The Afterlife Experiments

[CFLarsen]

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.

Schwartz makes a point out of pointing to all his fancy equipment that records everything.

There is absolutely no reason not to put it online. Or at least give Randi access to it.

That's why the Internet was invented: To make it possible for universities especially to exchange data.

 

[kookbreaker]

Dogwood already got these, but its always good to get another set of prints on a kook:

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.

No, actually, you have not. You have avoided them or put out one-line replies. Not much of an answer

--"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.

As Dogwood pointed out, requesting the raw data is not out of the question. Especially in light of Schwartz promising to send it.

You are also aware of Schwartz other conditions to view the raw data? Such as having video camera on Randi at all times? That's not a regular condition in science.

--"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.

Nothing wrong with the statement. Schwartz is basically taking his theory and making exceptions for things it would otherwise allow. It is not Randi's fault that Schwartz's theory does this.

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.

So far, nothing is factually incorrect. All is some backpedalling from Schwartz from things his theory does predict.

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. [/B]

Gary certainly seems to be doing a lot of spinning to make his work seem legit. I really don't find all that very honest.

 

[Dogwood]

By the way, "The Afterlife Experiments" is now available in a downloadable digital version through amazon. Only 8.99.

I really think this is worth the investment for anyone seriously interested in discussing this subject.

 

[Jono]

Kookbreaker, again this insinuation that I am ignoring something that you deem important.
That is of course always possible though it has not been a conscious move on my account.

I do know that Gary Schwatz came to a point where he felt he couldn't trust Randi to have a scientific conduct that would reflect well, perhaps that is why he wanted to have a camera on Randi at all times? I personally do not know and it is seemingly a childish request if there is no legitimate reason to distrust Randi, again that is something I do not know either.

Again it is a childish bit with the toothfairy-scorning.
I remember in my youth as I in woodshop in school prepaired a replica of a rifle. My peers at the time asked me what it was for.
I said that I simply might meet a moose in the woods, so it would be better to have that along than nothing at all.
I was quite colourfully scorned by them as they said something like "look! he's going to hunt for moose with a wood toygun".

Not that unsimilar from Randi's approach toward Gary's theory in this matter as my experience sees this issue.

 

[kookbreaker]

Kookbreaker, again this insinuation that I am ignoring something that you deem important.
That is of course always possible though it has not been a conscious move on my account.

Maybe its the lack of replies to our responses, followed by more junk from Schwartz?

I do know that Gary Schwatz came to a point where he felt he couldn't trust Randi to have a scientific conduct that would reflect well, perhaps that is why he wanted to have a camera on Randi at all times? I personally do not know and it is seemingly a childish request if there is no legitimate reason to distrust Randi, again that is something I do not know either.

So his solution is to effectively make his data inaccessable. Pretty weak.

Again it is a childish bit with the toothfairy-scorning.
I remember in my youth as I in woodshop in school prepaired a replica of a rifle. My peers at the time asked me what it was for.
I said that I simply might meet a moose in the woods, so it would be better to have that along than nothing at all.
I was quite colourfully scorned by them as they said something like "look! he's going to hunt for moose with a wood toygun".

Nothing to do with anything. Schwartz's own description allows and predicts the existance of the Tooth Fairy. The only fault of Randi is pointing out that fact, and thus the silliness of Schwartz's 'theory'.

 

[Jono]

Kookbreaker, that simply is not very likely that Gary Schwartz does believe in the toothfairy as so implied by Randi in such a manner.
Which is actually quite similar to the experience I described from my youth.
I didn't make the wooden gun to hunt moose as they ridiculed.
I simply pointed to a distant possibility that it is a thing of matter that I could, hypotheticaly, use against a moose in certain situations.

Is Gary Schwartz raw data inaccessable?
Then did he outright lie as he claimed that one could check the raw data on his grounds as a number of scientists and likewise did?

Though exactly why Gary Schwartz isn't publishing the raw data I do not know, I would personally enjoy in investigating it myself.

And Kookbreaker, you will just have to find it in your heart and accept the fact that I have a thousand and one responses to reply to every day, not including emails and phone-calls and I have a fiance with severe medicalproblems so if lack of replies from me has upset you, as you keep mention it, then forgive my rudeness and lack of priorities.

 

[Ed]

Though exactly why Gary Schwartz isn't publishing the raw data I do not know, I would personally enjoy in investigating it myself.

Given his credibility, do you think that it is unreasonable to assume that the data is not simply fudged? If not, tell me what about his "research" suggests that he is not simply a charlatan?

