My medium testing protocol

[Open Mind]

Originally Posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

Ian Rowland is the best I've seen.

~~ Paul

Paul he is magician .... where was the smiley? Perhaps Mr Rowlands is a possiblity for a future medium VS magician cold reading comparison. No hot reading allowed though.

[eyemsougly]

Originally Posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

Ian Rowland is the best I've seen.

the Irish guy? He's terrible. At least what I've seen.


Anyway, this is academic because we both know that the big money mediums would never agree to be tested by somebody like Wiseman. The best we could do is get poor man's John Edward, like Marcel Cairo. I'm kinda dissapointed he didn't volunteer for Skeptico v Skeptic's Guide experiment.

Wow, writing that last line really made me realize how badly Alex needs to change the name of his show.

[eyemsougly]

Originally Posted by Open Mind

Paul he is magician .... where was the smiley? Perhaps Mr Rowlands is a possiblity for a future medium VS magician cold reading comparison. No hot reading allowed though.

oh, the British magician. Honestly I don't think he's that good either. And he's annoying.

The best mentalist I've ever seen is this Asian American guy, I think his name is Andy something. Anyway, he can do things that I would think were Psi if he didn't say otherwise. He's awesome.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Originally Posted by Open Mind

Most skeptics believe remarkable paranormal claims are due to fraud, cheating or bias .....if that is what skeptics think of human nature, what makes one think skeptics are always honest? Are psi opponents honest and psi proponents dishonest?

I don't think anyone said that all claims are due to those things.

For example take a hypothetical medium phrase...

'Do you understand why I am seeing black cats?'

Believer's thinks '... yes, I have a cat ...and my parents have a black cat called Pooky..' - a hit

Die-hard skeptic thinks '.... no, my cat isn't black, my parents have a black cat, just one, not more, it is alive so why would a medium see a living cat? - a miss

Ooh, somewhere in the sitter's life there might be a black cat. I'm impressed! What a hit!

What would impress me is a pet ocelot.

~~ Paul

[Open Mind]

Originally Posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

Ooh, somewhere in the sitter's life there might be a black cat. I'm impressed! What a hit!

Paul my friend, you are just supporting my point

Those of skeptical disposition/opposition towards mediums on hearing vague information, become cynical, lose interest in rating to the best of their ability or worse perhaps subsconsious bias steps in to hoping the annoyingly vague medium falls flat on their face In other words skeptical sitters should not be used, if the believers or neutrals still pick the message intended for them signficantly beyond chance expectation, something paranormal is occuring.

Incidentally I read years ago Ian Rowland saying mediums never gave surnames, addresses or specific detail ...... he isn't quite right ... I've seen 3 mediums who did..... and at least 50 others who didn't.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Originally Posted by Open Mind

Those of skeptical disposition/opposition towards mediums on hearing vague information, become cynical, lose interest in rating to the best of their ability or worse perhaps subsconsious bias steps in to hoping the annoyingly vague medium falls flat on their face In other words skeptical sitters should not be used, if the believers or neutrals still pick the message intended for them signficantly beyond chance expectation, something paranormal is occuring.

In other words, don't use anyone who's ever heard of cold reading. Make sure all the sitters have no explanation except a woo-woo one.

~~ Paul

[Open Mind]

Originally Posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

In other words, don't use anyone who's ever heard of cold reading. Make sure all the sitters have no explanation except a woo-woo one.

~~ Paul

Paul this is out of context as knowing about 'cold reading' makes no difference in this protocol. 6 sitters are given a message from a medium, none know whose is whose message, they all choose which message they feel is theirs . Run the experiment often enough and if materialism is correct chance expectation should occur.

There are only two ways to muck up this experiments (1) Have mediums who are so uselessly vague, the general informations fits all sitters the same. (2) Use die-hard skeptic sitters who dissect all information into being misses they can't can't discern which fits themselves best.

Paul, skeptics can run the experiment ... better still let psi proponents and psi opponents run the experiment together, checking each others actions. The sitters should be neutral or believers IMHO

[Chris Noble]

Originally Posted by Open Mind

Paul this is out of context as knowing about 'cold reading' makes no difference in this protocol. 6 sitters are given a message from a medium, none know whose is whose message, they all choose which message they feel is theirs . Run the experiment often enough and if materialism is correct chance expectation should occur.

Unless the mediums are completely blinded then they can use the name, age, sex etc of the sitters to give readings which will be statistically more likely to match the targets than non-targets.

If the mediums are completely blinded how are they supposed to know who they are giving the reading for?

[eyemsougly]

Originally Posted by Chris Noble

If the mediums are completely blinded how are they supposed to know who they are giving the reading for?

the sitter would be given a number and the medium would do a reading for whoever had that number

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Originally Posted by Open Mind

Paul this is out of context as knowing about 'cold reading' makes no difference in this protocol. 6 sitters are given a message from a medium, none know whose is whose message, they all choose which message they feel is theirs . Run the experiment often enough and if materialism is correct chance expectation should occur.

Then why can't a skeptic participate? A person skeptical of mediumship is pretty much a person who thinks it's cold (and/or warm) reading.

There are only two ways to muck up this experiments (1) Have mediums who are so uselessly vague, the general informations fits all sitters the same. (2) Use die-hard skeptic sitters who dissect all information into being misses they can't can't discern which fits themselves best.

Well, this brings up the question of what constitutes a hit. But if all you want is for me to select one of the six readings, I can do that regardless of my level of skepticism. And if I don't, then you discard that trial. What's the problem?

~~ Paul