For starters, apologies if I originally came across as rude or aggressive. Upon re-reading my post it certainly seemed that way to me and I do apologize for it.
With that out of the way, I must say that everything I have seen about spiritualism is simply anecdotal evidence. Fine for those who already believe but not even close to being proof.
Concrete evidence carries such weight that a non-believer (like myself) is forced to accept that this is the way the world works. I consider the requirement for proof to be healthy scepticism rather than evidence of a “closed mind.”
One may claim that life after death is simply a belief and that he or she is not required to prove it. This is certainly true but that’s an end to the discussion as well. People have and do believe in many things that have no basis in reality. Atlantis, Loch Ness monsters, UFOs, and the need to wear tinfoil hats are all beliefs with no basis.
So, to determine which class of belief that spiritualism belongs in, where’s the proof?
So far what we have seen of John Edwards is unsatisfactory at meeting your own standard of proof. That is why we affirm he is not doing what he claims. He relies on sheer probabilities, fishing for clues from the subjects themselves, and reading body-language feedback. If an alleged “communication with the dead” can’t be told apart from a skillful stage-mentalist cold-reading, * the more mundane explanation must prevail*.
Now, if a medium is engaging in a religious or para-religious rite, where the claimed phenomenon is an unfalsifiable mystery of faith, and the participants will have a spiritual experience that touches their internal, subjective reality, that’s another story. (And may we recall that even Christian faith-healers have been debunked) But that, of course, would not be as profitable or TV-friendly.
Can you elaborate? Any specific instances where he is obviously scamming people? Proof of mediumship is subjective, in order for it to be proved to an individual, that individual or someone close to them must be given a reading. He was obviously good enough for the people who had recieved his readings in his proof. Of course, they are the only ones who know if there is no possible way he could have known specific details and information.
No worries, thanks for the apology, it is much appreciated.
It is quite hard to prove life after death. One has to have faith, as in any religion. Like I said before, proof of mediumship is subjective, everyone must obtain proof for themselves. I would love for you to see a medium, just as an experiement, to seek proof for yourself. Spiritualism is not mathmatical, nor concrete, like the keyboard I’m typing on, therefore other methods must be used in order to obtain the proof you seek.
More to the point, can you point to any specific instances in which he is obviously NOT scamming people?
Sure, the individual comes away convinced of his powers. That’s how magic tricks work. The magician uses a slight of hand to convince the viewer that something “supernatural” or otherwise impossible has occurred. That doesn’t mean he REALLY made an elephant disappear. It’s an illusion.
In the case of psychics doing cold reading, the audience member gives the “psychic” the information he needs to form statements, but they’re not entirely aware that they’ve done so. The “psychic” will address an entire section of the audience and say something like, “I’m getting the name BOB, does that mean anything to anyone?” When good old Bob stands up, or Bob’s brother or mother or sister, they think he’s magically read their mind. In truth, he’s made THEM tell HIM something.
One would think that were a person actually able to communicate with spirits, objective proof would be easy to attain. It would seem that information would be passed in both directions from spirit to medium and medium to spirit.
Therefore it should have been possible, for instance, for Lady Doyle to produce some form of Hebrew, even in pidgin form, rather than “Oh, my darling, thank God, thank God, at last I’m through. _ I’ve tried, oh so often-now I am happy. Why, of course, I want to talk to my boy-my own beloved boy-Friends, thank you, with all my heart for this” preceded by a Cross. Not at all the sort of thing that a woman who spoke not a word of English and was a devout Jew would be likely to communicate.
Further, the sort of messages communicated by “mediums” like Edwards and Browne are at their base empty. Assurances that the relation is happy and at peace, while perhaps calming do little to imply any sort of actual communication.
Finally, I must admit to being repulsed by the exploitation of the tragedy of September 11th by John Edwards and his repugnant producers in planning a show where Mr. Edwards would “contact” some of those who perished during the WTC attacks. Wonderful how is is able to be specific in his contacts when it makes for good television, and at other times denys any such control. Communication indeed.
Thanks for taking the time to post to this thread. You certainly have some guts because it looks like you are fighting an uphill battle.
You suggest that some skeptics do not accept mediumship is real because they have “closed minds”. I agree that skeptics need to keep an open mind. They have to be willing to evaluate the evidence on both sides of an issue, and go with the side that has the strongest evidence. Even if this means changing their minds and position. However the evidence presented has to be solid and verifiable.
I could think of a test which would prove or disprove a medium’s ability to my satisfaction. Others have devised much better tests than I could and so far these tests have shown all mediums to be frauds.
Given your posts I assume that you beleive you have an open mind. If that is so what type of test or evidence would it take to convince you John Edwards is a fraud?
Thank you for being so cool to me, it is indeed an upward climb and I really appreciate your aknowledgement of that and of my gutsiness. I have been ready to throw my arms in the air many 'a times over these past couple of days, but I don’t want anyone to think that I’m running away with my tail between my legs.
Wow, that’s a good question. I’ve watched him (I fought it to death because of the whole expoitation/mediumship for money thing, but my parents have sat me down and made me watch it when I was going off upon hearing about the show) and I’ve been convinced. I don’t beleive that he asks questions and then reiterates what he has been told, I’ve seen him ask specific questions or say specific things (e.x: “he’s saying something about your wedding dance in the middle of the street in the rain” and the guy answers “yes! we attended a wedding, and were driving home and the car broke down and we danced in the rain in the middle of the street” or something like that) shows me that he’s not just repeating what people say, I see people verifying specific peices of information he gives, without being asked first.
I think the only thing that would convince me of his being a fraud would be him denouncing himself as one. That’s really the only thing I can think of (and believe me, i’ve thought about your question because I believe it’s a good one).
Sigh Guin, have you read any of the posts so far? Spritualism has not died out, there are Spiritualists churches all over the world, it is an organized Religion. THAT is fact. See www.nasc.org for further info. As for the rest of the quote? That’s your opinion. :rolleyes:
So, lezlers, you acknowledge that your own position is imune to any evidence save direct admission of fraud yet you criticize others for closed-mindedness?
Does your Spiritualist church maintain any positions on hypocrisy?
Still, if I can’t see it, feel it, hear it, touch it, 99% of the time I won’t believe it. Of course, I can see and hear Edwards - I watched for 15 minutes the other night just to watch.
JE: I’m getting a t-n name somewhere in this area.
Audience 1: I lost a Tony.
JE: No that’s not it. (nice effect, don’t know if he does this often as it pained me to watch him work this con for 15 minutes)
Audience 2: Ooh, me me, I had a cousin-in-law thrice removed named Tini.
JE: That’s it. It’s got some kind of connection to a strong male figure…a father or something.
A2: It was my father-in-law’s third wife’s second cousin.
JE: That’s it. And they’re trying to tell me something but it’s very faint…(pause, hoping women fills in)…something about…it’s not very clear…
A2: We never found the TV remote after she died.
JE: That’s sounds right.
Now, I’ve paraphrased for (hopefully) amusing content; but the gist was just that. Open-ended questions being answered by the audience. The only medium he’s serving is as a medium for the money from the victim to the con in his ‘private’ sessions. And I use Edwards as a proxy for any medium. At least Catholic priests get extensive training in counseling people.
One last point: Scientology claims to ba a religion also (don’t think we’ve picked on them since SDMB returned, have we?).
Oh, lezlers, I’m dissappointed. Since it is not likely that John is going to accomodate me by declaring himself a fraud, I guess our discussion is mostly over. Some other famous mediums from the past have admitted they were not real at their retirement.
I would urge you to learn more about how an admitted trickster would perform cold and hot readings. They are ingenious and fool most if not all people. Then if you see John Edwards using similar techniques you might ask yourself why the people on the “other side” have such trouble expressing themselves clearly. Why don’t they just state their name and whom they are addressing?
I wouldn’t put to much confidence in what you see on a tv show. John Edwards and his production company have total control over the entire process. This is a for profit venture. They tape 6 hours of video and edit into one hour. Obviously they are not going to show blunders. If I was skeptical (and I am) I would say that John Edwards can risk taking greater risks with guesses than usual because wrong guesses can be edited out.
At least see the medium in person. If you keep a careful transcript of the reading I think you will see how many guesses the medium makes, and how quickly they steer away from a bad guess. You will also see that most of the information they need is supplied by the audience. Also be open to the possibility that they may be cheating by gathering information on certain audience members ahead of time, or using plants. Of course all these possibilities can be eliminated if the medium agrees to a test under rigorously controlled conditions where the person being read is instructed how not to give useful feedback. There is even a $1,000,000 prize for successfully completing such a test I’d give up an afternoon if I thought I had the ability to win it).
You, of course have a right to beleive what you want to. It just bugs me when people become rich off of other people’s misery, and hide behind religion as a shield. John Edwards and Sylvia Brown and the others claim specific powers which could easily be identified as true of false. It is up to the observer to decide the most likely reason why they are unwilling to take such a test.
** lezlers **, I strongly reccommend that you go to the JREF Message Board and read this thread. It’s 5 pages, and I think there are a lot of hijacks, so if you don’t have time, read Diezel’s post specifically. It’s about a 1/4 down the first page. It’s a very good dissection of a recent episode. Reading this I’m inclined to think that Edward isn’t even a very good cold-reader, much less a “powerful medium”.
Also, you should read This week’s Randi Commentary. It discussed Cold Reading techniques.
I doubt these links will convince you, as you are obviously very much a “True Believer”, however, you seem intelligent and I think this will give you food for thought.
But please read them, neither is very long.
I hadn’t even thought about researching known cons and comparing Edwards’ readings. I’m 24 and have been around Spritualist churches consistantly since I was 8, and Edwards is just doing what I’ve seen done for most of my life. But you know what? He might very well be what you say, and being open minded I intend to do what you suggest, and base my conclusions from that.
I hold fast to Mediumship being a legit practice, although some individual mediums may not be legit, as in any practice. I will definatly look into Edwards credibility further, as to avoid being called a “hypocrite”.
Spiritust,
I am most certainly not a hypocrite, nor am I closed minded, I merely could not think of any further “tests” at the time that would convince me, which I stated quite clearly in my response. Mike suggested one and I will most certainly do it.
I’ll say yet again that John Edwards does not claim to be a Spiritualist. And really, there’s no need to be catty. :rolleyes:
I did not say that John Edwards was a spiritualist. I asked you, who has claimed to be a spiritualist, whether your religion contained any precepts against hypocrisy. I didn’t really think it was a difficult question.
I am happy that you are going to keep seeking information about John Edwards. It appears that your earlier comment might have indicated a lack of imagination rather than a lack of openness. Since you remain convinced that mediumship is a valid pursuit, I find myself needing to ask whether that belief is also something which you are open to question?
As I said before, I hold fast to the belief that Mediumship exists. Because I have sought proof and recieved it. I was very skeptical at first and I continue to ask specific questions, but the general question of whether or not it exists has been answered adequatly for me. So to answer your question, yes, I was open to the possibility of mediumship not existing, until it was proven to exist to me.
Not difficult, but still insulting and kind of pointless. There are no individual “commandments” against it, but the Golden Rule “whatsoever shall be done unto you, do ye also unto others” (i’m pretty sure that’s exactly it) is one of the rules. I don’t recall Christianity having any commandments that say “thou shalt not be a hypocrite”. So what’s up with that question?
When I talked about ‘pop-culture spiritualism’ before, I wasn’t talking about Spiritualism per se. I meant lowercase-s spiritualism. What I was referring to is this cutesy silly watered down “religion” circulating around the country where you have angels that act like little hearth gods, prayers that will help you win the lottery, and apparently Jesus would wear little bracelets and t-shirts. It’s all the cute fluffy hand-holding without any of the actual ‘take responsibility for your actions and their consequences’ stuff that so often makes religion hard to sell to the masses. It’s this stuff that Edward and Browne and Van Praagh hide behind.
Secondly, regarding the actualy Spiritualist movement, an eye opening book is ‘The Psychic Mafia’ by M. Lamar Keene.
If you have questions about Christian dogma, yu should probably direct them to a Christian. My question about hypocrisy was sparked by your seeming double standard for open-mindedness. You have already clarified that your stance grew out of a failure of imagination rather than a failure of honest evaluation.
My follow up was simply to clarify that my question was not, as you seemed to think, directly related to John Edwards or his beliefs. Now, I think this equine has stopped moving.
On a more serious topic, I do not believe mediumship is valid, but I have not had the direct experience with it that you seem to have had. It apears to me that you are in current close affiliation with people who present themselves as mediums and whose abilities, predictions, insight, etc. have convinced a formerly skeptical person (you) of the legitimacy of their craft. You also maintain that it is steadfastly against these peoples’ belief structure to seek monetary reward for the exercise of their gifts.
Now, this presents a rare opportunity for me. I would love to investigate mediumship more directly, yet I have always ben disuaded by my unwillingess to subsidize potential frauds in my pursuit of knowledge. So–can you appoach the medium swho convinced you and ask whether they will be able to provide similar evidence for me? If physical presence is required for the exercise of their craft (spirits that know me only hang around in my general area? Do their gifts, like those of the folks advertising on TV, work over the telephone?) then I am willing to travel within reason. I am also willing to lend credence to the reports of some other doper who might be located in your area, though a second-hand report would obviously not have quite the same power as a direct experience.
This is a serious inquiry. I am admitedly skeptical (as you were at first), but I have no axe to grind. I will either publish a report of my experience here on the board or keep the details confidential according to the wishes of you and the medium(s) involved.
“As I said before, I hold fast to the belief that Mediumship exists. Because I have sought proof and recieved it.”
—Specifics, please? Details?
And, folks, his name is John “Edward,” not “Edwards.” He may be a fraud and miscreant of the highest order—not to mention an impertinent jackanapes—but let’s do him the courtesy of getting his name right.
Hey, that’s great. You continue to handle yourself well on the board and I am glad to see you are still looking for answers. You are probably a lot further in your critical thinking than I was when I was 24.
I would have one caution about the proof that you have developed about the validity of mediums. There was a fair bit of legitimate scientific research in these phenomenon in the 1960s and 1970s. A lot of scientists conducted tests and were convinced that mediums and other people with supernatural powers were legitimate. That was because these scientists had no experience or knowledge of how conjurers fool people. Also they were not used to having subjects deliberately trying to deceive them.
It took other conjurers to point out how the scientists were being fooled. Then there were a lot of embarrassed scientists and this field of study mostly died out as no good evidence was found to support it. So my long winded point is you should probably arm yourself with this type of information (how conjurers fool people --many books are available) before gathering “proof” about mediums.
I’m sure many mediums believe in their own hearts that they are truly in contact with the dead. However I feel that they are unknowingly using some or all of the techniques of cold readers. Once they seem to have success (because cold reading is an effective technique) their belief is reinforced.
Do you believe that a medium could tell me specific things about my life without my having to provide feedback. By specific I would mean things like:
what was the name of the elementary school my uncle attended?
what activity did my maternal grandmother and I enjoy doing most?
What town was I born in?
I agree that we have no proof about things like life after death. People either have faith or belief, or they don’t. They have the right to believe what seems right for them. Mediums, on the other hand, make factual claims that can be tested.
