Toto

Absolutely unfounded. (And why are you bothering with unfounded arguments?) Randi has such a volume of applicants that other organizations screen them for him. The first thing they do is agree on the test protocol. Most of the claimants are genuinely shocked when their psychic powers, dowsing, mind-reading dog, etc., fail the test that they themselves agreed to.

Randi is not debunking mysticism. He is debunking people who make actual claims that violate the known laws of physics.

Writer@Large

Sorry, Veil of Fire, but most critics of Randi's methods truly don't *understand* them; it's evident that you do not, either. I've often seen strawman versions of his tests circulate like the one you postulate, and all of them (as tronvillain's post shows) are completely off-base. At worst, Randi is guilty of being unlikable and abrasive, but neither of those make him a "fraud."

If, on the other hand, you really know someone who can levitate 6 inches for 30 seconds, I'd love to meet them. Heck, even if Randi wouldn't pay the million, someone with genuine ability like that could go on the news and make 10x that in publicity and endorsements.

--W@L

gravitybow

Here's the legal disclaimer for the show I found at
<a href="http://www.csicop.org/list/listarchive/msg00083.html" target="_blank">A Media Review from CSICOP's Council for Media Integrity:</a>
If Edward maintains that he is a legitimate medium and cultivates that aura, then that is so much better for the show. But the disclaimer says otherwise.

Veil of Fire

*shrug*

I only know what I've been told. Thanks for the clarifications.

Barney Gumble

Spejic does indeed bring up an interesting point. If one truly believed they could communicate with the dead, would making overweight housewives bawl on national TV be the first use of this incredible gift that pops into your mind?

Of course, that does not implicitly mean Jon Edwards realizes he has no pscyhic ability. He could desire fame and fortune over listening to murder victims give the details of their attacker; there are many activities I could participate in that would benefit society without needing the gift of the supernatural, but I choose not to because I'd rather eat pizza and watch TV in my spare time. Or, one of those "spirituality rules" may be broken by such an attempt. We've heard of these before; mystical explanations why some readings aren't successful that are basically nonsensical and vary depending upon the psychic, the commonality being that the fault lies not with the pscyhic, naturally.

CX, you've been quite candid in admitting that we will view your brother’s opinion in a skeptical light because of your relationship, but I'm wondering if you've done that yourself. Possibilities why your brother could be incorrect:

- He could have suspected Jon was not being truthful, but his desire for employment in such a high-level position made him gloss over the inconsistencies and focus on the times where Jon was actually successful. He may indeed believe Jon is being truthful because of this, but only because he hasn’t been nearly critical enough of his own perceptions.
- Jon could indeed be a charlatan of such a skill that he is able to convince your brother that he's not. What's the use in being a fraud if it's obvious? (Note: I realize that's circular, but I'm throwing out possibilities here, not a strict fraud-testing methodology.)
- He could know Jon is a charlatan, but is embarrassed by his participation in such a scheme and has lied to you because of this.

I'd also like to hear why you feel the Jaroff article is "ridiculous". I too would like to see more sources, it seems as if this article is the only inside view we have of someone remotely critical who's actually participated in the show. Is it the pieces hyperbolic tone? The way Michael O'Neill gives his “theories” on what’s happening can certainly be called into question, he draws conclusions at times in light of scant or no evidence to substantiate his suspicions, other than the fact he's skeptical.

However, are you denying that the show is edited to make it seem like Edwards is more successful than he is? Aside from his own speculation, O’Neill makes some rather inflammatory accusations that could be construed as libel if they can be proven not to be true. Perhaps Edwards simply doesn’t care (and he has right not to, his success demonstrates that articles like this are largely ignored), but I can't help but believe it would favour his show considerably if he was able to launch as a successful suit against such a piece.

Edited for typo's.

[ April 29, 2002: Message edited by: Barney Gumble ]</p>

sensate

I am not changing my opinion that Edwards is a deliberate fraud simply because some anonymous person in a discussion forum claims to be related to someone involved with the show. To do so would make me just a gullible as the people who believe his con.

Wyrdsmyth

I think the most damning evidence that people like John Edward are frauds, is that they have to ask you questions. Why is that? They're the psychics, they ought to be giving the answers.

"I'm picking up an older male figure... someone paternal, maybe a father or an uncle or a grandfather. There's something about the way he died that was odd, something to do with him being a daredevil or ignoring danger. Was there someone like that in your family? No? Oh, wait this ghost isn't related to you, it must be related to the lady three rows behind you, who's waving her arms excitedly."

Give me a freakin' break.

I went to a psychic once. I told her, "Before you even start, let me tell you: Do not ask me questions. Also, talk slowly. I will not tell you whether any particular statement you make is true or false. I'm not going to give you any feedback."

That pretty much stops cold reading dead in its tracks.

[ April 29, 2002: Message edited by: Wyrdsmyth ]</p>

-RRH-

<a href="http://pvponline.com/rants_jesus.php3" target="_blank">http://pvponline.com/rants_jesus.php3</A>

To me, he sounds more like a Christian who is embarassed by some of his contemporaries, but I haven't heard him say for certain.

CX

Indeed I am. I know one of the editors and have known him all his life. This of course isn't evidence for anyone but me, though if someone really wanted to investigate my claim they could. I have to believe that a first hand account by someone I know personally and trust is better than speculation. According to my brother very often, "there was so much good material I couldn't decide which stuff to cut out."

I cannot really know for certain that John is sincere. He could be scamming my brother, but given what I know of other sincere mediums from first hand experience (see Tuesday's L.A. Times living section for an article that mentions my website <a href="http://www.unfacts.org" target="_blank">UNFACTS</a> and an experimental reading I did with author and medium George Dalzell) and what I know of my brother's honesty, integrity and ability to judge character, I have to go with John being sincere.

On the other hand for the speculation about editing tricks, hidden microphones etc. I could not have better information unless I was actually there. That is true of most questions. We can't be first hand witnesses to everything so we rely on other sources.

The whole point of this discussion is understanding the mind and thinking processes of the believer. John doesn't need to use tricks, nor does he need to be insincere to do what he does. Frankly I'd expect the show to be much more sensational if that were the case.

KathyG

I think it was George Burns who called sincerity the secret of success, "and once you know how to fake that, you've got it made."

The truth of a proposition isn't dependent on the sincerity of its adherents.

Whether or not Edward believes the dead talk to him is irrelevant: either he is sincerely delusional, or he is a con artist. Either way he is getting rich off other people's misery.

K

[ May 07, 2002: Message edited by: KathyG ]</p>