allan stevens

I must be getting tolerant in my dotage, but, having looked at the site Mike
supplied (Thanks! btw) i can see some of the sceptic's viewpoints. Not quite
to the extent of labelling all medium's as frauds and liars though.

Joe made a point of describing an incident regarding a finger printer and a
cold reading of himself from marks typical of the sport. I accept that it is
possible to do this, however IMHO to offer that as a form of cold reading
available to all is bogus. Although it would be possible for anyone to learn
the skill Joe could have received the same information from say a
hairdresser, although in that case the information would be wrong, but based
on the hairdresser's own experience.

I have to admit I do cold read people quite often, I don't do it when I work
as a medium though, I consciously switch it off, and if someone gives me
some information unknowingly, I consciously don't use it in the reading.

A medium does claim to contact the spirit's of passed on people, and in some
cases, animals too. How much proof is necessary to show that is possible
though? Of course Randi's poison has run deep, as it is assumed that it is
impossible, and the results are from either cold reading, or pre gathered
information.

Last night I asked a lady if I might give her a message, she answered Yes. I
then told her, not asked her, told, she would know a person named Linda, but
who went under the name of Lin as far as everyone knew, she confirmed it was
her next door neighbour. I went on to say she would understand the name
Toby, related to a tan and white dog, with long legs. She confirmed Toby was
the name of a dog fitting that description. Errrrm pardon me for pissing on
the sceptic's barbecue here, but dogs in the UK don't have records kept on
them unless they are pedigree breeds, this mutt wasn't. I then went on to
describe some of the dogs unique behaviour, and a few illnesses, and also
the way the dog passed over. Again, which was all confirmed. I can't wait
for someone to say that was cold reading.

Big assumption here, but if any of the sceptics in the group could assume
there was no pre existing knowledge, just what are the statistics of that
happening by chance?

Again, assuming no pre exisiting knowledge. What are the chances of telling
a total stranger 10 definite dates, (day and month), all of which were
confirmed as birthdays.

I could go on and on. A spiritualist, would, quite rightly accept this as
good evidence of survival of a personality. Yet, it is purely anecdotal in
nature. A few more instances, coupled with an investigation into whether or
not the information could have been gained beforehand, which showed in all
probability it wasn't, and an independent jury would probably conclude that
my claims about my mediumship were not fraudulent. However, in itself, that
does not prove that my claims are true.

I've had a look at the test on http://www.aske.org.uk/challenge/ It goes
beyond what any medium claims they do. They do not claim the ability to
contact a specific person, they don't claim to be able to answer specific
questions similar to the ones on the site. They do claim to be able to
contact the spirit's of dead people though, so I can see why the questions
are there as a preliminary. Yet, to claim the test is scientific is
codswallop, again, it is based on purely anecdotal evidence. It removes the
question of pre exisiting knowledge, up to a point, (it mentions on the site
that it is still theoretically possible to answer the questions using
research) If Mr Randi's test is of a similar set up it is easy to see the
reason why no one has taken up his challenge yet either. I have to say I
found some of the background to Mr Randi fascinating, and I liked the clock
regarding his own particular put up or shut up.

So, tests aside, what would a reasonable sceptic consider to be reasonable
proof that honest, (meaning no cold reading, and no pre gained information)
medium's can contact dead people, known to the person receiving the message
here on Earth?
--
Allan


---
There was a witty sig here, until someone objected to it's length. They're
on the list for when I get my laser.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.512 / Virus Database: 309 - Release Date: 19/08/03

mike

I have stopped watching telly for loads of reasons, one of them being that
you just don't know what ends up on the cutting room floor. However, I put
aside these assumptions and decided to watch Psychics Night on UK C4 which
was dubbed as being live (btw I suspect it wasn't), purely because being
live means less chance of editing things out and less chance of biasness.

I was mildly surprised to see that the prog seemed to be balanced on
presenting different views - although it goes a chasm short of presenting
evidence for both sides of the argument. Anyway, as part of the presentation
they showed an actor who had had only 2 hours previous training in the
technique of cold reading, give a reading on a one to one basis with nobody
else in the room. They also had a respected medium, whose name I can't
recall (help me out here somebody) who also gave a medium reading in front
of the studio audience. With the info that was shown, there was a world of
difference between cold reading and a medium reading.

The cold reading seemed 'woolly' with the details and procrastinated a bit
to get to a 'fact'. The medium went directly to someone (out of 100 or so
people) and gave out facts straight away. There was some minor 'woollyness'
about it and about 70-80% of the facts was accepted. A cold reader, I
suspect would not have taken the chance to give out the facts so readily and
directly. The chances of a cold reader applying the same facts to a
different person and getting 'hits', I think would be pretty slim.

I have often wondered whether an experiment could be set up where the
readings given out at Spiritualist churches could be recorded and then
swapped with other churches. I would love to see how many people accept the
info given at thses 'swapped' meetings. I suspect that there would be a high
cahnce that the info would not go down so well in another church. Readings
at Spiritualist meetings, seem to me to be specific to the audience on the
night. That's why it would be interesting to test the same script out on
another audience.

I have still yet to see a cold reader point directly at someone and say that
a female member (his Mum as it turned out) of that person's family committed
suicide by gassing herself by putting her head in the oven. There was no
woollyness before hand and it was direct and to the point. How many people
have committed suicide by this method and what chance would a cold reader
take in using this method of suicide without having done prior research.

Btw Allan, I couldn't make Cowbridge yesterday for various reasons. Another
time maybe. Hope your Fair went well though.


information)

message

joe.walker

To start with I don't believe I have labeled all mediums as frauds.
Personally I believe most who claim to be are sincere in believing
themselves to be mediums.

Proof is another situation.

In the situation you describe above you state that this is proof
enough for a Spiritualist. That may very well be. It is still not
proof to a scientific certainty.

What then would constitute proof?

Actual proof that the messages are coming from the departed may be
impossible to muster. Proof that the information is being obtained
through other than prosaic channels is possible. Even that much proof
would be a giant step forward.

The procedure that Randi proposed to Sylvia Browne (and she accepted)
is a good example;

Subjects would be recruited who believe Sylvia Browne has the ability
to give an accurate reading. From these one would be randomly
selected. Ms. Browne would then contact the subject by phone. Knowing
only there name age and gender she would then give a reading without
any back and forth questions or feedback.

After the reading the subject would rate the reading for accuracy
using a zero to ten scale.

The same reading would then be given to the other volunteers who would
then rate it on how accurately it would fit them.

If Ms. Browne is able to do as she claims then one would expect the
first subject to find the reading very accurate and the rest of the
subjects to find it not very accurate.

Unfortunately Ms. Browne has so far failed to actually perform the
challenge.

However with proper shielding of the subjects from the reader this
would be a very fair and balanced way of testing a reader's ability to
gain knowledge not obtainable through normal channels. So yes tests
are necessary.

If this is not to your liking then as stated on Randi's sight;

http://www.randi.org/research/challenge.html

"Applicants must state clearly what they claim as their special
ability, and test procedures must be agreed upon by both parties
before any testing will take place. All tests must be designed in such
a way that the results are self-evident, and no judging process is
required. We do not design the protocol independently of the
applicant, who must provide clear guidelines so that the test may be
properly set."


As far as the ASKE challenge not being what mediums claim to be able
to do. Through most of the history of Spiritualism from the Fox
sisters on down this is precisely what most mediums have claimed to
do. The Fox sisters were often called on to get messages from the
likes of Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, and Benjamin Franklin.
In pre civil war America many leaders on both sides of the slavery
question would seek confirmation from historic figures that they were
on the right side of the issue.

Interestingly enough when the Fox girls were north of the Mason Dixon
the spirits were all anti slavery. When they were south of the Mason
Dixon the very same spirits were pro slavery. Did someone say Oracle
of Delphi?

As photography became more prevalent many spiritualists promised
photos of you with one of your ancestors or anyone else who had passed
on. Even Conan Doyle fell hard for this one.

As recently as twenty years ago I watched as a college friend of mine
"donated" as much as $5000 of his college fund to a large spiritualist
church because they had promised him he would be able to speak to his
twin brother. In case you are thinking I must have misunderstood what
he told me - I was standing next to him when one of these promises was
made.

More recently Joe Nickel wrote of paying an undercover visit one of
the large Spiritualist Camps on this side of the pond. Not only did
the spirits not know there was a skeptic in there midst but there were
offers to contact whomever he wished.

I am not saying that you specifically have made such claims but quite
a few mediums have.

Joe

allan stevens

news:<1061670813.66590.0@demeter.uk.clara.net>...

I'm sorry, but from the tones of your original posts, it seemed to me you did.


I totally agree.

It would be proof in a legal sense, but the outcome would probably ensure
the case never actually reached a court, certainly in the UK anyway. IMHO


I've given messages to people who afterwards have come up to me shook my
hand and said 'Thanks for giving me my proof.' In each case the message
content was totally different. So in all fairness I can't answer that.


In a way, I have to agree. Yet I feel a lot of my information I give back to
people can't be explained by a simple cold reading scenario. eg a list of
dates, all of which were birthdays, animals behaviour and appearance,
describing decor of rooms in detail, such as colours and patterns, crockery,
shapes patterns, colours. I make a point of not asking questions too. When I
start to give a message I either go directly to someone and give the
information directly, or I give a list of four or five names which would be
known to them, whoever accepts the names is where the message is intended to
go to.
I admit that the only proof I can provide of not gathering information
beforehand, planting stooges etc is my word of honour.


Again I fully agree. Say 10% of mediums were honest, and worked in the
factual way I have outlined above, and assuming (again) no pre gathered
information. Maybe you would agree that something weird seemed to be going on?


If you recollect I did offer to set a very similar test up with a chat room.
Anyone in the room would be unknown to me, as long as it was set up by
someone else. The nicknames of people would be unknown to me as real people.
I would give a reading, without questions, and as factual as possible and
would accept a scoring of it as regards a cold reading, versus facts, or
whatever. The offer still stands too. As I said before its what I do to
relax. Again I agree to give proof tests are necessary. I offered this as it
is within my resources, transatlantic conference calls aren't.

They would have to defend themselves and their own claims, just I defend myself and mine.


--
Allan

It is said tomorrow never comes. So why do people always ask mediums and
psychics what their future holds?

I'm not weird, I'm not special, I'm me.

There are two choices with life, get on with it, or end it. Stop whining and
prevaricating and do whichever feels most applicable.


---
There was a witty sig here, until someone objected to it's length. They're
on the list for when I get my laser.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.512 / Virus Database: 309 - Release Date: 19/08/03