All quotations originally posted by Open Mind:
Just because a pharmaceutical drug fractionally beats a placebo doesn’t mean it merits being on the market
It’s obvious you have no idea what statistical significance means.
especially when the placebo effect is so much higher than the pharmaceutical effect
Your codswallop has become twaddle.
You’ve absolutely no idea what you’re talking about, do you?
…. when you add the side effects (increased suicide) …. . the placebo could be a superior choice?
Every pharmaceutical increases the rate of suicide among its takers?
You are making stuff up.
Actually you are reading too much into my post. I wasn’t discussing a trial for Schwartz in particular to run, I’m just interested in CSICOP magicians being tested to see how well they can cold read compared to psychics
So you’re backing off Schwartz.
Good.
…for instance Richard Wiseman got his doctorate for methods of faking abilities, lets see what he can do under scientific controls, instead of Wiseman conducting trials, lets conduct the trial of Wiseman, Hyman, Nickell, Randi, Rowland, etc.
Test them as controls simultaneously with alleged psychics. Use identical conditions.
Or, since Randi at least is very recognizable and has not claimed to be able to perform as a cold reader (to my knowledge), use somebody else who claims the ability. I still volunteer.
I don’t see a problem, the psychics would have the same conditions too this time
Then no problem.
Just realize that you are admitting that tests done to date had no such stipulation or control and so must be deemed non-significant, regardless how they have been touted.
Garrette:
To go a bit afield, though, are you not imposing your own perceptions of what conditions are suitable for psi onto any alleged psychics? This is something of which we skeptics are often accused.
Yes and yes
Then why should I give credence to yours?
I think most would claim they can do it over a telephone (radio phone ins etc.) so I assume they would be happy over a one way TV system.
Unnecessary assumptions which will lead to flaws and outs.
Far better to ask the psychics what they can do and then test for it.
Garrette:
Personally, I prefer to allow the alleged psychic to state the conditions in which he can perform and then make him stick to them.
In principle yes, but we have to be careful not to end up with a useless experiment.
You have it exactly backwards. It is useless if you do
not get them to define their abilities.
Garrette:
I restate my assertion that I can perform with the same degree of accuracy under the identical conditions.
Fine, you just have to prove it. Just need evidence.
Yep. Which I’ve offered to do and continue to offer Schwartz has declined to respond.
Then again, until such time as psychics/mediums actually demonstrate their abilities, it doesn’t matter if my claim is true.
I could be a failure as a cold reader, and it will not change the
fact that psychics and mediums have never demonstrated anything beyond cheating.
You seem to miss this point.
No they all don’t (if any do). I think many of those if asked will tell you that others hostile attitude (not just recipient) can prevent them from working effectively …. Whether that is true or not is another matter, it needs to be respected in a trial looking for psi..
A step in the right direction.
You are saying that the psychics must state what they can do and under what conditions. Excellent.
I agree that psychics say that hostile/skeptical attitudes thwart them. But I note that the claim is made after a failure.
What this is saying is that the presence of a skeptic significantly affects the psychic’s abilities. Since psychics know when they are and when they are not in contact with a spirit (or what have you), this amounts to them having a Skeptic Detection Ability.
This, fortunately, would be easily testable. No need for checking for cold or hot reading after all. Simply present a series of sitters accompanied by another, unknown individual. The unknown individual will be a randomly selected skeptic or believer. Double blind it and voila! An easy test for this rather remarkable claim.
I assumed all, aren’t these mostly spiritualists? Isn’t that what their literature has claimed for a century or more?
You assume a homogeneity that simply does not exist.
That wasn't my exactly my point though ...... parapsychologists take these precautions too, Professor Robert Morris , Koestler Professor of Parapsychology at the University of Edinburgh. ’ Taking a lot of care with how you recruit participants, how you welcome them into the lab, how you help them relax and feel as though it's OK to do well or succeed at these kinds of procedures. It also seems important to select participants from groups who appear to produce better results and avoid those who don't feel they will do well.
There is not a single “precaution†in that paragraph. There is, instead, an empty sentiment indicative of the experimenter’s inclination to yield to the demands of the claimant, regardless of the need for strict protocols.
Foolishness.
I refer you to the Schlitz / Wiseman trials with experimenter effects.
When I get the chance I’ll look them up.
Meantime, I’ll grant you that experimenters have an effect. But there is no demonstration that the effect takes any form beyond poor protocols and bias in analysis.
Garrette:
But open minded skeptics are allowed?
Sure. They just need to put it in writing, stating that in their professional opinion psi is serious possibility, worthy of much more funding for scientific investigation.
Do you realize how lacking in substance this is?
Let’s add one more proviso, shall we?
The psychics and the experimenters put it in writing that they understand what constitutes good protocols and they will reimburse all research funding, plus a healthy fine, for every experiment in which they were not applied. Fines will double for the second offense.
Let’s not single out skeptics for punishment. The misbehavior is not on their part, regardless how little you care for their opinion or attitude.
But no open minded CSICOP members to conduct trial either.
Goodie. Can I disqualify whom I please, too?
Garrette:
Who determines who is qualified?
By what criteria?
To conduct the trial of CSICOP magicians and psychics? How about the police? Hey actually that is a cool idea All under test sign documents declaring they will not hot read…….Anyone caught hot reading is prosecuted!
Lots of smilies in the post, so perhaps you’re not serious. On the chance that you are: what absolute buffoonery.
This is the Schwartz method.
â€We could simply design a test to preclude cheating, but instead we’ll simply take the word of those whose livelihood depends on their success and who are proponents of a field that has been rife with fraud and self-delusion.â€
Garrette:
I really love this special pleading.
All powerful PSI and loving spirits go poof because one who doubts approaches.
But not my wording ……
No. But your meaning.
however if the mediums claim they are contacting dead relatives etc. and if they also claim negative environments blocks psi or deception attracts trickster spirits, whatever …… you’ve got to allow for their requirements in the trial.
See earlier comments about Skeptic Detector.
No idea, but their reputations will depend on each others so it is up to them to choose.
Who is “them?â€
You’re avoiding the point.
Please no. It would attract wannabe inexperienced idiots, the last thing we need is magicians competing against idiots. Contact several mediums who have appeared on TV and see if they can construct a team.
I suppose each individual experimenter can recruit in the manner appropriate for the experiment.
Your position, though, is inherently circular. You will find legitimate psychics to test so that you can test to see if they are legitimate.
(No fortune telling, tarot, astrology types, please …. These are more systems than claims of psychic ability)
And we’re back to Open Mind’s perception of what is valid and how psychics should operate.
Your open mind seems increasingly less so.
Mediums have already done somewhat similar trials..
Show me one properly run trial in which mediums have demonstrated success.
By your standards, the medium must have signed a claim that they will not hot read.
By my standards, cheating must be precluded by the protocols.
I’ll only flay you if you hot read.
Demonstrating again your lack of comprehension of the point.
The point of me cheating is to show that cheating is possible and the positive results are achievable via non-paranormal means.
I will hot read if I can manage it. I will cheat in any other way possible.
Because mediums claim the dead contact them, they do not claim they contact the dead …therefore I assume they would prefer to choose their recipient but I don’t think it should be allowed too easy for magicians to cheat.
You have a very selective observation.
What about the one-on-one clients of John Edward and Sylvia Browne?
They meet all your criteria. They are nationally known. They are endorsed by other psychics/mediums. They don’t use things like astrology or tarot cards.
Yet they are confident enough to charge large amounts of money to provide a one-on-one reading. Certainly they would not do this if they did not feel able to control what spirit information they would get.
Neither has a money back guarantee in case the information applied does not fit the sitter.
edited for formatting. And again for spelling.
Hey actually that is a cool idea 
All under test sign documents declaring they will not hot read ……. Anyone caught hot reading is prosecuted! 
Where did I say 'every pharmaceutical' ? I was referring to several anti-depressents only ... 