Ideas for a solid mediumship testing protocol (that would make skeptics cringe)?

[429cage]

This thread is dedicated to the title's topic. I have come up with several ideas for a very massive study of mediums (who would have to have been tested elsewhere and achieved positive results). My protocol will be posted in another thread, ready to suffer the blatant criticisms that any might throw my way (for the benefit of the protocol, I'd hope). I've discussed several ideas for testing mediums with other members of the NCPII (my organization) which I've never seen used elsewhere during any experiment.

With those things being said, what are your ideas for a "perfect" experimental protocol for testing mediums (or rather, claimed mediums)? Obviously, flaws in the experiments might come into play, so how would you address them? What, in your proposed protocol (or suggestions for such a protocol), would negate the common skeptical accusation that normal explanations can account for the positive results of your experiment (assuming they'd be positive in the first place)? Thrall me with your suggestions (sarcasm intended).

Seriously though, let's make this a fair an open discussion -one where we can debate the topic fairly and offer personal insights into the study of the subject matter. Shoot.

[sbu]

Originally Posted by 429cage

This thread is dedicated to the title's topic. I have come up with several ideas for a very massive study of mediums (who would have to have been tested elsewhere and achieved positive results). My protocol will be posted in another thread, ready to suffer the blatant criticisms that any might throw my way (for the benefit of the protocol, I'd hope). I've discussed several ideas for testing mediums with other members of the NCPII (my organization) which I've never seen used elsewhere during any experiment.

With those things being said, what are your ideas for a "perfect" experimental protocol for testing mediums (or rather, claimed mediums)? Obviously, flaws in the experiments might come into play, so how would you address them? What, in your proposed protocol (or suggestions for such a protocol), would negate the common skeptical accusation that normal explanations can account for the positive results of your experiment (assuming they'd be positive in the first place)? Thrall me with your suggestions (sarcasm intended).

Seriously though, let's make this a fair an open discussion -one where we can debate the topic fairly and offer personal insights into the study of the subject matter. Shoot.

Chris French suggested a simple test where the claimant should link at least seven out of 10 pictures of dead women over 50 with their names (names given on a seperate list). It doesn't have to be more complicated than this. So why can no medium pass this test?

[Craig Weiler]

Originally Posted by 429cage

This thread is dedicated to the title's topic. I have come up with several ideas for a very massive study of mediums (who would have to have been tested elsewhere and achieved positive results). My protocol will be posted in another thread, ready to suffer the blatant criticisms that any might throw my way (for the benefit of the protocol, I'd hope). I've discussed several ideas for testing mediums with other members of the NCPII (my organization) which I've never seen used elsewhere during any experiment.

With those things being said, what are your ideas for a "perfect" experimental protocol for testing mediums (or rather, claimed mediums)? Obviously, flaws in the experiments might come into play, so how would you address them? What, in your proposed protocol (or suggestions for such a protocol), would negate the common skeptical accusation that normal explanations can account for the positive results of your experiment (assuming they'd be positive in the first place)? Thrall me with your suggestions (sarcasm intended).

Seriously though, let's make this a fair an open discussion -one where we can debate the topic fairly and offer personal insights into the study of the subject matter. Shoot.

Gary Schwartz did a very thorough double blind test of mediums. The skeptics, of course, weren't satisfied. Surprise, surprise. The skeptics don't cringe ever because they have an arsenal of armchair arguments to use in case of real evidence. In this case, they just trashed the researcher and nitpicked unimportant details of the testing while announcing that the results had been debunked.

The problem is not evidence, it's pseudo skepticism.

[429cage]

Originally Posted by sbu

Chris French suggested a simple test where the claimant should link at least seven out of 10 pictures of dead women over 50 with their names (names given on a seperate list). It doesn't have to be more complicated than this. So why can no medium pass this test?

Well, I suppose that is a matter of speculation. Some researchers claim to get positive results, others negative results. I like French's concept of a simple test, but obviously, even if a person were successful, it would only be a preliminary sort of thing. Plus, different conditions may produce different results (even if the controls are as strict as they can be under all of them). This is why extensive experimentation is necessary.

