Please Stop Citing "Crossing Over" As Evidence

[renata]

Hmmm...thread drift much?

How about these questions:
TLN, what would you consider to be acceptable evidence to convince skeptics JE might be real?

Clancie, Neo, which evidence do you rely on in your belief in abilities of JE?

Can everyone agree that CO, being an edited show, cannot be relied on as evidence of his abilities? Can everyone agree that some standards in debating his abilities are necessary? Or else, as TLN said, this is just an endless "is not"- "is too" useless and endless bickering.

Some facts
-Release refers to the program as "it being understood that the program or any derivative works thereof may contain factual and/or fictional scenes, action and dialogue"
- release mentions 2 references to "entertainment only"; says 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


This leads me to the conclusion that no special hit on CO can be submitted as evidence of JE's powers

Now- LKL. I located the other 2 readings, and will perform a full count on them, like I did on the last 3. I do not like it when a singular reading gets plucked out as a special hit: like the Timothy reading, or the cigarettes in the coffin. I prefer to analyze the totality of the evidence, not a single lucky hit. I am perturbed that the transcripts are located on the JE fan sites, not on CNN sites, like the other 3, that casts some doubt on their accuracy.
However, I am interested to see how well he did on those appearances. I was also surprised to see Clancie artificially inflated the hit ratio by discarding not validated and not scored guesses and additing weak hits to regular hits, that is how she got 50% hit ratio for JE for LKL. The accurate hit ratio, I believe is much lower, considering the lower percentage of the hits to guesses and the poor quality of some weak hits. I shall work on all this later, and present that in a few days. Although it is not an ideal format of evidence, absent other information, I think it is adequate to see certain patterns.

 

[Lord Kenneth]

TLN, what would you consider to be acceptable evidence to convince skeptics JE might be real?

I think every skeptic would agree: Multiple properly-conducted scientific tests by different researchers each time. Or perhaps something similar.

 

[renata]

I think every skeptic would agree: Multiple properly-conducted scientific tests by different researchers each time. Or perhaps something similar.

Agreed. However, we do not have that currently. You will get some disagreement as to whether JE was ever asked to submit himself to testing by anyone other than Schwartz or not. In the absence of such evidence, I submit we still have enough information to draw conclusions on whether he is real or not. At least I feel I do.

 

[Zep]

Renata, I agree. The Crossing Over TV show is exactly and only that - a freaking TV show, for Ed's sake. Trying to make anything more serious out of it than that, for any purpose whatsoever, is utterly pointless.

 

[Walter Wayne]

Can everyone agree that CO, being an edited show, cannot be relied on as evidence of his abilities?

I agree that it can not be used as positive evidence. If his shows were full of him giving readings including full names, date of birth and death and precise cause of death, we would all agree that cold reading could be ruled out for some of his readings.

The reason we dislike the edited show is that even if one can rule out a few possibilities, the results are still ambiguous and nothing ever shown to be true.

Walt

 

[Flo]

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.

Not much ? I would have thought nothing at all ...

 

[RonSceptic]

Oh good, another thread about JE.

Just what did we all do with our time before Clancie and neo turned up?

 

[Darat]

From a previous post I made on this subject:

I am not making a claim that they do fictionalise anything just that we now know they reserve that right when they get people to sign the release form. With that in mind we cannot just assume that they don't exercise that right.

That is why I say anything being used from a CO programme as "evidence" for JE's claimed ability to communicate with the dead needs to be independently (i.e. not from the production company) verified that what is shown is an accurate and faithful reproduction (within the remit of TV shows) of what happened.

We now know (thanks to you ) that everything could be "fictionalised", to assume that the producers don't "fictionalise" the show is just that, an assumption.

Don’t forget the words of the release even explicitly mention the word “fiction”, which is why I used “fictionalised”.

There are of course a lot of things we can discuss about the programme. However if we attempt to discuss the events as shown on the programme as accurate and factual representations of “real” readings then I believe we are on very shaky grounds.

We have to remember explicitly mentioned in the release form is the fact that the producers can if they wish MAKE IT ALL UP!

Unless we have credible collaboration that a reading took place as shown we should not (especially for something of the nature of JE's claimed ability) just assume that JE and the producers haven't "produced" the show to be as "compelling" as possible.

Given our current understanding of how the world works - which allows us build working electronic devices starting from just a theory, that allows us to understand the actions of drugs and proteins by just using our theories and so on - which is the most likely and reasonable explanation?

That JE can do something that potentially would mean we are wrong about many of our basic theories (that give workable results across the board elsewhere) or the fact that he is in essence an entertainer and his show is “produced” to be as compelling as possible?

 

[Starrman]

Clancie:

and are convincingly validated (as commented on by the sitters themselves)

How do you know the sitters are being truthful or are remembering correctly?

 

[RonSceptic]

How do you know the sitters are being truthful or are remembering correctly?

The 'validation' of the sitters is worthless. Cold reading works by getting the sitter to volunteer information, confirm multiple guesses, and firm up speculative details. The sitter then forgets the misses and homes in on the hits. Under these circumstances it's reallyu no wonder that they tend to give positive validation. And of course on CO they will simply be edited out if they don't.

On the recent UK TV show with Randi and Keith Chambers, the medium gave a pretty poor reading to a studio guest, guessing at all manner of things about bedroom furniture and jewelery that got no response at all, even though he bullied the victim relentlessly.

Despite this, at the end of the reading the presenter asked the sitter how much of the reading was accurate, and she said "all of it". She was pretty emotional too. Convincingb stuff this cold reading, even when not particularly successful.

 

[Starrman]

In addition to that, the sitter may validate what JE says to please him, or to increase his/her chances of being on TV. The sitter may be incorrect in his/her memory of an event or date, or may be scared to say 'no', or may be saying 'yes' to get the reading over with because he/she is uncomfortable. Of course, I have no evidence that any of this has ever happened, but I find it more likely that a combination of cold-reading and the above occurs rather than a conversation with dead people.

 

[BillHoyt]

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

Randi has made quite clear his intentions regarding the "challenging" versus "bullying" question. This is my summary of his position:
"o If someone says they believe something and have no evidence to back it up, let it go unchallenged.
o If someone says they believe something and have evidence for it, call on them to marshall that evidence
o If they say they refuse to answer, let it go."

The last time you and I were on this topic, you agreed that those rules were fair. I hope you still do.

And this is a skeptic's board. By that I do not mean "skeptic's-only", but both intended to teach critical thinking and to follow skeptic rules. The rules of evidence are well-known and continually skirted by you. We must add to the rules given above:

o the usual rules of logic always apply,

o evidence for claims must come from peer-reviewed journals, and

o that the more extraordinary the claim, the more rigorous the evidence that needs to be marshalled.

If you don't have this, you can expect this to be pointed out in no uncertain terms. If you refuse to try, you can expect to be challenged about the claim until and unless you marshall the evidence, or simply state there is no such evidence but you believe anyway, or state that you refuse to answer the question.

This is a skeptic's board. This isn't a kaffee klatch. You are welcome to participate, subject to the ground rules.

Cheers,

 

[Walter Wayne]

I agree with most of your post, except for:

o evidence for claims must come from peer-reviewed journals, and

Yes, evidence from peer-reviewed journals is prefered, because it has already been scrutinized and most likely was gathered in controlled circumstances.

However, we can look at evidence from elsewhere but we can only put as much weight in it as the controls in the situation warrant. So for those citing the show as evidence, don't be surprised if one hears laughter from the other side.

Didn't we just spend umpteen pages trying to find out what evidence could be gleaned from the LKL transcripts. We know that LKL isn't strictly controlled, but it is live and presumable complete transcipts available. Sure we don't see the caller screening process among other things, but several people on this thread have analyzed it. This is fine as long as we accord the weighting appropriate to the circumstances.

The primary problem I see arising is that many people won't be able to critically evaluate the value of the evidence. However, the abuse of evidence by some doesn't mean we should ban any evidence not generated by scientific papers. It does mean that we have to be quick and consistent in pointing out why some evidence has little or no value, and be extra careful when citing evidence ourselves.

Walt

 

[BillHoyt]

The primary problem I see arising is that many people won't be able to critically evaluate the value of the evidence. However, the abuse of evidence by some doesn't mean we should ban any evidence not generated by scientific papers. It does mean that we have to be quick and consistent in pointing out why some evidence has little or no value, and be extra careful when citing evidence ourselves.

Walt

Walt,

That is precisely the problem. That is precisely what JREF is after in its educational mission: teaching people how to evaluate evidence.

My use of the word "must" was not meant to imply a ban on other evidence. It was meant as a stopping criterion, in the way that Randi set up a stopping criterion. Challenges stop becoming civil and begin to be haranguing if the claim has been supported with evidence from peer-reviewed journals. The logical next step for the challenger is to review the evidence and critique it or present counter-evidence of equal or greater value.

Cheers,

 

[Ed]

Certainly use CO as you guys see fit but recognize one thing.

It is posilutely guarenteed that any analysis will demonstrate that "something odd is going on" with JE. It has to. CO is a long commercial for JE and you can be damn sure that the net of the evidence is going to be positive. It has to be. If he is a fraud, his people will edit it so it comes out that way (on balance).

This is why I personally believe that it is silly to do such analyses and expect to come up with anything less than positive.

Consider: Don't you think his people are every bit as smart as us and have figured out that his shows will be examined carefully? If you were them and you were editing the show anyway, what would you do? (Hint: your paycheck depends on your answer).

 

[arcticpenguin]

I am going to start citing Casper the Friendly Ghost as evidence of paranormal activity.

 

[neofight]

One point that I would like to make on the "editing" issue, is that it is patently obvious to those of us who do watch "Crossing Over" on a regular basis, that the vast majority of the skeptics who post on the JE threads, have little or no personal experience on which to draw that might otherwise help them to discuss this issue with a bit more authority.

