The "Process" of John Edward

Clancie said:
But what does my mistake have to do with Lurker? :confused: Lurker confused Skeptic and Skeptical Inquirer. So what? I think its a very unpleasant tactic to somehow interject me (a "woo woo") into the mix and use my goof to somehow impugn someone else's credibility as a skeptic for a much less significant error--one totally unrelated to mine in any way.

Really, tarring someone with the taint of so-called "woo-wooism" just for being confused about which skeptic magazine he saw a Randi article in...I don't like my name used that way, Bill. What a cheap shot. :( [/B]
Click to expand...

I said his mistake grouped him with you in making a similar mistake. If you view that as "tarring", I'm not sure what to say. Now I hope that the further implications are not true. I mean, I hope Lurker really is a skeptic and not a wolf in sheep's clothing. But that would only be demonstrated by evincing an ability to self-correct in the face of evidence.

Which segues nicely back to the topic of this thread and the question of why you continue to digress onto issues of fairness and reputation and credibility and personality. And whine and whine and whine. How about we talk about the issue?

For example, where is this other LKL transcript? Please provide the link. I would be interested to add its data to the data already accrued, and see if the same "J" skewing shows.

Cheers,
 
Steve,

Are you sure that Shermer was a member of CSICOP? I thought so, but can't find anything to support it.

On the other hand, Jaroff (like Randi) was one of the founders of CSICOP. So...definitely strong connections with Randi & O'Neill, CSICOP, Jaroff.
Posted by Steve Grenard

After the TIME article appeared, Shermer, in his own editorial in The Skeptic bragged how it first appeared in his magazine. Perhaps this is what Clanci remembers.

Shermer also used the O'Neill comments it in his regular monthly column in Scientific American, crediting Randi with having received the e-mail.
Click to expand...

Thanks, Steve. I think you're exactly right that that was where my confusion came in as to Shermer's connection with it all.

Glad that's straightened out! :)

(And, yes, it is really strange to me, too, that so much was made of O'Neill's account...but no follow up--and nothing, really, made of the information that JE brought through for him that day. After all, the content of the reading seems the most obvious thing to attack to me, don't you think?).
 
T'ai Chi said:
So I worded it in a way that you think could have been worded better, even though there is no contradiction. That's great. Now that that is settled, could you please get back on topic here.[/b]
Oh, settled? Really? But no answer either here or in the original thread about your strange epistemic claim?
I've stated several times to only consider the high frequency letters for a chi-square analysis. That leaves about 6 "intervals". I defined high frequency to mean letters where n*frequency of that letter > 5, to avoid that problem. I wrote that out several times, and you can scroll back to read it if you'd like.
Click to expand...
No, I saw that, T'ai. I was addressing your first proposed approach of analyzing the entire alphabet.
Whenever I ask for a rational for choosing the Poisson, all I get is that we are studying counts. How do we know that J counts are distributed as a Poisson, Bill? What does just examining the J counts tell us? Aren't there other letters that are important? As you know, there are statistical problems with doing that single-letter test many times. Are you interested in other letters, or just the J?
T'ai, go back to the hypotheses. I proposed that we distinguish between the letters being truly random and the letters showing cold-reading I specifically hypothesisized that the most frequent letters would be the focal point for a cold reader. Remember the aim of a cold reader is to appear to be right often enough to fool the audience. Would he pick a lot of "Z"s.? Clearly, no. Would he necessarily know the exact distributions of frequencies? Some might, but, clearly, not necessarily. Our most likely candidate, then, to show the skew would be the most frequent intial. According to the Census bureau, that would be "J". And the data show JE used "J" significantly more frequently than would be expected by random chance.
I am interested in ways to analyze JE's letter counts. I'm not interested in questions that get this thread away from that specfic topic. I already know under what conditions percentages can be compared, etc.
Click to expand...
I'm really intrigued by someone who claims to be interested in the knowledge domain, and claims to be interested in the question at hand, and yet doesn't want to examine any flawed proposals. Did you forget that the flawed percentage comparison was proffered as evidence about the data? As a scientist, I would think you would be interested. As a statistician, I would think you would be interested. Whatever.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Clancie said:
Are you sure that Shermer was a member of CSICOP? I thought so, but can't find anything to support it.

On the other hand, Jaroff (like Randi) was one of the founders of CSICOP. So...definitely strong connections with Randi & O'Neill, CSICOP, Jaroff.

