• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

The Afterlife Experiments

Pal2

Scholar
P
Joined
Feb 7, 2006
Messages
124
Hi all

I'm a regular on Derek Acorahs forum and concider myself an openminded sceptic. I won't to get both sides to the debate so i thought i'd ask here.

Has anyone read the book The Afterlife Experiments: Breakthrough Scientific Evidence of Life After Death by Gary Schwartz? If so what did you think? Was it good factually or are there gaps in his experiments with those mediums?

Any comments? Anything i might have missed. :)

Cheers

Paul
 
Monty Python said:
Good evening. Tonight on 'Is There' we examine the question, 'Is there a life after death?'. And here to discuss it are three dead people... The late Sir Brian Hardacre, former curator of the Imperial War Museum ... the late Professor Thynne, until recently an academic, critic, and broadcaster ... and putting the view of the Church of England, the very late Prebendary Reverend Ross. Gentlemen, is there a life after death or not? Sir Brian? (silence) Professor? ... Prebendary?.... Well there we have it, three say no.
Click to expand...
:)
 
Good evening. Tonight on 'Is There' we examine the question, 'Is there a life after death?'. And here to discuss it are three dead people... The late Sir Brian Hardacre, former curator of the Imperial War Museum ... the late Professor Thynne, until recently an academic, critic, and broadcaster ... and putting the view of the Church of England, the very late Prebendary Reverend Ross. Gentlemen, is there a life after death or not? Sir Brian? (silence) Professor? ... Prebendary?.... Well there we have it, three say no
Click to expand...

Arguments? Next door along. :D
Brilliant quote PixyMisa!
 
It's a load of flapdoodle which is indefensible coming from someone with a Harvard PhD. Schwartz is an intentional deceiver.

Have you read it? Are there any parts you find convincing? I can try to dig up some of the detailed criticisms I have done on it. Others here have also discussed it. If memory serves, you can also search skepticreport for a criticism.

And in case I haven't made my position clear: The Afterlife Experiments is bulls***. Utterly. Without redeeming value. And Schwartz is a liar.
 
Pal2 said:
Hi all

I'm a regular on Derek Acorahs forum and concider myself an openminded sceptic. I won't to get both sides to the debate so i thought i'd ask here.

Has anyone read the book The Afterlife Experiments: Breakthrough Scientific Evidence of Life After Death by Gary Schwartz? If so what did you think? Was it good factually or are there gaps in his experiments with those mediums?

Any comments? Anything i might have missed. :)

Cheers

Paul
Click to expand...

I've read it. It's a load of crock. Despite what the book claims, there is not a shred of scientific evidence of an afterlife in it. There is, however, plenty of evidence of how kooky Schwartz is.

To see how kooky Schwartz has become, read this.
 
Ah, the departed hypothesized co-investigator. That has to be one of the classic absurdities in all of woowoodom. The entire Veritas Research Program is a farce.

~~ Paul
 
Paul C. Anagnostopoulos said:
Ah, the departed hypothesized co-investigator. That has to be one of the classic absurdities in all of woowoodom. The entire Veritas Research Program is a farce.
Click to expand...

I couldn't believe it, when I first heard about this departed hypothesized co-investigator.

I still can't.
 
Dr. Schwartz is the greatest single reason why tenure should be seriously reevaluated.

It is inconcieveable to me how a person could make the mistakes that he makes unless he is engaging in fraud.
 
Ed said:
Dr. Schwartz is the greatest single reason why tenure should be seriously reevaluated.

It is inconcieveable to me how a person could make the mistakes that he makes unless he is engaging in fraud.
Click to expand...

I hate to agree with you, but, yeah, you are right. This freedom is one of the most basic in a free society.

I am not saying that tenure should be abolished, but we have to think of ways to avoid this. This is definitely an abuse of the tenure system.
 
Paul C. Anagnostopoulos said:
Maybe he's just utterly bananas?
Click to expand...

