The Afterlife Experiments

[CFLarsen]

I'd like to if he had replied to the email, but he didn't.

So why are you asking us? We can't read Randi's mind. What is the point of you asking us what Randi thinks? Trying to stir up ****, as usual?

Say I make a list of things beforehand, my age, gender, my family members' names, and so on. Additionally I write down things than happened to me, scars in odd places, tattoos, nicknames, pets and pet names, jobs held, and so on. The medium than does his/her thing and comes up with their own list of items. I don't see or know the medium (or even if it is a medium or a cold reader), and they don't see or know me. When finished, an analyst gets the lists with only the headings Speaker A and Sitter A, and then does some analysis to measure the similarities of the lists.

It would be impossible to write down everything that has happened to you in life, especially since we know that the sitter often has to make huge leaps to make the connection.

Unless you lead an extremely simple life - like spending all your time in a box - it's simply not doable.

 

[T'ai Chi]

I thought the term double-blind meant that the following people were blind: (1) the subjects; (2) everyone else involved.

Well, you'd be mistaken then.

If that is not the case then in drug trials, for example, we'd have to have quadruple-blind: (1) patients; (2) doctors and nurses; (3) pharmaceutical company representatives; (4) analysts.

Doctors and nurses are lumped in the same group since they are the medical personnell involved with administering the treatment.

 

[T'ai Chi]

So why are you asking us? We can't read Randi's mind. What is the point of you asking us what Randi thinks? Trying to stir up ****, as usual?

I can only stir **** if it is there to begin with. I found his comments about asking what a triple blind is, interesting. This thread did mention Randi and Schwartz and their comments to each other, right Claus?

It would be impossible to write down everything that has happened to you in life, especially since we know that the sitter often has to make huge leaps to make the connection.

Unless you lead an extremely simple life - like spending all your time in a box - it's simply not doable.

One can certainly write down major life events, no problem.

Got evidence of those "thousands" yet? You know, speaking of evidence...

 

[CFLarsen]

I can only stir **** if it is there to begin with.

So, you think Randi's comment was ****. You're entitled to that opinion.

I found his comments about asking what a triple blind is, interesting. This thread did mention Randi and Schwartz and their comments to each other, right Claus?

Absolutely. So, there is no other reason to ask us what Randi thought than to stir up ****.

One can certainly write down major life events, no problem.

But as we can see with transcripts, sitters often isn't connecting major life events to what the medium says. It can be a pennant in the basement, a tree chopped down in the back yard, etc. How will the blinded analyst take that into account?

The medium will be the first to tell you that he/she doesn't control what's coming through. So, we cannot in advance secure that only the major events will be discussed.

 

[Jono]

Dogwood, I have and I am investigating on that matter and I have also found Gary Schwartz to lack understanding in the context details that Randi is trying to make.
This causes a frustrated response from Randi perhaps as well.
And thus as it is perhaps heavily emotionally driven at times it leads to some mistakes and errors in the statements.

It seems the two of them simply do not get along, scientific standards and conduct aside, there is a clash in personalities as well, which is not totally unheard of in this world be it a mind of science or a mind of faith or what have you.

 

[Ed]

CSLarsen. On two previous posts I have posted quite a few of those quotes of erronous statements by Randi.

Post them again? Why?

If you do not find any error in your investigation, fine, if you do, fine. I was simply interested in the inquiry as so.

Is your only interest the interpersonal dynamics of Randi and Schwartz? That is cool but boring.

Would you rather discuss the crap that Schwartz passes off as science, thus contributiong his fair share to the dumbing down of the world?

 

[Jono]

Actually yes Ed, my inquiry as so what simply about the interpersonal dynamics of Randi and Schwartz in this case.

Do I wish to discuss the research conducted by Gary Schwartz?

Certainly, though I haven't been exposed to that much of his research materials yet to determine wether it is superficially erronous in conduct or plausable scientific standards and research.

Meaning the concern about the validity or absence there of.

 

[Dogwood]

One thing to remember about Randi, is that although sometimes he comes across as a grumpy, quick tempered, grouch, it's because sometimes he is a grumpy, quick tempered, grouch. And perhaps if any of us did the work he does, we would be too.

Schwartz, in my opinion (many here will disagree), very sincerely believes in what he says. He is also a genuinely nice guy.


Put these two together on an issue and Schwartz is almost always going to come off looking better on an emotional level.

But that doesn't mean he's right.

 

[kookbreaker]

Well do you then, Koobreaker, CSLarsen suggest that I post same statements once more?

It won't make them true. Only one of Schwartz's experiments was double-blind and that was inclonclusive. He also all but ignores it.

Or that you read them and state simply that you do not find anything erronous from Randi or so?

And explained why, something you seem to have gone out of your way to ignore.

This was simply an inquiry on the statements made by Randi about detailed criticism against the Afterlife Experiments which where addressed by Gary Schwartz.

Your inquiry has consisted of doing nothing but quoting the VERITAS replies, and ignoring the replies we have made about them.

If Gary Schwartz is lying,

Yes, he is.

or if Randi got carried away? Or both of the above?
If both these persons, when engaging on converse with each other, showes these sides?

I am looking into it, I just started this thread with an inquiry that Randi clearly came out with some not actual and/or exactly correct responses and I wondered why? [/B]

Becuase Schwartz is a deceptive little weasel.

Sum up your complaints. Do not just repeat what Schwartz has said, explain exactly why you feel Schwartz's comment shows Randi is lying and we'll try to discuss the matter.

Otherwise you are trolling.

 

[Dogwood]

The triple-blind thing again, ugh.

It's not surprising that Randi wasn't familiar with this term. It's rarely used and typically applies to large multi-testing facilities that have their own statisics departments. In most research, the investigators do their own statistical analysis, and if they're already blinded then the term "double-blind" covers them by default.

But in a hospital or a large drug company running several tests at once, it makes sense to have your analytical group blinded, not to the identity of the patients or whether they were in the control group or not, because that's already in place, but to which test they were a part of. That's what triple blinded means.

So how might this apply to Schwartz's Human Energy Research Laboratory?

If Schwartz were, for example, to run one experiment on mental mediumship, and another seperate experiment on physical mediumship at the same time (both properly double blinded), and whoever did the statistics didn't know which group was which when they were doing their analysis, then he could say he was doing triple blind experiments.

I do not know if that's what Schwartz was referring to when he said he was going to do triple blind experiments, but if it was, then he was using the term correctly.

If not, then "triple-blind" is a meaningless distinction. Especially if the experiment is not properly double-blinded to begin with.

I don't understand the hullabaloo between Claus and jzs over the scoring of data by the analysts. In most mediumship research that I've read, and in all of Schwartz's, the sitters score their own readings for accuracy. I don't know how it can be otherwise unless the field of questions is highly restricted. The analysis that Schwartz would presumably have a trebly-blinded group do would not need to know any identities or histories anyway. Such would be meaningless for the purpose of statistics.

 

[T'ai Chi]

It can be a pennant in the basement, a tree chopped down in the back yard, etc. How will the blinded analyst take that into account?

The analyst just analyzes the data. He/she just has to be blinded from the group membership.

The medium will be the first to tell you that he/she doesn't control what's coming through. So, we cannot in advance secure that only the major events will be discussed.

That's true, but you can at the very least secure those events, and other events that are likely to come up.

 

[T'ai Chi]

It's not surprising that Randi wasn't familiar with this term. It's rarely used and typically applies to large multi-testing

Well I'd say before publishing "whatever that means!" on the Internet, he could have done some research on it I would have thought.

The medium could do a reading, not seeing the person whom they are reading. The sitter wouldn't see the medium, nor even know if it is a medium or a cold reader. Would this be a double-blind?

 

[CFLarsen]

That's true, but you can at the very least secure those events, and other events that are likely to come up.

But you can't presuppose what the spirits will tell you. That would be bias.

 

[Dogwood]

Originally posted by jzs


Well I'd say before publishing "whatever that means!" on the Internet, he could have done some research on it I would have thought.

Agreed.

The medium could do a reading, not seeing the person whom they are reading. The sitter wouldn't see the medium, nor even know if it is a medium or a cold reader. Would this be a double-blind?

No. This only controls for the study's participants, therefore it's only single-blinded. You have to also blind the experimenters for it to be a double blind study.




edited for spelling

 

[T'ai Chi]

But you can't presuppose what the spirits will tell you. That would be bias.

You are convinced that sprits don't exist already. So you're already biased, so more bias is no problem.

No, seriously, that's not bias. Making a list of possible things that might get brought up, that you could verify with what the medium says, is not bias.

 

[T'ai Chi]

"The medium could do a reading, not seeing the person whom they are reading. The sitter wouldn't see the medium, nor even know if it is a medium or a cold reader. Would this be a double-blind?"

No. This only controls for the study's participants, therefore it's only single-blinded. You have to also blind the experimenters for it to be a double blind study.

Ok, so now Gary, or whomever, needs to not know the sitters involved or the mediums or coldreaders involved, right? He could just be given a list of names Reader A, Sitter A, Reader B, Sitter B, and so on.

 

[Dogwood]

Ok, so now Gary, or whomever, needs to not know the sitters involved or the mediums or coldreaders involved, right? He could just be given a list of names Reader A, Sitter A, Reader B, Sitter B, and so on.

Exactly.

 

[Jono]

Kookbreaker, of course I do not agree with your insinuations, or where those actual analystic comments?

I have adressed quotes that I have posted and it has been discussed here of course.


--"RANDI: This is just the same old fare, cold reading, exactly what Edward and the other "readers" do! If we had an entire transcript or tape of this series of guesses, we'd be able to evaluate it, wouldn't we? But we will never have that. Dr. Schwartz won't share it with us. Why? That slamming noise you hear is the door to his Ivory Tower closing."

--"VERITAS - All media who come to the lab have seen the raw footage. So have magicians, visiting scientists, and others. Randi could have come to the lab, he could have come to the conference. Instead, he complains that we do not give him the raw data."

This here above to me states that as Randi gives criticism that Schwartz is reluctant to let him (Randi) see the raw data. Yet Gary Schwartz states that all who come to the lab or the conference (personally no idea which one) he would/could and can see it.


--"RANDI: Now, the Tooth Fairy has been in many cartoons, jokes, stories, and commercials over the years. Therefore Schwartz's theory actually predicts the existence of the Tooth Fairy. As it is fairly certain that Schwartz believes in his theory, and his theory predicts the existence of the Tooth Fairy, therefore Schwartz must believe in the Tooth Fairy. Read that last sentence again. That strange rumbling sound you hear, is my mind boggling. Is there nothing that Dr. Gary Schwartz of the University of Arizona does not believe in?"

--"VERITAS - The theory of systemic memory predicts that informed energy can take on a "life of its own." Hence, imaginary beliefs such as the toothfairy, even Santa Claus, can potentially exist as dynamical info-energy systems.
However, this does NOT mean that I believe in the tooth fairy or Santa Claus. I believe in observations, and I entertain hypotheses. For the record, I have never seen a tooth fairy, I know of no research on tooth fairies, and therefore Randi's abuse of language in making such a claim is irresponsible, inaccurate, and seemingly nasty."

Again here above is an example that to be seems to bring a rather unscientific and somewhat "weird" flawed statement from James Randi.

Yet perhaps sometimes as Dogwood stated, James Randi find himself in a grumpy mood and thus the reflections of his statements can be seen as emotionally grumpy rather than factual scientific response etc.

These where examples of the areas I did inquiry on. Not engage in a crusade to prove Gary Schwartz right and Randi wrong in their scientific work.
I went to this site to see what the orthodox skepticists and others might have to say and ponder about this.
It is not from me a direct attack toward Randi as much as it is a critical inquiry.

And to the assumption you, Kookbreaker, made that Gary Schwartz is simply lying. Well I do not know yet I do not believe that in his consciousness his intent was or is to promote lies.
Neither do I think, hope that Randi does.

 

[CFLarsen]

You are convinced that sprits don't exist already. So you're already biased, so more bias is no problem.

No, I am not convinced that spirits don't exist already. I haven't seen any evidence that they do exist.

No, seriously, that's not bias. Making a list of possible things that might get brought up, that you could verify with what the medium says, is not bias.

Sure, it would be: You would be searching for those in the data. It's exactly the same as the "Don't think of an elephant" trick. Once that list is in your head, you can't get it out.

 

[Dogwood]

Originally posted by WhiteLion


--"VERITAS - All media who come to the lab have seen the raw footage. So have magicians, visiting scientists, and others. Randi could have come to the lab, he could have come to the conference. Instead, he complains that we do not give him the raw data."

This is unusual in scientific circles. When space limitations do not allow raw data to be published, researchers typically honor requests from their peers to see it, without requiring the person making the request to travel. Schwartz would be within his rights torequire Randi to pay for the postage, but requiring anyone to travel to Arizona is unreasonable in my opinion, (of course Schwartz may not consider Randi to be his peer). Schwartz could also publish the raw data on his web-page. Very common these days.

It has been pointed out when this issue has come up in the past that the raw data may contain sensitive personal information about the sitters, which may explain Schwartz's reluctance to make the data more easily available. But it should be a simple enough task to edit such information out also.


--"VERITAS - The theory of systemic memory predicts that informed energy can take on a "life of its own." Hence, imaginary beliefs such as the toothfairy, even Santa Claus, can potentially exist as dynamical info-energy systems.
However, this does NOT mean that I believe in the tooth fairy or Santa Claus. I believe in observations, and I entertain hypotheses. For the record, I have never seen a tooth fairy, I know of no research on tooth fairies, and therefore Randi's abuse of language in making such a claim is irresponsible, inaccurate, and seemingly nasty."

Randi's tone was harsh, but he was accurate. Schwartz's theory does predict the existance of the Tooth-Fairy. Note that Schwartz does not refute this. He mainly seems to be objecting to Randi's nastiness.

Yet perhaps sometimes as Dogwood stated, James Randi find himself in a grumpy mood and thus the reflections of his statements can be seen as emotionally grumpy rather than factual scientific response etc.

The examples you've provided well demonstrate Randi's ability to be rude, but they don't show him to have been factually incorrect.