The Afterlife Experiments

[CFLarsen]

I'm sorry, but Schwartz has really turned into a crackpot. This paper:

http://veritas.arizona.edu/survivaldetails.htm

uses the concept of "departed hypothesized co-investigator," among many other whacky things. It's just too far over the top in begging the question.

We discussed that paper here:

http://www.internationalskeptics.co...hreadid=51519&highlight=departed+hypothesized

Schwartz is taken to task here:

All The Afterworld's A Stage

Schwartz is on a downward spiral.

 

[Jono]

Kookbreaker: As you asked for, here's a few of the errors in question. And the basis you claimed to be of the complaints of Schwartz is also the evident basis of complaints I have for James Randi as I have read and investigated, and I still do not have anything invested in this personally to cloud clarity of view.
Do you have emotional/intellectual or otherwise characteristic gain in not investigating James Randi? Simply curious.

RANDI: 2. The University of Arizona will not accept gifts of money from Schwartz.

VERITAS - The University of Arizona will accept gifts for credible things by anyone, including us. We have personally supported some of this research. And our fund raising conference will hopefully give $15,000 to the University to help support this research. Again, Randi's imagination is false and without merit.


"RANDI - More importantly, the media would not be able to trumpet that a scientist from a responsible University has demonstrated that belief in life-after-death has been validated, even though that is mere media-puffery. But Schwartz opened that door, and they rushed through.

VERITAS - The media recently published world-wide stories based upon the peer-reviewed paper that was published in JSPR. Here are the last two sentences of the abstract to that paper. They speak to the fact, not what was reported either by the media, or by Randi.

"Since factors of fraud, error, and statistical coincidence can not explain the present findings, other possible mechanisms should be considered in future research. These include telepathy, super psi, and survival of consciousness after-death."

Do these sentences, quoted from the scientific paper, suggest that we are claiming that we have "demonstrated that belief in life-after-death has been validated"? Obviously not.


RANDI - Dr. Schwartz has issued frenzied responses to my comments, which I am tempted to publish here, but that would make a very long document indeed. He is not a man of few words. In addition, he has chosen - again - to invent opinions and statements for me, and it wastes my time just refuting those canards.

VERITAS - The fact is, I issued a single document, like this one, to correct the numerous errors in Randi's previous commentary. I separately responded to comments by others, which I cc'd to Randi to keep him in the loop. Is this Randi's ego that interprets all of my emails as a personal response to him?

RANDI: As soon as Gary Schwartz produces data derived from a proper scientific experiment rather than from a game-show exercise, we can begin to examine that evidence - which I have always insisted must speak for itself. As it is, we hear only muffled mumblings and not one clear word.

VERITAS - We publish our papers in peer reviewed journals, including the Journal of Scientific Exploration. Randi can read the papers if he likes

 

[CFLarsen]

Kookbreaker: As you asked for, here's a few of the errors in question.

RANDI: 2. The University of Arizona will not accept gifts of money from Schwartz.

VERITAS - The University of Arizona will accept gifts for credible things by anyone, including us. We have personally supported some of this research. And our fund raising conference will hopefully give $15,000 to the University to help support this research. Again, Randi's imagination is false and without merit.

Randi's commentary, May 4, 2001: He posts the contents of a letter he sent to the University of Arizona.

Do you have any comments?

Do these sentences, quoted from the scientific paper, suggest that we are claiming that we have "demonstrated that belief in life-after-death has been validated"? Obviously not.

Excuse me, but if Schwartz includes dead people in his experimental set-up, then he claims to have demonstrated that belief in life-after-death has been validated", OK?

VERITAS - The fact is, I issued a single document, like this one, to correct the numerous errors in Randi's previous commentary. I separately responded to comments by others, which I cc'd to Randi to keep him in the loop. Is this Randi's ego that interprets all of my emails as a personal response to him?

"All of my emails" is not a personal response to him? Huh??

