason why you elft, you saw the position was untainable.

Otherwise you would have spent page over page arguying on detail like in other ESP threads.

 

[phaed]

So they did a blind study and got no significant results, then they partially unblinded the study and got significance at the p = .0003 level, meaning the probability of obtaining the same results by random chance is 1 in 3300. Quite an improvement.

The problem, of course, is that it's difficult to differentiate whether that improvement was caused by increased psychic abilities or by a combination of 1) introducing information which the "psychics" could use to make better educated guesses, and 2) biased scoring by the investigators.

It appears that I have access to the Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease through my university proxy, so I'll be sure to grab a copy of the paper when it is published.

 

[phaed]

BTW, have you taken a look at the Division of Perceptual Studies at the UVA School of Medicine? It's got crank research written all over it.

Also, here's Emily W. Kelly's CV. She appears to have done all of her professional work at that center, while also being involved in a Parapsychological Association. Anybody willing to bet she's not an unbiased party?

 

[Jeff Corey]

BTW, have you taken a look at the Division of Perceptual Studies at the UVA School of Medicine? It's got crank research written all over it.

Also, here's Emily W. Kelly's CV. She appears to have done all of her professional work at that center, while also being involved in a Parapsychological Association. Anybody willing to bet she's not an unbiased party?

I noticed that of her "Recent Publications" she only appears as an author on 4 out of the 10. The others are written by other people, some of them deceased.
I wonder if I could beef up my Vita by 150% by throwing in some articles by Skinner or some other dead people in my field.
I could claim that they were ghost-written.

 

[phaed]

Jeff, not sure what you're talking about. My assumption is that she used to be named Emily W. Cook, in which case her name is on each of the publications, as either Kelly EW or Cook EW.