Tests Prove Mediums Really Can Contact Dead

Clancie,

I agree that the Randi/Sylvia proposal is badly flawed if it was ever implemented as described. I can only assume that Randi was giving a lose 'summary' of the test , without bothering to try and tie down all the details - probably because he knew those details would never be needed!
 
Clancie said:

Well, perhaps you should actually read Randi's protocol as he outlined it to Sylvia.

Here's how Randi describes it, including the part I mentioned above about the other 9 people:

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.
Click to expand...

That's his proposal...really bad, imo, in every respect.
Click to expand...

It doesn't say the other 9 know it's not their reading - in fact I think it's implied that they don't know. It would be quite easy to infer it's not their reading, if they knew the readee was to have their reading done over the phone, but I'd hope that by the time it came to doing the test, someone would have pointed this out and the other 9 would have the reading played out down the phone (the original reading would have been a one-way phone conversation).

But, to simplify all this, in order to beat 50-to-1 odds — which is much better than the thousand-to-one odds we usually require for such a test! — eight of those scores would have to be less than the score given by the person for whom the reading was actually done.
Click to expand...

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?

David
 
Nyarlathotep,

...but that I think it is a lot better than the test mentioned in the article.
...
I have no idea who these people are so I can't say anything about them.
Click to expand...
The Robertson and Roy proposed protocol (which they claim to have used in the tests that are the subject of the article) is a very good one. In a nutshell, they propose :

1. The medium is completely isolated (a separate room I believe) from the audience - no contact, audio or visual, of any kind at any time (before, during or after the reading).

2. Audience of approximately 20 'potential sitters' enters a room and sit on numbered chairs.

3. Medium is given a randomly choosen number, and 'reads' the sitter in that chair - at no time does the medium see or hear the sitter, and the sitter has no idea they are being 'read'.

4. The medium's reading is copied and distributed to each of the 20 audience members. They ALL then rate the reading according to how "relevant to them" it is.

The claimed result is that, over a large number of trials, the actual sitter (different in each trial) has repeatedly rated the reading significantly higher than the other audience members.

If the protocol has been followed, then it goes a long way to removing the possibility of any kind of cold reading. .
 
Couple of problems here.

- What is the rating system?

- Of course, we'd like to actually SEE the ratings from ALL the tests (not just those that turned out well).

- What is the proposed mechanism? How is the medium supposed to "tune in on" that particular sitter? I mean, even if there is some systematic effect there, they need to explain just how it supports their thesis.

Hans
 
Hey, Claus Flodin Larsen! What's happenin' bub?:w2:

Still trailing Clancie, I see. But the "beating the dead horse" is MY expression, Claus. Think up one of your own. Also, don't you think that telling Clancie that SHE is beating a dead horse is a bit like the pot calling the kettle black?:p
 
MRC_Hans,

I mean, even if there is some systematic effect there, they need to explain just how it supports their thesis.
Click to expand...
I believe the "thesis" that is driving these tests is something along the lines of "the results produced cannot be explained by cold reading". In other words, the test is designed to counter two of the common explanations put forward :

1. That the medium uses 'clues' from the sitter's appearance, age, voice, and (most importantly) answers to generate the reading.

2. That the reading is deliberately 'generic', so that the reading details will fit a number of different people.

The protocol seeks to address the first by removing all forms of physical interaction between the medium and sitter. It addresses the second by having the entire audience rate the reading at a time when none of them know who was actually read.

The thing here is that this test protocol is designed not so much to 'prove' speaking-to-the-dead, but to disprove the 'cold-reading' explanation.
 
I'm kind of surprised by the rationalizations coming up around the Sylvia challenge.
Posted by Loki

I can only assume that Randi was giving a lose 'summary' of the test , without bothering to try and tie down all the details - probably because he knew those details would never be needed!
Click to expand...

Hi Loki,

It's not a problem of "not tying down the details". He's got all the details in place--it's just (unlike R&R) a lousy design.
Posted by nyarlathotep

If Randi's hypothesis is that Sylvia is a cold reader then from a scientific standpoint, that is what he SHOULD be testing for. I don't think he is either intending or claiming to be testing for mediumship. Sylvia is claiming to be able to speak to the dead, Randi's hypothesis is that she is a cold reader, the test is designed to see who is right.
Click to expand...

nyarlathotep,

Nope. Randi says claimants make the claim of a paranormal ability and he tests their claim, period.
Posted by the Boy Paj

I don't understand the distinction you have made here. How does Randi's protocol not test for mediumship?
Click to expand...

Paj (and david horman),

If Sylvia read for all of them via phone and 4 of the 10 identified their readings correctly, that would have met the 50:1 odds Randi says he's looking for in her test.

But Randi doesn't -give- her the chance to demonstrate mediumship with 50:1 odds. He stacks the deck at the outset, by only allowing her to read one person, denying her the 9 other opportunitites and making -their evaluation- the focus of the test.

The nine people who weren't read (his description) look at the tenth person's reading and score it for how general it is, i.e. how well it fits them, too. That isn't measuring spirit communication. Its measuring cold reading...which -isn't- the claimants claim.
 
Clancie said:
If Sylvia read for all of them via phone and 4 of the 10 identified their readings correctly, that would have met the 50:1 odds Randi says he's looking for in her test.

But Randi doesn't -give- her the chance to demonstrate mediumship with 50:1 odds. He stacks the deck at the outset, by only allowing her to read one person, denying her the 9 other opportunitites and making -their evaluation- the focus of the test.

The nine people who weren't read (his description) look at the tenth person's reading and score it for how general it is, i.e. how well it fits them, too. That isn't measuring spirit communication. Its measuring cold reading...which -isn't- the claimants claim.
Click to expand...