 

[Zep]

WhiteLion, the situation is simply this: Schwartz has a tenured position at Arizona U pretty much as long as he continues to perform and publish his "research" and bring publicity. Should he, at any stage, reveal that his research has been and continues to be the bunkum it obviously is to most thinking people then his tenure would most likely be on very VERY thin ice. No-one tries to associate with losers, even in academia.

Given that premise, what do you think Schwartz's motives might be for withholding data from anyone? For ignoring peer enquiry and review of his research? For ignoring the obvious flaws in his investigative methods?

 

[kookbreaker]

Kookbreaker, that simply is not very likely that Gary Schwartz does believe in the toothfairy as so implied by Randi in such a manner.
Which is actually quite similar to the experience I described from my youth.
I didn't make the wooden gun to hunt moose as they ridiculed.
I simply pointed to a distant possibility that it is a thing of matter that I could, hypotheticaly, use against a moose in certain situations.

Your toy gun is irrelevant.

Schwartz wrote up a system and a theory, basiclly pulling things out of his a@@. When looked at, the theory was so poorly made that it allowed for the Easter Bunny and the Tooth Fairy. Don't like it? Then DON'T WRITE STUPID THEORIES THAT ALLOW FOR THE TOOTH FAIRY! That Schwartz threw a hissy fit at Randi's comments is the belligerance of one who has made a mistake and tries to blame it on the person who points it out.

Is Gary Schwartz raw data inaccessable?
Then did he outright lie as he claimed that one could check the raw data on his grounds as a number of scientists and likewise did?

Schwartz has certainly put conditions on Randi checking the data.

We're not certain who, exactly has checked his data. To date, no one has made a full analysis. Just stopping by the lab doesn't count.

Though exactly why Gary Schwartz isn't publishing the raw data I do not know, I would personally enjoy in investigating it myself.

Good for you. I presonally find it very telling. But then I find that scientists writing popular books claiming scads more than their actual work has done to be a very telling as well.

And Kookbreaker, you will just have to find it in your heart and accept the fact that I have a thousand and one responses to reply to every day, not including emails and phone-calls and I have a fiance with severe medicalproblems so if lack of replies from me has upset you, as you keep mention it, then forgive my rudeness and lack of priorities. [/B]

Don't really care what your priorities, just don't say you've done something that you haven't.

 

[Jono]

Kookbreaker. I'm trying to figure out how on earth you reason.
I do not believe one's theory is dumbfounded because of its perhaps controversial and vast and even sometimes seemingly "silly" inclusion of its spectrum.

I did not state that I had answered all replies, simply that the information in question was available for investigation instead of I posting it once more.

Zep, Ed.
If Gary Schwartz is so obviously a charlatan and by you demanded to prove that he is not then how come there is no immediate difficulty about this concern at the faculty in question?
What does the employer of Gary Schwartz (the principal) say about this?
I personally do not know and it is not Gary Schwartz alone to claim scientific evidence of the survival of the consciousness.
If they are all "losers" and "charlatans" I again can not state nor claim them to be, I haven't read the raw data or been exposed to the scientific conduct of them.

 

[Ed]

I did not state that I had answered all replies, simply that the information in question was available for investigation instead of I posting it once more.

Zep, Ed.
If Gary Schwartz is so obviously a charlatan and by you demanded to prove that he is not then how come there is no immediate difficulty about this concern at the faculty in question?
What does the employer of Gary Schwartz (the principal) say about this?
I personally do not know and it is not Gary Schwartz alone to claim scientific evidence of the survival of the consciousness.
If they are all "losers" and "charlatans" I again can not state nor claim them to be, I haven't read the raw data or been exposed to the scientific conduct of them.

I demand nothing. I observe that his professional performance is lacking in skills that he most certainly has. I note that there is public adulation and money associated with the results that come from such a performance. I conclude, with no reference to the paranormal, that he is a performance artist, not a scientist. That being the case it does not strain credulity too much to conjecture that the data is made up. Given the total irrelevance of the data, collected as it was, making it up hardly makes a difference. If one can "hypothesise" a "non-corporial co-investigator" one can certainly hyptothesise data, or get data from such a co-investigator without the vulgarity of acutally doing science.

Is there something wrong with this set of thoughts? Can you point out any logical flaw?

 

[kookbreaker]

Kookbreaker. I'm trying to figure out how on earth you reason.

Very well, thank you.

I do not believe one's theory is dumbfounded because of its perhaps controversial and vast and even sometimes seemingly "silly" inclusion of its spectrum.

By the same token, if one's theory allows for silly things, don't get all huffy and indignant when someone points out how it does so.

