Tests Prove Mediums Really Can Contact Dead

[davidhorman]

that was clearly well thought out in advance by Randi

For whatever reason, it clearly wasn't well thought out. It's a bad protocol, okay? You don't seem to be getting any argument out of us on that one.

We, the undersigned, agree with Clancie that the proposed test, outlined by Randi to Sylvia Browne on Larry King's show, sucks.

David

 

[TheBoyPaj]

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

Why so coy? Just come out and say what's wrong with it. How does it favour Randi? Why would someone with Sylvia's claimed abilities not be able to pass it easily?

 

[Clancie]

Posted by the Boy Paj

Just come out and say what's wrong with it

I already did, on the previous page.

And Sylvia hypothetically passing or not passing isn't the issue...at all.

david horman,

lol.

 

[TheBoyPaj]

No you didn't. You said that you thought the 9 subjects would know it wasn't their reading (they wouldn't), and that the scoring was subjective (which it necessarily is), and that you were generally unhappy with it (with which we concur).

However, over on this page you suggested that Randi is using misdirection to trick us into accepting a test which favours him.

I'll ask again. How does it favour Randi? Why would a real medium not be able to pass it?

 

[Clancie]

Posted by the Boy Paj

How does it favour Randi? Why would a real medium not be able to pass it?

First, I never said a real medium would not be able to pass it. I said it is not a test of the claim of mediumship.

How does it favor Randi? Let's rephrase that to "How has Randi designed the test so that it does not test the claim, and so that the results are stacked against the claimant, and therefore no million will be paid?"

Again (and I enumerated these before, maybe you missed it), the answer is....

(1) It tests the cold reading hypothesis, not the paranormal claim (of mediumship).

(2) It stacks the deck by having only one (1) reading of the ten people done. Yet the results (i.e. "cold reading, yes or no?") are determined by the answers of nine (9) people who were not read and who (according to Randi's wording) know they were not read.

(3) It stacks the deck against the claimant by saying the test will not be subjective and no judging is required and yet....the evaluation is highly subjective (in looking for cold reading) and judging is -definitely- being required;

(4) It stacks the deck further because...Where does he come up with the odds of succeeding at what he's proposed as 50:1? On what basis has he calculated this? This claim of Randi's makes no sense statistically at all.

(5) He stacks the deck further because he selects the 10...and he also selects (supposedly at "random") the one person who is read and the nine who aren't but who evaluate the reading to see how much it could apply to them.

In other words, the protocol in no way rules out the possibility of collusion, cheating...whatever you call it. That doesn't mean anyone is cheating, but a test design should rule it out, not seem to actually be creating opportunities for collusion, as this one does.

(6) The "misdirection" comes in with the whole bit about the 10 people "believing in Sylvia's powers". A test should be designed so it doesn't matter if they believe or not. (And if he wants them to "believe"--why not let Sylvia, instead of Randi, select them?)

That whole part is just put in there to show, "Look! I've even said they're believers! What an advantage for her!" That's just misdirection, imo, and is only included to draw attention from the problems I've listed above.

 

[Archangel]

Replying to an old post (and playing devils advocate):

Paj Said

Why are you assuming that the nine other people know it's not their reading? That would be pointless!

from the protocols that were posted we can see that the people who werent read are being provided with a transcript of the conversation (whether oral or written) and would know that they didnt have that conversation (DavidH supplied 2 supplemental protocols (one way initial conversation, and the conversation to be repeated to the non-read participants) which would hopefully be included but at the moment aren't)

When the (phone) reading (with one of the ten people selected at Randi's end "at random") is finished, you would so indicate, and the subject would then be asked to give a score to the reading, from zero to ten points.
Following that, we would contact, again in random order, each of the other nine persons for whom the reading was not done, and present them with either a transcript of the reading, or an audio tape of it, for them to also score from zero to ten.

No you didn't. You said that you thought the 9 subjects would know it wasn't their reading (they wouldn't), and that the scoring was subjective (which it necessarily is), and that you were generally unhappy with it (with which we concur).

However, over on this page you suggested that Randi is using misdirection to trick us into accepting a test which favours him.

I'll ask again. How does it favour Randi? Why would a real medium not be able to pass it?

I believe that Clancie is inferring that the 9 additional subjects could "unfairly" be biased against Sylvia (although the same could happen to Randi) and they purposely skew the results by lying and claiming that the results could apply to them when in fact they couldn't.

Also I believe she feels that the subjective nature of this test in particular, coupled with the fact that the 9 subjects (at the moment) know that they haven't been read is more likely to lead to this than say in the Yellow Bamboo case (where the person either falls over or they dont).

