How can we provide sufficient proof to someone that discounts science and believes that wishful thinking about dreams constitutes “proof” that there is life after death?
Obligatory link to Ian Rowland, a guy who does cold reading for a living, annd has convinced plenty of people that he’s a pyschic: even though he claims no such ability and explains how he does it.
Here’s his take on Edward: http://www.ian-rowland.com/Vault/FunJohnEdward.htm
—James Van Prague, George Anderson, Sylvia Brown have had or now have TV shows, are they all frauds also.—
Are you kidding? Of course they are. They’ve been around for eons, and skeptics have been debunking them for eons. Edward isn’t even as good at what he does as Van Prague (Edward’s hit rates are actually pathetically low compared to other cold readers), he just has better production values and agents (being more attractive than Van Prague or Brown helps too).
Randi has dogged all these people for years trying to get them to sit down and prove their abilities. No go, of course: whenever skeptics start to get too inquisitive, the spirits warn them off…
what I read was one individual that had been on his show and had his question taped to a different answer.
The rest of the article was assumptions and methods he could of used but no one saw him do it.
I was impressed by the taping and managing of the show. But since I or the writer have not seen the out tapes, nothing is provable.
The most here is a charge of exageration on John’s part may be assumed but not proven.
What I am looking for is evidence I can call the studio with, something a great deal more than offered.
This was a waste of time, the writer claims no fraud for Edward, because he doesn’t want to spend time with laywers.
As for James Randi, it is my understanding that Randi conducts his tests of psychic ability behind closed doors. Only Randi’s assistants are allowed in the room. The psychics always lose.
Randi was asked to do a test on stage in front of camers, he refused, he was asked to allow an impartial observer in the room, he refused. So much for Randi’s accountability.
I have experience the spiritual world, I know life will continue after death, there is no doubt in my mind whatsoever.
Only 2% of the people polled recently are very sceptical that life continues after death. Now if one of you two percent want to win a million dollars this is the place.
Good luck.
That is a really good question!
The paradox of proof without science… 
I don’t know who James, George, or Sylvia are, but I’d put money on them being frauds if they “spoke” with the dead in the same manner John does.
Also, why the ad hom on science?
I find it trouble to see that you put more faith in people asking for faith then in evidence.
How does Randi’s refusal to admit people in the room destroy his credibility?
I don’t think ANYONE is skeptical about life continuing after death…IT DOES. However, for the person who actually died, that’s a different story:D
This might have already been asked of you Lekatt, but I’m going to ask it again:
If Edwards actually can speak with the dead, why do they only give him letters or vague impressions? Why not say, “yeah, um hi john, I like your work, um…Look, can you tell my wife, Mandy, that I left a pair of dirty underwear under the bed-that’s why the room stinks…”
If he can hear the dead, then why can’t he hear the dead being coherent? Why does he have ANY misses?
Why wouldn’t he do it for free? I mean, if some pesky spirits were hassiling me about aunt Jamie’s life, I would feel that I was compelled to go tell Jamie-I certainly wouldn’t charge her for it.
Yes, yes, the man has a right to earn a living. But in this manner? I don’t think so. Casting evidence out the window, if we just accept that he has these “gifts”, how evil of a person is he to go around charging people?
lekatt, can you provide some cites please for your claims about Randi’s testing methods? He usually does a preliminary test at the claimant’s residence before moving on to the formal laboratory test. Thus far, not one person has made it past the preliminary test.
In order for the test to have credibility, the room MUST be cleared of all but the claimant and the tester. This is done to eliminate any chance of confederacy with observers. The entire test is video taped, however, in a complete unedited, and non-deceptive way. Thus far no claimants have alleged that Randi has lied about results or called a positive test a failure. They always say stuff like “the spirits didn’t trust the tester,” or claim there was “interference with the vibrations,” or some such nonsense like that.
As to the TV show, I don’t know what you’re referring to exactly, but I know that he has occasionally rejected such stunts because they are not controlled environments. I’m aware of one so-called psychic named Koda, who once offered to perform his act in front of studio audience, and then have the audience “vote” on whether he was genuine or not. If the audience was convinced, he wanted the million dollars. Obviously, this does not constitute any kind of credible scientific test, so Randi had to decline under these conditions, but would have no problem testing Koda in a laboratory where he can’t cheat.
Offering to simply perform their acts in front of a credulous audience without agreeing to any of the controlled conditions is a cheap and easy way for psychics to grandstand. It is not a real test.
The truth is very few people even agree to the preliminary test. None of the prominent celebrity psychics of the moment are willing to prove their abilities in a laboratory.
Did you read the whole Van Prague link, or only the first paragraph? The not accusing JE of fraud disclaimer was clearly tongue in cheek. How do you respond to the obvious fishing expeditions and low strike rate of JE’s cold reading exhibitions? Why are the spirits so vague and erroneous much of the time? Shouldn’t a genuine psychic be able to do better than me in an exhibition like this?
I think his “evidence” of Randi’s methods are on this page: http://www.victorzammit.com/skeptics/Humpty%20Dumpty.html
Diogenes-It’s a lawyer’s opinion…And we all know how lawyers are such great scientists and are always honest.:rolleyes:
right?
Thanks, Meatros.
Well this just backs up what I said. The claimant wasn’t asking for a legitimate test. He just wanted to perform his act without any controls and have an audience of hand-picked suckers decide the results. This was pure grandstanding on the part of the psychic.
And what an ass that lawyer is…:rolleyes:
Psychics don’t “win” or “lose”, I think you are supplying a motive to Randi’s research. I think that Randi would be just as happy as the rest of us if he could prove psychics really existed. In fact, I’m pretty sure he’d love to prove they did, because he would win all sorts of scientific achievement awards.
Cite lekatt, on Randi’s actual refusal, as opposed to this guy’s claims about it? What were the circumstances? If they are what can be found on that site, then you are being downright silly.
What this Robinson seems to want to do is perform his act live, mugging for the cameras, while Randi watches and, presumably, is merely given a chance to criticize. What sort of “test” is that? It has absolutely nothing to do with examining Robinson’s claims in an controled environment: which is EXACTLY what people like Robinson seem to fear.
The whole point of Randi’s set-up is that the psychic first performs his power to HIS OWN satisfaction, before there is any hint of Randi’s controls going on. The powers to be observed are not Randi’s, but the psychic’s own claims, and what goes on is no secret: it’s agreed to by both parties BEFORE the enterprise even begins! After the powers are demonstrated to the psychics’ satisfaction without controls, the controls are added. That’s the whole point: to see what’s REALLY going on in an environment in which claims can be tested.
—This was a waste of time, the writer claims no fraud for Edward, because he doesn’t want to spend time with laywers.—
As usual, you are handed a full on explanation of exactly how Edward could accomplish his feats without resorting to any sort of supernatural explanation, and as usual, you dismiss it without any serious comment. Yes, Rowland has little interest in trying to convince believers that Edward is a fraud: for the reason he plainly states. But that has nothing to do with the fact that he can explain exactly how Edward performs his supposedly inexplicable feats, not to mention the fact that Rowland can perform the same feats quite easily himself, without claiming any psychic powers whatsoever!
I love your Zammit site by the way, especially this: “This is because the offeror is technically an intruding negative extraneous variable and will inevitably make nugatory otherwise successful psychic tests - he exudes too much negativity for sensitives to operate properly.”
In other words, it’s the old: “my magical powers don’t work whenever anyone who doesn’t believe they work is around, or when you try to impose controls on me.”
Like Robinson’s goofy challenge, what Zammit is demanding is simply to perform without any hint of actually testing what’s going on: “It is only fair, equitable and reasonable that in any demonstration conditions be conducive for a psychic to perform without unnecessary encumbrances.”
Well, what Randi does, and has made no bones about doing, is to try to control for the ways in which people could cheat or use alternative and quite mundane methods to acheive the desired effect. That’s the WHOLE POINT of the challange: that the skeptic get to examine the claim via the use of controls for potential ways of cheating (i.e. “unnecessary encumbrances”). If that weren’t the case, all we would have is a magic show. Heck, David Copperfield could win the 1 million quite easily under Zammit’s lax conditions, when no one is allowed topeak behind the curtain. So could I. And with nothing but parlor tricks.
From The James Randi One Million Dollar Paranormal Challenge page:
In all accounts of challenges that I’ve read, JR always invites local media in the role of dispasionate 3rd party. If you read his book Flim-Flam!, you will see that he goes to great lengths to appease the challengers by providing whatever they say they need in order to properly demonstrate their “abilities”.
In the quote above (bolding mine), JR says he doesn’t even have to be present if he wishes not to be, which is exactly opposite of what you claim (that only he & his associates can be there), so I’d also like to see a cite for your assertions.
Your understanding is wrong. The test can be public or private as the cahllenger wishes. Of course, you don’t let facts get in your way.
Maybe becaus ethey don’t have pschic powers?
False, and disproven by Randi’s recent test of homeopathy on Horizon on BBC. A simple reading of the challenge conditions also shows that your are making false statements.
Now who has the closed mind?
This is a subjective, belittleing remark typical of the posters on this board. It has nothing to do with proof or anything realistic.
I talk about my experiences, I believe my experiences, Go to ----.
And here is another one. You to go to ----
Guilt by association is meaningless. Not proof.
Why don’t you work for free? Why do the scientists who develop the pills not sell them at a reasonable price?
I don’t know the answers to the above questions, but I do know why the communication is difficult. Paul said, “we see through a glass darkly.” If you really want to talk about it come to the board on my site, away from the detractors that inhabit this one.