"The Unstoppable Schwartz"

[CFLarsen]

Double post.

 

[Soapy Sam]

If you bump a thread which has been disinterred two years after death, will you assume the characteristics of the thread starter?

 

[CFLarsen]

Should we allow believers to run away from something like this?

 

[SteveGrenard]

I think it is a normal, expected defensive reaction to try and stop or control what your critics say, and if not, then to refute or rebut them. This goes on all the time in science, in politics, here, there, everywhere. If anything this belongs in some sort of psychology
classification. I am not the expert on this.

I am not familiar with any rule in "science" which prohibits the positing of any sort of hypothesis. Of course once proposed the objective is to disprove or refute.

 

[CFLarsen]

I think it is a normal, expected defensive reaction to try and stop or control what your critics say, and if not, then to refute or rebut them. This goes on all the time in science, in politics, here, there, everywhere. If anything this belongs in some sort of psychology
classification. I am not the expert on this.

I am not familiar with any rule in "science" which prohibits the positing of any sort of hypothesis. Of course once proposed the objective is to disprove or refute.

Just answer the questions, please:

Do you think it is scientific of Schwartz to want to control what his critics say?

Do you find that having a "departed hypothesized co-investigator" in an experiment is particularly scientific?

 

[SteveGrenard]

The questions are answered. As usual you manage to place a condition which is irrelevant into the stem of your question. Defending oneself against critics is not scientific and not non-scientific. But it is a normal, expected psychological response. If you don't agree just say so and why, instead of beating your head against the wall by repeating your question over and over again.

Hypotheizing anything or putting forth an hypothesis is scientific and there are no
rules in science that mitigate against hypothesizing anything. If you disagree and can find a law or a rule in science which prohibits hypothesizing please say so. I would be
very interested in hearing about it.

 

[CFLarsen]

The questions are answered. As usual you manage to place a condition which is irrelevant into the stem of your question. Defending oneself against critics is not scientific and not non-scientific. But it is a normal, expected psychological response. If you don't agree just say so and why, instead of beating your head against the wall by repeating your question over and over again.

But it isn't a question of Schwartz defending himself against critics. It's a question of Schwartz wanting to control what his critics say.

Do you think it is scientific of Schwartz to want to control what his critics say?

Hypotheizing anything or putting forth an hypothesis is scientific and there are no
rules in science that mitigate against hypothesizing anything. If you disagree and can find a law or a rule in science which prohibits hypothesizing please say so. I would be
very interested in hearing about it.

That's one, at least.

Steve Grenard thinks having a "departed hypothesized co-investigator" in an experiment is scientific.

One for the article.

What about fairies, Steve? Should scientists also introduce fairies in their experiments?

 

[aggle-rithm]

Should scientists also introduce fairies in their experiments?

Depends. How are these hypothetical fairies at handling a Bunsen burner?

 

[SteveGrenard]

Once again, please do not misquote me. I said:

"Defending oneself against critics is natural or normal behavior. Interpreting that to mean controlling what one's critics say is exactly that, open to interpretation. I personally have never had a problem from the object/person of a criticism including Schwartz and
I have never interpreted anything he has said in rebuttal as an effort to "control" me or
anyone else for that matter. If there are others who feel there has been an attempt to control what they say which may be critical of some experiment then that is their interpretation. Insofar as I am aware the United States is a free country with guaranteed rights of free speech including critical speech.
I suggest their interpretation, in light of the U.S. Constitution, is an illusion. It is their illusion and they are entitled to it. Are you saying any of Schwartz' rebuttals have been efforts at
control?

That's one for your article.

"On the issue of hypotheses, it makes no difference how silly the hypothesis may seem to some, there is nothing in science that prohibits making a hypothesis or creating a thought experiment involving a hypothetical person." That is, was and remains my
"quote" for your article.

Be sure and send me a copy. Thanks.

ETA: On the "control" argument, it might be helpful if you could, for a change, present some actual example. Thanks.

 

[CFLarsen]

Once again, please do not misquote me.

You are a compulsive liar, Steve. I do not misquote you.