VERITAS - We publish our papers in peer reviewed journals, including the Journal of Scientific Exploration. Randi can read the papers if he likes

But we can't see the data. Which means, we can't check if Schwartz' conclusions are correct.

 

[kookbreaker]

Kookbreaker: As you asked for, here's a few of the errors in question. And the basis you claimed to be of the complaints of Schwartz is also the evident basis of complaints I have for James Randi as I have read and investigated, and I still do not have anything invested in this personally to cloud clarity of view.
Do you have emotional/intellectual or otherwise characteristic gain in not investigating James Randi? Simply curious.

Again, these errors do not stand up. As I will show. Your claims to not have anything invested are becoming more an more transparant as your invetigation is obviously non-existant. I've investigated complaints against Randi time and time again. Invariably, it is just the same old dreck froma woowoo who didn't bother to look any further than a single article.

RANDI: 2. The University of Arizona will not accept gifts of money from Schwartz.

VERITAS - The University of Arizona will accept gifts for credible things by anyone, including us. We have personally supported some of this research. And our fund raising conference will hopefully give $15,000 to the University to help support this research. Again, Randi's imagination is false and without merit.

Again, Schwartz is making a quip into a lie.

http://www.randi.org/jr/03-23-2001.html

Here is Randi's comments in context:

I will respond to this by stating the only four reasons that I can imagine to explain this attitude:

1. Schwartz is already wealthy and doesn't need the million dollars.

2. The University of Arizona will not accept gifts of money from Schwartz.

3. Schwartz has no charity in mind such as hungry children, AIDS research, or the homeless.

Randi states that it is speculation, and you treat it as a lie. So much for your 'investiagaiton'.

"RANDI - More importantly, the media would not be able to trumpet that a scientist from a responsible University has demonstrated that belief in life-after-death has been validated, even though that is mere media-puffery. But Schwartz opened that door, and they rushed through.

VERITAS - The media recently published world-wide stories based upon the peer-reviewed paper that was published in JSPR. Here are the last two sentences of the abstract to that paper. They speak to the fact, not what was reported either by the media, or by Randi.

"Since factors of fraud, error, and statistical coincidence can not explain the present findings, other possible mechanisms should be considered in future research. These include telepathy, super psi, and survival of consciousness after-death."

Do these sentences, quoted from the scientific paper, suggest that we are claiming that we have "demonstrated that belief in life-after-death has been validated"? Obviously not.

What Schwartz talks out of both sides of his mouth: When dealing with his adoring woowoo crowd he crows about the great sucess of his experiments and how excellent they were. Read the title of his book where the term "BREAKTHROUGH SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE" is used. Sounds pretty well established to me.

Add to this the use of the words "proof" in describing Schwartz's experiments by the London Sun and Daily Mail, as well as Art Bell. There were no corrections by Schwartz, even when Bell said it while he was interviewing the man.

But when dealing with critics, Schwartz gets to point to a few measly weasle-words in his published paper and that gets him off the hook? Uhn-uh. That boat won't float.

No error by Randi here.

RANDI - Dr. Schwartz has issued frenzied responses to my comments, which I am tempted to publish here, but that would make a very long document indeed. He is not a man of few words. In addition, he has chosen - again - to invent opinions and statements for me, and it wastes my time just refuting those canards.

VERITAS - The fact is, I issued a single document, like this one, to correct the numerous errors in Randi's previous commentary. I separately responded to comments by others, which I cc'd to Randi to keep him in the loop. Is this Randi's ego that interprets all of my emails as a personal response to him?

This is back-n-forth, and not an error by Randi. Is that what your 'investigation' has turned up as 'errors by Randi'? Pretty dang sorry if you ask me.

RANDI: As soon as Gary Schwartz produces data derived from a proper scientific experiment rather than from a game-show exercise, we can begin to examine that evidence - which I have always insisted must speak for itself. As it is, we hear only muffled mumblings and not one clear word.

VERITAS - We publish our papers in peer reviewed journals, including the Journal of Scientific Exploration. Randi can read the papers if he likes

JSE is hardly the most skeptical of journals,and even they have now taken to rejecting Schwartz's outlandish papers.