Thanks, Steve. I think you're exactly right that that was where my confusion came in as to Shermer's connection with it all.

Glad that's straightened out! :)[/b]
Click to expand...
Oh, yeah! Of course! That explains it.

Oh, but wait, Clancie. What are O'Neill's "strong connections" to CSICOP? Oh, man, not again, Clancie!
(And, yes, it is really strange to me, too, that so much was made of O'Neill's account...but no follow up--and nothing, really, made of the information that JE brought through for him that day. After all, the content of the reading seems the most obvious thing to attack to me, don't you think?).
Click to expand...
Speaking of follow-up Clancie, not a peep out of you about this. I repeat the post now for your dining and dancing pleasure:
Clancie,

Perhaps you can help us out here. I read your post thoroughly, and have found numerous problems with it. Something seems a bit awry with your facts. Below is a handful of your claims and excerpts from Leon Jaroff’s article. Please consider each pair a question requiring an answer, and please either:
o address the question, providing either a retraction or evidence of your claim, or
o state that, despite the evidence to the contrary, you still wish to believe what you claimed, or
o state that you refuse to answer.

I will number them for your convenience.I will also color them for you, in this fashion: Clancie, Jaroff I have also included one of my own corrections to a clear factual error. This will be in normal color.


“It looks very much like JE did an excellent reading for the skeptical O'Neill and it didn't fit into O'Neill's worldview so he's looking elsewhere (hidden mikes) to try to explain it.”

”Michael O'Neill, a New York City marketing manager, had no preconceived notions about Edward but experienced what he is convinced was a "hot reading"--a variation on the cold reading in which the medium takes advantage of information surreptitiously gathered in advance.

”What he didn't mention, however, is anything about the poor content of JE's reading. After all, O'Neill was read right there on CO that day. Why doesn't he talk about the information JE gave him?”

”While many of those messages seemed to O'Neill to be clearly off base, Edward made a few correct "hits," mystifying everyone by dropping family names and facts he could not possibly have known.”

”I find it really strange that he emailed all his suspicions to CSICOP, but didn't even try to debunk JE based on the content of the reading he got from him.

"O'Neill emailed Shermer his list of speculations to "show" that JE was a fake."

"Meanwhile, O'Neill e-mailed his suspicions to the James Randi Educational Foundation in Fort Lauderdale, Fla., where the Amazing Randi, a magician and skeptic, had been tracking Edward's career."

Please note that Shermer is not with CSICOP, and that, therefore your two quotes about emails above are not merely dead wrong (because O’Neill emailed Randi), but are absolutely contradictory.
Click to expand...

Answers, please? Add to these the "strong connections" claim, please.

Cheers,
 
Walter Wayne said:
I don't see what we can proove with this statistical test.

If J is the most common initial, it makes sense for a cold reader to litter his guesses with the initial J. It would also make sense that, if he were a medium, that the ghost's contacting him would most likely the initial J.

If he never guesses Asian names (I'm an X, like Xhizen or ...) it could be because:
1. As a cold reader he notices few Asians in his audience.
2. As a medium, Asian ghosts don't contact him because they go to the same mediums that Aisans go to.
3. Asian ghosts attend the taping, but remain quiet when they don't see they buddies there.

Can somebody propose a result to a statistical analysis of his guesses (not hits and misses) that would be indicticative of cold reading vs. mediumship.

The method of cold reading that yields the highest number of hits is to guess the most common initial everytime. The reason cold readers don't use this tactic is because it would be to obvious to the audience. So they try to pepper they guesses with other letters as well to through them off.

Walt
Click to expand...

Walt,

I agree with your description of cold reading. But I'm a little perplexed at your request. Exactly that analysis is what we're talking about. No hits or misses, just frequencies of initials guesse versus their frequencies in the population at large.

Cheers,
 
Clanci: (And, yes, it is really strange to me, too, that so much was made of O'Neill's account...but no follow up--and nothing, really, made of the information that JE brought through for him that day. After all, the content of the reading seems the most obvious thing to attack to me, don't you think?).

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The lack of any details in the O'Neill account is mind boggling. There are clues, however, which we have discussed to distraction and beyond before and I don't want to completely derail this thread even though both subjects involve JE.