 

[CFLarsen]

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

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

Of course not. If you write for a skeptical magazine, you have to realize that your article will be subjected to criticism, and that you should answer your critics. It comes with the territory.

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.

They all have accepted that they must face criticism, should it occur. As I recall, you yourself have criticized articles, and, in those cases where the authors were also on JREF, gotten replies from them. Why do you refuse to do the same?

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.

I am not telling anyone what and how to think. I am asking them to be open to criticism of what and how they think.

Did you really expect to have your article published, and then not be challenged? Did you expect not to be required to answer to criticism?

(1) It tests the cold reading hypothesis, not the paranormal claim (of mediumship).

What is the difference between these two? What does it matter, if Sylvia has agreed to it?

(2) It stacks the deck by having only one (1) reading of the ten people done. Yet the results (i.e. "cold reading, yes or no?") are determined by the answers of nine (9) people who were not read and who (according to Randi's wording) know they were not read.

This stacks the deck very much in favor of Sylvia.

(3) It stacks the deck against the claimant by saying the test will not be subjective and no judging is required and yet....the evaluation is highly subjective (in looking for cold reading) and judging is -definitely- being required;

But in a test of mediumship, aren't we supposed to let the sitters decide - subjectively, that is - what is a hit, and what is not a hit?

(4) It stacks the deck further because...Where does he come up with the odds of succeeding at what he's proposed as 50:1? On what basis has he calculated this? This claim of Randi's makes no sense statistically at all.

As always, the statistics are left to the statisticians.

(5) He stacks the deck further because he selects the 10...and he also selects (supposedly at "random") the one person who is read and the nine who aren't but who evaluate the reading to see how much it could apply to them.

Well, Schwartz also selected the sitters, so I can't see why you have a problem with that. I would like to know what you base your question that the selection will not be random on.

In other words, the protocol in no way rules out the possibility of collusion, cheating...whatever you call it. That doesn't mean anyone is cheating, but a test design should rule it out, not seem to actually be creating opportunities for collusion, as this one does.

What would you do to prevent collusion, then? Let's hear suggestions.

(6) The "misdirection" comes in with the whole bit about the 10 people "believing in Sylvia's powers". A test should be designed so it doesn't matter if they believe or not. (And if he wants them to "believe"--why not let Sylvia, instead of Randi, select them?)

No, that is not "misdirection", it is simply preventing Sylvia from later claiming that she was up against skeptics, biased against her.

That whole part is just put in there to show, "Look! I've even said they're believers! What an advantage for her!" That's just misdirection, imo, and is only included to draw attention from the problems I've listed above.

Not at all. Nobody is trying to hide anything.

 

[TheBoyPaj]

First, I never said a real medium would not be able to pass it. I said it is not a test of the claim of mediumship.

That is the whole issue right there.

Would a true medium be able to pass the test? Yes. Easily.
Would a non-medium be able to pass the test? Possibly, due to a poor choice of result criteria.

That makes it a test of a medium's abilities. It also makes it possible that Randi could be scammed, but that's not your concern.

 

[TheBoyPaj]

Archangel, I think we all agree that for the test to have credibility, the ten participants must have no contact with Sylvia. The protocol as described implies this, but could be taken to mean that one person listens to her reading live on the phone while the others hear a recording. It might be possible that one could determine from this that one was the correct person.

In fact, all ten should hear the same recording, after the event.

 

[Clancie]

Posted by The Boy Paj

Would a true medium be able to pass the test? Yes. Easily.

And you know this...how?

 

[TheBoyPaj]

Because they would be able to produce an accurate reading specific to a particular sitter. Isn't that what mediums claim to do?
Sylvia certainly does.

 

[Archangel]

Archangel, I think we all agree that for the test to have credibility, the ten participants must have no contact with Sylvia. The protocol as described implies this, but could be taken to mean that one person listens to her reading live on the phone while the others hear a recording. It might be possible that one could determine from this that one was the correct person.

I read the protocol the same way as Clancie, and if it is meant to be the way that you've read it, it is poorly written.

BTW I think that her main point is that had Schwartz put up this protocol Claus et al would have pounced on all of the mistakes in it immediately.

I personally feel that all supposed psychics are frauds, however just because people like Schwartz use flawed protocols, doesnt mean that the skeptics should resort to the same level of tactics.

Originally posted by TheBoyPaj
In fact, all ten should hear the same recording, after the event.

I actually think that it should be a written transcript for one main reason, when Sylvia, JE and the rest of that insipid bunch of frauds work, they speak fast and the subjects may not pick up all of what is being said, however with a written transcript they can read through it at their own pace.