 

[Harlequin]

I remember in my youth as I in woodshop in school prepaired a replica of a rifle. My peers at the time asked me what it was for.
I said that I simply might meet a moose in the woods, so it would be better to have that along than nothing at all.
I was quite colourfully scorned by them as they said something like "look! he's going to hunt for moose with a wood toygun".

Are you serious? You really did that? Obviously their taunts were off target, but it seems like they were well deserved. Why not make a wooden model of a cattle prod? It would be a lot easier and just as likely to intimidate the moose!

 

[Jono]

Harlequin, I did not make the wooden replica in a motive to intimidate anyone or anything.
Though as the thought was still plausible, possible in reality I did entertain it. I thought my classmates could grasp the joke and wether or not they did they had predetermined motives of malice toward me, I never did fit well in school until later years.

Kookbreaker, yes it is a good thing you are at least not experiencing any stress from your beliefs or attitude, it usually isn't worth it.

If one's theory allows for silly contemplations then it is likely a very liberal, brave and vast theory at times.
The marking/scorning or simply stating the focus on the silly matters are not a gifted sign, more uninteresting and display of digressing motives on the subject.
Of course depending on how the "stating of the obvious" is conducted.

Ed, I do understand those specific set of thoughts and I have no problem with them.

Still if by research one simply have not seen the raw data oneself, can one do anything but speculate and assume?
As assumptions can be fruitful they are also the mother of most f***ups, excuse my Dutch

Is there any sort of time limit on how long the data in question can remain "hidden" or selectively hidden? Until it has to be published in the bare flesh, if ever?

 

[jmercer]

I don't think I've ever seen such a long string of rationalizations in support of an untenable position in my life.

Congratulations, WhiteLion.

(edited for grammar)

 

[Jono]

Yes quite so Jmercer

 

[kookbreaker]

Kookbreaker, yes it is a good thing you are at least not experiencing any stress from your beliefs or attitude, it usually isn't worth it.

If one's theory allows for silly contemplations then it is likely a very liberal, brave and vast theory at times.

I feel otherwise. It is more a sign of sloppiness. Also it is lame newage science fiction masquerading as 'free thought'.

The marking/scorning or simply stating the focus on the silly matters are not a gifted sign, more uninteresting and display of digressing motives on the subject.
Of course depending on how the "stating of the obvious" is conducted.
[/B]

Translation: "Don't point out the flaws in my nice, shiny theory!"

 

[jmercer]

Yes quite so Jmercer

Ooo, nicely done. I should have phrased things a bit differently. Of course, we both know I was writing about your rationalizations, but still - nice turn of phrase.

 

[Jono]

Kookbreaker, I do hear you
But let me try something first ok, what do you make of this below??

"VERITAS- Let me suggest a parallel situation. You have a sturdy boat, but there are a number of leaks in it. Do you set to sea with only a few of the leaks repaired, so that you have to turn back and fix a few more when you begin to sink? If you repair all the leaks, right from the beginning, your voyage is completed efficiently and safely. You don't have to go back to port repeatedly to do what you knew from the start you would have to do.

"RANDI - Cute metaphor, but inappropriate as stated. We "don't have to go back to port" - on the contrary, each experiment takes us further on the journey. The "leaks" that are discovered in well prepared ship are easily patched as the ship takes its journey. Discovery is a learning process."

 

[kookbreaker]

Kookbreaker, I do hear you
But let me try something first ok, what do you make of this below??

"VERITAS- Let me suggest a parallel situation. You have a sturdy boat, but there are a number of leaks in it. Do you set to sea with only a few of the leaks repaired, so that you have to turn back and fix a few more when you begin to sink? If you repair all the leaks, right from the beginning, your voyage is completed efficiently and safely. You don't have to go back to port repeatedly to do what you knew from the start you would have to do.

"RANDI - Cute metaphor, but inappropriate as stated. We "don't have to go back to port" - on the contrary, each experiment takes us further on the journey. The "leaks" that are discovered in well prepared ship are easily patched as the ship takes its journey. Discovery is a learning process."

What do I make of it? Well, for one thing you've got Randi's and Schwartz's comments backwards. Randi said the first part (mislabelled VERITAS) and I think Schwartz wrote the second (mislabeled as RANDI)

Was that your point? Was this a test to see if I'd not object to something written by Schwartz if you labeled it "RANDI"? It would seem so, given your "let me try something" comment up above.

If so, you were remarkably clumsy. You must understand that, unlike you, I am familiar with who said what in this controversy!! Heck, even a simple check of this website finds Randi original quote:

http://www.randi.org/jr/03-30-2001.html