The positive tests that have most interested me are the ones by Emily Kelly and Diane Archangel, and especially the ones by Julie Beischel and others at the Windbridge Institute. Some mediums may do well under controlled conditions, while many may not (probably because they're delusional, but who am I to judge?). One thing which I think should be done, is that experimenters should try to test mediums who have already been validated under the conditions of other researchers and test them under a protocol that they feel is stricter. It seems as if everyone is simply "nabbing 'mediums' off the streets" in some of these "tests".

I have a protocol in mind that will either be a huge smack in the face to the skeptical community, or a huge smack in the face for those who believe in mediumship. As I said, I'll post that soon, but for now I'll leave the debate open! Thanks for the comment!

[429cage]

Originally Posted by Craig Weiler

Gary Schwartz did a very thorough double blind test of mediums. The skeptics, of course, weren't satisfied. Surprise, surprise. The skeptics don't cringe ever because they have an arsenal of armchair arguments to use in case of real evidence. In this case, they just trashed the researcher and nitpicked unimportant details of the testing while announcing that the results had been debunked.

The problem is not evidence, it's pseudo skepticism.

To a certain extent I will agree here. I don't think that the results he got were really "debunked", so to speak. The problem is, there were several "weak spots" in the experimental design with Schwartz's experiments. Hyman leveled several good criticisms at Schwartz, while Randi just chose to play him off in his typical "parody parading" style. Schwartz did reply and defend himself as well as he could, but the fact is that his old experiments were greatly flawed. His newer triple blind tests were far better, but the sample size was terribly small.
There are a few things that could be done that really would make the skeptical community abandon their common arguments (I am a member of that community myself, though very open minded about this line of research; I feel that it might possibly shed a great deal of light on the human experience). The trick is to level the arguments that are often employed by showing, without any possible doubt, that the common criticisms are not valid. There is really only one way that I think this could be done.
Also, I'm curious... Do you think that I should post the protocol I have been making allusions to as a comment on this post, or as a whole new thread? I may actually post it tomorrow sometime (after I've had some much needed rest and recovery). Goodnight for now!

[OC68]

429, not to throw this thread too far off topic but I just realized I've been subscribed to your YouTube channel for sometime. Welcome! I've long thought you have some interesting vids. You should post a link to your YouTube channel on your personal page here. Also, how do you reconcile liking Randi and your interest in these matters. Do you think Randi has been helpful when it comes to the public understanding of these issues, not to mention the investigation of psi? I'm referring to this comment you left on the Robert McLuhan vid dealing with Randi's Prize:

For the record, I am a fan of Randi; that being said, Robert's book is very well written and researched. Anyone who is "hating on him", probably did not read the book. The title is very provocative, yes. But Robert does raise an important question; should we not also question the claims of prominent skeptics, in addition to "the woos"? It is balanced, for the most part, and is certainly worth reading. I don't agree with Robert on everything, though he is right about a great many things. Read it!

[Craig Weiler]

Originally Posted by 429cage

To a certain extent I will agree here. I don't think that the results he got were really "debunked", so to speak. The problem is, there were several "weak spots" in the experimental design with Schwartz's experiments. Hyman leveled several good criticisms at Schwartz, while Randi just chose to play him off in his typical "parody parading" style. Schwartz did reply and defend himself as well as he could, but the fact is that his old experiments were greatly flawed. His newer triple blind tests were far better, but the sample size was terribly small.
There are a few things that could be done that really would make the skeptical community abandon their common arguments (I am a member of that community myself, though very open minded about this line of research; I feel that it might possibly shed a great deal of light on the human experience). The trick is to level the arguments that are often employed by showing, without any possible doubt, that the common criticisms are not valid. There is really only one way that I think this could be done.
Also, I'm curious... Do you think that I should post the protocol I have been making allusions to as a comment on this post, or as a whole new thread? I may actually post it tomorrow sometime (after I've had some much needed rest and recovery). Goodnight for now!

I am aware of the supposed "flaws" in Schwartz's work. They for the most part, trivial side shows for skeptics. Overall, the design was rock solid.

