All quotations originally posted by Open Mind except where noted:
And now the third part of this topic—
The testing of psychics/mediums and the use of cold readers and other cheaters in doing so.
Remember the goal was to test the cold reading hypothesis
No. The goal was and is to see if psychics have the abilities they claim they do.
all the psychics have to do is outperform the cold readers.
No. They have to outperform acknowledged cheaters.
The trial is not so much testing psychics claims, it is testing magicans/mentalists can cold read (and I do not mean hot read) just as well.
I see. So your standard is this:
Hah! You’re a bad magician, Garrette! Therefore, John Edward is real!
You’ll have to do better.
If the psychics or cold readers are not willing to perform under the controls such as I suggested (or better) .... it is going to be meaningless.
I’ll play along because I’m confident you can get acknowledged cheaters, such as me, who will perform under any conditions so long as they are identical to those under which the allegedly real psychics perform while I’m simultaneously confident you will get zero allegedly real psychics to perform in any kind of stringently controlled environment. Probably won’t get them to perform regardless of the environment if they know magicians/mentalists will be participating as well.
Are you psychic to know that? You mean you do not trust the claims, do not trust some scientists .... that is far off being a 'fact'
Trust has nothing to do with it. I do not “trust†Schwartz, but the analyses that I and others have provided of his experiments are separate from that; they deal with the facts.
If something is a claim, then there is nothing to trust. Claims are not evidence.
I stand by my statement.
Can you show any valid demonstration by an allegedly real psychic that goes beyond cold reading or other fraud?
You may drag out Daniel Dunglas Home and Leonora Piper and Marjorie if you please, but bear in mind that they have been dissected here before. As have Edgar Cayce, John Edward, Sylvia Browne, and others I can’t remember.
I don’t understand what you are saying, are you calling the late Professor Robert Morris foolish? Do a search.
You initially said:
parapsychologists take these precautions too, Professor Robert Morris…
Then you quoted Morris. My response of “foolishness†was in regard to your choice of quotation.
I’ll say it again:
Originally posted by Garrette:
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’ll do a search on Morris when it becomes necessary. If you think he has something to add in support of your argument, then please post it, but I won’t do your work for you.
No problem with true scepticism I have a problem with dogmatism
The following definition is from the online Merriam Webster dictionary:
1 : positiveness in assertion of opinion especially when unwarranted or arrogant
2 : a viewpoint or system of ideas based on insufficiently examined premises
You undoubtedly find me guilty of #1, to which I plead guilty in reference to arrogance but not unwarrantedness.
I find you guilty of #2.
Yet here we are discussing it without coming to blows.
If CSICOP magicians are under trial, it would be absurd for their cronies to conduct it. I have given other reasons too.
You’re not really interested at all in proving the claims of psychics/mediums, are you? You simply have a vendetta to humiliate CSICOP.
So you are now claiming telepathy ability too?
No. Just good reading comprehension.
You should attempt it with your links.
Actually the Schlitz/Wiseman trials already suggest the effect. They conducted the same psi experiment in the same location, same controls, same people under test ...... Schlitz (open minded sceptic- thinks psi is possible) finds indications of psi ....... Wiseman CSICOP (rather close minded sceptic – thinks psi doesn’t exist) found no indication of psi. Experiment repeated, same result.
This was in response to my comments about a “Skeptic Detector†test.
Which you neatly avoided.
Schlitz and Wiseman did not discuss the experimenter effect in light of using it to test the abilities of a psychic claimant.
I am discussing it.
If the experimenter effect is so strong (which it apparently is, based on the cries of “psychics†who plead their failures because of it), then it’s an easy, cheap thing to test. You can do it even without a cold reader. All you need is a well run psychic experiment of any kind with the random presence of a skeptic.
The history of psychical research has these but you will believe these were not properly run.
If they were properly conducted I will admit it. If they weren’t, I won’t.
Show them to me.
Some skeptics nitpicked just as much then as now.
You mean they refused to accept a paranormal explanation when mundane explanations were more likely.
Despite your criticism of Schwartz at least he is one of the few to shown renewed interest in testing psychics.
I have no problem with his interest. I’m all for it.
I will criticize forever, though, his crappy protocols and his refusal to address them while claiming that he has done so.
I have the same position on Dennis Lee and his free energy machines.
In the UK Roy/Robertson claim evidence for mediumship being real around 2003 with long trial. This was quickly followed by skeptic O'Keefe/Wiseman(csicop) trial finding no evidence in a brief trial.
As I understand it, Robertson and Roy conducted one set of experiments with positive results but which had significant shortcomings in protocol.
They then published a proposal on how to tighten the protocols. The proposal was sound but no results of a second set of experiments was published.
I could be guilty of faulty memory, though.
Care to point me to the papers? I can only find references to them via google, not the papers themselves.
And your point regarding the O’Keefe/Wiseman trial is what, exactly?
I never said that, the aim is to remind cold readers not to hot read. Steps should of course be taken to prevent cheating by cold readers and psychics
You are missing the point entirely.
The reason to have cheaters is so that they will try to cheat, on the assumption (based on their/my contention) that if they can cheat when it seems impossible to do so then so can the alleged psychics.
Whether they succeed or not in actually cheating is immaterial so long as they actually are very good cheaters (a la Steve Shaw).
If they succeed in cheating, they will have good readings; if they don’t, they won’t.
If psychics are actually fake, they will have good readings when the cheaters do and bad readings when the cheaters do.
Get it?
We all know that without any trial. What we don't know is if magicians can cold read as well as a psychic under controlled conditions.
AAAAGGGH!
edited for formatting and a couple of clarifications
Tonight, in my dreams, I will remember that frase, its that good!