Tests Prove Mediums Really Can Contact Dead

[Darat]

...snip...

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

That is really, really unfair. You and I have discussed this test in the past (both here and at TVTalkshows) and as you know I do agree that as proposed the test could be improved.

The only "pass" I'll grant is that until SB actually gets involved (or her representatives) we do not know what the final test would actually be.

Until then I'll reserve judgment.

 

[Darat]

...snip...

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.

Just to add that when Claus was starting Skeptic Report he (and continues to do so) asked for contributions and from that time he has always stipulated that:

1) Real name must be used
2) A real email address must be given

One of the reasons I haven't (in the past) wrote anything for him was because I didn't want my real identity known.

If someone isn't willing to abide by Claus's stipulations then he doesn't publish (or at least that is my understanding), so if Clancie is willing to provide an article I think Claus is making sure she realises that there wont be any exception made.

(And yes Claus the reason for being mysterious is no longer there so I promise within the next 4 weeks to submit something!)

 

[CFLarsen]

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.

It is not my intention. If she chooses not to write the article because she has to answer to criticism, that is not my problem.

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.

That would make SkepticReport a pulpit, not a forum for skepticism and critical thinking. I will not allow people to pontificate. SkepticReport is not for stating one's opinion, never to be questioned. Clancie has to accept that.

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.

It would indeed be interesting. However, she has to allow criticism of her work.

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.

Again, I do not "control" how the authors respond. I do require them to be open-minded and open to suggestions on how they can improve, and - of course - if they are wrong.

1) Real name must be used
2) A real email address must be given

I must know people's real name and a real email address. I would open up for possible lawsuits, e.g. if someone stole somebody else's work and had it published as their own.

If someone isn't willing to abide by Claus's stipulations then he doesn't publish (or at least that is my understanding), so if Clancie is willing to provide an article I think Claus is making sure she realises that there wont be any exception made.

No exceptions. No favoritism. No freebies.

(And yes Claus the reason for being mysterious is no longer there so I promise within the next 4 weeks to submit something!)

...about bloody time...

 

[Thanz]

It is not my intention. If she chooses not to write the article because she has to answer to criticism, that is not my problem.

It may not be your intention, but I think it is certainly the effect. Clancie has clashed with many people here, and some of her adversaries have been not allways been civil and/or constructive. Requiring her to respond to every criticism, in advance, without seeing the article or the criticisms is a little too restrictive in my opinion.

That would make SkepticReport a pulpit, not a forum for skepticism and critical thinking. I will not allow people to pontificate. SkepticReport is not for stating one's opinion, never to be questioned. Clancie has to accept that.

I disagree. You should be able to control for "pontificating" in your editorial decisions. An article either shows skeptical and critical thinking or it does not. If someone submitted an article that said John Edward has to be real because he knew about that Niagara Falls feather, and then went on to talk about how great JE is, you would rightly reject it for not showing critical thinking (for basing its judgment on one hit from an edited TV program).

On the other hand, if Clancie submits an article that shows critical thinking about the test design proposed by Randi, and offers a few improvements and/or another design, how is this pontificating? How would it be less pontificating if she answered questions about it here, a site not affiliated with Skeptic Report?

Further, your format is not really designed for a discussion. The most that could happen is that you publish a rebuttal article in the next issue. People could then read both and decide for themselves. But that surely doesn't require any further input from Clancie.

It would indeed be interesting. However, she has to allow criticism of her work.

To be frank, it is not up to Clancie whether she allows criticism or not. People will criticise if they choose. You may publish a rebuttal if the criticism is good enough. These decisions are out of Clancie's hands. I think that whether or not Clancie responds to criticisms - either here or in direct emails - is irrelevant to whether an article she writes is worthy of Skeptic Report.

To put the shoe on another foot, if someone wrote a skeptical article on remote viewing, would you require them to answer every single outlandish claim/criticism put forth by Lucianarchy?

Again, I do not "control" how the authors respond. I do require them to be open-minded and open to suggestions on how they can improve, and - of course - if they are wrong.

OF course. But this seems a bit more lax than the promise you seem to be trying to extract from Clancie.

I know that you are frustrated by what you see as Clancie's avoidance of questions. But I ask you to consider that whether she answers questions here or in private correspondance would do nothing to alter the value of her article for your publication. In the best of all worlds, it would provoke a discussion of the relative merits of different protocols, and I agree the discussion would be better if the author participates. But if she doesn't, it hasn't turned your publication into a pulpit for her, especially considering your ability to also publish a well reasoned rebuttal article.

