So long John Edward....

[ammo52]

I consider myself highly skeptical by nature, rejecting most unsubstantiated claims I run across ( for instance, I’m an atheist ;)) but there is one element of the criticisms levelled at John Edward that I find patently unfair-- and innacurate.

In my opinion, he most assuredly does not rely on “cold reading” in order to score “hits” with his guesses during his readings-- at least not exclusively. I’ve seen his show enough times to note that he frequently “goes out on a limb” with a very specific question which is subsequently validated; far different than the relatively “safe”, softball questions that a less confident “reader” would go fishing with.

How do you account for the times when he narrows down an audience member, maybe asks one innocuous-enough question about a person’s name, or “who was the M sound” or whatever, then immediately zooms in on something like “Who was the twin, whose sibling died when they got stuck in a refrigerator at a farm” and the person blurts out, “That was my cousin!”?

I saw him tell a person in the audience once, “I’m being asked to tease you about the white mouse in your purse” and then sheepishly ask the person, “Umm, not to pry, but do you have a mouse in your purse-- and why?” as the gallery laughed. The woman admitted that she kept a mouse-- albeit a rubber, toy one-- in her purse. (I forget why, but it was some sort of inside joke within the family.)

Umm, sorry, but that ain’t “cold reading.”

If he is indeed a fraud, and my inclination is to “want him to be”, I’m forced to conclude that either:

a) It’s a TOTAL sham, and everybody is “in on it.” The gallery is fake, the stories are scripted, with John and the “audience member” following along on the same page, acting like it’s real simply for the entertainment value… or

b) Only John and his producers are the scam, and he gleans information out of genuine strangers beforehand through pre-interviews, remote microphones/listening devices, or what have you.

For me, both of those scenarios have holes big enough to drive a truck through-- but then, so does the idea that he’s really talking to old Aunt Matilda. Frankly , I don’t know what to believe.

But I do believe that casually dismissing him as just another “cold reader” provides a far too simplistic counter to the argument that he could be for real.

If he IS a fake… is he using (a) or (b) above-- or a method I haven’t accounted for? And more importantly-- how would you go about proving it?

[GodlessSkeptic]

@Meatros

Benny Hinn is a psychic? I mean, don’t get me wrong, I find his antics nausiating, but I didn’t know he claimed to be a psychic.

No, I am not aware of Hinn claiming to be psychic. He DOES claim to be a “faith healer” though adn as such I would like to see him, just as I would like to see the psychics substantiate their claims if they are going to be soliciting donations or charging fixed prices for their alleged services.

[Cervaise]

Well, this is disappointing, but not unexpected. I had hoped this was going to be an interesting debate about the legal basis under which this suit will proceed, but the credophiles lekatt and Aeschines have predictably derailed the discussion into a quixotic attempt to prove that these conmen are not, in fact, conmen.

Would it be possible to take it as given, for the purposes of the thread, that John Edward is a fraud, and proceed from there? We’ve got lots of other threads in which to debate the nature of his shenanigans. This still has the potential to be something new, interesting, and different.

[Meatros]

@GodlessSkeptic

No, I am not aware of Hinn claiming to be psychic. He DOES claim to be a “faith healer” though adn as such I would like to see him, just as I would like to see the psychics substantiate their claims if they are going to be soliciting donations or charging fixed prices for their alleged services.

Right, okay, now I’m with you.

[Meatros]

@ammo52

How do you account for the times when he narrows down an audience member, maybe asks one innocuous-enough question about a person’s name, or “who was the M sound” or whatever, then immediately zooms in on something like “Who was the twin, whose sibling died when they got stuck in a refrigerator at a farm” and the person blurts out, “That was my cousin!”?

I account for it because Edward tapes something like 4 hours of material for every 1/2 on the air (or hour). What was probably edited out of the program you watched were his ‘misses’. Where he stumbles around about the person’s family members for 10 minutes before ‘discovering’ that the person had a twin.

[GodlessSkeptic]

@ammo52

I consider myself highly skeptical by nature, rejecting most unsubstantiated claims I run across ( for instance, I’m an atheist ;)) but there is one element of the criticisms levelled at John Edward that I find patently unfair-- and innacurate.