I don't know. It is one of my major issues with the woos.

How can they believe such utter nonsense, and still be able to tie their shoelaces? How can they continue to function in an otherwise normal capacity?

If you believe that, at any given moment, an alien can beam you through the wall, how can you go about your normal daily routine? Why are you not paralyzed with perpetual fear?
 
Because no aliens actually beam people through walls, so behind the apparent paranoia is the realization that it doesn't matter. It's a "safe paranoia."

~~ Paul
 
Paul C. Anagnostopoulos said:
Because no aliens actually beam people through walls, so behind the apparent paranoia is the realization that it doesn't matter. It's a "safe paranoia."
Click to expand...

But this is not what the claimants claim. We have to go with what they actually claim.

How can they function? Why aren't they perpetually paralyzed with fear?
 
One of the best summaries of that specific book was done by the Ray Hyman in the Skeptical Inquirer in the winter of 2003.

Critiquing the Afterlife Experiments


A few samples:
In August 2001, Schwartz assembled a panel of seven experts on cold reading, including me, to instruct him on the topic. We were shown videotapes of Suzane Northrup and John Edward giving readings in his laboratory. Most members of the panel were openly sympathetic to Schwartz's goals and program. Yet we all agreed that what we saw Northrup and Edward doing was no different from what we would expect from any cold reader.
Click to expand...

I will list here the major types of flaws in the experiments described in his first four reports :
Click to expand...
  1. Inappropriate control comparisons
  2. Inadequate precautions against fraud and sensory leakage
  3. Reliance on non-standardized, untested dependent variables
  4. Failure to use double-blind procedures
  5. Inadequate "blinding" even in what he calls "single blind" experiments
  6. Failure to independently check on facts the sitters endorsed as true
  7. Use of plausibility arguments to substitute for actual controls
The preceding list refers to defects in the conduct of the experiments and in the gathering of the data. Other very serious problems appear in the way Schwartz interprets and presents the results of his research. These include:
  1. The confusion of exploratory with confirmatory findings
  2. The calculation of conditional probabilities that are inappropriate and grossly misleading
  3. Creating non-falsifiable outcomes by reinterpreting failures as successes
  4. Inflating significance levels by failing to adjust for multiple testing and by treating unplanned comparisons as if they were planned.
Click to expand...
The "accuracy" score for the medium, as calculated by the experimenters, depends critically on the sitter's ratings. This allows subjective validation and uncontrolled rater biases to enter the picture on the side of the mediums.
Click to expand...
Lots more there. Turns out the Afterlife Experiments are not quite the slam dunk that Schwarz touts.
 
Here is what Schwartz has to say about Hyman:

When someone experiences repeated emotional trauma, this can lead to PTSD: post-traumatic stress disorder. What happens when a whole culture experiences repeated conditioned emotional conditioning to certrain ideas? Do we develop a PESD: post-educational stress disorder?

Thoughtful skeptics who are serious scientists are beginning to ask the same quetion. Professor Ray Hyman, one of the most distinguished academic skeptics, has told me, "I do not have control over my beliefs." He had learned from childhood that paranormal events are impossible. Today he finds himself amazed that even in the face of compelling theory and convincing scientific data, his beliefs have not changed. His repeated disappointments with past genuine frauds prevent him from accepting genuine science today.
(The Afterlife Experiments, p.224)
Click to expand...

Dishonest? You bet.
 
Tai Chi said:
Do you have anything that is peer reviewed?
Click to expand...
As nothing in The Afterlife Experiments is peer-reviewed (a hallmark of wooism--go straight to the popular woo book market and sidestep peer-reviewed journals) the answer is obviously no.

As Schwartz has decided to lay his case before laymen as opposed to before scientists, then he (and you) can expect layment to criticize it.

Or are you suggesting that Nature will publish an review about something not peer-reviewed, assuming a scientist would write and submit it?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom