Re: Underdown and Release Form (name changed at request of thread starter)

[RC]

If these people got accurate readings as well, without any opportunity for JE to hot-read them, why would JE have any need to hot-read Russell?......neo

Hi Neo, my theory is that he would need to hot read from time to time in order to have those occasional "amazing hits" that keep people like Clancie (and me to some extent) intrigued.

I realize that you find the overwhelming majority of JE's readings to be "accurate" and you really don't base your belief on him on the "special hits". But I think you are in a fairly small minority, and that group isn't large enough to keep C.O. ratings high enough. I don't mean this disrespectfully; you are part of a group that has come to embrace JE's process.

When I look back on what got me hooked on the show, it was the "special hits". Vuola, meeting Gladys Knight, the Met's pennant, Kauffy. I haven't seen a hit like that in over a year, and the result is I never watch the show anymore.

JE's goal is to keep the show on the air. Why wouldn't he hot read on a very limited basis in order to keep the truly amazing hits coming enough to keep people interested, but not do it so much that it causes suspicion?

 

[neofight]

Hi Neo, my theory is that he would need to hot read from time to time in order to have those occasional "amazing hits" that keep people like Clancie (and me to some extent) intrigued.

I realize that you find the overwhelming majority of JE's readings to be "accurate" and you really don't base your belief on him on the "special hits". But I think you are in a fairly small minority, and that group isn't large enough to keep C.O. ratings high enough. I don't mean this disrespectfully; you are part of a group that has come to embrace JE's process.

Hi, RC. Well, you're right in that I do not base my level of belief entirely upon those more unusual or unique (amazing) hits. As you say, I do watch and appreciate the mediumship process at work, and I value even the more mundane, but accurate, hits, just as much as the occasional show-stopper.

When I look back on what got me hooked on the show, it was the "special hits". Vuola, meeting Gladys Knight, the Met's pennant, Kauffy. I haven't seen a hit like that in over a year, and the result is I never watch the show anymore.

Actually, RC, I have a theory about that. I believe that we were just a lot more impressionable back then, and those hits that you mentioned really knocked our socks off, so to speak.

I think that the longer we watched, and the more the novelty wore off, the harder it became to impress us. Let's face it, when you see something extraordinary every single day, it's no longer extraordinary. That's my take on the whole matter, anyhow.

With yourself, it's kind of a "catch 22". You felt JE was not getting any more of those special hits, so you stopped watching the show. Now, if he gets what you would consider special hits, you won't see them anyhow.

I feel that there are still plenty of quite outstanding hits in the new shows, but in a sense, we are spoiled, and we don't even consider them to be special at this point. Such is human nature. ......neo

 

[CFLarsen]

(oops....post in wrong thread...moved!)

 

[thaiboxerken]

I feel that there are still plenty of quite outstanding hits in the new shows, but in a sense, we are spoiled, and we don't even consider them to be special at this point. Such is human nature. ......neo

There are no special hits done outside of an objective, controlled test. If JE can perform and win the JREF challenge, I'll consider him special.

 

[FutileJester]

Hey, just give ONE example of a believer that believes in the afterlife based on scientific evidence and not emotion and I'll admit that I'm wrong.

So you make a claim, based on anectdotal evidence, and will believe it unless someone else proves it's NOT true. Sounds like a lot of believers I know, and adds some evidence to the idea that you actually hold your views for emotional reasons. After all, there is no scientific study saying that all believers believe for emotional reasons, and non-scientific evidence in worthless, so by your own definitions you hold a belief for no good reason.

If it's not scientific, it's worthless, as far as evidence.

See above. You obviously feel that there are things that can be believed in the absence of scientific evidence.

But do you believe it works or not? Knowledge and belief are two entirely different things.

Knowledge and belief and tightly related. One good definition of belief would be, "knowledge I'm willing to depend on to make decisions". In any case, I'm sure we can agree that only observed behavior should be used to judge belief, not subjective statements. If I believed hypnotism worked I would behave in certain ways (like maybe go see one). If I believed that hypnotism did not work I would behave in other ways (like convincing friends not to waste their money on them, as I currently do for things like homeopathy). I do not behave in either of these ways. How can it be said that I hold either of these positions?