So, the difference between testing for mediumship as opposed to cold reading is that 4 are tested instead of 1? The number goes up?

What happened to your demand that mediumship has to demonstrate spirit communication? I don't see anything in your explanation that includes spirit communication. Only that the test persons has to decide that the reading was for them.
 
Yep. The numbers are nothing to do with whether it tests medium communication, Clancie.

I agree that it doesn't necessarily test the mechanism for the phenomenon. After all, Sylvia could pass the test by using telepathy or some other paranormal means.

But actually, what does it matter if it's a test for mediumship or just a protocol to remove the possibility of cold reading/generalised readings? If she can do what she claims (and she agreed to the protocol, remember?), she can win the million. And that is the point. Randi doesn't care HOW you do it. All that matters is that you do something that would not be possible by normal means.
 
Does anyone here believe that Jesus actually made a blind man see again by placing his hands over the man's eyes? Does anyone believe that Jesus caused a young girl to rise from the dead?

What do you skeptics make of that? Surely you don't think Jesus was a magician.
 
Cynical said:
Does anyone here believe that Jesus actually made a blind man see again by placing his hands over the man's eyes? Does anyone believe that Jesus caused a young girl to rise from the dead?
Click to expand...

I don't. What evidence is there that he did? You can't use the Bible in this instance because it is neither corroborated by other sources nor is it even an eyewitness account, making it pretty much worthless as a historical document in this case. So unless you have something I am not aware of, I would say "No"

What do you skeptics make of that? Surely you don't think Jesus was a magician.
Click to expand...

Who knows? Jesus' very existance can't be established with any certainty. Therefore trying figure out why certain stories rose up about him is premature at best.
 
Clancie said:

nyarlathotep,

Nope. Randi says claimants make the claim of a paranormal ability and he tests their claim, period.
Click to expand...

Even so, let's assume for sake of argument that mediumship is indeed real. Since we do not know how it works, there is no way to test for it directly. Therefore, the only way to establish its existance would be to try to block as many avenues EXCEPT for true mediumship that a medium could get the information that they claim to be able to acess. If the tester (I.e. Mr. Randi) thinks that the most likely "normal" avenue through which the medium could get information is cold reading, then of course the bigest amount of effort in the experiment is going to be spent in blocking cold reading. It is only common sense. Thus, in testing for cold reading he IS testing the claim the only way the claim can be tested given our current understanding of the world.
 
Posted by nyarlathotep

Thus, in testing for cold reading he IS testing the claim the only way the claim can be tested given our current understanding of the world.
Click to expand...
So, do I have this right?

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?

So...does that mean that you think Randi doesn't mean it when he says the claimant makes a paranormal claim and then the Challenge tests that claim....or.....?????

Also, the arbitrary scoring....the subjectivity (despite Randi's promise that "no judging is required; the results are self evident"...the possibility for collusion....none of these things make you, um, doubt, um, his intent here?

Ooookkkayyy......
 
Clancie said:

So, do I have this right?

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?

So...does that mean that you think Randi doesn't mean it when he says the claimant makes a paranormal claim and then the Challenge tests that claim....or.....?????
Click to expand...

Yes because even if Mediumship is real, we do not know how it work or the first thing about it. Therefore the ONLY way to test for it is to test for it by excluding other possibilities, and Mr. randi apparently feels the most likely of those other possibilities is cold reading.

Also, the arbitrary scoring....the subjectivity (despite Randi's promise that "no judging is required; the results are self evident"...the possibility for collusion....none of these things make you, um, doubt, um, his intent here?

Ooookkkayyy......
Click to expand...

Okay, now I am getting irritated becuase you, apparently, are either not listening or are choosing to ignore what I have said. For the third frickin' time, I AM NOT OKAY WITH THE SUBJECTIVITY AND SOME OF THE OTHER FLAWS, GODDAMMIT! Christ on a freaking crutch, am I going to have to put it in big red font so you can see it? Do I have to say it again?

As for his intent, I can't read his mind (if I could, I'd be a million dollars richer) so I don't know. However, Randi is not infallible and I doubt anyone here thinks he is. So a bad decision seems as likely as any sort of conspiracy on his part. I have have always thought that the biggest problem witht he challenge is the posssibility that someone may claim it not because they can do anything "supernatural" but because someone involved n the test will sooner or later make a mistake enabling a cheater to win. All of the people involved are as error prone as anyone else in the world.
 
Clancie, don't you think that if people have the clarity of conversation with the dead that they claim they had, these tests would get blown out of the water. Be it testing for being a medium or a cold reader or multiple choice physics (I assume physicists die as well)?

The claim is that the contact is made, information passes from the dead to the medium, it is claimed that this information is so good that people should pay for it (even thinly disguised as expenses only in many cases) so any test would be simple to pass.

All this quibble about half a percent here in study X or Y and a couple of percent there, the thing (if true) would be blindingly self evident, should be blindingly self evident.

Before anyone doubts my credentials, my ex wife is a member of the spiritualist church here in the UK, so believe me I've seen hundreds of these efforts and not one has come close......not even close to convincing me that they have any contact with any dead person.
 
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 :confused:--but apparently, there is.
 
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?
 
Clancie said:
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?
Click to expand...

Clanice, can you offer an alternative test? You say the test is subjective and requires judging, but then, aren't Sylvia's powers subjective and require judging? It's not like she's a dowser where you can either detect the gold (or whatever) or not. It's a highly subjective claim.

So, can you think of an alternative test?
 
Posted by TLN

So, can you think of an alternative test?
Click to expand...
Yes, TLN (although this seems like yet another distraction from the topic of Randi and his Challenge

Actually, I can.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom