59. OpenSourceScience Medium Experiment, Janice Ervin (Podcast)

[alextsakiris]

Guest: Hospice specialist Janice Ervin discusses the OpenSourceScience medium experiment.

Click here to join this experiment as a skeptical participant

Click here to read more ...

[jacob]

Good episode on the status of mediumship research. I liked your analysis of the requirements of the experiment, especially the simplicity and speed.

What I couldn't understand is:
1. How many sitters are there (4?)
2. How many mediums will take part?
3. Will all mediums connect with all the sitters?

It might be a good idea for skeptic's survey not only try to guess which deceased for which sitter but perhaps do a "reading" themselves, meaning to fill the same questionnaire as the mediums, this way the statistical comparison with mediums will be more solid, I believe.

[alextsakiris]

Originally Posted by jacob

Good episode on the status of mediumship research. I liked your analysis of the requirements of the experiment, especially the simplicity and speed.

What I couldn't understand is:
1. How many sitters are there (4?)

-- 4 in this trial, but about 100 in the preliminary experiment

2. How many mediums will take part?

-- not sure, probably 5-6... were trying to find ones that can work in this format

3. Will all mediums connect with all the sitters?

-- mediums do the same as what you see

It might be a good idea for skeptic's survey not only try to guess which deceased for which sitter but perhaps do a "reading" themselves, meaning to fill the same questionnaire as the mediums, this way the statistical comparison with mediums will be more solid, I believe.

-- I don't think we're gonna do that... we really just want to focus on the most bare-bones aspect of a reading -- can you identify the deceased.

[scomsjw]

Very interesting show. Fascinating project this OpenSource science.

I enjoyed the earlier podcast with Alex and the SGU where they recorded the entire conversation about the protocol for this type of experiment. It would be interesting to listen in on Alex's conversations with Steve Novella about the detailed design of this experiment.

On a personal note I think it would be helpful for everyone to think sceptically when designing the experiment. Alex is certainly doing this though he keeps saying that this is to address concerns that skeptics might raise. He doesn't have to keep saying that. The concerns need to be addressed whoever raises them.

[jacob]

Originally Posted by alextsakiris

-- 4 in this trial, but about 100 in the preliminary experiment

What do you mean by the preliminary experiment? Is it something that was already run? If yes, what was the goal and the results?

[alextsakiris]

Originally Posted by jacob

What do you mean by the preliminary experiment? Is it something that was already run? If yes, what was the goal and the results?

-- we are running it now... too early for results

[craven]

Hey Alex,

Great episode. I think even the most staunch skeptics would be hard pressed to find leakage in the examples you've posted, but I'll be curious to see the results.

I was wondering if you could clarify a couple things for your listeners.

1. This online survey (AskPeople: Questionnaire) you've posted is for the purpose of seeing whether or not skeptics find (based on these 4 examples only) leakage of information within the 4-10 second recordings of the sitters?

2. Each sitter in the survey is paired with one and only one of the four multiple choice options?

3. You mentioned above that 100 sitters will be used in the preliminary experiment. Could you expand on this, and what bearing it has on the protocol for finding the right mediums? Also, I'm assuming that this preliminary experiment will be to find the best mediums for the SGU experiment?

4. You mentioned in the podcast that correctly matching the four sitters to the correct four readings is 1/24 odds (@ 35:36). That is totally correct. But what did you mean by saying that doing this twice in a row is 1/500 odds? Under what circumstances are the mediumship candidates doing something twice?

Thanks!

craven

[Open Mind]

Great to see trials go ahead .... the open source concept sounds ideal. This is going to generate a lot of interest on both sides of the fence.

But is this really a test of mediumship?
This seems a test to see if mediums have increased 'psi' which is interesting but it isn't really a test of mediumship. Here the medium has to match a living voice with their living statements? How are discarnate humans involved?

It is one thing for us all to assume mediums have ESP that enables them to contact the dead ... but what if mediums do not have meaningful ESP and the discarnates have to contact them, disrupt the mediums brain filtering, etc to somehow get information across?

Should the discarnates enter parapsychology labs and mislead parapsychologists into thinking people have strong ESP abilities under their personal will? Or should they just watch parapsychologist find all sort of weak psi effects under varying degrees of unconscious command... waiting until some parapsychologists returns to testing a survival hypothesis they deserted 70 years ago?

I don't know what to believe .... but I think if testing mediumship ... it might be better to test if discarnates can increase psi in mediums ... rather than head down the same old parapsychology route that assumes mediums must have ESP as the foundation of anything further existing.

Suggestion for later experiments: Perhaps in a later experiment (certainly not the SGU/Novella one) you could ask the mediums to try matching using their own personal psychic ability (i.e. asking discarnates not to help them) ....and in others trials the medium asks specifically for discarnate help to choose the right matches?

[alextsakiris]

Originally Posted by craven

1. This online survey (AskPeople: Questionnaire) you've posted is for the purpose of seeing whether or not skeptics find (based on these 4 examples only) leakage of information within the 4-10 second recordings of the sitters?

- this is the exact same recordings and choices mediums are given... so we're hoping to spot potential "cold reading" problems... hope this answers your quesiton.

2. Each sitter in the survey is paired with one and only one of the four multiple choice options?

- yes, each of the recordings match one and only 1.

3. You mentioned above that 100 sitters will be used in the preliminary experiment. Could you expand on this, and what bearing it has on the protocol for finding the right mediums? Also, I'm assuming that this preliminary experiment will be to find the best mediums for the SGU experiment?

- there are going to be several trials (like the first one you saw). Each has 4 recordings. Taken together these will constitute our preliminary trials. We'll repeate this process with SGU and then again with the Universities.

4. You mentioned in the podcast that correctly matching the four sitters to the correct four readings is 1/24 odds (@ 35:36). That is totally correct. But what did you mean by saying that doing this twice in a row is 1/500 odds? Under what circumstances are the mediumship candidates doing something twice?

- 24 X 24 = 676... but i like nice round numbers

[alextsakiris]

Originally Posted by Open Mind

Great to see trials go ahead .... the open source concept sounds ideal. This is going to generate a lot of interest on both sides of the fence.

But is this really a test of mediumship?
This seems a test to see if mediums have increased 'psi' which is interesting but it isn't really a test of mediumship. Here the medium has to match a living voice with their living statements? How are discarnate humans involved?

It is one thing for us all to assume mediums have ESP that enables them to contact the dead ... but what if mediums do not have meaningful ESP and the discarnates have to contact them, disrupt the mediums brain filtering, etc to somehow get information across?

Should the discarnates enter parapsychology labs and mislead parapsychologists into thinking people have strong ESP abilities under their personal will? Or should they just watch parapsychologist find all sort of weak psi effects under varying degrees of unconscious command... waiting until some parapsychologists returns to testing a survival hypothesis they deserted 70 years ago?

I don't know what to believe .... but I think if testing mediumship ... it might be better to test if discarnates can increase psi in mediums ... rather than head down the same old parapsychology route that assumes mediums must have ESP as the foundation of anything further existing.

Suggestion for later experiments: Perhaps in a later experiment (certainly not the SGU/Novella one) you could ask the mediums to try matching using their own personal psychic ability (i.e. asking discarnates not to help them) ....and in others trials the medium asks specifically for discarnate help to choose the right matches?

- Elephant in the corner -- this is all woo-woo to most. We must demonstrate this phenomena over, and over, and over... make it impossible to deny.