Randi is also not wrong here: Schwartz's experiments stink, then as now, and Schwartz's reply is a pure dodge.

Is the best you can do? Its pretty freaking sad. Not to mention done to death.

Your "investigation" is an obvious sham. And your faux intellectual agnosticism contemptable.

 

[Jono]

For instance, Randi said that Gary had stated that he had never done a double-blind test in the research, but he had and stated so to Randi.

Not an error? Well... I'll just say well for now.

Faux agnosticism?
I haven't claimed to be agnosticist nor believer.
I simply inquired and the obvious horseshow came down to preach, once more. Not very scientifically.

The amusing this is that the remarks made about Gary and his response is exactly what is so evidently ascew with Randi's response toward Gary.

Well... I'll just say well for now.

And as always, I'll keep investigating. I simply had to be honest about my inquiry.
A little bit suprized on the level of cynism that exists here though.
A very and highly counterproductive attitude in scientific thinking.

And to think not even once did I claim that Gary Schwartz research is all accurate... hmmm.

 

[CFLarsen]

WhiteLion,

Would you mind terribly addressing the replies?

 

[Jono]

Larsen, I write as often as I can.

I read your post and I am investigating it. So many replies, I have about fiftythree to work through, not including person emails etc.

Comments so far, let me see.
I'm still reading some, though currently quite occupied with contemporary writing.
The scientific evidence from that post = Gary wishes not to participate in Randi's test and Randi thinks less of Gary because of it.

All of this is quite understandable to interpret as so.
And I never did put Gary on an altar, allthough I have encountered people who do so with Randi.

 

[CFLarsen]

Larsen, I write as often as I can.

I read your post and I am investigating it. So many replies, I have about fiftythree to work through, not including person emails etc.

Comments so far, let me see.
I'm still reading some, though currently quite occupied with contemporary writing.
The scientific evidence from that post = Gary wishes not to participate in Randi's test and Randi thinks less of Gary because of it.

All of this is quite understandable to interpret as so.
And I never did put Gary on an altar, allthough I have encountered people who do so with Randi.

That's nice.

Get back whenever.

 

[Ed]

A discussion of Randi is irrelevant to anything meaningful.

Here are the only questions:

Is the research done by Gary (my good friend) competant? That is to say, are there errors in basic protocol that would be unacceptable if made by an undergraduate student?

Given Gary's background, are any errors likely based on lack of experience?

Does Gary stand to benefit financially from positive outcomes to his experiments?

=============================

No one with a modicum of common sense, let alone experience in experimental design, would characterize Gary's experiments as competant. This is not a debating point, it is completely clear to an unbiased observer.

Gary sure as sh!t knows better. As I recall, after each amataureish effort there was the promise that such and such would be taken care of in the next go round. These were things that were basic flaws.

Yes, he makes money on his work outside of academia. Conflict? You betcha. Made clear anywhere? Not that I know of.

OK. take it............

 

[Dogwood]

I've recently read the articles where Hyman and Randi criticize the research done by Gary Schwartz in his "Afterlife Experiments"
I have also read the responses by Gary and the answers from Randy and Hyman and again the responses by Gary which isn't viewable on this website.

WhiteLion,

Greetings. Have you actually read the book, "The Afterlife Experiments"?

 

[The Mighty Thor]

Randi and Schwartz = impartial.
James and Gary = impartial.
Randi and Gary = partial. Implies friendship or desired friendship with "Gary".

 

[T'ai Chi]

RANDI: Since Schwartz has admitted that he's never done a double-blind experiment, insisting that when he does get around to that mode he will improve it to "triple-blind" - whatever that means!

A triple blind is a real thing, whether Randi is aware of it or not.

It is where the experimenter(s) and the subject(s) are blind to the treatment, and in addition the analyst(s) is blind to the real group labels.

 

[CFLarsen]

A triple blind is a real thing, whether Randi is aware of it or not.