I said:

"Defending oneself against critics is natural or normal behavior. Interpreting that to mean controlling what one's critics say is exactly that, open to interpretation. I personally have never had a problem from the object/person of a criticism including Schwartz and
I have never interpreted anything he has said in rebuttal as an effort to "control" me or
anyone else for that matter. If there are others who feel there has been an attempt to control what they say which may be critical of some experiment then that is their interpretation. Insofar as I am aware the United States is a free country with guaranteed rights of free speech including critical speech.
I suggest their interpretation, in light of the U.S. Constitution, is an illusion. It is their illusion and they are entitled to it. Are you saying any of Schwartz' rebuttals have been efforts at
control?

Yes:

I should also make this clear: Schwartz gleefully advertises my own refusal to be a participant in his games, and the psychics are now snickering that I fear his findings may bring my own conclusions into jeopardy. That hope may be safely abandoned. Dr. Schwartz fails to mention the reason for my refusal, which is based entirely on his insistence that I declare, in writing, that I will never share any of my observations or conclusions with anyone, in any way. I cannot operate under such onerous limitations, nor will I ever contemplate doing so. This man of science, who preaches loudly about forthrightness, openness, sharing, honesty, and evidence, will have none of it when it might damage his own cherished notions. This is not science, not in any degree.
Source

Do you think it is scientific of Schwartz to want to control what his critics say?

That's one for your article.

Yes, it is.

"On the issue of hypotheses, it makes no difference how silly the hypothesis may seem to some, there is nothing in science that prohibits making a hypothesis or creating a thought experiment involving a hypothetical person." That is, was and remains my
"quote" for your article.

Be sure and send me a copy. Thanks.

Very well.

Steve Grenard thinks having a fairies in an experiment is scientific.

ETA: On the "control" argument, it might be helpful if you could, for a change, present some actual example. Thanks.

Your call.

 

[SteveGrenard]

You asked my personal opinion, I gave it and you miquoted it. I kindly responded to your inane reqests for an opinion and are called names in return. This is so typical of you. You revert to your primal name calling when you have no other response. I really shouldn't bother giving you the time of day let alone a serious response.

No it is not my call. It is yours. The premise that there is some effort to "control" critics of his scientific experiments is yours and yours alone. Kindly provide examples.
Specific and in detail of persons whose criticism of his experiments have been controlled by Schwartz. Has Hyman's criticism of his work been controlled? Has Randi's?
Randi has criticized Schwartz in the quote you provide. Where was the control?
Where is the proof that had Randi decided to visit Tucson and examine the data he would
be prevented from evaluating it? If there was protected information Schwartz wanted Randi
to get approval for release of same. But Randi was never pevented from criticising
Schwartz and has done so regularly including in the quote you give for years now.

 

[CFLarsen]

You asked my personal opinion, I gave it and you miquoted it. I kindly responded to your inane reqests for an opinion and are called names in return. This is so typical of you. You revert to your primal name calling when you have no other response. I really shouldn't bother giving you the time of day let alone a serious response.

I did not misquote you, Steve. If you don't like to be called a liar, don't lie.

No it is not my call. It is yours. The premise that there is some effort to "control" critics of his scientific experiments is yours and yours alone. Kindly provide examples. Specific and in detail of persons whose criticism of his experiments have been controlled by Schwartz.

Steve, I just provided you with an example. Schwartz tried to control what Randi would say about Schwartz' experiments. Address that.

But Randi was never pevented from criticising Schwartz and has done so regularly including in the quote you give for years now.

Yes, he has - because he wouldn't accept Schwartz' demands.

Now, answer the question:

Do you think it is scientific of Schwartz to want to control what his critics say?

 

[SteveGrenard]

I did not misquote you, Steve. If you don't like to be called a liar, don't lie.

Nope. You lied when you changed my quote. I carefully included quotation marks around my remarks. You decided to rephrase them. You are the liar. Kindly do not misquote me.

Steve, I just provided you with an example. Schwartz tried to control what Randi would say about Schwartz' experiments. Address that.

I don't read it that way. The mere fact that Randi is able to write and say what he wants is evidence that nobody controls what he says much less Schwartz. I am sure Randi would agree.

Yes, he has - because he wouldn't accept Schwartz' demands.

That's his problem. Ray Hyman accepted Schwartz' invitation, examined the data and
wrote a lengthy evaluation which was published in the SI.

Do you think it is scientific of Schwartz to want to control what his critics say?

If someone wants to evaluate or audit data they customarily visit the site and Randi was always welcome to do that. The data does not get shipped off, as originals, across the country (Arizona to Florida) as Randi demanded. (See his letter to Schwartz).