Most people seem to want to label themselves as skeptical but VERY few actually ARE skeptical. It seems that many think that identifying oneself as a skeptic lends credibility to whatever crackpot nonsense they DO happen to believe in.

In my opinion, he most assuredly does not rely on “cold reading” in order to score “hits” with his guesses during his readings

Then you are not familiar with what cold-reading is. Cold reading is precisesly what he does during each of his performances. I think maybe you are operating under a very narrow idea of what cold reading entails.

– at least not exclusively. I’ve seen his show enough times to note that he frequently “goes out on a limb” with a very specific question which is subsequently validated; far different than the relatively “safe”, softball questions that a less confident “reader” would go fishing with.

Not really but even the less than 50% chance of being right, out-of-left-field guess is part of cold reading. Cold readers play the odds and with Edward’s set up the odds are STACKED in his favor even more so than with standard cold readers.
Cold reading relies upon a quirk of human nature by which we do not dwell on “misses” adn tend to exagerrate the “hits”. Wehn John says something like “Who had the red motorcycle and broke his arm riding it when they were little”, there are several possible outcomes:

1)The readee or a relative or good friend did indeed have a red motorcylce(not unheard of by ANY stretch) and likely suffered an injury, possibly even a break while riding it. If this one happens to be more or less true then Edward comes out smelling likje a rose and the risk he took was worth it.

2)The readee knows nothing about a red motorcycle but this can be written off as something that will “come to you later”. He just doesn’t realize the signifigance ATM(*wink). The risk taken by Edward still does not hurt him. If he tosses out a dozen or more of these guesses along with the standard generalities a few are virtually guaranteed to be seen as “hits” and the audience will likely be so impressed thay will not remember the earlier “miss”.

3)The readee cannot draw any link to a red motorcycle but someone ELSE in the audience sure can! There “messages” must have somehow “crossed over” into the wrong reading and Edward will be quiick to sieze upon this(assuring the former readee that he will come back to him of course).

And so on. At no point is the risk actually a risk at all since he has an “out” for every possible outcome(many of which he outlines at the beginning of the show). An experienced cold-reader is virtually guaranteed of coming off as “amazingly accurate”.

How do you account for the times when he narrows down an audience member, maybe asks one innocuous-enough question about a person’s name, or “who was the M sound” or whatever, then immediately zooms in on something like “Who was the twin, whose sibling died when they got stuck in a refrigerator at a farm” and the person blurts out, “That was my cousin!”?

Edward never gets that specific. You are exaggerating here. He might say “Who was the twin?” or “Who got stuck in a refridgerator?” but he never says anything like " Who is Gary who says he had a twin brother who got stuck in a fridge while playing hide and seek on a farm?". Furthermore if he is relaying messages from the beyond then why should he be asking “who is the twin?” anyway? It seems that if he was able to get the specific adn complex information you are claiming then wouldn’t the spirit have simply said “I am Gary’s twin brother…moaaann…I died of suffication while trapped in a fridge when we lived on a farm…groaaaannn…Gary always was an attention deficit imbecille…Moooaaann. By the way…the afterlife is weird and the muslims were completely wrong. There are NO virgins here at all…groaannn and Jesus always wears purple!”

How is it that Edward can manage to “hear”/recieve “I just wanted you to know I ma alright and you can stop blaming yourself honey” from one dead guy but he cannot get the same dead guys name?!? Only a letter “M” or sometimes less than that(re:“Could be an ‘m’ or an ‘n’…”)!?

I saw him tell a person in the audience once, “I’m being asked to tease you about the white mouse in your purse” and then sheepishly ask the person, “Umm, not to pry, but do you have a mouse in your purse-- and why?” as the gallery laughed. The woman admitted that she kept a mouse-- albeit a rubber, toy one-- in her purse. (I forget why, but it was some sort of inside joke within the family.)

Even if she had produced a toy mouse from her purse on the spot(which I noticed you stopped short of claiming in your anecdote) it would again be consistent with the cold reader’s risk/benefit approach outlined above. Many people have such novelties in their purses in the form of key rings etc.

Umm, sorry, but that ain’t “cold reading.”

