The Afterlife Experiments

[kookbreaker]

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.

Thus far, you have really not been able to establish that there are any errors. You merely assume that since Schwartz replied in an agressive fashion, he must be right about what he says.

In fact, none of what Schwartz says is accurate, or is a dodge.

That includes his alleged 'double-blind' test. You are aware of the problems with that set, right? Randi is well within rights to ignore it.

(Hint: They were called the 'White Crow' experiments, and they were inconclusive, and too small, having only 6 entries. 4 of them were 'positive'. This is far too small to be anything more than chance. But , our illustrious Schwartz declares that if there had been 25 tests, then the number of successes would have been 16 and declares the experimental results to be above chance. Do you not see what is wrong with this?)

Randi is well within his rights to declare that Schwartz's work is not double-blinded. The vast majority of it was certainly not double-blind, and that is what Schwartz has been staking his claims on.

 

[Jono]

CSLarsen, I still think there is enough of erronous statements to have me raise my eyebrow of inquiry.

The statements are at times obviously quite uninvestigated that Randi made, his reason and quality of meaning between the lines seem to have become the issue here somehow.

Gary Schwartz research is however a different matter, perhaps the thread should be concentrated on that instead, I personally am all for that.
Since Randi's obvious flaws in his statements wether with true and honest intent or not is a thing of nullification and not discussion here.

 

[CFLarsen]

CSLarsen, I still think there is enough of erronous statements to have me raise my eyebrow of inquiry.

The statements are at times obviously quite uninvestigated that Randi made, his reason and quality of meaning between the lines seem to have become the issue here somehow.

Really? Then please list those statements you find erroneous, and let's investigate them.

That's what skeptics do, you see. Investigate.

Gary Schwartz research is however a different matter, perhaps the thread should be concentrated on that instead, I personally am all for that.

Since Randi's obvious flaws in his statements wether with true and honest intent or not is a thing of nullification and not discussion here.

Let's see if there are flaws.

 

[T'ai Chi]

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

You avoided the fact that Randi didn't know what a triple blind was, yet still had the need to poke fun. Why?

As for your question, I could easily see some readings being done where self proclaimed mediums are used, and readings where cold readers are being used. Then the analyst(s) could analyze the readings not knowing if a medium was used or a cold reader.

 

[Dogwood]

Originally posted by WhiteLion

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.

Ah. Then if I may suggest, I believe the best place to begin your investigation would be with the complete source material. That way you can form your own informed opinions without having to filter through so much second hand.

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.

That would be extremely interesting. I do not think however, that Randi and Schwartz will ever be found in the same room anytime soon, unless perhaps it is an airport terminal and they are preparing to fly in opposite directions.

 

[CFLarsen]

You avoided the fact that Randi didn't know what a triple blind was, yet still had the need to poke fun. Why?

Because a triple-blind experiment in mediumship is a joke?

As for your question, I could easily see some readings being done where self proclaimed mediums are used, and readings where cold readers are being used. Then the analyst(s) could analyze the readings not knowing if a medium was used or a cold reader.

They would still need to know who the sitters were. Ergo, not triple-blind.

Feel free to explain how someone can judge a sitter's response, without knowing who the sitters are.

Stop complaining about what others do, and start explaining what your own point is.

 

[T'ai Chi]

Because a triple-blind experiment in mediumship is a joke?

Wow, that's some scientific response.

Randi apparently didn't know what a triple blind was.

"..., insisting that when he does get around to that mode he will improve it to "triple-blind" — whatever that means! — I will..."

They would still need to know who the sitters were. Ergo, not triple-blind.

Who? The medium or the analyst?

A medium could give a reading without knowing anyone, and an analyst could just be presented with Sitter A, Sitter B, etc., instead of their real names.

Feel free to explain how someone can judge a sitter's response, without knowing who the sitters are.

You certainly can judge a sitter's response without knowing who the sitters are. Instead of using the sitter's names, John Smith, Mary Jane, etc., just use Sitter A, Sitter B, and so on.

Stop complaining about what others do, and start explaining what your own point is.

Uh huh... Got evidence for your "thousands" yet?

 

[Jono]

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.

 

[CFLarsen]

Wow, that's some scientific response.

Did I claim it was scientific? If not, why do you criticize me for it?

Randi apparently didn't know what a triple blind was.

"..., insisting that when he does get around to that mode he will improve it to "triple-blind" — whatever that means! — I will..."

So........? Take your complaint to Randi, not to me. Let me know what he says.

Who? The medium or the analyst?

A medium could give a reading without knowing anyone, and an analyst could just be presented with Sitter A, Sitter B, etc., instead of their real names.

Yeah, but the analyst would have to know the identity and history of the sitter, in order to analyze the sitter's responses.

You certainly can judge a sitter's response without knowing who the sitters are. Instead of using the sitter's names, John Smith, Mary Jane, etc., just use Sitter A, Sitter B, and so on.

No, you cannot: You must know if the sitter is telling the truth. You must be able to check whether the sitter is right about Uncle Jack, when the medium claims that Uncle Jack has played with the sitter, when the sitter was 5 years old.

 

[CFLarsen]

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.

If you have questions about Randi's statements, we can find out if your concerns are valid or not. But you need to clearly state what your problems are first.

If you want to make vague complaints, go ahead. Just don't think that anyone will take you seriously.

Here, we investigate claims. We seek answers. And we will find them.

So, state your claims. Let's investigate. Time to step up to the plate.

Put up or shut up.

 

[kookbreaker]

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.

What you have posted is a series of complaints from a third party. All of those complaints have been pretty much addressed and are not something to be concerned about. Simply saying that you 'already did it' is not sufficient.

I again suspect your claimed objectivity.

 

[RichardR]

Schwartz is taken to task here:

All The Afterworld's A Stage

Schwartz is on a downward spiral.

Wow, that was certainly taking Schwartz apart. Good job Luke.

 

[Jono]

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

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

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

If Gary Schwartz is lying, 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?

 

[RichardR]

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.

 

[T'ai Chi]

So........? Take your complaint to Randi, not to me. Let me know what he says.

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

Yeah, but the analyst would have to know the identity and history of the sitter, in order to analyze the sitter's responses.

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.

 

[T'ai Chi]

Here, we investigate claims. We seek answers. And we will find them.

So, state your claims. Let's investigate. Time to step up to the plate.

Put up or shut up.

Where is your evidence of the "thousands"?

I guess you are exempt from the rules you loudly demand others play by..

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

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

~~ Paul

 

[Jono]

Good thought there Paul
Though then perhaps more aptly named "total blind-test".

 

[Dr Adequate]

Let's translate this into English, shall we?

"Schwartz has performed an experiment to "prove" the existence of the afterlife which is so incompetent that I will not post a single word claiming that he has in fact come up with proof. Not a single word. Not one. Instead, I will claim, without proof, that one single critique of his work contains a few supposed minor factual errors. For example, Randi suggested that if Schwarz won the $1,000,000, Schwartz might wish to donate the money to charity. Schwartz says that he does not. This, in some way which I refuse to explain, proves that Schwartz is right and that there is life after death."

Well, it's easier than actually proving that there's life after death I suppose.

 

[Dogwood]

WhiteLion,

You said you've read part of TAE. Have you compared Randi's criticisms and Shwartz's replies to the actual text to see which, if either, is accurate?