 

[Loki]

Clancie,

(The Boy Paj wrote) : Would a true medium be able to pass the test? Yes. Easily.

(Clancie wrote):And you know this...how?

Because a 'true medium' should be able to do what Steve Grenard claims Camille Walsh did for him - an hour long reading with 195 individual, specific, and 100% accurate items of information, including the medium "identifying" the spirit in a photo. Not vague names, not approximate dates, not feel-good expressions of love - clear details, and ALL accuarate. If Walsh and Sylvia ARE both true mediums, then Sylvia is clearly not very good at it.

 

[Clancie]

The Boy Paj wrote : Would a true medium be able to pass the test? Yes. Easily.

Clancie wrote:And you know this...how?

Loki wrote:

Because a 'true medium' should be able to do what Steve Grenard claims Camille Walsh did for him - an hour long reading with 195 individual, specific, and 100% accurate items of information, including the medium "identifying" the spirit in a photo.

Well, Loki, if you are using Mrs. Walsh as the standard for a "true medium", I guess that must mean that you fully accept the accuracy of Steve's account.



Otherwise, how can you hold up Steve's description of Mrs. Walsh's reading as the basis for saying that, of course, "a true medium could easily pass..." etc.? So you accept Mrs. Walsh as a true medium, who has already demonstrated what others who make the claim of mediumship can fairly be expected to do...yes?

 

[Loki]

Clancie,

So you accept Mrs. Walsh as a true medium, who has already demonstrated what others who make the claim of mediumship can fairly be expected to do...yes?

Nice try!

if you are using Mrs. Walsh as the standard for a "true medium", ...

Yes, I do think she 'sets the standard'. Why bother testing more ambiguous claims when Walsh's abilities (if true) are clear and testable? Of course, if we test Walsh and she fails, then we could conclude that the standard was never that high, and the 'bar lowers' back towards the Sylvia level - back into the 'hard to be sure ... might means this ... all a bit subjective' range. But I'd remind you that Walsh is out forward by pro-medium supporters like Steve as an example of what I'm failing to see. Are you suggesting that she sounds 'too good to be true'?

...I guess that must mean that you fully accept the accuracy of Steve's account.

Well, lets just say I'm (a) not prepared to say Steve is lying about this reading, and (b) I see no reason to think that Steve is immune to the sort of 'selective memory' that can affect us all. For now, I accept that Steve's account is his true recollection of what happened. That's not the same as saying it did happen just as he remembers it.


But enough of this banter - the heart of your question is "how do we know what test a true medium can pass." You're correct - we don't really know, because none of them seem keen to be tested. Always too busy preparing for their next seminar, TV show appearance, book launch or $600 an hour private reading. Never any time to try and establish the nature, limits and details of their own abilities. Sylvia has time to take an annual 'spiritual pilgrimage' to the middle east at $4000 a head, but no time to see if she can do better than chance on a simple '1 in 10' reading trial.

{okay now you've got me started ... rant mode engaged....}
Sylvia is a fake, a fraud, a scumbag. Reading Sylvia's Montel transcripts is simultaneously hilarious, frustrating, saddening, and scary. And as long as 'true mediums' are unwilling to denounce such blatant deception, then they are going to be tarred with the same brush as far as I'm concerned. Let 'mediumship', if it wants to be taken seriously, clean up it's own act. Let Robertson and Roy spend some time and energy rejecting Sylvia.

Okay, I feel (a little) better now....

 

[CFLarsen]

Clancie,

So, are you going to write the article or not?

 

[Nyarlathotep]

Clancie,

So, are you going to write the article or not?

Are you a betting man Claus?

 

[CFLarsen]

Are you a betting man Claus?

Nope.

 

[Cynical]

Why should he bet? He thinks he knows everything there is to know. CF is the type of person who thinks that anything HE doesn't know is not worth knowing.

Hey, Claus Flodin! Bottoms up!

 

[Thanz]

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?

Claus, here is some friendly advice that you can take or leave. I think that by trying to extract this pledge from Clancie, you are just going to push her into not writing the article.

My advice would be to let her write the article, and if it has skeptical merit, publish it. Questions can be directed to her about the article. If she doesn't answer them, then it is up to the rest of us to interpret the non-answer. I will point out that she has answered questions about her position on the test in this thread.

I, for one, would be interested in an article outlining her criticisms of the protocol. I would be much more interested if the article also included specific suggestions about how it could be improved.

Mr. Larsen, you simply cannot control (nor should you be expected to control) how the authors of the various articles respond to comments and criticisms. You should just try and make sure that the articles themselves are of a quality you are comfortable with. Let the articles speak for themselves, and let how the authors respond spek for itself as well.

Just my 2 cents.