Response to Skeptics' Guide Host, Dr. Steven Novella (Podcast)

[Mike]

I will say here again that I heard that Schwartz did further experiments after the ones reported on in The Afterlife Experiments that overcame the problems of the earlier experiments. I don't know whether or not this is true but joki in the mediumship study thread gave a reference about this that I haven't yet looked at. If it is true that Schwartz has cleaned up his protocols since The Afterlife Experiments, then it is only fair to take this into account. As I say, though, I don't know whether he has or not.

[Open Mind]

Originally Posted by NPC3001

Open Mind - are you saying that Schwartz's most impressive experiments were not those detailed in The Afterlife Experiments?

I was referring to Schwartz, in more recent times, has experimented with a 'triple blind' protocol that sidesteps most of the critique of Wiseman/O'Keefe and others, still with positive results. Personally I think more replications are required before I'd say 'impressive', I'd just say 'interesting' at the moment.

Venom linked above to Wiseman/O'Keefe article offering critique on Schwartz experiments. Here are some comments Schwartz made on the Wiseman/O'Keefe experiment '......One double-blind mediumship experiment that failed to obtain significant results [Wiseman/O'Keefe] used (a) mediums who had not been previously tested to determine if they were able to perform accurately under normal mediumship or single-blind conditions, (b) sitters who were not selected to be highly motivated to receive information purportedly from their deceased loved ones and thus score the readings accurately, (c) a scoring system that did not foster detailed item-by-item analysis of the readings, followed by meaningful summary scoring, and (4) experimental conditions that did not optimize the mediums’ potential to receive information (the mediums performed five readings in 5.5 hours)...

I think point (b) is particularly important in these type of trials on mediums, otherwise weak effects could seem weaker or non existant. Of course if better mediums existed who were producing more impressive results none of those precautions apply much but experiments should ideally be sensitive to weaker effects too.

[David Bailey]

Originally Posted by Open Mind

One double-blind mediumship experiment that failed to obtain significant results [Wiseman/O'Keefe] used (a) mediums who had not been previously tested to determine if they were able to perform accurately under normal mediumship or single-blind conditions, (b) sitters who were not selected to be highly motivated to receive information purportedly from their deceased loved ones and thus score the readings accurately, (c) a scoring system that did not foster detailed item-by-item analysis of the readings, followed by meaningful summary scoring, and (4) experimental conditions that did not optimize the mediums’ potential to receive information (the mediums performed five readings in 5.5 hours)...[/i]

That is an absolutely devastating example of skeptics just trashing an experiment and then saying "There - I told you there was no effect!". What makes me very angry, is that skeptics regularly demand almost unobtainable rigour from the paranormal investigators, but seem content to knock together totally rubbishy experiments as a refutation! Furthermore, they get away with it, and usually go on to take the high ground in discussions in the media.

David

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

(a) mediums who had not been previously tested to determine if they were able to perform accurately under normal mediumship or single-blind conditions,

If you think you have a way to test whether someone is an accurate medium, then why do you need to do any further experiments? Isn't this begging the question?

(b) sitters who were not selected to be highly motivated to receive information purportedly from their deceased loved ones and thus score the readings accurately,

So you're only going to use sitters who believe that mediums can do what they say?

(c) a scoring system that did not foster detailed item-by-item analysis of the readings, followed by meaningful summary scoring,

The whole scoring thing is a mess, but I'll accept this one.

(4) experimental conditions that did not optimize the mediums’ potential to receive information (the mediums performed five readings in 5.5 hours)

Sounds like begging the question again.

~~ Paul

[joki]

As I said before, I discussed mediumship with George Hansen. There is a good interview with Marcel Cairo. He also stated that cold reaing techniques are often involved, but not all information could be reduced to these techniques. G.H. is a magician and knows these techniques. There are very good studies, which could exclude cold reading. The most philosophical question, whether the gained information is regarded to a kind of communication with the discarnated, is also controversial discussed among mediums. I do not think that it does make sense to discuss this point, because we have no ideas for alternative explanations. In my opinion, if someone beliefs that all this kind of communication between mediums and sitters can be reduced to psychological techniques, than it does not make sense to go on with the discussion.
I have performed a lot of research. What I have learned over the years is that every one has a kind of intellectual belief (without hard evidence).