1. O'Neill says JE got multiple hits but prefaces these with the word "guess." But since we dont know what these hits were we don't know how good or how easy a guess they were. Pure opinion.

2. O'Neill says he saw a van of 15 ringers arrive in the studio and he tracked each of them so carefully he was able to say that when they got inside they were all seated separately from each other. Presumably he kept careful watch on these ringers during the whole 4 hours he was there.

I am wondering: if there were 15 ringers why did O'Neill get read instead of these 15? Was O'Neill a ringer and didn't realize it?
O'Neill never says one of these people he tracked so carefully to
their separate seats had been read at all.

3. O'Neill says there were hidden microphones. If they were hidden how did he know they existed? I was there. I saw plenty of mics, its a TV studio but none of them were "hidden." There had to be a hundred mics hanging from the ceiling to record applause and ambient sound.

4. O'Neill says that production staff tending the crowd listened to everything everyone said, implying they'd report back who said what and then where they were seated or what they looked like. But oh yes, the staff also told everyone to keep very quiet.
Geez, weren't the hidden mics working well that day?

5. And finally the only item of substance making a case for illicit editing was O'Neill's claim his head nod response to one thing was used to make something else JE said look like it was true. But, of course, O'Neill doesn't tell us what that was.

6. Why didn't Jaroff or Shermer, both of whom used Randi's account of what O'Neill said ... check out O'Neill for themselves?

Shermer was a member of CSICOP and a friend of Randi's when Randi and CSICOP parted ways, probably over the lawsuits which cost CSICOP a pretty penny in legal fees. I don't think Shermer had any high profile role in the organization compared to Randi, however. Up to a year or so ago, even though these lawsuits by now were quite old, CSICOP still was appealing for contributions to its legal defense fund. I seem to recall something like $50K needed to finish paying these off.

Clearly Shermer established the Skeptic Society, a rival of CSICOP and The Skeptic, a competitor of CSICOP's Skeptical Inquirer.

Clearly Randi writes a regular column feature for Shermer's Skeptic magazine.

Clearly Randi first quotes the e-mai he got from O'Neill in Shermer's magazine.

Clearly Jaroff was given these quotes by Randi (also mentioned separately in Jaroff's piece) to use in TIME.

After this Shermer Clearly bragged that these most important quotes first appeared in HIS magazine. He also repeats them in
his SciAm column.

The Jaroff article was the subject of a multi-person panel LKL segment. Jaroff and Randi by remote faced off JE sitting next to LKL in LKL's studio. I dont remember the other panel members--
maybe Kutz (CSICOP) and even Shermer.

Randi, Jaroff and Shermer, following the above beehive of activity
all of which coincided precisely with Crossing Over's roll out into syndication, then never mentioned O'Neill again.

However O'Neill gets quoted over and over again by uncritical skeptic thinkers who believe the acccount proves JE is a fake.
Its about the worst evidence and pile of rubbish most of us have ever seen as an attempt to debunk a medium.
 
BillHoyt said:

No, I saw that, T'ai. I was addressing your first proposed approach of analyzing the entire alphabet.
Click to expand...


It is what came to my mind right away. It certainly wasn't my final thoughts on the matter. Just like your 11.05 obviously wasn't your final thought..
In my first post, I also had caveats, like np>5. In my second post, I realized that np>5 obviously wouldn't be satisfied for our sample size and probably never for letters like x and z, so I suggested considering only high frequency letters (a, c, d, j, m, r).


I'm really intrigued by someone who claims to be interested in the knowledge domain, and claims to be interested in the question at hand, and yet doesn't want to examine any flawed proposals. Did you forget that the flawed percentage comparison was proffered as evidence about the data? As a scientist, I would think you would be interested. As a statistician, I would think you would be interested. Whatever.
Click to expand...

I guess I'm not interested in discussing flawed proposals. I wonder why.


Our most likely candidate, then, to show the skew would be the most frequent intial. According to the Census bureau, that would be "J". And the data show JE used "J" significantly more frequently than would be expected by random chance.
Click to expand...


What do you suggest for analyzing more than one letter at a time, or do you think that that isn't necessary?
 
T'ai,

You have ignored a question I would like answered. Here it is again:

"I'm also puzzled that you don't see the relevance of the superpowers comment to the topic at hand. It is, in fact, essential, I think, to further correspondence with you."

This comment pertains to these discussions, I'm afraid. Why do feel we need to test each person for "superpowers" before we can confidently say "nobody has superpowers". How does this square with being either a "geophysicist" or a "statistician."

Cheers,
 
Well, Bill...let me make it clearer. Connections between...Randi and O'Neill (via email)...Randi and CSICOP (Randi, a founding member)....Randi and Jaroff (both founding members of CSICOP, Jaroff has written articles about Randi and, as you mentioned--along with JE--Randi emailed Jaroff the O'Neill information so he could write about it for TIME). I'd say that's all pretty "interconnected".

As for Shermer, I've already explained I was in error and clarified it.

(1) Q: It looks very much like JE did an excellent reading for the skeptical O'Neill and it didn't fit into O'Neill's worldview so he's looking elsewhere (hidden mikes) to try to explain it.”

A: My deduction, Bill, from the absence of comment on the content of O'Neill's reading (about his grandfather).

The fact he suspects "hot reading" (i.e. correct information, correct because it was researched in advance) lends credence, imo, to the idea that the reading was good. (Also, Underdown feels JE doesn't hot read on CO, according to those who have read his article--as well as in an email I have from him. You might think about that....)

(2) Q: Please note that Shermer is not with CSICOP, and that, therefore your two quotes about emails above are not merely dead wrong (because O’Neill emailed Randi), but are absolutely contradictory.

A: I stand corrected, as I've said already, Bill. As Steve mentioned, Randi wrote about it and Shermer referred to the article. O'Neill had emailed Randi...and Randi sent the email to CSICOP member (and TIME writer) Leon Jaroff.

(I am responding to your reprint above. I don't know if the original, with its "color coding" had different questions or not). I believe this answers everything above, plus clarifying for you what I meant by "strong connections" between Randi and the other three that I listed.

Steve also has clarified this in more detail for you above--about both O'Neill and Randi (except I'll add one caveat: It was Jaroff and Paul Kurtz from CSICOP--not Randi or Shermer--who were on Larry King Live for the mediumship panel discussion. Also I still haven't seen where Shermer actually is or was a member of CSICOP, although it may be so; I don't know. :p).
 
BillHoyt said:
T'ai,

You have ignored a question I would like answered. Here it is again:

"I'm also puzzled that you don't see the relevance of the superpowers comment to the topic at hand. It is, in fact, essential, I think, to further correspondence with you."

This comment pertains to these discussions, I'm afraid. Why do feel we need to test each person for "superpowers" before we can confidently say "nobody has superpowers". How does this square with being either a "geophysicist" or a "statistician."

Cheers,
Click to expand...

It's not about me, it is about choosing an appropriate statistical analysis. I'm only sticking to directly relevant topics here, and I'm not paying attention to all the rest. I haven't ignored your question; I've read it and chose to not answer it. Fortunately, everyone has that right. :kiss:

Your statement on my philosophy of science as a geophysicist(not applicable yet because I am currently not employeed as one) or statistician are not even remotely around the topic of a specific analysis of JE's letter counts, and will not be answered either.

I'm not sure just how interested you can be in my answers anyway when you add a "Whatever." at the end of a question. :roll:

Anyway, has anybody done counts of JE's use of a, c, d, m, and r? If so, I'd like to get those results and see how an analysis of more than one high frequency letter turns out and see what conclusions we can draw from that. Ideally I'd like to try and work on a model where one could predict the occurance of JE saying a certain cause of death. Some factors could be age, gender, occupation, and several others. If one could build a model that could predict the cause of death with good results, it could be fun to use.
 
Clancie,

I see you've gone from debating mediumship to debating those who criticize mediumship. From debating the issues to attempts at mudslinging. It is also easier, I guess...

Clancie said:
Well, Bill...let me make it clearer. Connections between...Randi and O'Neill (via email)...Randi and CSICOP (Randi, a founding member)....Randi and Jaroff (both founding members of CSICOP, Jaroff has written articles about Randi and, as you mentioned--along with JE--Randi emailed Jaroff the O'Neill information so he could write about it for TIME). I'd say that's all pretty "interconnected".
Click to expand...

Well, count me in, Clancie. From this kind of reasoning, I am also "pretty interconnected" with Randi, CSICOP, Skeptic Magazine, Shermer, etc.

Clancie said:
A: My deduction, Bill, from the absence of comment on the content of O'Neill's reading (about his grandfather).
Click to expand...

