Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Secular Pinoy · 04-20-2002, 08:47 PM

Why does John Edward prefer not to be tested by reputable scientists, or by James Randi? His only claim to legitimacy is a series of tests by Gary Schwartz, which has skewered in a recent article in the <a href="http://www.csicop.org/si/2001-11/mediums.html" target="_blank">Skeptical Inquirer</a>. Also read : <a href="http://www.skeptic.com/newsworthy13.html" target="_blank">http://www.skeptic.com/newsworthy13.html</a>

Cold Reading / Warm Reading / Hot Reading are various strategies that can simulate supposed psychic abilities. It has been performed by skeptics and magicians. The initial probability of psychic phenomena is way lower than the above-mentioned strategies. If these mediums really are legit, then they can hardly be discerned from those utilizing those strategies. Can you offer any criteria for testing those mediums for legitimacy?

And how can the dead communicate with the living? As of yet, no credible proof for the possibility of a mind to survive brain death has been made. A disembodied mind sounds incoherent. There is no ghost inside the machine.

Now, on to the lighter side:

Panta Pei · 04-21-2002, 04:17 AM

Hey, I know.

I communicate with people before they are born and holy crap, there's like a bunch of them ready to squirt through!

Who wants me to say something to the girl who cures cancer?

...ok, she says, "It's so simple...hurry up and get with the coitus!"

That one's on the house.

For a more in depth consultation, email me and we'll make financial arrangements.

Better hurry, though, the SciFi channel - short for Science FICTION - is in talks with my agent

[ April 21, 2002: Message edited by: Panta Pei ]

CX · 04-22-2002, 06:33 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by secularpinoy:
Why does John Edward prefer not to be tested by reputable scientists, or by James Randi? His only claim to legitimacy is a series of tests by Gary Schwartz, which has skewered in a recent article in the <a href="http://www.csicop.org/si/2001-11/mediums.html" target="_blank">Skeptical Inquirer</a>. Also read : <a href="http://www.skeptic.com/newsworthy13.html" target="_blank">http://www.skeptic.com/newsworthy13.html</a>

Cold Reading / Warm Reading / Hot Reading are various strategies that can simulate supposed psychic abilities. It has been performed by skeptics and magicians. The initial probability of psychic phenomena is way lower than the above-mentioned strategies. If these mediums really are legit, then they can hardly be discerned from those utilizing those strategies. Can you offer any criteria for testing those mediums for legitimacy?

And how can the dead communicate with the living? As of yet, no credible proof for the possibility of a mind to survive brain death has been made. A disembodied mind sounds incoherent. There is no ghost inside the machine.

I don't disagree with you. I'm only saying in this thread that John is sincere. I am of the opinion that believers in anything don't want their beliefs tested critically, because deep down they have the same doubts we all have and they don't want to find out those doubts are correct.

spejic · 04-22-2002, 11:48 AM

If Edward really believed he could communicate with the dead, why is he only talking to the dead relatives of the housewives that come to his show? Why isn't he talking to the terrorists we killed in Afghanistan to find out what other plans are taking shape? Why is he not writing down the new plays Shakespeare wrote in heaven? Why is he not getting information about ancient Greece or other places where historians have limited information? Why is he not testifying in court as to what murder victims see just before they die? Why isn't he finding out what the Founding Fathers really meant by the second amendment? Why isn't he talking to pirates about where they buried their gold? Dead people are an incredible resource of information -–if Edward can talk to them then he is committing a great sin against humanity by using his power only to comfort 40 year old upper middle class white women on TV.

Anunnaki · 04-22-2002, 02:51 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by spejic:
If Edward really believed he could communicate with the dead, why is he only talking to the dead relatives of the housewives that come to his show? Why isn't he talking to the terrorists we killed in Afghanistan to find out what other plans are taking shape? Why is he not writing down the new plays Shakespeare wrote in heaven? Why is he not getting information about ancient Greece or other places where historians have limited information? Why is he not testifying in court as to what murder victims see just before they die? Why isn't he finding out what the Founding Fathers really meant by the second amendment? Why isn't he talking to pirates about where they buried their gold? Dead people are an incredible resource of information -–if Edward can talk to them then he is committing a great sin against humanity by using his power only to comfort 40 year old upper middle class white women on TV.

