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

[Rod McKenzie]

Hi hoggworks,
Can you identify the time where Alex alludes to there being a conspiracy, in the last podcast?
I can’t find it. Really.
Regarding your rant about science.
Yes, science, or rather the application of it, has dramatically improved our lives.
Some of us think there is something interesting going on with mediums etc, and it should be investigated by science.
We’re not intellectually arrogant enough to say that science is all worked out, unlike your ( for now anyway ) heroes, skeptics.

Rod McKenzie

[Open Mind]

Originally Posted by hoggworks

That's a nonsensical response to my statement, and it does nothing to disprove the validity of what I said. Alex speaks of conspiracies of "skeptics" who all want to get rid of the oppressed majority of people who believe in psi -- and he is doing it more and more.

Never heard Alex say this, I can't recall hearing the word 'conspiracy' in any interview I've listened to .... please provide a link to it.

What conspiracies theories are debunkers offering?

One could fill a book.... but lets stay on topic ... here is your own conspiracy theory ...

I was suggesting as a possible explanation for why skeptics did poorer than chance was that believers and psychics were mucking with the poll, posing as skeptics, in order to make the skeptics look bad.

There you go.... a conspiracy theory

Ah, but quantum theory can at least make predictions. Effects predicted by QT have been later observed in the world. That's a HUGE difference.

What predictive value has psi? What can you postulate that can be later proved or disproved?

You won't accept it but .....

'.... more than a thousand controlled studies with combined against chance of 10^ 104 to 1 (Table 14-1), there is now strong evidence that some psi phenomena exist. While this impressive statistic, all it means is that the outcomes of experiments are definitely not due to coincidence. We've considered other common explanations like selective reporting variations in experimental quality, and while those factors do moderate the overall results, there can be little doubt that overall something interesting is going on. ..- Dean Radin's book - Entangled Minds

These studies Dean Radin is referring to, use people not claiming to be particularly psychic .... perhaps mediums can produce stronger on average effects in shorter trials .... so far it looks that way ...but let's wait and see.

[Miguel]

Originally Posted by David Bailey

I agree it is worth a try, but maybe there would be non-skeptical reasons why this might happen - I mean, we seem to be asking more and more of these mediums - maybe they have limits.

If you can think of an experiment to which that does not apply: do share.

Originally Posted by David Bailey

If the mediums can score near 100%, I don't think the sort of subtle effects you are talking about would be an explanation.

David

Yes. If. What if not? I don't think anyone is going to just say: didn't work, let's move on.
Also it depends on how much information the mediums end up getting.

All in all, I think an altogether different protocol had been better.

[David Bailey]

Originally Posted by Miguel

If you can think of an experiment to which that does not apply: do share.

Well, I think my view is that mediumship is not the best phenomenon to prove psi because there just seems to be a continuum in which less and less information is supplied to the psychic, and ultimately they presumably no longer perform well - but what does that really prove?

Maybe it would be more constructive to say - hey these people may have enough psychic ability to do a few other things that would not be strictly readings, but which would be more testable. If they are genuine, it might be that the mediums would discover that they could do things that they had not realised.

For example, suppose a medium attempted to get in touch with a living person. If that worked, it would be testable in all sorts of ways.

Suppose two mediums (well separated) were to attempt to contact the same deceased person. Would there be interesting consequences, or indeed any significant correlation between the two seances?

Yet another possibility would be to go for much more significant information - such as computer passwords. These might be both emotionally important, AND incredibly useful evidence.

I think Alex should persuade some of his mediums to try such experiments informally - if they seem to work, maybe a formal experiment could be attempted, if they don't, the medium doesn't feel they have been tricked into doing things they do not claim, and being judged badly as a result.

David

[alextsakiris]

Originally Posted by craven

Alex,

Why why WHY did you give the participating mediums the results before the experiment was over? Seriously, do you WANT to give skeptics a reason to totally dismiss the work you're doing?

Try and take a longer-term perspective... this experiment will only meaningful if it can be repeated over and over. During trial 2 I was still getting to know the mediums... one of their complaints from working with previous experiments was lack of feedback... I want to overcome this objection. Let's see how they do on subsequent trials with no feedback until the end.

[alextsakiris]

Originally Posted by Open Mind

It was good to hear Michael Tymn speak ... I have encountered his name often when searching for information on internet and elsewhere etc.

Tymn suggested keeping the experimental group positive (keeping a happy medium? ) ...as there is no reason to assume telepathy (with living or discarnate) must work like a private communication, that sounds sensible... it also raises the question ...

Should the mediums do the trial before or after the sketpics?

In the CIA/US military remote viewing experiments, some researchers reported a 'telepathic overlay' where one could pick up another persons false ideas about a remote viewing target, that are not necessarily the target ... *if true* .... it might be better for mediums if the mediums go first?

Similarly Sheldrake's Morphic Resonance/Formative Causation hypothesis suggests we are responding to others people's habitual patterns of thought too. This *might* imply skeptics going first would confuse associations ... of course if mediumsgo first it might also help the later skeptics slightly?

I don't know .... just a thought.... I suppose it is up to the mediums.... assuming they actually know how they do it.

funny, I was just thinking about this because I've posted the Skeptical version of trial 3 first this time... we'll see, but I don't expect any big difference.

[alextsakiris]

Originally Posted by Open Mind

Michael Tymn mentioned how J B Rhine was keen to distance ESP from medium claims.

Perhaps also a desire for a more democratic 'all men are created equal' view of psychic phenomena had emerged in the US

I have no way of knowing, but this sounds so, so right!!! Classic example of value-rich (as opposed of value-free) science.

I think this was a turn in the wrong direction... and, in general, I think this move away from individual exceptionalism in favor of glory-for-the-processes-and-institutions-of-our-bureaucracy has been a major failing of our educational institutions... ahh, that's another soapbox

[alextsakiris]

Originally Posted by David Bailey

If the mediums can score near 100%, I don't think the sort of subtle effects you are talking about would be an explanation.

David

agreed. .

[alextsakiris]

Originally Posted by Larry Boy

One way of solving the problem of bias would perhaps be to group together discarnates with the same cause of death for matching. This way you wouldn't be able to distinguish between them by using logic.

I described another idea in an earlier thread:

I think photo cause a lot of leakage problems... but, we may use them in the psychic detective experiment.

[alextsakiris]

Originally Posted by Open Mind

When you listen to the Skeptics Guide to the Universe do you think 'ardent disbelievers'

Would you prefer Alex had the following attitude for the experiments.... ... Alex doesn't believe past research claims, feels irritated at having to hunt down mediums to test an experiment he believes must fail. He chooses anyone claiming to be a mediums no need to select carefully as he thinks none of it is real, tells mediums he will look scientifically for evidence. As a public skeptic he feels it is duty to show the claims are nonsense. If any experiments are oddly anomalous, various hypothetical controls are added until the correct null resuilt is obtained. Solved, the end of experiments.

' ... I ask you, which is the greater threat to science and mankind, accepting a claim that can have no possible benefit or rejecting a claim that can have great benefit? ... - Dr Edmund Storms

Another very insightful point! I can't tell you the number of times we've reached little decisions about what kind of information or leave in or take out. How one chooses in these cases has everything to do with prior beliefs and desire to isolate (as opposed to debunk) the phenomena.