[NPC3001]

It sounds like Schwartz is begging the question a bit but I think (a) is a problem if Wiseman and O'Keefe just haphazardly grabbed the nearest handful of mediums and conducted an experiment. That won't do if the mediums they used had nothing to do with Schwartz's experiments. If Schwartz found statistically significant results using x mediums it isn't going to tell us anything interesting if the skeptics found statistically insignificant results using y mediums because while y mediums may well be a bunch of hacks and frauds, the question was about x mediums. It's not a fair replication of Schwartz's experiments. If on the other hand they got statistically insignificant results using x mediums, then their reproduction would be fair. Suppose I was experimenting to see if five basketball players could jump 20 feet in the air. Nothing substantive would be demonstrated by getting 5 other basketball players who couldn't jump 20 feet.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Indeed, if you are trying to replicate a study of specific mediums, then you have to use those mediums. I don't think Wiseman and O'Keefe said that's what they were trying to do. They contacted the spiritualist union to get names of mediums.

~~ Paul

[Open Mind]

Guys I think I have been spelling 'O'Keefe' wrong. It is 'O'Keeffe' I think (Ciaran O'Keeffe is probably best known for being the sensible skeptic on the UK's 'Most Haunted' TV programme - dreadful programme IMHO - Not Ciaran's fault )

Originally Posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

Indeed, if you are trying to replicate a study of specific mediums, then you have to use those mediums. I don't think Wiseman and O'Keefe said that's what they were trying to do. They contacted the spiritualist union to get names of mediums.

Which was a bit lazy, others who have tried to scientifically test mediumship (and had more positive results) have gone to effort of visiting lots of public demonstrations and trying to get mediums for trials who seem to be doing better. Yes, that would indeed be very time consuming but proper research usually is and one should value the research of those who went to that effort a bit higher.

The problem with contacting the UK's Spiritualists National Union, a religion, is that their criteria of a good medium is much based upon presenting the philosophy of spiritualism, public speaking and giving spiritual guidance type messages (i.e. vague). Most paranormal researchers agree that the standard of evidence by mediums doing spiritualist church circuit has declined since the 1970s. The services are free and rely on donations, they might pay travel expenses but churches prefer a local medium, so really anyone willing to call themselves a 'medium', can get up on the platform and have a go can, as long as they don't do anything contrary to the SNU rules.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Originally Posted by Open Mind

Which was a bit lazy, others who have tried to scientifically test mediumship (and had more positive results) have gone to effort of visiting lots of public demonstrations and trying to get mediums for trials who seem to be doing better. Yes, that would indeed be very time consuming but proper research usually is and one should value the research of those who went to that effort a bit higher.

I don't think that's the right way to do it. How do you know who is "doing better," unless you have some preconceived notion of what is real mediumship and what is showmanship? Wiseman simply went to the authority on the matter, asked for the best, and used those folks. He probably thought he would get the least argument that way, especially since he is a skeptic, but of course that was not to be.

The problem with contacting the UK's Spiritualists National Union, a religion, is that their criteria of a good medium is much based upon presenting the philosophy of spiritualism, public speaking and giving spiritual guidance type messages (i.e. vague). Most paranormal researchers agree that the standard of evidence by mediums doing spiritualist church circuit has declined since the 1970s. The services are free and rely on donations, they might pay travel expenses but churches prefer a local medium, so really anyone willing to call themselves a 'medium', can get up on the platform and have a go can, as long as they don't do anything contrary to the SNU rules.

Perhaps Wiseman did not realize this. To which organization should he have gone for references?

Surely you agree that if Wiseman had chosen the mediums himself, he would have gotten no end of reaming?

~~ Paul

[alextsakiris]

Originally Posted by Open Mind

I would say the opposite, give the mediums favourable circumstances but with a strict protocol. that will adequately remove sensory clues and simple fraud. It is enough IMHO

Good point! Gary Schwartz emphasizes this as well, but it's often overlooked. The experiential design should do everything possible to create a supportive environment that fosters the mediums ability to do what they claim, and still control for cueing.