Huh?? Can we similarly conclude that O'Neill found the solutions to all the problems in the world, from the absence of comment on those problems??? You cannot reason like this, Clancie.

Clancie said:
The fact he suspects "hot reading" (i.e. correct information, correct because it was researched in advance) lends credence, imo, to the idea that the reading was good. (Also, Underdown feels JE doesn't hot read on CO, according to those who have read his article--as well as in an email I have from him. You might think about that....)
Click to expand...

Clancie, you are clearly not capable of understanding English. I simply cannot understand how you can deduct that O'Neill got a good reading from JE. Didn't Steve confirm that one of O'Neill's answers had been changed to fit a different question? Why would that be necessary, if the reading was so good??

Why do you all of a sudden place more confidence in Underdown? Is that because he didn't find evidence of fraud? Does that mean it's not there?

Clancie said:
Steve also has clarified this in more detail for you above--about both O'Neill and Randi (except I'll add one caveat: It was Jaroff and Paul Kurtz from CSICOP--not Randi or Shermer--who were on Larry King Live for the mediumship panel discussion. Also I still haven't seen where Shermer actually is or was a member of CSICOP, although it may be so; I don't know. :p).
Click to expand...

Go find out before you claim something, Clancie. It is very tiresome pointing out your many mistakes.
 
Clanci:

When you have the time there is a lengthy and highly detailed article on the history of the current skeptical movement
by Michael Shermer. Rather than belabor and speculate on these issues to the distraction of this thread, anybody interested in this subject can find no more comprhensive as well as authoritative account of this subject:


A Quarter Century of Science, Pseudoscience and Skepticism

By Michael Shermer

http://www.physicspost.com/articles.php?articleId=13&page=1

(It also proves Michael Shermer was a CSICOP member quite early on; by the way you too and anybody who pays the dues can become a member also....)
 
Clancie said:
Well, Bill...let me make it clearer. Connections between...Randi and O'Neill (via email)...Randi and CSICOP (Randi, a founding member)....Randi and Jaroff (both founding members of CSICOP, Jaroff has written articles about Randi and, as you mentioned--along with JE--Randi emailed Jaroff the O'Neill information so he could write about it for TIME). I'd say that's all pretty "interconnected".
Click to expand...
My, my. This logic makes us connected. What a horrid thought.

As for Shermer, I've already explained I was in error and clarified it.

(1) Q: It looks very much like JE did an excellent reading for the skeptical O'Neill and it didn't fit into O'Neill's worldview so he's looking elsewhere (hidden mikes) to try to explain it.”

A: My deduction, Bill, from the absence of comment on the content of O'Neill's reading (about his grandfather).
Click to expand...
You and the facts are rarely friends. In fact, you rarely even correspond. I don't think you're connected (Clancie's lexicon) to the facts. Perhaps that even says there is a clear disconnect (Clancie's lexicon) here.

You see, Jaroff clearly says O'Neill had no preconceived notions going into the show. None. For some reason, you presume he had. There was no "worldview" about JE. Now, secondly, Jaroff also clearly states O'Neill DID comment on the content of the readings. Including his own. Did you even read the Jaroff article? Do you remember I gave you a link to it?

The fact he suspects "hot reading" (i.e. correct information, correct because it was researched in advance) lends credence, imo, to the idea that the reading was good. (Also, Underdown feels JE doesn't hot read on CO, according to those who have read his article--as well as in an email I have from him. You might think about that....)
Click to expand...
No inference needed, Clancie, if you'd only read the article. This is what skeptics do, dear, they investigate. They read read read read. With woos, ya buy em books and ya buy em books and all they do is chew on the covers. Please stop chewing on the covers. Its unbecoming.

(2) Q: Please note that Shermer is not with CSICOP, and that, therefore your two quotes about emails above are not merely dead wrong (because O’Neill emailed Randi), but are absolutely contradictory.

A: I stand corrected, as I've said already, Bill. As Steve mentioned, Randi wrote about it and Shermer referred to the article. O'Neill had emailed Randi...and Randi sent the email to CSICOP member (and TIME writer) Leon Jaroff.
Click to expand...
Thank you, Clancie.
 
