Tests Prove Mediums Really Can Contact Dead

[TLN]

Yes, TLN (although this seems like yet another distraction from the topic of Randi and his Challenge

Actually, I can.

I'm not distracted as it seems quite relevant to the issue at hand to me. How does the JREF objectively test subjective claims?

How would you design the test?

 

[CFLarsen]

Claus,

You've offered many times for me to write an article for Skeptic Report. Would you publish an article on the flaws of The Sylvia Challenge?

Why, hello there! Glad to see you have finally dropped the pretense of having me on ignore!

Of course I would publish it, if it had skeptical merit. However, Sylvia has been covered quite a lot, and it doesn't seem as if she is ever going to take the friggin' challenge anyway, so would you consider an article on lesser known mediums, like Robert Brown? I am sure that people would be interested in learning from your experience with him.

I am not going to ask you to write a skeptical article about John Edward, though. We are probably never going to agree there, and I respect that. I doubt you would like the follow-up article from me anyway!

Whatever you decide, there is just one thing I would like to clear with you, before your article is published. As you might have guessed by now, I value skepticism and critical thinking quite a lot, and do not think that anything is gained from advocating close-mindedness. If we are going to learn, we have to listen to everybody. We don't have to agree with everybody, but the key to learning is keeping an open mind.

I just want to make it crystal clear to you: I do not want to provide space for someone who shuts herself off to arguments contrary to her own convictions. And be honest now: You have done that in the past, which is why I raise this point. Such behavior would be very much against the idea behind SkepticReport. SkepticReport is not a soap box for anyone. When you get an article published, it comes with the prize of open-mindedness: You accept the responsibility that your own views are challenged - and that you cannot decide who challenges them. You have to answer your critics, whatever points they raise, and whoever they may be.

I simply need a confirmation from you: Do you promise to listen to critics in the future, whoever they may be, wherever the criticism may occur, and whatever the criticism is about?

 

[TLN]

Of course I would publish it, if it had skeptical merit. However, Sylvia has been covered quite a lot...

But Randi proposing a flawed test hasn't. I believe that would be Clancie's angle for the article.

 

[CFLarsen]

But Randi proposing a flawed test hasn't. I believe that would be Clancie's angle for the article.

True. The article would have to be about Randi, and not Sylvia, then.

 

[TLN]

True. The article would have to be about Randi, and not Sylvia, then.

Far be it for me to speak for Clancie, but I think that's what she has in mind. Randi says the tests will be objective and without the need for judging, but the Sylvia test does exactly that.

 

[CFLarsen]

Far be it for me to speak for Clancie, but I think that's what she has in mind. Randi says the tests will be objective and without the need for judging, but the Sylvia test does exactly that.

Let's see what Clancie says.

 

[davidhorman]

Randi says the tests will be objective and without the need for judging, but the Sylvia test does exactly that.

There is a subjective element to the protocol, but that occurs in a box as far as the result in concerned.

It's no more subjective than what might go through a dowser's mind while he tries to ascertain whether a box contains a piece of gold. The result, though, is objective - he states whether he believes the box contains a coin, or not (or he says he can't tell because of the "gold" leaf in a nearby book, but that usually doesn't happen until after the test).

And yes, I definitely agree that the protocol as quoted from Randi is bad. Luckily he likes to consult with statisticians, so I'm confident he would have altered it had their been any sign of participation from Sylvia.

David

 

[Clancie]

Posted by CFLarsen

I simply need a confirmation from you: Do you promise to listen to critics in the future, whoever they may be, wherever the criticism may occur, and whatever the criticism is about?

That seems a rather odd requirement to impose on writers who contribute to Skeptic Report. Do you require that of everyone who submits articles to you? Or only of me?

And, TLN, yes, you're right. It would be about the Challenge, specifically the most detailed protocol we have to look at, the Sylvia Challenge protocol. (And, until I hear from Claus if there's some kind of "future intellectual restrictions/ requirements on all writers for SR" as he has stipulated above, I'd like to save my idea about modifying the SC and include it in the article).

 

[TheBoyPaj]

You (and others) think its perfectly fine for Randi to test Sylvia for the cold reading hypothesis rather than for mediumship, even though mediumship is the claim?

It tests Sylvia's ability to provide accurate readings for her clients. That is what she does, every day, and is the means by which she amasses her considerable income. SHE agreed it's a fair test. SHE agreed it was something she could do. Who cares if you have a problem with it?

If she's a genuine medium, she can pass the test. If she isn't, she won't. In my book, that makes it a test of her claim.

 

[Clancie]

Posted by the Boy Paj

It tests Sylvia's ability to provide accurate readings for her clients. That is what she does, every day, and is the means by which she amasses her considerable income. SHE agreed it's a fair test. SHE agreed it was something she could do. Who cares if you have a problem with it?

Well, I agree that it's not about me, Paj. It's about the issue of good test design.

So....for you (and others who've posted in a similar vein)....If Gary Schwartz designed a mediumship test for Sylvia...Meaning...he published the protocol (including scoring method) in advance...then selected 10 sitters...had Sylvia read one of them by phone....asked the other 9 who knew they weren't read to evaluate the reading as it applied to themselves....and announced Sylvia demonstrated mediumship because 8 of the 9 people scored it lower than the person who was read....that would seem very convincing to you that, yes, she had paranormal ability?