LOL!! I used that same line about pirate gold just last week while trying to explain to my father how Edwards "magical power" is just a parlor trick.

Writer@Large · 04-22-2002, 02:54 PM

Well said, spejic.

--W@L

Veil of Fire · 04-22-2002, 03:33 PM

"or by James Randi"

I hate to make my first post on a new forum community inflammatory, and I hope this topic hasn't been beaten to death before, but Randi is as much of a fraud in the skeptic's direction as Edwards is in the mysticism direction.

...
Although that would make an interesting battle of the titans.. Can Randi convince Edwards that he actually honestly plans to give away the million dollars for a legit performance? And if so, can Edwards then convince Randi that he sees dead people? Who's the better liar? That'd be something I'd buy Pay Per Veiw to watch!

Philosoft · 04-22-2002, 08:11 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Veil of Fire:
"or by James Randi"

I hate to make my first post on a new forum community inflammatory, and I hope this topic hasn't been beaten to death before, but Randi is as much of a fraud in the skeptic's direction as Edwards is in the mysticism direction.

...
Although that would make an interesting battle of the titans.. Can Randi convince Edwards that he actually honestly plans to give away the million dollars for a legit performance? And if so, can Edwards then convince Randi that he sees dead people? Who's the better liar? That'd be something I'd buy Pay Per Veiw to watch!

I'm not going to argue with your conclusion but I'd like to know how you arrived there. Are there any good reasons to think that Randi is a "fraud in the skeptic's direction" aside from your obvious disdain for him and/or his methods?

Veil of Fire · 04-22-2002, 08:36 PM

I've heard, and of course this is mostly unfounded, that his "testing methods" are something along these lines.

Say you can levitate 6 inches off the ground for 30 seconds at a time.

So he takes you into the testing-type-room, set up to all the recorders, and asked to do it. And you do.

He reads the little recorder things, and asks you to repeat it, say, ten times.

So you go through and levitate yourself ten times.

Randi reads the little records, makes a little face, and repeats the process.

The tests stop when you get tired and fail to stay up the full 30 seconds. He points to some random reading, delcares you a fraud, and kicks you out.

.....

This is a hypothetical example, but the point is that he works from the assumption you're screwing with him, and would "debunk" a legitimate visit from Shoopoo Shoopoo the Giant Twinkie Creator of the Universe on any tiny or nonexistant straw he can grasp.

There's a vast difference between skepticism and trying to convince the world that an irrational universe conforms to your rational worldview through any means necessary.

That's why I believe Randi is just as much a fraud as Edwards. While Edwards perpetuates fraud by pretending to a mystical ability he doesn't have, Randi perpetuates fraud by pretending to debunk all the mysticism in the world, fake or not.

tronvillain · 04-22-2002, 10:14 PM

That has to be one of the more pathetic attempts to support an accusation that I have seen in a while. That hypothetical example does not even vaguely resemble his "testing methods." Have a look at one of his <a href="http://www.randi.org/jr/032902.html" target="_blank">preliminary tests</a> of a dowser:

Quote:

We numbered ten JREF coffee-mugs from 1 to 10 on the outside bottoms. For the baseline part of the test (20 "open" trials in which all those present would know in which cup the target had been placed) Mike was first asked to choose one of ten face-down shuffled cards bearing numerals from 1 to 10, and that choice would designate where the target would be placed, each time. I had asked him to carefully "scan" the floor area of our library in advance to make sure there were no distracting elements present, and he himself carefully chose the positions of each of the ten cups on the floor. He was encouraged by me to adjust the placement of the cups as many times as he needed to, during this phase. He'd told us, first, that at least five feet of separation was required between each cup, but that he could work with just three feet between them. I immediately insisted that he must use at least five feet, since I did not want to allow an excuse later on that the spacing had been inadequate. As it turned out, he chose to have some cups within a foot of one another. But we could not interfere with his choice, since he assured us that all was sufficient for his needs.

Mike also asked that several metallic objects (trophy cups, plaques, steel devices) be removed from the bookshelves nearby. At his request, a teaspoon was taken to the next room because he said that the silver could also attract his stick; that spoon was made of aluminum. But, again, we did not correct his statements.

For the "open" phase of the preliminary test procedure, the target package was placed in the designated cup, which was then openly placed in the spot Mike had chosen for it, mouth-down. He then scanned all ten cups, and declared — both by pointing and verbally — where he believed that his stick had detected the target. Another number was then selected, and the procedure was repeated, twenty times in all. His score was 100% in these "open" tests.

Pause. Let me explain here the purpose of the baseline test of twenty "open" detections, in which the location of the target is known in advance. It served five distinct purposes, which is why we always use such a procedure:

(1) The performer has the opportunity to try out the setup, and make any necessary changes, adjustments, or re-locations that he thinks are needed. Mr. G. changed the location of the ten cups on the floor many times before the "open" detection trials were completed, and finally declared his total satisfaction with the placements, and with the conditions.

(2) The process of randomizing numbers, etc., which is sometimes unfamiliar or unknown to the performer, becomes clear. For Mike, we prepared ten cards bearing numbers from one to ten, shuffled them face-down, and asked him to choose one for each test.

(3) The performer becomes familiar with the sequences and rules of the test. With Mike, we changed only one factor: we began with plastic cups, but because of the bulk of the target package, we switched to using the JREF coffee mugs.

(4) The performer has the opportunity of deciding for himself — in the "open" tests — whether it's his powers, or just his foreknowledge of the answer, that is actually at work. Mike was convinced of the former.

(5) After the "blind"test is done, following the "open" series, the performer cannot offer the excuse that his powers were not working at this time. Mike obtained 100% results during the "open" test, quickly and positively, showing that he was quite able to use his powers.

Following the "open" sequence, for each of the "blind" tests, Mr. G. and I stepped out of the library area, and two other persons randomly (by choosing a face-down card, as before) placed the target package in position, then they left the area and informed us that the target was in place. Mike and I re-entered, alone, and he made his determination while I watched carefully to be sure that he did not nudge any cups, or otherwise attempt to use any means but the movements of his forked stick, to make his guess; at no time was any such procedure observed. After Mike made his guess on each trial, the other two persons were invited back in, and we recorded the results. That procedure was repeated ten times.

On the "open" tests, Mr. G. took an average of 2 1/2 minutes for each determination; on the "blind" tests, he spent an average of 8 1/2 minutes on each one. During the dowsing process, he kept up a running commentary to me on such matters as a rare "Indian root" with which he was familiar and which was a sure cure for the 'flu, a special crystal he carried on his person to ensure his good health, and a few "free energy" machines that he thought I should know about. Not wishing to become involved in any distracting activity, I resisted discussing these matters with him at that time.

The results were that when Mike G. knew the location of the concealed target (the "open" tests), he obtained 100% results. When the test procedure was double-blinded, he obtained exactly what chance alone would call for: one out of ten correct.

Was that a fair test? Unless you can back your accusations up with something, I'm going to have to suggest that you shut the hell up.

04-21-2002, 04:17 AM	#32
Panta Pei Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: in the middle of things Posts: 722	Hey, I know. I communicate with people before they are born and holy crap, there's like a bunch of them ready to squirt through! Who wants me to say something to the girl who cures cancer? ...ok, she says, "It's so simple...hurry up and get with the coitus!" That one's on the house. For a more in depth consultation, email me and we'll make financial arrangements. Better hurry, though, the SciFi channel - short for Science FICTION - is in talks with my agent [ April 21, 2002: Message edited by: Panta Pei ]</p>

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

04-20-2002, 08:47 PM	#31
Secular Pinoy Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: Quezon City, Philippines Posts: 1,994	Why does John Edward prefer not to be tested by reputable scientists, or by James Randi? His only claim to legitimacy is a series of tests by Gary Schwartz, which has skewered in a recent article in the <a href="http://www.csicop.org/si/2001-11/mediums.html" target="_blank">Skeptical Inquirer</a>. Also read : <a href="http://www.skeptic.com/newsworthy13.html" target="_blank">http://www.skeptic.com/newsworthy13.html</a> Cold Reading / Warm Reading / Hot Reading are various strategies that can simulate supposed psychic abilities. It has been performed by skeptics and magicians. The initial probability of psychic phenomena is way lower than the above-mentioned strategies. If these mediums really are legit, then they can hardly be discerned from those utilizing those strategies. Can you offer any criteria for testing those mediums for legitimacy? And how can the dead communicate with the living? As of yet, no credible proof for the possibility of a mind to survive brain death has been made. A disembodied mind sounds incoherent. There is no ghost inside the machine. Now, on to the lighter side:

04-22-2002, 11:48 AM	#34
spejic Junior Member Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: San Jose, CA Posts: 6	If Edward really believed he could communicate with the dead, why is he only talking to the dead relatives of the housewives that come to his show? Why isn't he talking to the terrorists we killed in Afghanistan to find out what other plans are taking shape? Why is he not writing down the new plays Shakespeare wrote in heaven? Why is he not getting information about ancient Greece or other places where historians have limited information? Why is he not testifying in court as to what murder victims see just before they die? Why isn't he finding out what the Founding Fathers really meant by the second amendment? Why isn't he talking to pirates about where they buried their gold? Dead people are an incredible resource of information -–if Edward can talk to them then he is committing a great sin against humanity by using his power only to comfort 40 year old upper middle class white women on TV.

04-22-2002, 02:54 PM	#36
Writer@Large Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2000 Posts: 7,198	Well said, spejic. --W@L

04-22-2002, 03:33 PM	#37
Veil of Fire Regular Member Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: South Carolina Posts: 451	"or by James Randi" I hate to make my first post on a new forum community inflammatory, and I hope this topic hasn't been beaten to death before, but Randi is as much of a fraud in the skeptic's direction as Edwards is in the mysticism direction. ... Although that would make an interesting battle of the titans.. Can Randi convince Edwards that he actually honestly plans to give away the million dollars for a legit performance? And if so, can Edwards then convince Randi that he sees dead people? Who's the better liar? That'd be something I'd buy Pay Per Veiw to watch!

04-22-2002, 08:36 PM	#39
Veil of Fire Regular Member Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: South Carolina Posts: 451	I've heard, and of course this is mostly unfounded, that his "testing methods" are something along these lines. Say you can levitate 6 inches off the ground for 30 seconds at a time. So he takes you into the testing-type-room, set up to all the recorders, and asked to do it. And you do. He reads the little recorder things, and asks you to repeat it, say, ten times. So you go through and levitate yourself ten times. Randi reads the little records, makes a little face, and repeats the process. The tests stop when you get tired and fail to stay up the full 30 seconds. He points to some random reading, delcares you a fraud, and kicks you out. ..... This is a hypothetical example, but the point is that he works from the assumption you're screwing with him, and would "debunk" a legitimate visit from Shoopoo Shoopoo the Giant Twinkie Creator of the Universe on any tiny or nonexistant straw he can grasp. There's a vast difference between skepticism and trying to convince the world that an irrational universe conforms to your rational worldview through any means necessary. That's why I believe Randi is just as much a fraud as Edwards. While Edwards perpetuates fraud by pretending to a mystical ability he doesn't have, Randi perpetuates fraud by pretending to debunk all the mysticism in the world, fake or not.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.