The "Process" of John Edward
- Thread starter CFLarsen
- Start date
-
- Tags
- john edward
Someone could say, "Je is a fake! Prove to me he is real!" Someone else could counter, "Je is real! Prove that he is a fake"!
The burden of proof is to fall upon those who make the out of the ordinary, spectacular claim. Or so goes the reasoning. However, I don't think any of us want to fall into this viscous cycle of arguing.
We know THIS much: Crossing-Over is taped, editted.l We don't know anything about the gallery members. We know a lot of them are from his hometown of New York, We don't know who all is included in the disclaimers 'third parties'. We DO know that: Je has been plying his trade for about 18? years and he has gotten good at what he does....whatever it is that he is doing exactly. Otherwise, he wouldn't be on tv! He has been tested, along with a hand-picked group of other psychic-mediums by a Dr. Schwartz at the University of Arizona, and the picture painted of THAT one test sheds somewhat favorable light on his ability (although his tests have been deemd flawed by others, including James Randi himself)
If you really want to know the truth about someone, you have to investigate everything about the person. I don't think anybody has really taken the time to do this.
What if I told you that David Blaine really DOES levitate. What if I told you I saw him do it, in the flesh. What if I claimed that he wasn't turned to the side...that I saw him directly from the rear, levitate both feet off the ground. What would you say to me, other than, "Prooooove it!!!" What it really takes is some indepth research. Has anybody bothered to research David Blaine? Suuure, there was this CLAIM that David used that 'trick' where he turned sideways. Well, if he DID, then the giggly/spooked girls on the sidewalk who witnessed him levitate from the rear, were lying...or, the filming was dubbed. All this talk though is speculation...for and against David Blaine. Has anyone read an in depth report of him in say, the New York Times?
The botton line with these tv showmen, including John Edward, is that there is simply a lot of talk, and not enough truth seeking research.
Personally? I think the shows disclaimer pretty much buries him. I believe there could have been just as legally a protective disclaimer where it says that due to the nature of the subjectmatter, it is difficult to know if the claims made are real or not. And that John Edward, the show, the producers, or third parties cannot be held liable for interpretations made by those being read, or the families and friends thereof, nor of the viewing opublic. But noooooo. They go and say that the show is for entertainment purposes only, and that third parties have been heavily relied upon, and that it is not intended to be a factual statement in any way whatsoever.
The burden of proof is to fall upon those who make the out of the ordinary, spectacular claim. Or so goes the reasoning. However, I don't think any of us want to fall into this viscous cycle of arguing.
We know THIS much: Crossing-Over is taped, editted.l We don't know anything about the gallery members. We know a lot of them are from his hometown of New York, We don't know who all is included in the disclaimers 'third parties'. We DO know that: Je has been plying his trade for about 18? years and he has gotten good at what he does....whatever it is that he is doing exactly. Otherwise, he wouldn't be on tv! He has been tested, along with a hand-picked group of other psychic-mediums by a Dr. Schwartz at the University of Arizona, and the picture painted of THAT one test sheds somewhat favorable light on his ability (although his tests have been deemd flawed by others, including James Randi himself)
If you really want to know the truth about someone, you have to investigate everything about the person. I don't think anybody has really taken the time to do this.
What if I told you that David Blaine really DOES levitate. What if I told you I saw him do it, in the flesh. What if I claimed that he wasn't turned to the side...that I saw him directly from the rear, levitate both feet off the ground. What would you say to me, other than, "Prooooove it!!!" What it really takes is some indepth research. Has anybody bothered to research David Blaine? Suuure, there was this CLAIM that David used that 'trick' where he turned sideways. Well, if he DID, then the giggly/spooked girls on the sidewalk who witnessed him levitate from the rear, were lying...or, the filming was dubbed. All this talk though is speculation...for and against David Blaine. Has anyone read an in depth report of him in say, the New York Times?
The botton line with these tv showmen, including John Edward, is that there is simply a lot of talk, and not enough truth seeking research.
Personally? I think the shows disclaimer pretty much buries him. I believe there could have been just as legally a protective disclaimer where it says that due to the nature of the subjectmatter, it is difficult to know if the claims made are real or not. And that John Edward, the show, the producers, or third parties cannot be held liable for interpretations made by those being read, or the families and friends thereof, nor of the viewing opublic. But noooooo. They go and say that the show is for entertainment purposes only, and that third parties have been heavily relied upon, and that it is not intended to be a factual statement in any way whatsoever.
TLN said:
Ouch, don't let some hear that! I got taken to task for even suggesting that science ain't done on television!!
Sure, will you help finance getting JE in a lab?
I'd rather analyze what I have access to. Since I can't get JE in a lab, it seems reasonable to analyze various transcripts. It certainly seems a more reasonable way to proceed than simply dismissing JE.
Thanks Ed, for pointing that out. But you have to keep in mind, that this board is becoming ever more popular (I think) and that more and more people are checking us out here. They maybe never heard about the testing. If they want, they could do a Google search on this, if they are interested.
Clancie said:
Hi, Clancie. Who the hell knows what he is claiming. I'm done with his nonsense for a while. I can't take him seriously, and I am tired of repeating things that I've posted over and over again, both here and elsewhere. He's a bore. Capital "B". Now there's an initial for ya! lol ......neo
Lucianarchy
Banned
- Joined
- Oct 28, 2001
- Messages
- 2,105
Iamme said:
Indeed. People must do their own research instead of having others do their thinking for them. Anyone can do a search and see that these experiments are far from debunked and that the evidence in total clearly favours survival
Lucianarchy said:
BS, Luci. You don't know science, you don't know analysis, you are one of the most credulous people on this board. Schwartz has been debunked so throughly that I wonder about your reading skills.
Incidentially. To newcomers. Luci never answers questions, makes really silly claims, repeats, repeats repeats. Be warned. Look up Claus' questions to him about some of his wackey statements, all of which remain unanswered.
Ratman_tf said:
If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, looks like a duck...
It might be a moose?
Poor argument in my opinion.
The bottom line is if you haven't done any scientific analysis, it is just your opinions and/or the opinions of your peer group.
Whodini,T'ai Chi said:
Occam's razor says otherwise, and quite decisively so. The research data must be supplied by the mediumship claimants, not by scientists. We have two simple alternative explanations when we see JE's pap on TV: he really can talk with the dead or its some sort of magic act. There is nothing JE or any medium has ever done that cannot be explained by cold-, warm- or hot-reading. There is, therefore, nothing that compels us to abandon all known science in favor of any hypothesis that introduces:
o souls
o soul transceivers inside some humans called mediums
o soul communications that are outside all known EMR spectra
o soul communications that disobey normal power laws
This argument is absolutely sound. It is incumbent upon believers to marshall evidence to the contrary.
Tom Paine said it:
If we are to suppose a miracle to be something so entirely out of the course of what is called nature, that she must go out of that course to accomplish it, and we see an account given of such a miracle by the person who said he saw it, it raises a question in the mind very easily decided, which is,--Is it more probable that nature should go out of her course, or that a man should tell a lie? We have never seen, in our time, nature go out of her course; but we have good reason to believe that millions of lies have been told in the same time; it is, therefore, at least millions to one, that the reporter of a miracle tells a lie.
I'd ask Luci or the other sockpuppet to responf specifically to the question Paine raises (in italics) but we know the do not. (I trust that newcomers are beginning to get a feel for their style)
Whoopsie, my bad. This is from The Age of Reason, Part 1. I strongly recommend that you at least peruse it.
If we are to suppose a miracle to be something so entirely out of the course of what is called nature, that she must go out of that course to accomplish it, and we see an account given of such a miracle by the person who said he saw it, it raises a question in the mind very easily decided, which is,--Is it more probable that nature should go out of her course, or that a man should tell a lie? We have never seen, in our time, nature go out of her course; but we have good reason to believe that millions of lies have been told in the same time; it is, therefore, at least millions to one, that the reporter of a miracle tells a lie.
I'd ask Luci or the other sockpuppet to responf specifically to the question Paine raises (in italics) but we know the do not. (I trust that newcomers are beginning to get a feel for their style)
Whoopsie, my bad. This is from The Age of Reason, Part 1. I strongly recommend that you at least peruse it.
SteveGrenard
Philosopher
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2002
- Messages
- 5,528
Paine: Most Valuable Englishman Ever
I didn't know ED was a devotee of Thomas Paine. Thomas Paine (1737-1809) The Most Valuable Englishman Ever
"If this title is correct, then why has hardly any English person ever heard of him? The answer to this question is incredibly simple, because 200 years ago this great free-thinking philosopher had the courage to tell the truth in a country that was run by a handful of political and religious tyrants who were making sure the masses were kept in ignorance."(M Roll)
Here are some favorite Paine websites for anyone interested in more on this forgotten philosopher:
http://www.cfpf.org.uk/articles/scientists/paine.html
http://www.cfpf.org.uk/recommended/video/tp_vid-en.html
www.thomaspaine.org
"The first goal for this site is to become the largest single archive of works on or about Thomas Paine on the World Wide Web. The second stage will see it become the most comprehensive ie. it will ultimately include everything that Paine is known to have written."
I didn't know ED was a devotee of Thomas Paine. Thomas Paine (1737-1809) The Most Valuable Englishman Ever
"If this title is correct, then why has hardly any English person ever heard of him? The answer to this question is incredibly simple, because 200 years ago this great free-thinking philosopher had the courage to tell the truth in a country that was run by a handful of political and religious tyrants who were making sure the masses were kept in ignorance."(M Roll)
Here are some favorite Paine websites for anyone interested in more on this forgotten philosopher:
http://www.cfpf.org.uk/articles/scientists/paine.html
http://www.cfpf.org.uk/recommended/video/tp_vid-en.html
www.thomaspaine.org
"The first goal for this site is to become the largest single archive of works on or about Thomas Paine on the World Wide Web. The second stage will see it become the most comprehensive ie. it will ultimately include everything that Paine is known to have written."
BillHoyt said:
Occam's Razor is a guideline, not a law. All Occam's Razor says is that if two theories, A and B, with number of assumptions, n and m, respectively, both explain event E equally well, it is a good idea to stick with theory A, only if n is less than m. Occam's Razor doesn't say which theory is correct, only that it is sensible to stick with theory A because it has less assumptions.
I agree. That is why we have to scientifically analyze the data, to come to one of those conclusions.
Yes, I agree. At the same time, us non-believers must scientifically analyze the data, not just list assumptions and say that JE is cold reading because of Occam's Razor.
Loki
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2001
- Messages
- 1,406
Lurker,
I still want to know why the dead spirit, so desparately keen to make themselves known to the sitter, decides to send through the name/initial of someone else! Surely, sending either the sitter or spirit's name would make far more sense? Apparently in the spirit world when a spirit meets another (new) spirit they introduce themselves as "Hi, nice to me you. I'm someone related to a person named Bob."
I don't think it's necessary to assume that JE has been doing statistical analysis of Census data to improve his success rate. It seems entirely possible to me that 18 years of "work experience" have simply given him a solid basis of "what works and what doesn't" in the name guessing game.
I still want to know why the dead spirit, so desparately keen to make themselves known to the sitter, decides to send through the name/initial of someone else! Surely, sending either the sitter or spirit's name would make far more sense? Apparently in the spirit world when a spirit meets another (new) spirit they introduce themselves as "Hi, nice to me you. I'm someone related to a person named Bob."
T'ai Chi said:
Because we have a finite amount of resources available to us?
Should every scientist, magician, and skeptic give up their 'day jobs' and go around testing every person who makes a paranormal claim? (There are a lot of them.)
Who will compel them to do this if the don't want to?
If you went around testing every proven assumption about the world (gravity, electricity, biology, sociology, mechanics, physics, etc, etc, etc...)before heading out to start your day, you'd never have the time to get anything done.
Loki said:
Yeah, and it's a good thing that all spirits immediately acquire a perfect command of English, too! As we have seen with psychic (sometime) medium, Brian Hurst, all dead people start speaking English - flawlessly.
Can you imagine the problems JE would be in, if dead people were speaking with an accent? Remember this exchange from the movie "French Kiss", with Meg Ryan as Kate and Kevin Kline as Luc?
I cannot begin to imagine the trouble JE would have....!