Sorry, Paj, but I think there's a real lack of skeptical/criticial thinking for some people when it comes to Randi and the Challenge. If this were Schwartz's protocol, I think you'd all be pouncing on the (obvious) flaws.

But, since it's Randi's...it gets a "pass".....

 

[davidhorman]

But, since it's Randi's...it gets a "pass".....

Hands up anyone in the "sceptic camp" who thinks it's okay that the non-readees know that they weren't being read.

Anyone?

David

 

[TLN]

Hands up anyone in the "sceptic camp" who thinks it's okay that the non-readees know that they weren't being read.

I don't like the Sylvia protocol either. Clancie often paints with a broad brush though, stereotyping skeptics.

 

[TheBoyPaj]

No, I wouldn't. I already said that I don't think the scoring criteria chosen would mean that you could take it as clinching proof of anything. It's too easy.

But that's not the point of this challenge. It's not a scientific test to determine what is actually happening. It's a gamble between Randi and Sylvia. He proposed it and she agreed to it. If she passes she gets a million dollars and we all sit up and look. Nothing more.

Think about the Yellow Bamboo challenge, for instance. Imagine they hadn't tried to cheat, and they really had just walked up to the bloke and tapped him with a small piece of bamboo and he had fallen over. Would that be final, clinching proof of their paranormal ability? Of course not. The guy could have fainted or had a brain haemorrage at the key moment. But it would be enough for them to win the million.

Of course, I am fairly sure that if Schwartz got lucky in this test he WOULD be trumpeting it as final and clinching proof. But that's another story.

 

[davidhorman]

I don't like the Sylvia protocol either.

And I think "protocol" is being generous. What we have appears to be a single quote from Randi, loosely describing the vague outline of a test that will in all probability never get taken.

David

 

[CFLarsen]

That seems a rather odd requirement to impose on writers who contribute to Skeptic Report. Do you require that of everyone who submits articles to you? Or only of me?

All, of course. That comes with the territory.

And, TLN, yes, you're right. It would be about the Challenge, specifically the most detailed protocol we have to look at, the Sylvia Challenge protocol. (And, until I hear from Claus if there's some kind of "future intellectual restrictions/ requirements on all writers for SR" as he has stipulated above, I'd like to save my idea about modifying the SC and include it in the article).

Please. I have made my point very clear. There are no "future intellectual restrictions/ requirements on all writers for SR." There is no need to stall. Just give me your answer:

Do you promise to listen to critics in the future, whoever they may be, wherever the criticism may occur, and whatever the criticism is about?

It's a simple question, Clancie. Surely, you did not expect to have your article published, and then not challenged? Did you expect not to be required to answer to criticism?

 

[Clancie]

Posted by CFLarsen

All, of course.

Let me get this right, Claus. You required all the people who've submitted article to Skeptic Report to...

Posted by CFLarsen

"Promise to listen to critics in the future, whoever they may be, wherever the criticism may occur, and whatever the criticism is about?"

Do they sign a notarized document guaranteeing this to you, or what?

As the saying in the game goes, "I doubt it." But, of course, there are many writers here at JREF who have written for SR so I'm sure they can chime in here and say that, yes, you have extracted this promise from them, too.

As the saying goes, "I'll believe it when I see it." I have never heard of telling people what and how to think in exchange for them submitting an (unpaid even) article.

 

[Loki]

davidhorman,

And I think "protocol" is being generous.

Exactly. It's Randi giving an overview description of the test, with the basic outline showing, but the details yet to be defined. He knew she'd never take the test. The day after he was LKL saying this, I posted a thread here questioning the validity of his suggested test. The concensus then (IIRC) was that (a) he was trying to get the broad concept across, not get into an argument about tiny details; and (b) that he had been sloppy in his choice of words.

 

[Clancie]

Posted by david horman

And I think "protocol" is being generous. What we have appears to be a single quote from Randi, loosely describing the vague outline of a test that will in all probability never get taken.

"Vague"? Not at all. Look on the Home page for the details. Randi is very specific and covers everything in his protocol for Sylvia. It isn't the least bit "vague" (nor is it in any way an "outline").

I'm sorry but this is just more rationalization of the flaws in a protocol that was clearly well thought out in advance by Randi. It clearly reflects the way he would like to do the test. The flaws of it (and there are many) are there for a reason. It has been well thought out,--at least in terms of Randi's goals (i.e. to test for cold reading rather than the claimant's claim of mediumship).

 

[TheBoyPaj]

You seem to think that this test would be unfairly hard for someone with Sylvia's supposed powers to pass? That Randi is somehow presenting a flawed test on purpose. Why is that? Most of us seem to think that any flaws which are present are in Slyvia's favour.


Edit: Corrected spelling of Sylvia. Then put it back the way it was again.

 

[Clancie]

Posted by the Boy Paj

Most of us seem to think that any flaws which are present are in Slyvia's favour.

Yes, but I think that's...well, let's say, "successful misdirection".