My medium testing protocol

[eyemsougly]

I think mediumship research is maybe the strongest potential way to test for Psi. I've been thinking for a while about how to design a test that wouldn't have the terrible flaws that Schwartz's did. I designed this protocol with the goal being that somebody like Wiseman could do it and still get overwhelmingly statistically significant results.


Aight, here it is:
1. A single medium is chosen
2. Six sitters are chosen, each is given a number 1 through 6
3. Medium is instructed to give a 30 minute reading for each sitter which is transcribed. Both the medium and sitter never need to leave their homes or come in contact with eachother.
4. Each sitter is given a copy of all 6 readings. They then have to pick which one is theirs.

If at least 5 of the sitters get it correct then we should try to see if the results can be repeated. Anything less than 5 and we will call the experiment a failure and we can move on to something else.

thoughts?

[Open Mind]

The protocol is fine ... however if for Richard Wiseman to conduct he has already pretty much done that (along with Ciaran O'Keeffe) . They used 5 mediums otherwise the protocol is very similar.

The result ..... the mediums failed.

End of story? There have been successes too .....

Originally Posted by Open Mind

Positive results supportive of mediumship claims

- Dr J. G Pratt (1936) 'Towards a method of evaluating mediumistic material' Bulletin of the Boston Society of Psychical Research, 23

- J. G. Pratt & W. R. Birge (1948) 'Appraisal of verbal test material in parapsychology Journal of parapsychology. 12, 236-256

- Professor Getrude Schmeidler (1958) Analysis and evaluation of proxy session with Mrs Caroline Chapman . Journal of Parapsychology 22 137- 155

- Professor Archie Roy & Patricia Robertson (2001) A preliminary study by the acceptence of non-recipients to medium's statement to recipient Journal of the Society of Psychical Research 65.2, 863, 91-106

- Professor Archie Roy & Patricia Robertson (2004) Results of the application of Roberston-Roy protocol to a series of experiments with mediums and participants ' Journal of the Society for Psychical Research 68.1, 874, 18-34

Also see the research by Gary Schwartz

Note: All of the above are referenced in a 2005 book by Professor David Fontana 'Is there an afterlife? A comprehensive overview of the evidence' .... Highly recommended read

A negative result not supportive of mediumship claims
O'Keeffe, C. & Wiseman, R. (2005). Testing alleged mediumship: Methods and results. The British Journal of Psychology, 96(2), 165-179.

I reckon the quality of mediums chosen are the most critical factor, the shorter the trials the better the mediums need to be. The trials may require preliminaries just to try find better than average ones. Much like there are plenty of people who audition believing with confidence they are good singers, one is more likely to encounter confident untalented singers than talented ones.

Originally Posted by eyemsougly

If at least 5 of the sitters get it correct then we should try to see if the results can be repeated. Anything less than 5 and we will call the experiment a failure and we can move on to something else.

Perhaps we shouldn't expect sciences of the mind like psychology, parapsychology, etc. to produce the same endlessly replicable results as in the physical sciences like physics, chemistry etc. (Assuming these are, the experiments are seldom blind) Medicine is in trouble if we demand success in short trials.

Instinctively we all tend to regard truth as stable results, science seeks the stable, the scientific philosophy is the belief that the stable is more fundamental than the unstable, commerce needs only stable inventions and discoveries or it is of little practical use and interest to most ..... Perhaps weak on average psi has already been established in lab parapsychology, perhaps stronger erratic psi has been established in psychical research. More stable results would interest everyone more.

[eyemsougly]

Originally Posted by Open Mind

The protocol is fine ... however if for Richard Wiseman to conduct he has already pretty much done that (along with Ciaran O'Keeffe) . They used 5 mediums otherwise the protocol is very similar.

The result ..... the mediums failed.

cause he used shitty mediums. Obviously we couldn't let Wiseman pick the medium to be tested but everything else about the experiment could be done by him.

I reckon the quality of mediums chosen are the most critical factor

definately

Perhaps we shouldn't expect sciences of the mind like psychology, parapsychology, etc. to produce the same endlessly replicable results as in the physical sciences like physics, chemistry etc. (Assuming these are, the experiments are seldom blind) Medicine is in trouble if we demand success in short trials.

only a repeatable experiment can establish Psi. I have an overall positive view of Psi but I won't be convinced until we have a phenomena that can be demonstrated on demand.

[Venom]

Originally Posted by eyemsougly

cause he used shitty mediums. Obviously we couldn't let Wiseman pick the medium to be tested but everything else about the experiment could be done by him.

Are you implying that he choosed in purpose bad mediums? That is pure difamation.

We all know that psi experiments are not easy to replicate (it's the tendency when the phenomena you're studying is in fact a by-product of different artefacts).

And of course beeing a believer helps a lot to have positive results. Don't know why.

[eyemsougly]

I don't think Wiseman takes Psi seriously so he just took self described mediums and didn't worry about finding high quality ones. On the other hand, maybe he just couldn't get any "good" mediums to agree to be tested by him. I'd like to see Wiseman use my protocol to test somebody like John Edward.

[Open Mind]

To be fair to Wiseman, he asked the SNU (Spiritualist National Union - a UK organization behind the religion of Spiritualism) to select 5 mediums.

Not that it makes much difference .... the SNU's criteria of a good medium would probably not be based upon any controlled trials. If the SNU tried to regulate which mediums get to be on platforms based solely on evidence, so few would pass the test, hundreds of their churches would be without mediums to take weekly services. So I doubt the SNU would even attempt to regulate mediums based upon evidence, it is based upon other criteria such as public presentation of their philosophy.

Sadly that is what occurs in religion, the important questions take 2nd place to assisting an organization to run. The word 'spiritualist' once just meant 'one who believes in evidence the mind survives death and can communicate from an afterlife' .... there was no need to make yet another a religion or faith out of it IMHO.

It is up to more open minded researchers to look for better mediums, find positive results and perhaps at that point Wiseman would be willing to look again... but I don't regard Wiseman's viewpoint as that important.

[eyemsougly]

Good for Wiseman not picking the mediums himself. It sounds like he did a good experiment all the way through.

I still think that better mediums could be successful under controlled conditions but maybe not.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Originally Posted by eyemsougly

3. Medium is instructed to give a 30 minute reading for each sitter which is transcribed. Both the medium and sitter never need to leave their homes or come in contact with eachother.

I don't get it. How does the medium know who he is reading for?

I still think that better mediums could be successful under controlled conditions but maybe not.

Better according to what criteria?

~~ Paul

[Open Mind]

In the interests of accuracy ... Ciaran O'Keeffe really did the design and work on this experiments for his PhD, Wiseman only supervised. So a small correction is in order ....

Originally Posted by Open Mind

To be fair to Wiseman, he asked the SNU ....

Originally Posted by eyemsougly

Good for Wiseman not picking the mediums himself.

Probably it was Ciaran O'Keeffe who made decisions more so than Wiseman getting the credit or blame.

It sounds like he did a good experiment all the way through.

The experimental design is OK, the choice of mediums and sitters isn't...

'The five sitters (all male, age range 25–30) were either students or staff from the university. They were selected from a pool of individuals who responded to a generale-mail, circulated within the university, asking for volunteers to be involved in a scientific test of mediumship. The sitters were chosen using the following criteria; (a)they did not know one another, (b) they were the same gender, and (c) they were approximately the same age. '


Why choose such a group? Young male students or staff from a university sounds just about the most skeptical group possible for mediums to give readings to. Males are more skeptical sex, particularly younger male students (even more so if psychology students). Both O'Keefe and Wiseman will have been familiar with claims of sheep/ goat effects... this seems like adding potential bias IMHO.

(a) Young people are less likely to have close dead relatives
(b) Since this age group/sex are perhaps more likely to be cynical towards mediumship claims, any subsconsious bias against mediumship could lead to subconsciously marking statements poorly.

Solution
The sitters should have been a mix of males and females old enough to have close dead relatives. Ideally believers since then it rules out any subconscious bias to mark statements inaccurately.

And of course more care over selecting mediums rather than trusting the SNU, whose criteria over what makes a good medium isn't based upon accuracy but other criteria.

The O'Keefe/Wiseman's protocol is very much based on Dr D J Pratt's protocol. Pratt had significant results in favour of mediumship being real, he was careful to choose a good medium, Eileen Garrett, one of the most impressive and most lab tested mediums of the 1940s.

[eyemsougly]

Paul:
1. better meaning somebody who seems to have achieved notable success, preferably professionally. Somebody like John Edward or maybe even our own Marcel Cairo. It sounds like Wiseman and O'Keeffe really did make a good faith effort to find solid mediums but it doesn't mean that there aren't better ones.
2. they would know who they were doing the reading for based on the number assigned to that sitter. The experimenter would just be like, "aight, now do a reading for sitter #1"

OM
1. chosing skeptical sitters who are the same age and gender sounds like a good idea to me. The sitters absolutely should not be involved in rating the accuracy of the readings, because that is too subjective. All the sitters should do is pick which of the readings is theirs. That way we rule out rater bias.