 

[CFLarsen]

It may not be your intention, but I think it is certainly the effect. Clancie has clashed with many people here, and some of her adversaries have been not allways been civil and/or constructive. Requiring her to respond to every criticism, in advance, without seeing the article or the criticisms is a little too restrictive in my opinion.

Critical thinking is not for people who are thin-skinned. If you don't think your arguments can hold up to scrutiny, then you should not write for SkepticReport.

I disagree. You should be able to control for "pontificating" in your editorial decisions. An article either shows skeptical and critical thinking or it does not. If someone submitted an article that said John Edward has to be real because he knew about that Niagara Falls feather, and then went on to talk about how great JE is, you would rightly reject it for not showing critical thinking (for basing its judgment on one hit from an edited TV program).

Your point is noted. I disagree. An article can show skeptical thinking in some parts, and the opposite in other parts. The article must be judged as a whole.

On the other hand, if Clancie submits an article that shows critical thinking about the test design proposed by Randi, and offers a few improvements and/or another design, how is this pontificating? How would it be less pontificating if she answered questions about it here, a site not affiliated with Skeptic Report?

I haven't seen the article, so I cannot judge it. It would be pontificating, if she refused to answer to criticism: She would feel that her article was the final say on the matter, and nobody could ever say anything that would ever change her mind. SkepticReport would then promote close-mindedness.

Further, your format is not really designed for a discussion. The most that could happen is that you publish a rebuttal article in the next issue. People could then read both and decide for themselves. But that surely doesn't require any further input from Clancie.

I did not say SkepticReport is designed for discussion. The authors must be prepared to respond to criticism, that's all.

To be frank, it is not up to Clancie whether she allows criticism or not.

Of course it is. It is solely her choice.

People will criticise if they choose. You may publish a rebuttal if the criticism is good enough. These decisions are out of Clancie's hands. I think that whether or not Clancie responds to criticisms - either here or in direct emails - is irrelevant to whether an article she writes is worthy of Skeptic Report.

Your point is noted. I disagree. I run SkepticReport. I provide webspace. I pay for it. I make the rules. The rules apply to everyone. There will be no exceptions for anyone.

To put the shoe on another foot, if someone wrote a skeptical article on remote viewing, would you require them to answer every single outlandish claim/criticism put forth by Lucianarchy?

Now you are starting to judge points of criticism before you have seen them. It is a hypothetical discussion.

OF course. But this seems a bit more lax than the promise you seem to be trying to extract from Clancie.

You are wrong. Nobody is treated differently. There will be no exceptions for anyone.

I know that you are frustrated by what you see as Clancie's avoidance of questions. But I ask you to consider that whether she answers questions here or in private correspondance would do nothing to alter the value of her article for your publication. In the best of all worlds, it would provoke a discussion of the relative merits of different protocols, and I agree the discussion would be better if the author participates. But if she doesn't, it hasn't turned your publication into a pulpit for her, especially considering your ability to also publish a well reasoned rebuttal article.

Your point is noted. The rules apply to everyone. There will be no exceptions for anyone.

Do you understand that there will be no exceptions for anyone, Thanz?

 

[Garrette]

Claus, Thanz, Clancie:

If I may, I think there's a simple miscommunication about the requirement for an author to be open to criticism.

Claus, in your original post to Clancie it seemed to me as if you were requiring that Clancie be open to criticism on anything and everything after publication of her article, not just on the article itself. You seemed, in fact, to be mandating a lifestyle change.

Clancie's responses to you indicated that she felt the same thing.

Further posts, however, indicate that your requirement is only that the author provide a means by which readers of the article can criticize that article.

Is this correct? If so, then, Clancie, is it okay by you?

 

[CFLarsen]

Claus, in your original post to Clancie it seemed to me as if you were requiring that Clancie be open to criticism on anything and everything after publication of her article, not just on the article itself. You seemed, in fact, to be mandating a lifestyle change.

I meant whatever is discussed in the article, of course. Glad to be able to clarify that.

Further posts, however, indicate that your requirement is only that the author provide a means by which readers of the article can criticize that article.

Well, one can hope that Clancie sees the value of being open-minded also in other aspects...

 

[Thanz]

Your point is noted. I disagree. An article can show skeptical thinking in some parts, and the opposite in other parts. The article must be judged as a whole.

That's true. But hopefully, the article as a whole will be more on the side of "critical thinking" than not, or you wouldn't publish it.

I haven't seen the article, so I cannot judge it. It would be pontificating, if she refused to answer to criticism: She would feel that her article was the final say on the matter, and nobody could ever say anything that would ever change her mind. SkepticReport would then promote close-mindedness.