Another thought: take any statement like "All X are Y, and if they don't appear to be Y, they really are but are suppressing it". This is unfalsifiable and should therefore be discarded as unprovable.

I don't believe in superstrings right now, because I'm ignorant of what the theories are, or even what a superstring is. I can't believe in something I know nothing about.

You don't believe because of lack of knowledge? I thought knowledge was an entirely different thing?

You don't believe in superstrings. You also don't believe in god. Why don't you ridicule people for their belief in superstrings, as you do for their belief in god? Could it be that these two statements of disbelief are not really equivalent, that there is some degree of belief beyond "do/don't"?

I'm not saying anything radical here. Just that there are, indeed, shades of gray. This is certainly the common way to view belief, as evidenced by phrases like "strong belief", "weak belief", "I don't know what to believe", etc. Oversimplifying this does skepticism no favors; fence-sitters (who I suppose you think don't exist) are driven from skepticism by arrogant know-it-alls. But if you want to continue throwing ammunition over the wall to your enemies, be my guest.

 

[Leroy]

So, what is that? Clancie cannot say. Instead, we get a reversal of the question, the same old tirade, as well as an attempt at redirecting the discussion towards SPR.

Sounds like you


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Leroy - Where is your evidence that they have dismissed ALL OTHER explanations?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by CFLarsen Can you find one single explanation they seriously think is possible?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Leroy - Silly boy, don't answer a question with a question. Where is the evidence that they dismissed ALL OTHER explanations.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
originally posted by CFLarsen - I cannot find any evidence that they accept any other explanation. Usually, when skeptics look for answers, other skeptics help out where they possibly can. Perhaps you could be so kind as to show me where I am wrong?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Origninally posted by Leroy - You're still are not answering my question. I didn't ask you if you could find evidence that they accept other explanations. I asked where your evidence was that they DISMISSED ALL OTHER explanations?

Just because you can't find any evidence that they accept any other explanation, doesnt' mean that they have dismissed ALL OTHER explanations, does it?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

First you weasel out of answering the questions Lurker asked you, then you weasel out of this one. You are a pro! At least you are good at something ..... and it keeps me amused.

 

[Leroy]

Leroy,

I answered it: I can't find any examples where they accept any other explanation. That is my answer. You may like it or you may not like it. But that is my answer.

Now, please answer mine: Can you show me where I am wrong? Just yes or no.

I will answer your question as soon as you answer mine correctly.

I didn't ask you if you could find evidence that they accept other explanations. I asked where your evidence was that they DISMISSED ALL OTHER explanations?

Just because you can't find any evidence that they accept any other explanation, doesnt' mean that they have dismissed ALL OTHER explanations, does it?

A YES or NO answer is required here

 

[Leroy]

I just saw this because I've been working. Sheesh. Anyway, this example doesn't even come close to my observation of believers.
Can you name ONE believer that doesn't based their belief on emotional reasons? Can you name ONE believer that bases their beliefs on empirical and scientific data?

Sure I can. Not anyone you would know. I have a co-worker who was a hard-core skeptic when it came to paranormal things. She would argue till she was blue in the face that it was all nonsense. Then she had some personal experiences with it and is now a believer, not based on emotional reasons, but based on experiences she had. She still won't set foot in the presense of a psychic or medium because she feels that they are con-artists out to make a buck - but she believes people can be psychic, and believes in ADC's. Beliefs based on first hand experience, not emotions.

According to her she believes only because she had the experiences first hand.

I have another friend who believes in OBE's and ADC's because he claims to have experienced both. I've known him for 26 years. I trust him enough to know that he experienced something, and trust that he is not insane, we just happen to disagree on what he experienced.

Posted by Leroy - Just because you can't find any evidence that they accept any other explanation, doesnt' mean that they have dismissed ALL OTHER explanations, does it?

Posteds by thai - Sure does, but feel free to prove us wrong by giving evidence that they have accepted the mundane explanation.

It sure does? That is your answer? If you can't find evidence of something than it doesn't exist? Give me a break!