T'ai Chi said:
It's not about me, it is about choosing an appropriate statistical analysis. I'm only sticking to directly relevant topics here, and I'm not paying attention to all the rest. I haven't ignored your question; I've read it and chose to not answer it. Fortunately, everyone has that right.

Your statement on my philosophy of science as a geophysicist(not applicable yet because I am currently not employeed as one) or statistician are not even remotely around the topic of a specific analysis of JE's letter counts, and will not be answered either.

I'm not sure just how interested you can be in my answers anyway when you add a "Whatever." at the end of a question. :roll:
Click to expand...
Yes, you have the right not to answer a question. And thank for stating clearly that you refuse. (That is one of the ground rules for JREF, BTW).

The problem here is that question is directly relevant to the question at hand. I can only assume your statement evinces a fundamental problem you have with statistical techniques and the techniques of science. It speaks to a bizarre epistemology wherein we are not allowed to reach any conclusions about any class of things until and unless we have tested each and every member of that class. That you can't see relevance to the question at hand is quite interesting.

You claim you are a statistician. Yet you claim the methods of statistics cannot yield the answers that statistical theory says they can yield. Why should I have further discussions about appropriate tests when you apparently think none are appropriate? You said we cannot state nobody has superpowers unless we have tested each person. If continued analysis of JE readings continues to show evidence of cold reading, will you simply fall back to your bizarre and, as yet, unexplained, claim?


Anyway, has anybody done counts of JE's use of a, c, d, m, and r? If so, I'd like to get those results and see how an analysis of more than one high frequency letter turns out and see what conclusions we can draw from that. Ideally I'd like to try and work on a model where one could predict the occurance of JE saying a certain cause of death. Some factors could be age, gender, occupation, and several others. If one could build a model that could predict the cause of death with good results, it could be fun to use.
Click to expand...
Let me spell this out to you, T'ai. Your ideas about science and statistics are an issue, whether you want them to be or not. I conclude from your bizarre claim about the necessity for exhaustive testing, that the years of statistical training you claim were for naught. You cannot understand the methods of statistical inference and stand by the claimed need to test each person before you state there are no superpowers. You need to explain this.

Now, you have refused to answer the question, which is your right, but I refuse to discuss anything more about testing until you clarify this point. It is completely relevant to the topic here. This topic IS about superpowers and it IS about what is required to draw conclusiions from tests of supposed superpowers.

Cheers,
 
Here's a snippet from Jaroff's opinion piece on JE appearing in TIME on March 5, 2001. This is ALL of what Jaroff
used where O'Neill is concerned which differs from the material supplied by Shermer (see link below) or Randi in his column in The Skeptic.

"Michael O'Neill, a New York City marketing manager, had no preconceived notions about Edward but experienced what he is convinced was a "hot reading"--a variation on the cold reading in which the medium takes advantage of information surreptitiously gathered in advance. Given an extra ticket by family members hoping to hear from his deceased grandfather, O'Neill attended a performance and was singled out by Edward, who received what he claimed were communications sent directly from the dead grandfather. While many of those messages seemed to O'Neill to be clearly off base, Edward made a few correct "hits," mystifying everyone by dropping family names and facts he could not possibly have known. It was not until weeks after the performance, when O'Neill saw the show on TV, that he began to suspect chicanery. Clips of him nodding yes had been spliced into the videotape after statements with which he remembers disagreeing. In addition, says O'Neill, most of Edward's "misses," both on him and other audience members, had been edited out of the final tape. Now suspicious, O'Neill recalled that while the audience was waiting to be seated, Edward's aides were scurrying about, striking up conversations and getting people to fill out cards with their name, family tree and other facts. Once inside the auditorium, where each family was directed to preassigned seats, more than an hour passed before show time while "technical difficulties" backstage were corrected. And what did most of the audience--drawn by the prospect of communicating with their departed relatives--talk about during the delays? Those departed relatives, of course. These conversations, O'Neill suspects, may have been picked up by the microphones strategically placed around the auditorium and then passed on to the medium. (A spokesperson for Crossing Over would say only that Edward does not respond to criticism.)

Meanwhile, O'Neill e-mailed his suspicions to the James Randi Educational Foundation in Fort Lauderdale, Fla., where the Amazing Randi, a magician and skeptic, had been tracking Edward's career."


However, the account given by Shermer which is now on the front page of his website differs from Jaroff's in that
it includes the additional details of O'Neill's e-mail to Randi (as supplied to Shermer by Randi). This can be found
at: http://www.skeptic.com/.