It is where the experimenter(s) and the subject(s) are blind to the treatment, and in addition the analyst(s) is blind to the real group labels.

How are the analysts going to analyze the hits, if they don't know who the sitters are?

 

[Jono]

The triple blind test that does follow the double blind tests that were used by Gary Schwartz will likely to be able to exclude errors even more.

Though I am not sure and I personally can't say that I've heard about a triple blind test before.

Dogwood, I have only read parts of the Afterlife Experiments as so, yet my initial inquiry was simply why the errors in remarks where so evident from Randi's side.

I've read the responses over and over and I honestly have to say that it's not looking much better.
I did not make this inquiry to claim Schwartz as the "good" guy and Randi as the "bad" guy per se.

I am not involved with that kind of irrational skepticism or blue eyed assumptions.
I prefer good, clean, creative critical thinking that doesn't take a rest simply because of a figure or character.

What I would like to do the most is to sit in a room with both James Randi and Gary Schwartz and question them from a protocol of investigation.

That would be interesting.

 

[plindboe]

Don't really have much to add to this discussion, just wanted to say that I think WhiteLion's approach and questions so far has been fairly reasonable, and that people are perhaps jumping at him a little too aggressively. Just my impression. Carry on.

PS.Welcome aboard WhiteLion.

 

[kookbreaker]

For instance, Randi said that Gary had stated that he had never done a double-blind test in the research, but he had and stated so to Randi.

As pointed out, his alleged 'double-blind' was nothing of the sort. Schwartz's entire arguement was "next time for sure!"

And as always, I'll keep investigating.

Your 'investigation' has so far been nothing more than quoting Schwartz's waffling reply.

I simply had to be honest about my inquiry.
A little bit suprized on the level of cynism that exists here though.
A very and highly counterproductive attitude in scientific thinking.

Its your source material, you might have figured that out by now.

And to think not even once did I claim that Gary Schwartz research is all accurate... hmmm.

You do seem to feel that his counter-criticism was.

 

[kookbreaker]

Don't really have much to add to this discussion, just wanted to say that I think WhiteLion's approach and questions so far has been fairly reasonable, and that people are perhaps jumping at him a little too aggressively. Just my impression. Carry on.

I disagree, and quite strongly. His entire basis for arguement so far is Gary Schwartz's inept 'VERITAS' reply. He has assumed that everything Schwartz says in there is accurate. It is not, and for someone claiming to be 'investigating', I found that his inability to find sources that counter Schwartz's comments (that were on this site!) to be either incompetent or dishonest.

I also am seeing a lack of replies. He spews out a few VERITAS paragraphs, declares is proof that Randi is inept, then ignores the responses. I don't consider that a good sign.

Methinks our new Kimba has as grudge.

 

[plindboe]

kookbreaker,

he does indeed seem to have a pro-Schwartz bias, but if he behaves politely, he should be treated in kind. Don't get me wrong, I think many of the replies to him are very fine, I just personally would like to see the aggression toned down somewhat. But do what you want, since I was only offering my personal opinion, and it's not up to me to dictate how people should behave.

 

[Jono]

I did select one approach. Not to raise Gary Schwartz to a higher level per se but to simply focus and address the errors made by Randi in his arguments.

The case is not so that I lack understanding from where Randi is coming from and the reasons for his scientific conduct of reasoning.

I simply saw and posted quotations on the matter that I felt was below the level of Randi's accuracy in debate/argument.

Hence my inquiry.

I also apologize for not answering back to all of the replies I have gotten on this subject, I have been busy doing my own inquiries and answer in the rate that I am able to due to time and interest.

However I admit I do not possess the level of general criticism/cynisism that some here may or may not have.
I also appreciate that there have been answers at all
As I know that bringing up any kind of criticism in here about Randi is perhaps like walking into a dog-pen and say bite me.

I am glad to be welcomed.

 

[CFLarsen]

WhiteLion,

Now that people have explained what you described as Randi's errors, do you still consider them to be errors?