That is EXACTLY what cold reading is! Michael Shermer of the Skeptics Society sometimes goes on radio call in shows under the guise of “Vedic psychcic gurur”, Sri Leachem Remrash and from just a name and birthdate given him by the caller he is able to tell her why she called in and exactly what she needs to hear to deal with her situation. It involves a lot of probability guesses(eg. a woman in her early 40’s is more likely to be worried that her college aged son or daughter is not thinking about theri future or is getting mixed up with the wrong crowd etc.) and the occasional going out on a limb but he is consistentlly rated as being 95%+ accurate or better before he reveals who he is and how he fooled everyone.

If he is indeed a fraud, and my inclination is to “want him to be”, I’m forced to conclude that either:

a) It’s a TOTAL sham, and everybody is “in on it.” The gallery is fake, the stories are scripted, with John and the “audience member” following along on the same page, acting like it’s real simply for the entertainment value…

While Edward HAS been busted for what is called “hot reading”(pumping an audience memeber for info beforehand to be passed off as having been intuited psychically later on) and was even exposed on Dateline(caught red-handed and on tape) doing such, it is not necessary at all. One can come off as mazingly psychic to a believer just using cold reading techniques without any overt cheating. Van Prague was brought down years earlier for the same thing. It seems these guys get too greedy and want to push themselves over the top and then they get busted. Not that their adherents care…

or

b) Only John and his producers are the scam, and he gleans information out of genuine strangers beforehand through pre-interviews, remote microphones/listening devices, or what have you.

For me, both of those scenarios have holes big enough to drive a truck through-- but then, so does the idea that he’s really talking to old Aunt Matilda. Frankly , I don’t know what to believe.

But I do believe that casually dismissing him as just another “cold reader” provides a far too simplistic counter to the argument that he could be for real.

If he IS a fake… is he using (a) or (b) above-- or a method I haven’t accounted for? And more importantly-- how would you go about proving it?

(c) All of the above.

99% of what he does is simple cold reading and the other stuff he has tried has not helped his career any(the cheating/hot reading).

You cannot prove a negative such as “John Edward is NOT psychic” or “Santa claus does NOT exist”. No way, no how.
But you CAN show that everything John does is reproducable through NON-PSYCHIC means(stage magic/mentallism) adn show that the likelihood of his claims being true are slim to none.

[Liberal]

It is not true that you cannot prove a negative. The statement is itself a negative; therefore, it contradicts itself. If you cannot prove a negative, then you cannot prove that you cannot prove a negative. So what’s the point in saying it? People prove negatives all the time. Argumentum ad absurdum and is a common method of proof.

[Skywatcher]

@lekatt

I see no mention of a law suit on the link you provided, do you have a more specific one.

You could try Google, you know.

[Dewey_Cheatem_Undhow]

@GodlessSkeptic

Most people seem to want to label themselves as skeptical but VERY few actually ARE skeptical. It seems that many think that identifying oneself as a skeptic lends credibility to whatever crackpot nonsense they DO happen to believe in.

Perhaps I’m just misreading you, but it sounds like you’re accusing ammo52 of being some kind of pseudo-skeptic, as though his post somehow invalidates his ability to appropriately use that label. I don’t see that at all. What I see is a post saying “y’know, there’s a part of Edward’s act that I just can’t quite figure out,” which to my mind is just simple honesty in admitting he’s stumped. He isn’t claiming that his inability to explain part of Edward’s act means Edwards is actually psychic; he’s just saying he isn’t sure cold reading alone can explain what he’s seen (indeed, he proffers non-supernatural alternatives to cold reading as possible solutions).

Now, that may simply be because he is unfamiliar with how robust a technique cold reading can be, or because he’s overlooking the possibility of creative editing by Edward’s producers. He may, in short, be wrong in saying that cold reading alone isn’t an adequate explanation. But that doesn’t mean he can’t properly term himself a “skeptic.” Skepticism is about questioning brash claims of the supernatural; it isn’t about immediately intuiting every bit of sleight of hand used by the makers of those claims.

In other words, I would hope that being stumped every now and then isn’t enough to disqualify one from self-describing as a skeptic.

I bring this up because I’ve been thinking a bit about this since a similar discussion you and I engaged in some months ago. To wit: how skeptical must one be in order to appropriately self-describe using that term? Must one be a skeptic in all things without exception, including perchance the existence of God, in order to use that label? Is it or is it not appropriate for a practicing churchman who nonetheless also finds the antics of charlatans like Edwards, Hinn, Praugh and others to be appalling and worthy of debunking to use that label? Isn’t it enough to be skeptical about demonstrably falsifiable claims of supernatural interaction with the physical world?

Isn’t this a little like telling vegetarians who incorporate the occasional fish into their diet that they aren’t genuine vegetarians?

[lekatt]

@Meatros

Lekatt, I think we’ve been over this before, but I’ll repeat it anyway.

The fundmental nature of science is questioning; as such in every theory, in every branch of science, pretty much every method used in a scientific study is questioned.

That’s the scientific method Lekatt. It’s not a cop out. A cop out would be to handwave away comments towards a bad methodology by saying that it’s because scientists are jealous or just don’t want to agree with the findings.

Don’t want to argue, just know the list is very long of scientists, who upon discovering something out of the mainstream, were accused of bad procedures.

These included everyone who worked on ESP, NDE, or other such areas.

Rhine, Moody, King, Keubler-Ross, Morris, Seigel, et all. They even jumped on Einstein. This is common procedure for anything different. The test is that the research is still going on and the results are piling up. Before long the skeptical voices will fall silent, crushed under in the mountain of evidence.

Love

[Mr.Miskatonic]

@lekatt

Don’t want to argue, just know the list is very long of scientists, who upon discovering something out of the mainstream, were accused of bad procedures.

Because they were using bad methodology. The entire field of parapsychology is ripe with poor methodology. Read Susan Blackmoore, who moved out of the field. Read Feynmann’s comments on Cargo Cult Science, he’s specificaly talking about failures in parapsychology.

Many scientists have discovered things out of the ordinary. But the trick to their success is that they had proper methodology. Their replies to their critics never involved the phrase “The Next test will have proper controls! Honest!”

These included everyone who worked on ESP, NDE, or other such areas.

Rhine, Moody, King, Keubler-Ross, Morris, Seigel, et all.

Again, with good reason. These people screwed up consistantly. You could write books on Rhine’s methodological errors. In fairness, he did tighten controls near the end of his work, but his positive results also went away.

They even jumped on Einstein. This is common procedure for anything different. The test is that the research is still going on and the results are piling up. Before long the skeptical voices will fall silent, crushed under in the mountain of evidence.

Criticism is an essential element of scientific progress. As is skepticism. The difference between Einstein and Schwartz is that ol’ Albert never had to say “I’ll use proper controls in my next experiments, but excuse me while I tour the country promoting my popular book and claiming that everything I studied has been proven.”

The state of parapsychology is a sham, and its few hopes have fallen by the wayside again and again.

[Aeschines]

@Cervaise

Well, this is disappointing, but not unexpected. I had hoped this was going to be an interesting debate about the legal basis under which this suit will proceed, but the credophiles lekatt and Aeschines have predictably derailed the discussion into a quixotic attempt to prove that these conmen are not, in fact, conmen.

Would it be possible to take it as given, for the purposes of the thread, that John Edward is a fraud, and proceed from there? We’ve got lots of other threads in which to debate the nature of his shenanigans. This still has the potential to be something new, interesting, and different.

Don’t aim at me, bro; I just gave my opinion of the situation, and that was that!

[GodlessSkeptic]

@Libertarian

It is not true that you cannot prove a negative. The statement is itself a negative; therefore, it contradicts itself. If you cannot prove a negative, then you cannot prove that you cannot prove a negative. So what’s the point in saying it? People prove negatives all the time. Argumentum ad absurdum and is a common method of proof.

Then prove to me right now that Santa Claus does NOT exist. Prove that there is no invisible pink unicorn in my pocket.

In the context of existential claims, you CANNOT prove a negative…EVER.

[GodlessSkeptic]

@Dewey Cheatem Undhow

Perhaps I’m just misreading you, but it sounds like you’re accusing ammo52 of being some kind of pseudo-skeptic, as though his post somehow invalidates his ability to appropriately use that label.

Not exactly but his post was typical of the anti-skeptic who claims a skeptical disposition in order to lend weight of authority to an irrational belief(even if that was not his intention). Belief.net is full of people who preface a proselytisation or challenge to atheism with “I am a skeptic by nature and used to be an atheist but then I discovered the truth…” or “I was skeptical of creationism but I realized that all of this…could not have sprung up from nowhere by chance…”.

In other words they attempt to argue from authority(of being a skeptic) even while abandoning teh very position they are claiming to be arguing from!

I don’t see that at all. What I see is a post saying “y’know, there’s a part of Edward’s act that I just can’t quite figure out,” which to my mind is just simple honesty in admitting he’s stumped. He isn’t claiming that his inability to explain part of Edward’s act means Edwards is actually psychic; he’s just saying he isn’t sure cold reading alone can explain what he’s seen (indeed, he proffers non-supernatural alternatives to cold reading as possible solutions).

No. If he simply said “I don’t understand how he did this!?” that would be one thing. What he did was to give an inaccurate definition of cold-reading and then claim that cold reading could not possible account for Edward’s “abilities”. He went so far as to say that cold reading was NOT cold reading!?

Now, that may simply be because he is unfamiliar with how robust a technique cold reading can be, or because he’s overlooking the possibility of creative editing by Edward’s producers. He may, in short, be wrong in saying that cold reading alone isn’t an adequate explanation. But that doesn’t mean he can’t properly term himself a “skeptic.” Skepticism is about questioning brash claims of the supernatural; it isn’t about immediately intuiting every bit of sleight of hand used by the makers of those claims.

In other words, I would hope that being stumped every now and then isn’t enough to disqualify one from self-describing as a skeptic.

I am not sure the term “skeptic” can be applied as a blanket label that covers one person’s entire disposiiton on ALL issues adn claims. There are many who are profoundly skeptical of “God” or religious claims and yet readily abandon skepticism when it comes to ghosts/parapsychology or UFOs or Cryptozoology(sasquatch, Loch Ness monster etc.) and vice versa. It is fine to identify oneself as a skeptic where one is actually employing critical thinking but as soon as one abandons skepticism and tries promoting an irrational belief that does not pass the test of scrutiny, one also can no longer identify as skeptic in the context of whatever irrational belief he is rallying around.

I bring this up because I’ve been thinking a bit about this since a similar discussion you and I engaged in some months ago. To wit: how skeptical must one be in order to appropriately self-describe using that term? Must one be a skeptic in all things without exception, including perchance the existence of God, in order to use that label?

No…as long as the discussion does not turn to whatever claim you are NOT skeptical of. For example, if we are discussing JFK’s assassination and I, myself were to posit that a conspiracy was involved(entirely TOO hypothetical;)) then I could not wear the skeptic hat in that discussion. There is no evidence of a conspiracy that passes the test of critical examination and all available evidence points to LHO as the only culprit. THis would not stop me from believing what I believe but I would be doing so for reasons other than(and in spite of) skepticism.
I would not be using the same skleptical standard I applied to “God” or UFOlogy etc.

Is it or is it not appropriate for a practicing churchman who nonetheless also finds the antics of charlatans like Edwards, Hinn, Praugh and others to be appalling and worthy of debunking to use that label? Isn’t it enough to be skeptical about demonstrably falsifiable claims of supernatural interaction with the physical world?

Of course it is. AGAIN, as long as the discussion were confined to those areas the churchman was in fact a skeptic.

Isn’t this a little like telling vegetarians who incorporate the occasional fish into their diet that they aren’t genuine vegetarians?

False analogy I think. If BOTH parties agreed that “vegetarianism” meant “No meat of ANY kind” then the one who occasionally ate fish would not be a vegetarian when he was eating fish However, since vegetarianism has a somewhat sketchier meaning as it shifts context and usage it cannot be objectively applied or stripped as part of someone’s identity.

It is like this: One can use scientific method and one can believe in God. However, one cannot believe in God based upon use of scientific method. Faith sure but scientific method says gives us no indication of any gods. Therefore even a great scientific mind has to abandon SM when he talks about why he believes in God.

[Liberal]

@GodlessSkeptic

Then prove to me right now that Santa Claus does NOT exist. Prove that there is no invisible pink unicorn in my pocket.

In the context of existential claims, you CANNOT prove a negative…EVER.

Then you cannot prove the assertion you’re making…EVER.

But you don’t really mean existential claims. You really mean epistemic claims. Whether any epistemic claim can be proven has nothing to do with whether it is positive or negative. It has to do with the epistemic bounds of the claim. Given the proper bounds, you can neither prove that there is or is not whatever object in your pocket. But I can prove (as can anyone who reads this) that there is no word of more than 20 letters in this post.

[lekatt]

@Mr. Miskatonic

Because they were using bad methodology. The entire field of parapsychology is ripe with poor methodology. Read Susan Blackmoore, who moved out of the field. Read Feynmann’s comments on Cargo Cult Science, he’s specificaly talking about failures in parapsychology.

Many scientists have discovered things out of the ordinary. But the trick to their success is that they had proper methodology. Their replies to their critics never involved the phrase “The Next test will have proper controls! Honest!”

Again, with good reason. These people screwed up consistantly. You could write books on Rhine’s methodological errors. In fairness, he did tighten controls near the end of his work, but his positive results also went away.

Criticism is an essential element of scientific progress. As is skepticism. The difference between Einstein and Schwartz is that ol’ Albert never had to say “I’ll use proper controls in my next experiments, but excuse me while I tour the country promoting my popular book and claiming that everything I studied has been proven.”

The state of parapsychology is a sham, and its few hopes have fallen by the wayside again and again.

Actually, there are more scientists engaged in researching spiritual themes than ever before. There are more people interested in spiritual things now. Ever since NDEs showed evidence of life after death the race has been on to find out more. It will not go away because the research findings are becoming more and more consistent with what the near death experiencers are saying.

Now, if you wish to stop this trend show some real research proof that consciousness is biological. Hell, no one knows what consciousness really is, just a lot of theories and guesses.

I personally believe near death experiences have exposed both religion and science as not knowing what they are taking about.

Show me some real proof and I will quickly shut up.

Love

[vanilla]

@lekatt

Show me some real proof and I will quickly shut up.

Love

you first.

[PatriotX]

@lekatt

Actually, there are more scientists engaged in researching spiritual themes than ever before. There are more people interested in spiritual things now. Ever since NDEs showed evidence of life after death the race has been on to find out more. It will not go away because the research findings are becoming more and more consistent with what the near death experiencers are saying.

Now, if you wish to stop this trend show some real research proof that consciousness is biological. Hell, no one knows what consciousness really is, just a lot of theories and guesses.

I personally believe near death experiences have exposed both religion and science as not knowing what they are taking about.

Show me some real proof and I will quickly shut up.

Love

Dear Sweet Lekatt,

You are welcome to your opinion and there’s no need for you to shut up. However, your grasp of what constitutes evidence and proof is somehwat skewed.

One does not have to have an explanation of what consciuosness is in order to realize that a particular conclusion or conclusions about consciousness are faulty.

Good Luck

[XT]

@lekatt

Actually, there are more scientists engaged in researching spiritual themes than ever before. There are more people interested in spiritual things now. Ever since NDEs showed evidence of life after death the race has been on to find out more. It will not go away because the research findings are becoming more and more consistent with what the near death experiencers are saying.

You probably won’t bother reading it as you most likely won’t think its a good source, but there is some good stuff in this website discussing NDE as well as related topics.

GodlessSkeptic, that was one of the best descriptions of critical thought I’ve seen. Its hard to explain to people that critical thought can and is turned off depending on the subject being discussed, and that people who are normally skeptical on one subject are not necessarily skeptical on another (religion seems to me to be the primary case of this, but as you pointed out there are many others).

-XT

[DocCathode]

@lekatt

Now, if you wish to stop this trend show some real research proof that consciousness is biological.

No such proof exists. Consciousness is verifiably not biological. Consciousness resides in the NCCF-NonCorporeal Consciousness Field. The brain is involved, but is not the source of consciousness. In layman’s terms, the brain is the terminal and the NCCF the mainframe. That is, of course, a vast oversimplification.

Back To The OP

Though I have never had the chance to scan Edward’s NCCF, I have done thorough analysis of his speech patterns, vocal inflection, and numerous movements, mannerisms, and other indicators which are collectively termed body language. My conclusion is that Edward is a fraud. He is consciously lying.