Its called "Deconstructing the Dead....."

So in discussing O'Neill, it is important not to just look at Jaroff's version but also at Shermer's as well as Randi's (In The Skeptic column) for the complete picture including the items that were
disputable such as the van of 15 ringers or "multiple GUESS hits"
etc.
 
I found one LKL transcript from 1998 and collected together JE's initials (same rules I used before). In this one, there were a total of 50 names/initials thrown out by JE, of which 10 were "J"s. That makes the grand totals 28 "J"s in 135 total names/initials. We'd expect to see 18.036 "J"s with this population size. The chances of seeing 28 or more come in at p=.018.

Cheers,
 
originally posted by BillHoyt:
You see, Jaroff clearly says O'Neill had no preconceived notions going into the show. None. For some reason, you presume he had. There was no "worldview" about JE.
Click to expand...

I find it amazing how anecdotal evidence, when it supports what BillHoyt et. al. wants to hear, suddenly becomes quite acceptable as evidence. What a joke!

Oh, well, if Jaroff clearly says that O'Neill had no preconceived notions going into the show, well, hey! Forgive us for ever doubting, oh skeptical one! :roll: ....neo
 
What's interesting about Jaroff's assertion that O'Neill claims to have had no pre-conceived notions is that this aspect of O'Neill's experience did not appear in Shermer or Randi's account. Was this merely rhetoric? Fill? Or was this actually stated by O'Neill in his e-mail to Randi? We don't see this as quotes but rather in the form of paraphrasing or editorial introduction by Jaroff.

Jaroff never says he spoke with or interviewed O'Neill. Neither does Shermer. The only original account seems to be the material pulled by Randi from the e-mail O'Neill sent. Of course we have no way of knowing which writer chose which items in that e-mail to expound on or if Shermer or Jaroff had actually seen it. They do not say they did and in every case they reference it to Randi.

I frankly don't see what difference it makes regarding O'Neill's preconceived notions if he had any. JE in his own literature tells people not to come to the experience with expectations or preconveived notions so was this remark merely following the
instructions? Generally this kind of admonition refers to not expecting anything, rather than not to be skeptical. And clearly if one has deeply rooted, ingrained worldviews as Clanci implied , the inherent bias is there whether you protest its presence or not. If one has a worldview, something much larger than a mere preconceived notion, that does not allow for what JE does, and then JE provides that person with information he could not have possibly known, it is obvious that the recipient of that inmformation, in response to their worldview, will start poking around for things to explain it. In the O'Neill's case, he seems to rely heavily on his own theory of being overheard or eaves-dropped by mics. But does O'Neill come out and say what JE told him was discussed within earshot of staff or mics beforehand? No.
This typifies what makes O'Neill's account so frustratingly nonsensical and so impossible to confirm. It is given a lot more importance than it deserves considering this.

None of O'Neills remarks, especially the details given not by Jaroff but rather by Shermer and Randi himself (in The Skeptic) makes any sense in the cold light of day.
 
neofight said:


I find it amazing how anecdotal evidence, when it supports what BillHoyt et. al. wants to hear, suddenly becomes quite acceptable as evidence. What a joke!

Oh, well, if Jaroff clearly says that O'Neill had no preconceived notions going into the show, well, hey! Forgive us for ever doubting, oh skeptical one! :roll: ....neo
Click to expand...

When will you ever overcome your cargo cult mentality. You have the words, the form, but none of the substance. You simply don't get what is wrong about anecdotal evidence. Neither do you get what just happened here and how that is not anecdotal evidence that I am presenting.

I am responding to Clancie's specious claim about O'Neill's "worldview". She has made it multiple times on JREF. She presumes O'Neill had a skeptical worldview. Newsflash, neo: THERE IS NO EVIDENCE FOR THAT Update, neo: JAROFF REPORTS THAT O'NEILL SAYS HE "HAD NO PRECONCEIVED NOTIONS ABOUT" JE

My exact words were "Jaroff clearly says O'Neill", etc.

Now where is your evidence that O'Neill had a "worldview" about JE? Where is Clancie's evidence that O'Neill had a "worldview"? All we have is what O'Neill says he had, as reported by his various correspondents.

Not to worry, though, neo, your bamboo logic will make a good bonfire tonight.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom