CX

I think you are creating a false dilemma. Either he is intentionally cheating or he is talking to dead people. Those are not the only options. Granted my brother's opinion is pretty much meaningless to anyone but me. Still I think it's probably evidence of a better quality than anything presented here. Furthermore I've done a few experimental online reading type things with mediums I know to know that one can be using the essential components of cold reading without realizing it and, even in the face of abysmal failure, think they are communicating with the deceased. You can read an example of a thing I did with medium and author George Dalzell at my site: <a href="http://unfacts.org" target="_blank">UNFACTS</a>.

I have spoken with George numerous times since the "experiment" and he firmly believes, even more then at the time we did it, that something anomalous occurred.

I guess it doesn't matter to me one way or the other, but when alleged critical thinkers start spouting unfounded accusations which aren't even necessary to explain the phenomenon I feel obligated to speak up. As soon as rhetoric about "charlatans" and "cold reading" starts you cease to have any possible impact on people who need to understand what's really going on. It undermines the whole effort of promoting critical thinking.

Frankly I'm disappointed that the Jaroff article and stuff related to it has gotten so much coverage. It's a sham of critical thinking and only makes those of us who value critical thinking look foolish.

Mageth

Oh, I don't think he's sincere, I was just pointing out that having a lower hit rate than people who admit what they're doing isn't an argument that he knows what he's doing.

Excellent point. And I didn't mean to infer that you thought he was sincere.

tronvillain

Well, he is at least partly cheating, editing to make his readings appear more impressive than they actually were. It's possible that he is unintentionally cold reading - many people believe in their own nonexistent abilities, but I'm not convinced that is the case with him.

Mageth

CX: You're right. There is the possibility that Edward is really communicating with the dead.

There is also the possibility that Edward is not intentionally cheating and really thinks he's communicating with the dead, but is not.

There is also the possibility that he doesn't think he's really communicating with the dead, but is.

I guess there's also the possibility that he knows he's not really communicating with the dead, but does what he does in some altruistic sense to help the people he reads.

Nevertheless, I don't think I've "spouted unfounded accusations." I've given reasons to back up the accusation that he's a charlatan using cold reading, and I've used "critical thinking" to come to my conclusion.

Edward is just the latest in a long line of tricksters using known techniques to fool the gullible into thinking he has paranormal abilities. And he's getting rich doing it.

CX

This is incorrect. This is exactly what I'm talking about. The show is not edited to give a different impression than what actually happened. Furthermore such is not required. No special tricks are required. Accusations of cheating and trickery undermine any attempt to promote critical thinking.

CX

I was more referring to the ridiculous Jaroff article everyone cites. If you provided an argument, aside from a link to an erroneous article, I missed. Please feel free to repost it. I'm not giving you a hard time, I just think ranting on and on about how JE is a crook and a cheater etc. etc. undermines the cause of critical thinking.

Mageth

My argument (admittedly modified from some of my original posts):

1. Cold reading is a known method to "read" people and is not majick.
2. JE uses cold reading to "read people."
3. JE leads people to think he's communicating with the dead.
5. It is not possible to communicate with the dead (unless someone has verifiable evidence otherwise).
6. JE more than likely knows (5).
7. JE is therefore more than likely a charlatan.

I admit this argument makes some assumptions and is not a "great" or particularly logically sound argument, but we use similar arguments all the time in everyday life to make judgments about people. It's the argument I use to conclude to my own satisfaction that JE is a charlatan. Sometimes that's the best we can do in "real world" situations when dealing with people.

CX

Hey I don't really want to get into a huge debate about this, but your argument is really feeble. It seems some circular to me to say JE is a crook because he uses cold reading and then assume "JE uses cold reading" as a premise in your argument. Then you also assume that JE knows its not possible to communicate with the dead which is in fact part of your conclusion as well. You haven't really presented an argument other than "I think JE uses cold reading to fool people so therefore JE uses cold reading to fool people." Cold reading is a stage act that is very convincing when employed by people who do it well. Have you ever seen Bannachek? It hardly seems that that is what JE is doing. Unfortunately because of my brother's involvement in the show I can't really say much more, but what do you find more amazing David Blaine or John Edward. Personally I find Blaine much more impressive.

Mageth

I admitted my argument wasn't that good, but I don't necessarily agree with your assessment of it. Plus I'm not attempting to make it a formal argument. Note that I am now claiming JE's MORE THAN LIKELY a charlatan, as a concession to some of your points.

I don't really want to get in a long discussion about it either, so I'm gonna drop it.

CX

Fair enough.