 

[Leroy]

Hi, Leroy! I agree with you that such a background check would be entirely possible. Of course it is. I simply argue, based on all of the instances where the same thing occurred, but the person getting the phone call was not an original ticket holder, nor even a family member of the person in the studio being read.

If these people got accurate readings as well, without any opportunity for JE to hot-read them, why would JE have any need to hot-read Russell?......neo

But in this case, the call was to the original ticket holder. Wasn't that what Instigator said?

 

[Leroy]

I know you can give JE the benefit of the doubt, Leroy. But do you? Have you in this case? That's all I'm saying. If you have, and I missed it, I apologize.

If I would see JE do or say something completely inconsistent with what I believe the mediumship process to be, then that might plant a seed of doubt with me. So far, I have not seen this.......neo

Yes I give him a benefit of a doubt, even in this case. I've been wrong before and could be wrong again.

Are you saying is that at this point in time you don't have any doubts about JE? Have you had a reading by him, or met him, or do you base your beliefs in him on what you've seen him do on the show?

 

[Leroy]

No, it's not scientific data if it can't stand up to scientific scrutiny. Empirical just means that it's about something observed rather than something just thought about.

If it's not scientific, it's worthless, as far as evidence.

I hope you are not serious? All evidence is useful.

by Clancie - So your answer to my question, then, is "No". You don't have any support for your accusation except that you feel his research is flawed. Well, sorry to disappoint, but that is not the same thing as what you claimed--that he only researched this in order to support his preexisting belief in mediumship.

Thai did make the original claim about Schwartz, if he doesn't have any evidence that his claim was true, how can we take him seriously when he makes other similiar claims? His claims are useless without evidence, and the lack of evidence would make it an opinion wouldn't it?

Posted by Ed - Schwartz is either incompetant or a liar and fraud. Any professional researcher with as many publications as he has, with as many honorifics and faculity affiliations as he has to make repeated gross and basic errors in research design and execution should be suspended. The support is self evident in his work in the paranormal.

Is this your opinion, or do you know this for a fact? Is it your opinion/fact based on your belief system, based on hereasay, or based on your personal research of Schwartz?

I don't know who the man is so I don't have an opinion about him

Can you tell me what the repeated gross and basic errors in his research design was, and why it was gross and erroneous ?

 

[Leroy]

Originally posted by ClancieAs for cold reading...well, I could show you some transcripts from several professional mediums whom I feel rely heavily on cold reading techniques (Suzane Northrop, Jason Oliver are just two). Their methods and results are quite different from JE, imo.

Originally posted by CFLarsen Let's see'm.

I second that.

 

[Leroy]

So you make a claim, based on anectdotal evidence, and will believe it unless someone else proves it's NOT true. Sounds like a lot of believers I know, and adds some evidence to the idea that you actually hold your views for emotional reasons. After all, there is no scientific study saying that all believers believe for emotional reasons, and non-scientific evidence in worthless, so by your own definitions you hold a belief for no good reason.



See above. You obviously feel that there are things that can be believed in the absence of scientific evidence.



Knowledge and belief and tightly related. One good definition of belief would be, "knowledge I'm willing to depend on to make decisions". In any case, I'm sure we can agree that only observed behavior should be used to judge belief, not subjective statements. If I believed hypnotism worked I would behave in certain ways (like maybe go see one). If I believed that hypnotism did not work I would behave in other ways (like convincing friends not to waste their money on them, as I currently do for things like homeopathy). I do not behave in either of these ways. How can it be said that I hold either of these positions?

Another thought: take any statement like "All X are Y, and if they don't appear to be Y, they really are but are suppressing it". This is unfalsifiable and should therefore be discarded as unprovable.



You don't believe because of lack of knowledge? I thought knowledge was an entirely different thing?

You don't believe in superstrings. You also don't believe in god. Why don't you ridicule people for their belief in superstrings, as you do for their belief in god? Could it be that these two statements of disbelief are not really equivalent, that there is some degree of belief beyond "do/don't"?

I'm not saying anything radical here. Just that there are, indeed, shades of gray. This is certainly the common way to view belief, as evidenced by phrases like "strong belief", "weak belief", "I don't know what to believe", etc. Oversimplifying this does skepticism no favors; fence-sitters (who I suppose you think don't exist) are driven from skepticism by arrogant know-it-alls. But if you want to continue throwing ammunition over the wall to your enemies, be my guest.

I hope you are getting through to him, but I have serious doubts.

 

[Ed]

Is this your opinion, or do you know this for a fact? Is it your opinion/fact based on your belief system, based on hereasay, or based on your personal research of Schwartz?

I don't know who the man is so I don't have an opinion about him

Can you tell me what the repeated gross and basic errors in his research design was, and why it was gross and erroneous ?

I don't know if he is delusional or a liar (which subsumes fraud). It is based on the evidence of his work which has been deconstructed here, repeatedly. Just do a search and see the threads, I assume that they have not been archived yet.

The problems are basic things like control, blinding and the like. The sort of errors that obviate any findings.

 

[thaiboxerken]

So you make a claim, based on anectdotal evidence, and will believe it unless someone else proves it's NOT true. Sounds like a lot of believers I know, and adds some evidence to the idea that you actually hold your views for emotional reasons. After all, there is no scientific study saying that all believers believe for emotional reasons, and non-scientific evidence in worthless, so by your own definitions you hold a belief for no good reason.

Believers believe based on emotion is not just anectdotal, it's evidenced by the lack of ability for believers to provide ANY scientific evidence for their beliefs. Feel free to prove me wrong by showing ONE believer that has belief in the paranormal based on scientific evidence. My position is falsifiable, unlike those of the believers.


See above. You obviously feel that there are things that can be believed in the absence of scientific evidence.

I don't believe the above, I have concluded the above based on the beliefs of the believers and the lack of ANY evidence for their beliefs. If believers believed based on scientific evidence, they should have that scientific evidence for all the world to scrutinize. The JREF prize would be awarded by now.


Knowledge and belief and tightly related.

Your saying so doesn't make it so.

One good definition of belief would be, "knowledge I'm willing to depend on to make decisions".

And where did you get this definition?

In any case, I'm sure we can agree that only observed behavior should be used to judge belief, not subjective statements.

It should be a combination of both statements and actions.

If I believed hypnotism worked I would behave in certain ways (like maybe go see one).

Not true, I believe that men landed on the moon, but I have no real desire to go to a space museum.

If I believed that hypnotism did not work I would behave in other ways (like convincing friends not to waste their money on them, as I currently do for things like homeopathy).

I doubt it. I don't believe in a god, but I don't go around telling my friends to not go to church.

I do not behave in either of these ways. How can it be said that I hold either of these positions?

Because one either believes or they don't, it's a yes or no question with no "in between". You simply aren't stating what you believe.

Another thought: take any statement like "All X are Y, and if they don't appear to be Y, they really are but are suppressing it". This is unfalsifiable and should therefore be discarded as unprovable.

My position is falsifiable, just find one believer that believes in the afterlife based on scientific evidence of the afterlife and you'll have shown me to be wrong.


You don't believe because of lack of knowledge? I thought knowledge was an entirely different thing?

It is, why do you try to twist semantics? One cannot believe in something they really don't know about. Do you believe in pollyllywogs?


You don't believe in superstrings. You also don't believe in god. Why don't you ridicule people for their belief in superstrings, as you do for their belief in god?

Because I have never seen a war being started over superstrings.

Could it be that these two statements of disbelief are not really equivalent, that there is some degree of belief beyond "do/don't"?

Nope.

I'm not saying anything radical here.

Well, nothing original.

Just that there are, indeed, shades of gray. This is certainly the common way to view belief, as evidenced by phrases like "strong belief", "weak belief", "I don't know what to believe", etc. Oversimplifying this does skepticism no favors; fence-sitters (who I suppose you think don't exist) are driven from skepticism by arrogant know-it-alls. But if you want to continue throwing ammunition over the wall to your enemies, be my guest.

I'll do that, thanks.

 

[thaiboxerken]

I hope you are not serious? All evidence is useful.

That's BS. Anectdotes and fabricated evidence are worthless to me when it comes to scientific claims.