Auditors or evaluators as Randi would have been have to agree not to disclose protected information. They can easily do this and still give a thorough evaluation. I suggest Randi was more interested in ridiculing participants than making a scientific evaluation and when he found Schwartz and the University would not allow him to do that he relented and refused to participate. Schwartz would not accept Randi's demands anymore than Randi would accept his.

This is not a matter of science, it is a matter of bureacratic and administrative requirement. If you wish to translate those into some conspiracy to control what Randi was able to say (e.g. "Mary Doe is a nut case who believes her dead husband is in the car with her") that's your fantasy.

And if Randi was so interested in evaluating paranormal research data why, over the years, has he declined to target the many other researchers who do this work, in the U.S. and
worldwide?

There is plenty of fodder out there for his efforts. Has he, for example, ever challenged the research findings of programs at Univ of Chicago, at University of Virginia or the
University of Amsterdam? He he gone after the Duke Researchers or the Nevada researchers? I don't recall that he ever has. He fixated on Schwartz because the big headlines involved John Edward whom Schwartz tested. I suggest he was never interested in serious research unless a headline and maybe even a payday might result. Ian Stevenson, M.D. documented and published 3000 cases of alleged reincarnation with a one million dollar chair from the founder/inventor of Xerox (tm). Has Randi studied and/or refuted Stevenson?

For those who doubt that there are other low profile paranormal programs that would deserve a honest critic's evaluation, just visit:

http://www.healthsystem.virginia.edu/internet/personalitystudies/careers.cfm

 

[Soapy Sam]

Steve can you check that link please? I get an internal server error. (Whatever that means).

 

[SteveGrenard]

Steve can you check that link please? I get an internal server error. (Whatever that means).

I searched Stevenson at U Va ands got this page of results:

http://www.healthsystem.virginia.ed...bsearch.cfm?lookinfor=stevenson&s=information


You should be able to get to the careers site from here. I did:

http://www.healthsystem.virginia.edu/internet/personalitystudies/


This is the careers site page which I surfed to from above home page:

http://www.healthsystem.virginia.edu/internet/personalitystudies/careers.cfm


This is a brief quote from this page:

University Based Research Units

DOPS is one of a little over a dozen University-based research units in the world investigating similar paranormal phenomena. Some of the other research centers are at Princeton University, the University of Arizona, the University of Edinburgh, the University of Amsterdam, and the University of Hertfordshire in England. The researchers at the University of Virginia's unit have a special interest in studying the evidence for survival after death. For more information about the psychical research being done at other research facilities throughout the world, please refer to the Index of Psychical Research Centers and to the Index of Psychical Societies and Associations conducting research of paranormal phenomena.

 

[CFLarsen]

That's his problem. Ray Hyman accepted Schwartz' invitation, examined the data and
wrote a lengthy evaluation which was published in the SI.

Did Schwartz impose censorship on Hyman?

If someone wants to evaluate or audit data they customarily visit the site and Randi was always welcome to do that. The data does not get shipped off, as originals, across the country (Arizona to Florida) as Randi demanded. (See his letter to Schwartz).

We have been through this before, Steve. You came up with phony explanations as to why the data couldn't be shipped.

Auditors or evaluators as Randi would have been have to agree not to disclose protected information. They can easily do this and still give a thorough evaluation. I suggest Randi was more interested in ridiculing participants than making a scientific evaluation and when he found Schwartz and the University would not allow him to do that he relented and refused to participate. Schwartz would not accept Randi's demands anymore than Randi would accept his.

So you do admit that Schwartz tried to censor Randi. Thank you.

This is not a matter of science, it is a matter of bureacratic and administrative requirement. If you wish to translate those into some conspiracy to control what Randi was able to say (e.g. "Mary Doe is a nut case who believes her dead husband is in the car with her") that's your fantasy.

No, that's your fantasy. You simply have to believe the worst about Randi.

And if Randi was so interested in evaluating paranormal research data why, over the years, has he declined to target the many other researchers who do this work, in the U.S. and
worldwide?

Where has he declined this?

There is plenty of fodder out there for his efforts. Has he, for example, ever challenged the research findings of programs at Univ of Chicago, at University of Virginia or the
University of Amsterdam? He he gone after the Duke Researchers or the Nevada researchers? I don't recall that he ever has. He fixated on Schwartz because the big headlines involved John Edward whom Schwartz tested.

Who, exactly, are you talking about? Names, organizations.

I suggest he was never interested in serious research unless a headline and maybe even a payday might result. Ian Stevenson, M.D. documented and published 3000 cases of alleged reincarnation with a one million dollar chair from the founder/inventor of Xerox (tm). Has Randi studied and/or refuted Stevenson?

It is not up to Randi to refute Stevenson. It was up to Stevenson to support his claims.

For those who doubt that there are other low profile paranormal programs that would deserve a honest critic's evaluation, just visit:

http://www.healthsystem.virginia.edu/internet/personalitystudies/careers.cfm

What is it that should be evaluated? Be precise.

 

[SteveGrenard]

Did Schwartz impose censorship on Hyman?

No. You can read Hyman's evaluation in SI, Vol 27.

We have been through this before, Steve. You came up with phony explanations as to why the data couldn't be shipped.

Your assertions any restrictive reasons were phoney is phoney in itself.

Randi named 4 evaluators besides himself to evaluate the data:

Michael Shermer - Cal Tech
Stanley Krippner - Saybrook Graduate School
Marvin Minsky - MIT
Ray Hyman - Univ of Oregon

All of these were acceptable to Schwartz. They are all faculty members at accredited
institutions and are fully aware of and bound by the need for protecting certain parts of the data from public disclosure. Randi was not a faculty member so would have to sign an associates agreement, required by Federal law, placing him in the same position as the above 4 evaluators he himself nominated. He would not do this. Of the above four, and all were invited to view the data on site, only Hyman ultimately agreed to do so, did so and went away and wrote his published report.

So you do admit that Schwartz tried to censor Randi. Thank you.

Nope. This is a misconception on your part and on Randi's. Schwartz and the University were bound by Federal law to ask Randi to sign an associates agreement before allowing him unrestricted access to the data. Randi refused. This was Randi's choice.

No, that's your fantasy. You simply have to believe the worst about Randi.

Without Randi's signature on the associates agreement Randi could disclose anything he
wanted to about the data with impunity including protected information. This would have
been malfeasance by the University of Arizona had they allowed this to occur and could
have exposed them to legal action, both by the government and by the participants.
At no time was there any prohibitions on the evaluators insofar as their opinion on the validity of the data. Only protected information was prohibited from disclosure.

I didn't say Randi would disclose protected information or ridicule participants, I said he could have done so if he was allowed access without signing.

Where has he declined this?

The absence of any interest in his published writings is evidence of his
disinterest in academic studies of paranormal phenomena save for high profile,
selected cases such as that inmvolving John Edward who was tested by Schwartz.
Randi also jumps on other high profile cases as well. But first they must be high
profile and newsworthy. I believe some folks call suchskeptics "media
skeptics."

Who, exactly, are you talking about? Names, organizations.

I provided an example with URLs of some of the programs that Randi could
have deigned to evaluate and study. He hasn't and now won't since the million
dollar prize is no longer going to be on the table. It remains to be seen.

It is not up to Randi to refute Stevenson. It was up to Stevenson to support his claims.

Stevenson was a meticulous researcher with more than 3000 case histories to back up
his carefully crafted conclusions. It was up to Randi to study these and find problems,
if any, with these cases. They are almost all available in published form.

What is it that should be evaluated? Be precise.

Specifically I don't know how Randi or the others in his field work. I am taking a broad
view of this. I suppose the validity of the conclusions determined by researchers of
paranormal phenomena would be the best way of answering this question.

 

[CFLarsen]

No. You can read Hyman's evaluation in SI, Vol 27.

There you go.

Your assertions any restrictive reasons were phoney is phoney in itself.

Randi named 4 evaluators besides himself to evaluate the data:

Michael Shermer - Cal Tech
Stanley Krippner - Saybrook Graduate School
Marvin Minsky - MIT
Ray Hyman - Univ of Oregon

All of these were acceptable to Schwartz. They are all faculty members at accredited
institutions and are fully aware of and bound by the need for protecting certain parts of the data from public disclosure. Randi was not a faculty member so would have to sign an associates agreement, required by Federal law, placing him in the same position as the above 4 evaluators he himself nominated. He would not do this. Of the above four, and all were invited to view the data on site, only Hyman ultimately agreed to do so, did so and went away and wrote his published report.

Bull. Schwartz wanted to gag Randi, because he knew Randi would see right through his phony experiments.

Nope. This is a misconception on your part and on Randi's. Schwartz and the University were bound by Federal law to ask Randi to sign an associates agreement before allowing him unrestricted access to the data. Randi refused. This was Randi's choice.

Bull.

Without Randi's signature on the associates agreement Randi could disclose anything he
wanted to about the data with impunity including protected information. This would have
been malfeasance by the University of Arizona had they allowed this to occur and could
have exposed them to legal action, both by the government and by the participants.
At no time was there any prohibitions on the evaluators insofar as their opinion on the validity of the data. Only protected information was prohibited from disclosure.

I didn't say Randi would disclose protected information or ridicule participants, I said he could have done so if he was allowed access without signing.

Bull.

The absence of any interest in his published writings is evidence of his
disinterest in academic studies of paranormal phenomena save for high profile,
selected cases such as that inmvolving John Edward who was tested by Schwartz.
Randi also jumps on other high profile cases as well. But first they must be high
profile and newsworthy. I believe some folks call suchskeptics "media
skeptics."

Liar. You know this was not in effect at the time.

I provided an example with URLs of some of the programs that Randi could
have deigned to evaluate and study. He hasn't and now won't since the million
dollar prize is no longer going to be on the table. It remains to be seen.

So you can't show what research findings you were talking about.

Stevenson was a meticulous researcher with more than 3000 case histories to back up
his carefully crafted conclusions. It was up to Randi to study these and find problems,
if any, with these cases. They are almost all available in published form.

Randi and others have already found multiple problems with Stevenson's case stories.

Specifically I don't know how Randi or the others in his field work. I am taking a broad
view of this. I suppose the validity of the conclusions determined by researchers of
paranormal phenomena would be the best way of answering this question.

So you don't know what you were talking about.

 

[SteveGrenard]

There you go.

Yup. Hyman published his critique. It was not gagged.

Bull. Schwartz wanted to gag Randi, because he knew Randi would see right through his phony experiments.

He wanted Randi to be held to the same accountability his 4 evaluators had to hold themselves to. Are you saying Hyman, Krippner, Minsky and Shermer would be fooled
when Randi would not? How egalitarian and elitist.

Liar. You know this was not in effect at the time.

It was in this timeframe that Jaroff published his article on JE in TIME Magazine, written
with the assistance of Randi and filed from Boca Raton. It was written to sound like the writer was present in the studio when, in fact, he never left Boca Raton. Nor did Randi
go any further north than Boca either to get this article done. TIME didn't even send a low level reporter to JE's studio, a few blocks away from it's NYC editorial offices, to verify what Jaroff wrote. Nor did they even send out a photog to snap a picture of the studio with
people standing in front being plied for info by studio pages or interns as asserted in
the article.

So you can't show what research findings you were talking about.

I pointed anybody interested to them. It doesn't make any difference what all the individual findings were, Randi has studiously ignored them. Randi has ignored the field on a global basis.

Randi and others have already found multiple problems with Stevenson's case stories.

cite please.

So you don't know what you were talking about.

I know enough to admit when I don't know enough.

 

[CFLarsen]

Yup. Hyman published his critique. It was not gagged.

Schwartz tried to gag Randi. End of story.

He wanted Randi to be held to the same accountability his 4 evaluators had to hold themselves to. Are you saying Hyman, Krippner, Minsky and Shermer would be fooled
when Randi would not? How egalitarian and elitist.

Nonsense. It makes perfectly sense to include someone like Randi - just look at Project Alpha.

It was in this timeframe that Jaroff published his article on JE in TIME Magazine, written
with the assistance of Randi and filed from Boca Raton. It was written to sound like the writer was present in the studio when, in fact, he never left Boca Raton. Nor did Randi
go any further north than Boca either to get this article done. TIME didn't even send a low level reporter to JE's studio, a few blocks away from it's NYC editorial offices, to verify what Jaroff wrote. Nor did they even send out a photog to snap a picture of the studio with
people standing in front being plied for info by studio pages or interns as asserted in
the article.

You keep being dishonest. You know that JE does not allow anyone to investigate what he does. Yet, you present this as if it were the fault of the skeptics.

I pointed anybody interested to them. It doesn't make any difference what all the individual findings were, Randi has studiously ignored them. Randi has ignored the field on a global basis.

Liar.

cite please.

Don't feign ignorance, Steve. More here.

I know enough to admit when I don't know enough.

Yes, yes. Do you have anything new to add? Not a repetition of your many lies, but something new?