Please Stop Citing "Crossing Over" As Evidence

[jj]

It isn't. Nothing you saw on "Crossing Over" counts as evidence towards anything one way or the other (yup, this goes for skeptics too).

Please, don’t point to “hits” on your fictional television show as anything that should sway a skeptic. It’s television. It’s also edited television. It’s also edited television where the producers reserve the right to create “fictional” events. Stop digging for your old tapes. They're worthless.

Nothing, absolutely nothing, you saw on "Crossing Over" qualifies as evidence of anything. Ever.

Questions?

Now, come on. You HAVE to give it credit for looking like not very good cold reading, no matter what it really is!

 

[Clancie]

Thanks, renata. I do not take that as meaning that CO actually does fictionalizes or misrepresents readings (nor have I ever read anything claiming that other than O'Neill, but I see the point that they hypothetically could. (It probably is more likely describing some of the dramatization--showing a toy that might not be the original that a child was buried with for example).

 

[Clancie]

Posted by TLN

Don't stereotype skeptics please

Actually, you posted too quickly, TLN. I had already caught that and edited it down to what I really meant...just "you"....

Your second strawman in a single thread. I never claimed Edward cheats.

Where, in what you quote, do I claim that you do?

Other skeptics do. Its a claim that always needs to be addressed when talking about the "authenticity" of CO.

Personally, I don't think Edward hot reads at all.

Good. That simplifies the discussion considerably and means we at least agree about something.

No, I don't think we can ignore CO completely. Skeptics should find in it a wealth of illustrations of cold reading, and believers should be able to point to patterns of information that come through and are convincingly validated (as commented on by the sitters themselves)--as well as looking at those "special hits" that editing alone simply couldn't just "create".

 

[TLN]

Where, in what you quote, do I claim that you do?

If you don't claim I do, why bring up a completely unrelated topic?

Please try to stay on this single subject!

No, I don't think we can ignore CO completely.

Ummm... why the hell not?

Skeptics should find in it a wealth of illustrations of cold reading, and believers should be able to point to patterns of information that come through and are convincingly validated (as commented on by the sitters themselves)--as well as looking at those "special hits" that editing alone simply couldn't just "create".

But we'll never know who's correct based on this completely worthless body of data (a television show).

...as well as looking at those "special hits" that editing alone simply couldn't just "create".

May I see a "special hit" that editing couldn't create please?

Clanice, no such hits exist except in your mind.

 

[Clancie]

TLN,

How does editing create a hit for "Voula"?

Unless of course, you're implying CO made up the hit, hired actors to validate it, and then filmed a phony license plate illustrating it.

But that's not "using editing".

 

[TLN]

How does editing create a hit for "Voula"?

I'd need to see the context of the reading to say, I'm not familiar with this example.

 

[RC]

TLN, I understand your point, but I think people should be able to do whatever the hell they want. If I want to submit the Gladys Knight hit from CO as evidence of JE's abilities (which I'm not doing, just hypothetical), I should be able to do it. Likewise, you should be able to denouce it.

So while I respect your opinion, your thread calls for something dangerously close to censorship, and at a minimum seems a little too controlling for me.

 

[TLN]

So while I respect your opinion, your thread calls for something dangerously close to censorship, and at a minimum seems a little too controlling for me.

My thread calls for the rigors of science, nothing more. It's not censorship to exclude data that doesn't mean this standard.

 

[Nyarlathotep]

TLN, I understand your point, but I think people should be able to do whatever the hell they want. If I want to submit the Gladys Knight hit from CO as evidence of JE's abilities (which I'm not doing, just hypothetical), I should be able to do it. Likewise, you should be able to denouce it.

So while I respect your opinion, your thread calls for something dangerously close to censorship, and at a minimum seems a little too controlling for me.

I only think it would cross the line into censorship if he had proposed that people be oficially FORBIDDEN from using CO as evidence.

As it is, it sounds like a statement of opinion, that the show is worthless as evidence and is no more a call for censorship than, for example, asking people not to use ad hominems in their posts.

Just my 2 cents.

 

[renata]

Thanks, renata. I do not take that as meaning that CO actually does fictionalizes or misrepresents readings (nor have I ever read anything claiming that other than O'Neill, but I see the point that they hypothetically could. (It probably is more likely describing some of the dramatization--showing a toy that might not be the original that a child was buried with for example).

You are welcome, Clancie. However, showing an image of a toy a child was buried with would not accound for "fictional scenes, action and dialogue". Unless it was a talking toy...

Combined with 2 references to "entertainment only" and JE statements are only "purporting to represent communications from and contact with deceased relatives", and that things said by JE are not intended to be a form of advice, instruction, counsel, or factual statement in any way whatsoever....well. There is a 10 page thread on that already. I think things are pretty self evident.

I agree that CO cannot be used as evidence of his special abilities. I also think that plucking one hit out of LKL (the cigarettes) is useless.

 

[RC]

I only think it would cross the line into censorship if he had proposed that people be oficially FORBIDDEN from using CO as evidence.

Right, that's why I said close (perhaps dangerously was an overstatement).

I just don't understand the need to set rules on the debate here. I think the JE discussions are really good the way they are. If we are going to limit all JE and mediumship discussion to the rigors of science, then that will pretty much end the discussion. Perhaps that's what some people want, but there are obviously many here who enjoy the conversation given the popularity of the threads.

 

[TLN]

Right, that's why I said close (perhaps dangerously was an overstatement).

I could probably produce four or five threads right now where I'm accused of wanting to censor people. It's never been true. I think it's often just the reaction to observations people don't like to face, but I could be wrong of course.

I could also produce as many threads where I defend anyone's rights to post whatever they want, no matter how silly. I may rally against it (like, I was fond of just telling Genghis to simply shut the f*ck up), but ultimately I understand that it's your freedom to do or post whatever you want, including ignoring me.

I merely point out, as I often have before, what skeptics will expect of you. Like so:

I just don't understand the need to set rules on the debate here.

No one suggested formal rules, but this is a skeptic’s board. How do you think we're going to react to Edward posters and their claims of evidence, bust out the dowsing sticks?

I as a skeptic didn't set any "rules" on "debate", science did.

Believers who post here really ought to grasp who their audience is, no? Or, after a long time posting here, should at least recognize that at the end of the day these folks want science; if you don't know what science is and how it works, how are you to address your audience at all on the subject of what constitutes evidence?

Again, there's nothing formalized here and I'm not seeking to make it such, but as skeptics we demand the rigors of science in the exploration and examination of claims. And before you say so, speaking for all skeptics? You bet. Anyone is free to disagree with me of course.

I think the JE discussions are really good the way they are.

Really? You do? With the wheels on the bus goin' round and round and round...?

If we are going to limit all JE and mediumship discussion to the rigors of science, then that will pretty much end the discussion. Perhaps that's what some people want, but there are obviously many here who enjoy the conversation given the popularity of the threads.

RC, "discuss" all you'd like, but what's the title of this thread? Evidence. Folks posts "special hits" from a fictitious television program, then point and say "this is what makes me think there might be something to it." That's just plain wrong, and not only from the standpoint of rigorous, curmudgeonly science, but from plain old common sense about TV. Again, it's like me pointing to the Enterprise and saying "this is why I think Einstein might be wrong."

So, "discuss" all you like. Have all the conversations you want and enjoy! But I think we can all agree there's not much value in pointing at this circus act on TV and claiming it shows us anything of any evidentiary value about Edward's powers.

 

[neofight]

I just don't understand the need to set rules on the debate here. I think the JE discussions are really good the way they are. If we are going to limit all JE and mediumship discussion to the rigors of science, then that will pretty much end the discussion. Perhaps that's what some people want, but there are obviously many here who enjoy the conversation given the popularity of the threads.

I agree 100%, RC. We don't need no stinkin' rules, and I think that TLN can easily spare himself a lot of aggravation simply by skipping any threads that contain JE in the subject line. ........neo

 

[Clancie]

neo,

You said it more succinctly, but I still wanted to add this.

Posted by TLN

This is a skeptic’s board.

So you keep saying, TLN. I disagree, however, and so does Randi. I -do- think it is a board devoted to discussion that promotes critical thinking (which is not the same thing as being a "skeptic's board" at all).

I as a skeptic didn't set any "rules" on "debate", science did.

Again, there's nothing formalized here and I'm not seeking to make it such, but as skeptics we demand the rigors of science in the exploration and examination of claims. And before you say so, speaking for all skeptics? You bet.

That's fortunate, since Randi says none of what you do about his goals for his forum.

I've posted this for you before (when you demanded for me to explain to you, essentially, "why are you still here, Clancie, at a skeptics' board" in your other recent thread about this). But maybe you missed it. Here it is again. This is Randi's vision for his forum, TLN, obviously not yours:

From JREF website, "Forum" introduction

Be part of the JREF web community by engaging in intelligent discussions with both skeptics and non-skeptics from around the globe.

Yes, what can be posted about mediumship does not satisfy the burden of scientific proof that you want, yet as RC said, some of us still feel interested in the discussion, in spite of knowing perfectly well that we are not presenting scientific proof.

So, no, I don't have "scientific evidence" that can prove mediumship to you, TLN. And you also should know that I'm not going away just because you feel my posts don't meet your criteria for skepticism.

If those two facts are too irritating for you, you might want to try the "Ignore" feature. It works.

 

[TLN]

So you keep saying, TLN. I disagree, however, and so does Randi. I -do- think it is a board devoted to discussion that promotes critical thinking (which is not the same thing as being a "skeptic's board" at all).

That's fortunate, since Randi says none of what you do about his goals for his forum.

Clancie, you simply can't focus on a single topic of conversation. Here it is for you again in it's own isolated thesis:

Observations gathered from viewings of "Crossing Over" are inadmissible as evidence of Edward's alleged powers.