Thai did make the original claim about Schwartz, if he doesn't have any evidence that his claim was true, how can we take him seriously when he makes other similiar claims? His claims are useless without evidence, and the lack of evidence would make it an opinion wouldn't it?

Schwartz has been proven to be biased in this forum many, many times. Feel free to do a search here. Randi commentaries also have some things to say about Schwartz.


Is this your opinion, or do you know this for a fact? Is it your opinion/fact based on your belief system, based on hereasay, or based on your personal research of Schwartz?

It's a conclusion.


I don't know who the man is so I don't have an opinion about him

Can you tell me what the repeated gross and basic errors in his research design was, and why it was gross and erroneous ?

Feel free to research Schwartz yourself. Schwartz has not proven himself to be a good scientist and his experiments have not withstood scrutiny, what little of his research he's actually allowed to be reviewed, that is.

It's actually the burden of the person that used Schwartz as an example of a "believer based on scientific evidence" to show that Schwartz actually has scientific evidence. So far, that has not been shown.

 

[neofight]

But in this case, the call was to the original ticket holder. Wasn't that what Instigator said?

Yes, in this case, John read four people that were there in the gallery. I forget all the relationships, but I believe they were all either related or connected to the restaurant. Certain messages came through to John, and then at one point they decided to call Russell at the restaurant to tell him about the reading, and John then proceded to read Russell directly.

My point was that there have been other instances where John asked to call another member of the sitter's family, or a friend of theirs, to give them a message that had come through for them. It has happened every so often. The fact that they were not original ticket holders didn't prevent them from getting accurate messages as well, which is why I discount the hot-reading theory....neo

 

[neofight]

Yes I give him a benefit of a doubt, even in this case. I've been wrong before and could be wrong again.

Well, I think that's commendable, Leroy.

Are you saying is that at this point in time you don't have any doubts about JE? Have you had a reading by him, or met him, or do you base your beliefs in him on what you've seen him do on the show?

I'm saying that at this point in time, I've seen nothing that I would say was credible evidence that JE is a fraud, and many things to suggest that perhaps he may indeed be a true medium, including having watched the show very closely for over two years now, and attending four seminars.

I did just recently meet him as well, but only at a book-signing, so it's not as though I got to talk to him at any great length. I do believe that he is a sincere person, with a lot of integrity, which is just one of the reasons that I think his critics are so far off-base.

I have never had a face-to-face reading with JE, but I do believe that last Fall, in Philadelphia, the second half of a reading JE did for our fellow-poster "atmytv" from tvtalkshows, was meant entirely for me and my husband, who were sitting several rows away from atmytv and his wife.

Bill and Susan understood and validated the first half of the reading that JE gave them, but the second half made absolutely no sense to them whatsoever. Had I been sitting next to them, I definitely would have claimed that reading, but as it was, it was the last reading of the day, and I couldn't get John's attention, or a microphone, so despite the fact that he gave out all sorts of accurate, personal information that I was easily able to validate, I'll always feel badly that I didn't actually get a chance to have him complete the reading for me.

If you are wondering why I would even think that that reading was meant for me, sitting so many rows away, it's because out of over 3,500 people in that tremendous room, atmytv (Bill) was the only person there with whom I had any sort of a connection. He and his wife came in from Maryland for the seminar, and I had met them for the very first time at the escalator, and led them to the two seats that I had someone save for them.

If you have ever seen the show you would know that something like that would be enough for their spirits to bring through my own deceased relatives/friends because to JE, we would be one big family, and that's exactly what appeared to have happened.

I've written about this Philly seminar over at tvtalkshows, if you would want the particulars about what hits JE got for us, or if you'd like, I could PM them to you. They were quite accurate, and included quite a few names, including my own. In any case, to answer your question, it's all these things combined that add to my favorable opinion of JE, and make me think there is something to mediumship. ......neo

 

[TLN]

...including having watched the show very closely for over two years now, and attending four seminars.

I've watched Star Trek since I was a small boy and have attended many Trek Conventions.

Clearly, faster than light travel and teleportation are possible and Heisenberg and Einstein were wrong.

 

[neofight]

I've watched Star Trek since I was a small boy and have attended many Trek Conventions.

Well then, by all means.....live long and prosper! .....neo