But the average reader of SR wouldn't really know if she responds to criticism or not. The article speaks for itself. Any response to criticism would not be at the SR site itself - it should have no bearing on whether an article at SR is pontificating, and certainly it would not mean that SR promotes close-mindedness. Even if she felt that her word was gospel on the subject, that doesn't mean that SR (or you) agree with that. She doesn't decide what the last word on the topic is at SR - you do. You can publish a rebuttal article, and that alone shows that SR is not promoting closemindedness. How could it if it published both opposing sides of the debate?

All I am saying is that one author's response or non-response to criticisms is not a reflection of the open or closed mindedness of your publication. If, however, you rejected articles that showed critical thinking but were adverse to a position you held, that might reflect on your publication. Again, I am stressing the difference between the actions of the authors of the content on your site and your actions. You are accountable for the latter, but not the former.

I did not say SkepticReport is designed for discussion. The authors must be prepared to respond to criticism, that's all.

But where must they respond? Here? Privately? how is this possible to police?

Of course it is. It is solely her choice.

You are missing my point. She cannot decide whether others are critical of her article. She cannot decide if others post here critical of her article. She cannot decide if you publish a rebuttal or not.

She can only decide if she responds or not. And my point is that whether she responds or not is not a reflection on your publication, as I see it.

Now you are starting to judge points of criticism before you have seen them. It is a hypothetical discussion.

With respect, I think that you are doing the same thing. you seem to be assuming that all criticisms of her article, which isn't even written, will be vlaid and worthy of further comment. The promise that you are trying to extract from her:

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?

This says to me that you expect her to respond to all questions, no exceptions. I'm not sure I'd agree to that in advance either. I would agree to read and consider all responses to an article I wrote, but not necessarily respond to all.

It is the all encompassing wording that I think is driving her away. If you just ask her to be open to discussing the various points raised by her article, I think you would get a more favourable response. This may be all you are asking her in any event, but it certainly looks more severe to me.

Do you understand that there will be no exceptions for anyone, Thanz?

Sure, and I wouldn't ask for exceptions for anyone. It just seems to me that you are trying to box Clancie into an agreement that may go further than what you would ask of someone else, given your history.

 

[CFLarsen]

That's true. But hopefully, the article as a whole will be more on the side of "critical thinking" than not, or you wouldn't publish it.

Of course not.

But the average reader of SR wouldn't really know if she responds to criticism or not. The article speaks for itself. Any response to criticism would not be at the SR site itself - it should have no bearing on whether an article at SR is pontificating, and certainly it would not mean that SR promotes close-mindedness. Even if she felt that her word was gospel on the subject, that doesn't mean that SR (or you) agree with that. She doesn't decide what the last word on the topic is at SR - you do. You can publish a rebuttal article, and that alone shows that SR is not promoting closemindedness. How could it if it published both opposing sides of the debate?

Your objection is flawed. Response to criticism could very well take place at SR. It could take place here. Everywhere.

All I am saying is that one author's response or non-response to criticisms is not a reflection of the open or closed mindedness of your publication. If, however, you rejected articles that showed critical thinking but were adverse to a position you held, that might reflect on your publication. Again, I am stressing the difference between the actions of the authors of the content on your site and your actions. You are accountable for the latter, but not the former.

Yes, I am. Not only could I be sued for publishing an article which the author hadn't written. I would also jeopardize the goal of SkepticReport. I will not do that.

But where must they respond? Here? Privately? how is this possible to police?

Wherever the author is, and questions about the article is put. Critical thinking requires an open mind wherever you are.

You are missing my point. She cannot decide whether others are critical of her article. She cannot decide if others post here critical of her article. She cannot decide if you publish a rebuttal or not.

True.

She can only decide if she responds or not. And my point is that whether she responds or not is not a reflection on your publication, as I see it.

And I have now several times explained that I disagree. It does reflect on SkepticReport.

With respect, I think that you are doing the same thing. you seem to be assuming that all criticisms of her article, which isn't even written, will be vlaid and worthy of further comment. The promise that you are trying to extract from her:

I should have been more clear that it was about the article.

Sure, and I wouldn't ask for exceptions for anyone. It just seems to me that you are trying to box Clancie into an agreement that may go further than what you would ask of someone else, given your history.

Well, I am not. So there is not much for Clancie to object to. Unless, of course, that she really feels that she won't respond to criticism about her article. Perhaps it is time for wait for what Clancie says.

 

[TheBoyPaj]

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.

Yes, if this test was proposed by Schwartz then I would reject it. Because it is too easy for a non-medium to pass it. How does that equate to sneaky tactics by Randi? Why would he want to propose a test where he might be forced to give the dough to someone with no ability at all?

 

[TheBoyPaj]

Not sure I get this part (this is part of what Randi wrote, not what Clancie wrote). Surely there's only a 2/10 chance that at least eight of the sitters will score the reading lower than the true sitter?

I was curious about this, so I just crunched some numbers. It's not 2/10 because not all the scores are going to be different, and any scores which match the target score will also count against Sylvia.

There might be a neat way to work this out, but I chose brute force. I simulated what would happen if ten people chose totally random numbers between zero and ten. I picked an arbitrary "person", and counted how many of the other scores were below that one.

I repeated this 10,000 times. 15.59% of those trials had 8 or more scores lower than the target person. That would not be good for Randi!

So I thought, maybe Randi was banking on the fact that not many subjects are going to score the reading a "zero". After all, the general nature of most readings combined with Randi's stipulation that all subjects must be believers might mean that they choose higher numbers.

The results were:

Score range 3 to 10: 13% challenges won
Score range 4 to 10: 12.9% challenges won
Score range 5 to 10: 11.7% challenges won

So, it's not quite as foolhardy as it sounds, but still pretty risky.

 

[Clancie]

Paj,

If the one person who is read, scores his reading a "10", Sylvia automatically passes.

And if that sitter -doesn't- score her a "10", and 8 of the 9 people -not- read -do- then she automatically fails.

That's why collusion has to be ruled out in the protocol (and, just to repeat...it isn't).

 

[Clancie]

Posted by Garrette

If I may, I think there's a simple miscommunication about the requirement for an author to be open to criticism.

Claus, in your original post to Clancie it seemed to me as if you were requiring that Clancie be open to criticism on anything and everything after publication of her article, not just on the article itself. ...Clancie's responses to you indicated that she felt the same thing.

Yes.

Further posts, however, indicate that your requirement is only that the author provide a means by which readers of the article can criticize that article.

Well, this is a good clarification, Garrette, but I'm still confused. In the past, Claus has only said he requires authors to make an email address available and recommends that discussions/questions regarding the article be handled with the author via email. That still does not seem consistent what he is stipulating to me here in this thread....

Posted by CFLarsen

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?

This kind of stipulation seems very inconsistent with his usual attitude of "If you have a question, email the author." End of statement--and his philosophy that SR is an open forum for skeptical writing, not a message board and not an adjunct of JREF boards either.

 

[TheBoyPaj]

Collusion must be ruled out, yes. It would be possible for the volunteers to rig the test to fail by agreeing in advance that everyone should vote 6 or 7, for instance. I'm not sure how they could rig it to pass, unless they were all in direct contact during the test. They wouldn't know which of them should vote higher than the rest. Can anyone suggest a way to prevent such actions when phone contact is demanded?

But... if the chosen person scores a 10, Sylvia does not automatically win. If 2 other people also give a 10 then she has not achieved 8 people with a lower score.

Also, she loses if 3 other people score the reading higher or equal to the chosen sitter. Not 8.

 

[Archangel]

Yes, if this test was proposed by Schwartz then I would reject it. Because it is too easy for a non-medium to pass it. How does that equate to sneaky tactics by Randi? Why would he want to propose a test where he might be forced to give the dough to someone with no ability at all?

Sorry I should have been more clear, I didnt mean resorting to sneaky tactics, I actually meant bad protocols.

This challenge with Sylvia has been going on for well over a year, and the protocols were introduced IIRC in the second confrontation that JR had with SB, so he obviously had time to think them over, however with the sloppy protocols that he agreed to at the time of the show SB may have been able to pass the challenge through luck alone, which she would have used to blow her own horn.

Maybe JR got flustered with the BS Sylvia was spouting off and came up with an easier protocol to see if she would fall for it.

 

[TheBoyPaj]

There you go again. "Fall for it"

Fall for what? If someone offered me a one in ten (at worst) chance of a million dollars, I'd jump at it!

Hey, that's a thought. I wonder if he'd offer me the same protocol?

 

[Clancie]

Posted by the Boy Paj

Collusion must be ruled out, yes. It would be possible for the volunteers to rig the test to fail by agreeing in advance that everyone should vote 6 or 7, for instance.

Not just the possibility of collusion with each other, Paj. I mean collusion with the test designer (the sitter selection process does not rule this out; in fact, it makes it possible.).

And, since the details of the protocol are easily known in advance, including the scoring of it, people could easily throw the results as I've said. It would only take two.

I'm not sure how they could rig it to pass, unless they were all in direct contact during the test.

Well, not a guarantee, but the best thing is to just vote "0". Then if the sitter gives Sylvia -anything- higher, she passes.

But... if the chosen person scores a 10, Sylvia does not automatically win. If 2 other people also give a 10 then she has not achieved 8 people with a lower score.

Ah, yes, yet another flaw. Think about it, Paj. If Sylvia is such a great medium that she gets a "10" from her sitter, that's really all she can possibly do to demonstrate mediumship to Randi in this test...and yet...she still can lose.

Also, she loses if 3 other people score the reading higher or equal to the chosen sitter. Not 8.

How so? Randi clearly says

...eight of those scores would have to be less than the score given by the person for whom the reading was actually done.

Two higher or equal) scores from the non-read people and Sylvia loses.

If the sitter gives it an "9" and only 2 people give it a "10" and everyone else gives it a "3"....Sylvia still loses. (Again, this is the major problem of possible collusion, since only two people are needed to prevent her from winning, no matter how well she does).

 

[Loki]

I am totally with Thanz on this one.

 

[voidx]

Reginald,

No, but more to the point, none of what you say is an excuse for a poorly designed test, one way or the other.

Randi says his Challenge tests the claim, fairly, with results that are statistically better than chance, in a way that requires no judging.

That's -his- claim. My point is that, no, that's not what he's trying to do at all.

Really, I don't see why there's so much resistance to facing up to these flaws in Randi's testing protocol--and so many efforts to change the issue into a discussion of whether paranormal abilities are real or not --but apparently, there is.

Firstly, so far as I can tell everyone has agreed with you that the protocol is not good. They simply disagree on what you say Randi's intentions are. Now you say he's testing for cold reading instead of mediumship. True, and I think you've been given good reasons why this is logical. Sylvia so far as I know has not provided Randi with an indepth description of her mediumship communication process, so Randi obviously cannot ahead of time design a test based on it. So he designed one (and yes the consensus is poorly) that tested his assumption that she was cold reading. Now if Sylvia had provided an indepth description of her process of mediumship, and asked Randi to base a test around that instead, well then I assume he would do so. But she hasn't, she instead agreed to the test as he described it.

You, in my opinion, derailed this thread in the first place by taking the focus away from the bad protocol in the test linked and switched it to Randi's protocol, which has nothing to do with the test originally linked to, so far as I know. You complained that the protocol was bad, and pretty much everyone agrees with you. Most people however point out that the test does not work in Randi's favour (at least potentially), so what is it that your reading his intent to be? If its that he's not testing mediumship as Sylvia would describe it then that's a null point because she has not given him her process for mediumship. And its quite obvious that the process of mediumship is largely unknown, and not consistent between practitioners anyway. So what else about his intent has gotten you so up in arms?

 

[Clancie]

Posted by voidx

You, in my opinion, derailed this thread in the first place by taking the focus away from the bad protocol in the test linked and switched it to Randi's protocol, which has nothing to do with the test originally linked to, so far as I know.

Actually, I disagree. I brought it up in principle--to see whether the criticism of R&R was being consistent or not when applied to other test design. The original post was....

Nyarlathotep

The whole test (R&R) relied on the sitter saying whether felt that what the medium was saying "applied to them". Besides the fact that that is a hopelessly vague criteria for any sort of scientific test, there is the fact that this opens it up to all manner of sitter bias.

Clancie

Well, I'm wondering how you feel about that aspect of Randi's "Sylvia Challenge"?

It would have been easy to address this and then return to the other test, but no one did. Instead, various people began interrogating me about my comments about the Challenge (and, as usual, answers from me lead to further questions, etc. etc. If I ignore specific questions, I'm "avoiding the hard questions". If I address them, I'm "derailing the thread." Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

At no time, did conversation return to R&R and -I- redirected it to Randi.

Firstly, so far as I can tell everyone has agreed with you that the protocol is not good.

What choice is there? It isn't.

However, that hasn't prevented considerable rationalization of the flaws--everything from it being "an outline" (it wasn't) to "if Sylvia is a real medium she could pass any challenge."

Now you say he's testing for cold reading instead of mediumship. True, and I think you've been given good reasons why this is logical.

No. I haven't.

He says the claimant makes a claim and the Challenge tests that claim. Period. (And no judging required--the results are self evident).

The "paranormal claim" is -not- "cold reading". It is mediumship. So it is wrong for the test to be designed to measure cold reading (and very subjectively, at that). It's really just that simple. As I'm sure Randi knows (since he, of all people, knows full well that a test of cold reading is not a test of mediumship .