Since you're so determined to bring this conversation to Randi, fine, please feel free to ask him to disagree with the above statement. Since I know you won't, check out Thursday's internet broadcast and I'll do it for you. While I'm at it, I'll ask a few questions about his forum (yup, it's his alright).

If discussing with believers isn't of interest to you, and you realize we will continue the discussion here regardless of your dislike for it, why not just ignore those discussions that you dislike and focus on other topics?

Because discussion with believers is something that interests me. See above for my comments on "discussion" and the title of this thread. Focus.

No, I don't have "scientific evidence" that can prove mediumship to you, TLN. Nor am I going away just because you feel my posts don't meet your criteria for skepticism.

Did I ask you to go away? No. I'm curious as to why you smash your head against skeptics not knowing what constitutes evidence to them. It's not my criteria Clancie, sorry. Again, any skeptic is free to disagree with me.

No, I never asked you to go away (third straw man in a single thread), I asked (and I even said "please") that folks not cite observations taken from "Crossing Over" as evidence since they're clearly not. Sure, you're free to do otherwise, but don't act surprised when it doesn't sway anyone or skeptics call you foolish for doing so.

 

[neofight]

Observations gathered from viewings of "Crossing Over" are inadmissible as evidence of Edward's alleged powers.

Since you're so determined to bring this conversation to Randi, fine, please feel free to ask him to disagree with the above statement. Since I know you won't, check out Thursday's internet broadcast and I'll do it for you. While I'm at it, I'll ask a few questions about his forum (yup, it's his alright).

Oh, good. I'd be curious as to whether or not Randi feels that believers need to back up every single damn thing they say with scientific evidence.

RC is right. If we were only permitted to discuss the things relating to mediumship that have been proven scientifically, there would not be very much for us to discuss.

Soooo, let's find out once and for all. Are believers welcome to post here, on this "skeptics' board", or not? .....neo

 

[TLN]

Oh, good. I'd be curious as to whether or not Randi feels that believers need to back up every single damn thing they say with scientific evidence.

Well, I won't be asking him that as it's nothing I've ever said before... ever... anywhere... at any time.

RC is right. If we were only permitted to discuss the things relating to mediumship that have been proven scientifically, there would not be very much for us to discuss.

As I have said many, many times, you are "permitted" to "discuss" anything you'd like.

Soooo, let's find out once and for all. Are believers welcome to post here, on this "skeptics' board", or not? .....neo

I'm confused too. Since I never claimed that believers aren't welcome here, where does this completely irrelevant and derailing question even come from?

To clarify: believers are more than welcome to post here and I encourage them to do so.

 

[Instig8R]

TLN,

My understanding of how you use the word "evidence" is not consistent with the inclusion of the phrase "might be"....You, like Claus, see this issue as black and white. So far, I don't.

-snip-

I fully understand that CO is edited and although personally I feel that hot reading is highly unlikely, I understand why it hypothetically can't completely be ruled out when names are known in advance.

Hi, Clancie--

I understand that you think hot-reading is highly unlikely. However, are you also ruling out hot-reading in the at-home readings of family members of the 9/11 victims -- NYC Fireman Michael Kiefer (JE: 'Who's Jamie?'), and Audio Engineer John Pucket (JE: 'He's saying these wires shouldn't be so messy').

I disagree that editing creates JE's hits where none exist, but I agree that the hit rate is probably somewhat inflated by editing (I think the difference of renata's/ersby's total is probably about right, but I don't have proof of that and would like to read what Underdown thinks).

I think that editing creates many of JE's hits where none exist, in the following manner: Information is conveyed by the sitters, ultimately leading to JE making a "hit" statement or question -- but afterwards, the primary information from the sitter is edited out. I don't think the sitters realize that they have "leaked" the information in this way.

Note: I think that this is the real reason why JE won't allow his private readings to be tape-recorded... upon playback, without editing, sitters would realize that the information really emanates from them to JE, not the other way around.

 

[Clancie]

TLN,

You don't make believers feel welcome or respected with posts like the ones above--or, even more so, on the "Is There A Larsen List in Your Name" Thread where you badgered me repeatedly, "Why are you here at a skeptics' board?", despite me answering it many times.

Nobody's cited "CO" as scientific evidence, TLN. And perhaps you should consider that there are other kinds of "evidence" that is interesting to discuss, including demonstrations, personal experiences, etc.

If you feel -that- kind of evidence doesn't interest you, I recommend that you just go ahead and ignore it rather than telling people not to mention it at all.

Telling other people not to talk about CO because it is not "scientific evidence" and therefore does not meet your standard of what is acceptable as evidence is extremely presumptuous, to say the least.

 

[Lord Kenneth]

In TLN's defense... Clancie, "badgering you", in your opinion, seems to be little more than trying to get you to answer questions honestly.

And yes, TLN, you do make a good point... nothing on CO counts as scientific evidence. It's sad when the believers only have an edited television show on the sci-fi network to cite as evidence...