61. Medium Experiment (Part 3), Michael Tymn (Podcast)

[Rod McKenzie]

Hi British Sceptic,

Mediums vs Skeptics

Maybe we’ll see “critical thinking” skills in action?
Or not.
Rod McKenzie
PS. Alex, can you update on dogs exp., via podcast also Lady cold reader said in passing that she was working on something skeptics wouldn’t like. Any news?

[Miguel]

Originally Posted by Open Mind

*If* selected mediums can do better than selected skeptics, that is very important information in its own right. Surely?

If they are (in a setting like the skeptiko experiment) much better then that is important because it really suggests something going on.
If they are only a little bit better then that tells you nothing.
And then there is this huge range of outcomes where it's basically down to opinion.

Testing mediums claims fairly
A mediums claim is some sort of telepathy with a discarnate mind. One cannot perfectly blind all investigators in a telepathy experiment, someone has to know the information being sent. If skeptics *demand* perfect blinding + investigators blinded to prevent hypothetical fraud ... you stop testing a telepathy hypothesis .... and end up testing the mediums remote sensing /ESP capability ... but that is not most mediums claim.

The mediums claim is perhaps more like a triangle between discarnate, medium and target sitter, if you completely blind the medium from the discarnate and target sitter, what is the medium supposed to telepathically tune into? If you go for perfect blinding, now you have demanded the discarnate contacts the medium, which might still be OK ... but next the skeptics now demands all investigators are blinded from knowing who is the randomly chosen target sitter? Now you are demanding a discarnate without physical eyes can remote view say information in an envelope, find the sitter, find a relative discarnate who then contacts the medium? Is that easy?

I've been thinking much the same when I read the RRP. It is not some skeptical chicanery, though. Surely Robertson and Roy are not under any suspicion of skepticism?

[Miguel]

Originally Posted by Open Mind

The goal is to subtract the cold reading element. If mediums only cold read, one would expect skeptics to more or less match their ability because there is nothing much to cold read in the Skeptiko experiments.

Agreed.

Yes, i would like to see that ...but my motive isn't scientific ... it is to show people that mentalists can't cold read very well, let alone super cold read. They probably would not do better than average.

You need to be more specific about what you mean by cold reading. It is a set of techniques.
To succeed in the Skeptiko task via normal means requires knowledge of statistical correlates. Succeeding would usually be called a display of cold reading. By success I mean scoring above 'chance'.
Note though: Someone who has complete knowledge of these correlates (maybe because he learned them by heart in preparation for the task) might still fail as a cold reader in any 'natural' setting.
Conversely: An expert cold reading mentalist may completely fail in this task for lack of knowledge of aforementioned correlates.

[British Sceptic]

How about Mentalists vs Mediums vs Skeptics? That way instaed of people making comments mentalits cant cold read they are put to the test, obviously mediums would score highest leaving skeptics and mentalists in the dirt.

I see that an excellent test Im sure Alex would have no objection to that, then we could see under lab conditions who produce better results instead of throwing around sweeping generalizations.

Cheers,

De

[Phronk]

Originally Posted by Miguel

If they are (in a setting like the skeptiko experiment) much better then that is important because it really suggests something going on.

...

If they are only a little bit better then that tells you nothing.
And then there is this huge range of outcomes where it's basically down to opinion.

This was my biggest problem with this episode of the podcast (and apparently the study in general). I don't think we learn very much if any group can use cold reading to get above chance results. Even if there is a HUGE difference between skeptics and mediums, it only tells us that:

1) Mediums are better at cold reading than skeptics.
2) Mediums are better at genuine mediumship than skeptics.
3) Some combination of (1) and (2).
4) Another way of gaining information was present.

The thing is, the study shouldn't even need a "control group". Maybe it's there because of skeptics insisting that every study needs a control group (and demonstrating that they applying a simple rule without really understanding how science is done), but it's unnecessary here. Ideally, the study should be set up in such a way that any above chance results, regardless of who is obtaining them, demonstrate what we want to demonstrate. In this case, we would want above chance results to only be obtainable through the negatively defined means of mediumship (i.e., no traditional sensory cues). The "control group" is the theoretically determined chance distribution of result.

In the study as it exists, a difference between skeptics and mediums could maybe hint at the mechanism behind the information gain, but can't distinguish between traditional guessing and true mediumship.

Apparently the study isn't set up this way, which is a shame. I know it's hard to have both a realistic study that tests what mediums claim to actually do in the real world, and at the same time have the required degree of experimental control, but I don't think it's impossible, and until such an experiment is done, nobody will be convinced either way.

(note I haven't read this entire thread yet, so forgive me if I am repeating stuff)

[alextsakiris]

Originally Posted by craven

To this end it may be important to keep your participants engaged in your work whilst still appealing for patience on their part for final results.

Do you mean skeptical participants? Just to clarify... we have 3 kinds of participants -- sitters, mediums, and cold-readers.

[alextsakiris]

Originally Posted by Rod McKenzie

Hi British Sceptic,

Mediums vs Skeptics

Maybe we’ll see “critical thinking” skills in action?
Or not.
Rod McKenzie
PS. Alex, can you update on dogs exp., via podcast also Lady cold reader said in passing that she was working on something skeptics wouldn’t like. Any news?

- Dogs That Know... slowed... but our star dog may be back in front of the camera this month

- Have not heard from Lynne Kelly, but I will be following up with her soon.

[alextsakiris]

Originally Posted by Phronk

Even if there is a HUGE difference between skeptics and mediums, it only tells us that:

1) Mediums are better at cold reading than skeptics.
2) Mediums are better at genuine mediumship than skeptics.
3) Some combination of (1) and (2).
4) Another way of gaining information was present.

The experiment is very simple. Cold Readers should be able to explain, in very plain terms, how they come up with their answers (as they did in Trial 2). If they can not, then mediumship is the most parsimonious explanation.

[craven]

Originally Posted by alextsakiris

Do you mean skeptical participants? Just to clarify... we have 3 kinds of participants -- sitters, mediums, and cold-readers.

I mean all participants. You had mentioned earlier that you wanted to give participating mediums feedback immediately to keep them engaged. I took this to mean that you were telling mediums how they did on the "test", and doing so before the experiment (or that phase of the experiment) was over.

I was only ever suggesting that by giving out results to participants before the experiment was over, be they mediums, sitters, skeptics, whoever, it will be viewed as a source of leakage. And it will be a valid complaint. If a critic comes to you and says "why were you giving out results before the test had concluded", it is hardly a reasonable response to say "because I trusted them".

Couldnt participants just be patient enough to wait for the experiment to be over to get the results?

Also, I'm curious as to why you're scrapping certain parts of the experiment. Though I understand that this is an ever shifting, ever evolving work in progress, I hope that you are not discarding information that points to a lack of a phenomenon.

-c

[Phronk]

Originally Posted by alextsakiris

The experiment is very simple. Cold Readers should be able to explain, in very plain terms, how they come up with their answers (as they did in Trial 2). If they can not, then mediumship is the most parsimonious explanation.

If cold reading is a possible explanation, even if done unconsciously, even if it would require a complicated statistical analysis of the information leaked, then it is always more parsimonious than mediumship. That's just how science works; mediumship is (currently) an extraordinary claim and supporting it requires unambiguous, extraordinary evidence.

A difference between cold readers and mediums would be interesting, sure, but it wouldn't be a demonstration of anomalous information transfer if regular information transfer is obviously taking place. And the trials asking skeptics to explain their answers are definitely useful; they show where the regular info transfer could potentially take place. But I just think this is part of the planning stages; the difference between cold readers and mediums is no longer a useful distinction in the experiment itself.