The key here is that the test that Schwartz designed is impervious to cold reading. In fact, no cold reader will allow themselves to be tested with that protocol.

You can quibble about the grading, but Schwartz used very practical and simple techniques for dealing with the biases that people often have with their own readings.

Just because Hyman, whose overwhelming biases are extremely well documented by the way, says something is wrong with parapsychological research doesn't mean that he's right. You have to take his criticisms with a grain of salt. It's about as biased as the KKK discussing the intelligence of black people.

[429cage]

Originally Posted by OC68

429, not to throw this thread too far off topic but I just realized I've been subscribed to your YouTube channel for sometime. Welcome! I've long thought you have some interesting vids. You should post a link to your YouTube channel on your personal page here. Also, how do you reconcile liking Randi and your interest in these matters. Do you think Randi has been helpful when it comes to the public understanding of these issues, not to mention the investigation of psi? I'm referring to this comment you left on the Robert McLuhan vid dealing with Randi's Prize:

That's a great question OC and thank you for the hearty welcome! I do respect Randi to a certain extent, though he is not my favorite "critic" of psychic phenomena. Honestly, I think the most effective critic, and certainly my favorite, was Frank Podmore of the SPR (though he lived so long ago, he was very familiar with the research and offered very effective and beneficial criticisms).

I have an interest in studying psychical matters above just about anything else; my admiration for the critics of the research can only go so far. I reconcile it, mainly because I try to retain a level, agnostic approach to the subject material and not jump to conclusions too hastily. I like to observe all sides and test the theories and arguments from both. In this way, I approach the subject in a similar way to how McLuhan does in his book (which is wonderfully well written).

My biggest issue with skeptics like Randi, is that they seem to be overtly repressive of this line of research, viewing it as bunk and influencing a great many people not to consider its implications, or the vast amount of evidence that has been accumulated over the last, oh, 150 years of research. I liked McLuhan's analogy: That comparing Randi to the many parapsychologists investigating the subject, he is like a fisher man on a small boat with a fishing net, who is waiting for the fish to jump in his lap, while many parapsychologists are using a fleet of fishing ships, armed with top notch fishing gear and expert seamen. I do think that this rings true; sadly, the real researchers often ridiculed for their inquiry into the subject (top researchers like Daryl Bem and theorists like Brian Josephson are good examples of "great minds who have gotten ridiculed", as is William James!).

[429cage]

Originally Posted by Craig Weiler

I am aware of the supposed "flaws" in Schwartz's work. They for the most part, trivial side shows for skeptics. Overall, the design was rock solid.

The key here is that the test that Schwartz designed is impervious to cold reading. In fact, no cold reader will allow themselves to be tested with that protocol.

You can quibble about the grading, but Schwartz used very practical and simple techniques for dealing with the biases that people often have with their own readings.

Just because Hyman, whose overwhelming biases are extremely well documented by the way, says something is wrong with parapsychological research doesn't mean that he's right. You have to take his criticisms with a grain of salt. It's about as biased as the KKK discussing the intelligence of black people.

Agreed. I think that the flaws in the design (which was improved upon) were not proportionate to the results he got in those experiments. However, the fact that they were there gives an opportunity for many skeptics to say it "could have had a normal explanation", and however improbable it might be, since we can't explain these results, the normal explanation must be the right one. This is why we must make the normal explanations seem even more ludicrous by tightening the protocols and making people who would criticize the results (if positive) seem like total baboons.

Now, I think Hyman has made many mistakes, but he has also done many good things in this field. I would recommend that you look up a paper by George Hansen on him, if you want to see a balanced review of his career. I think that most of the highly critical skeptics are biased, Chris French and Michel Shermer being possible exclusions (though they must be somewhat biased, they seem to be a bit more open minded).

[OC68]

The poster on here named Open Mind (he's not on as much as he used to be) has some interesting thoughts regarding Podmore. He has a keen interest in a lot of the early researchers- and from your videos I know you do as well. Anyway, welcome aboard, good to see you here! I look forward to more of your posts.