Most of you just seem to recite by rote, all of the usual litany about cold-reading/hot-reading/selective editing/reluctance on the part of the sitter to make JE look bad/poor memory, and all of the other cliched allegations that you throw around without any basis whatsoever for saying it, other than that's what you've always heard about it, and so it must be accurate. Yet, you say all of these things, without really taking a serious look at the show that you are criticizing.

I would challenge any one of you, who has any experience whatsoever with actual editing of video tape, to watch a week's worth of shows, and then come back and report on what you've seen. If you do that, I find it difficult to believe that you would still cite this radical sort of editing as the primary reason that JE does so well in these readings. If you are experienced at this, you will know what to look for in the way of creative editing. I say you will not find a "smoking gun" here.

Which reminds me, does anyone have access to the article that Jim Underdown wrote after attending a session of the "CO" gallery? It would be nice for a change to hear what a critic has to say after actually being there, and witnessing for themselves the "before" and "after" readings. Is this available anywhere for us to access?......neo

 

[arcticpenguin]

One point that I would like to make on the "editing" issue, is that it is patently obvious to those of us who do watch "Crossing Over" on a regular basis, that the vast majority of the skeptics who post on the JE threads, have little or no personal experience on which to draw that might otherwise help them to discuss this issue with a bit more authority.

Most of you just seem to recite by rote, all of the usual litany about cold-reading/hot-reading/selective editing/reluctance on the part of the sitter to make JE look bad/poor memory, and all of the other cliched allegations that you throw around without any basis whatsoever for saying it, other than that's what you've always heard about it, and so it must be accurate. Yet, you say all of these things, without really taking a serious look at the show that you are criticizing.

I would challenge any one of you, who has any experience whatsoever with actual editing of video tape, to watch a week's worth of shows, and then come back and report on what you've seen. If you do that, I find it difficult to believe that you would still cite this radical sort of editing as the primary reason that JE does so well in these readings. If you are experienced at this, you will know what to look for in the way of creative editing. I say you will not find a "smoking gun" here.

Which reminds me, does anyone have access to the article that Jim Underdown wrote after attending a session of the "CO" gallery? It would be nice for a change to hear what a critic has to say after actually being there, and witnessing for themselves the "before" and "after" readings. Is this available anywhere for us to access?......neo

I challenge anyone to read just one issue of my Casper the Friendly Ghost comics and deny the existence of ghosts!

Are you referring to the Skeptical Inquirer article in which Underdown said performances by JE and JvP witnessed live are indistiguishable from cold reading and were specifically edited to enhance hits and remove misses when broadcast? http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?threadid=25563&highlight=inquirer

 

[Ed]

[
I would challenge any one of you, who has any experience whatsoever with actual editing of video tape, to watch a week's worth of shows, and then come back and report on what you've seen.

[Anytime there is a change in POV or lack of continuity, there is an edit, ipso facto. They would have to do that to maintain pace and keep the viewers interest, at the very least. I have no idea what you mean by "radical editing", editing is editing, some stuff goes on the floor, some is pasted in. My only point is that once the tape is monkeyed around with, it is not evidence of anything.

 

[Darat]

One point that I would like to make on the "editing" issue, is that it is patently obvious to those of us who do watch "Crossing Over" on a regular basis, that the vast majority of the skeptics who post on the JE threads, have little or no personal experience on which to draw that might otherwise help them to discuss this issue with a bit more authority.

Most of you just seem to recite by rote, all of the usual litany about cold-reading/hot-reading/selective editing/reluctance on the part of the sitter to make JE look bad/poor memory, and all of the other cliched allegations that you throw around without any basis whatsoever for saying it, other than that's what you've always heard about it, and so it must be accurate. Yet, you say all of these things, without really taking a serious look at the show that you are criticizing.

I would challenge any one of you, who has any experience whatsoever with actual editing of video tape, to watch a week's worth of shows, and then come back and report on what you've seen. If you do that, I find it difficult to believe that you would still cite this radical sort of editing as the primary reason that JE does so well in these readings. If you are experienced at this, you will know what to look for in the way of creative editing. I say you will not find a "smoking gun" here.

Which reminds me, does anyone have access to the article that Jim Underdown wrote after attending a session of the "CO" gallery? It would be nice for a change to hear what a critic has to say after actually being there, and witnessing for themselves the "before" and "after" readings. Is this available anywhere for us to access?......neo

Neo - this does not address the points that have been made here. You appear to be able to know the motivation and thought processes of a lot of posters here who don’t share your belief in JE’s claimed ability to communicate with the dead. To be more personal then I normally am in my responses will comment that it appears to be just an emotional outpouring with no logic or reasoning behind it.

Can you please explain:

1) How you think that CO can be used as evidence for or against JE being able to communicate with the dead?
2) How you know i.e. have evidence/proof that the producers and JE don’t “produce” the show to make it more compelling?
3) How you know i.e. have evidence/proof that there is no “smoking gun” of creative editing?






(Edited my proves for a processes.)