You have no idea what kind of work he done. This is not the only research on mediums showing positive. Pam Reynolds talk to dead people, so have I. You and your friends will too someday.
Well, the time has come for me to leave this thread. The OP has been hi-jacked by personal condensending posts not backed up by any research. This board has to be at least one of, or maybe the most sectary board on the web. Not a single post for spiritualism despite the fact the world is 75-90 percent spiritually minded.
Yes, I know they are all ignorant.
Actually, it is not the case that these people are all ‘ignorant’ in the derogatory sense that you’re using the word.
You, however, have a knack for saying profoundly unfounded things that’s coupled with an uncanny ability to appear not to understand how unfounded they are. I assume you come by this honest. If not, if your schtick is contrived, then you, sir, are a genius.
lekatt, you have to understand that when you come in and make a bunch of wild claims, questionable in grammar and spelling and, unless I am not understanding what you meant to say, incoherent with previous posts in the same thread, you are not making any positive impact for your case. You come off as yet another person saying that God sent you on a journey to enlighten mankind about spirituality and the Terri Schaivo case. If you are so enlightened to the personal motivators of so-called mediums (media?) then you should be willing to tell us how you are so enlightened. Charismatic people have a habit of being liars who say what they have to to control their victims. Anyone who has read about Waco and the Branch Davidians, Elizabeth Smart and her abductors, Timothy McVeigh and the group he was involved in, Applewhite and the guys who killed themselves to join the UFO behind Hale-Bop, etc., has a responsibility to be skeptical to wild claims.
There is a huge difference between someone whose heart stopped momentarily and someone whose heart stopped for so long that their brain more resembles a Jell-o mold than anything capable of human thought. One recovers to lead a somewhat normal life (although lekatt is causing me to doubt they all return to normal) and one becomes slightly less human every day. The current issue of Newsweek has a statement that her family would amputate a limb at a time if she had a bedsore that turned gangrenous. So a half a Terri is better than none? Where would it stop? Arms and legs are gone…cut out part of the torso? One kidney works almost as good as two. The people who want to keep this body alive are sick. She’s been gone for a long, long time. This is, IIRC, the OP. How much living body does it take to have a soul? You know my opinions…and I would still be interested in yours more than the lekatt hijack.
Actually we have far more than that. Try actually reading about the case for a change. Her husband even requested she become a ward of the courts to prevent his own prejudices from intefering with the courts’ determination of her wishes.
Actually, I do. I read his book and much more. It is very poor work designed to get positive results. Only one test where he actually used double-blinding and that was inconclusive. He tried to pretend it wasn’t by claiming he had a larger test sample base than he actually used.
There were (as I recall) five witnesses who stated such. I would suggest that you educate yourself about the case except that it is obvious that you are completely impervious to facts, to science, and to reality.
Is it ok if I be a genius without being contrived.
You did know Einstein’s theory of relativity was “bad science” for a while. So was the theory that high cholesterol was harmful. I could list a hundred more, but you get the idea. The theory that near death experiences prove consciousness continues after death is “bad science” right now, but will become good science in the future due to its good evidence. Main stream science can’t afford to consider consciousness isn’t in the brain. Too much research going on, too much money spent to even consider it.
I post good research studies, but no one reads them, they say they read them, but they don’t. I know because the questions they have are never about aspects of the research, but about my spelling or grammer, or how dumb I am for suggesting such a thing. OK. New truths have a hard time of it, but always win in the end. Introducing new future truths is a dirty job, but someone has to do it.
You are, of course, free to be whatever you can be. However, if you’re so unaware by accident, then your genius is of the kind that’s hard to recognize.
There is, to put it mildly, there is hardly universal consensus on the quality of Schwartz’s research.
Simply dismissing these objections as knee-jerk scepticism is patently unfair. Good science relies on good methodology and reproducibility. Schwartz’s work, like that of the psychics he claims to critique, is apparently contrived from the outset to render positive results.
Maybe somebody with a stronger background in the history of science can answer this: Was that EVER true or was it more like, “Al, that’s an interesting collection of ideas, though some seem counterintuitive. Let’s test them. Light bent by Sun’s gravity? Check! Atom bomb works? Check! Clock in jet airplane runs ever so much slower than one sitting still? Check! Looks great; here’s your Nobel Prize.”
Looks to me like another made-up example. I go back a few years, back into the days when people ate lots of cholesterol-laden foods because they were supposed to be good for you. (“Honey, would you like some butter for your sweet roll? Cheese on your apple pie? Butter on your cheese?” It’s a wonder anybody from Minnesota reaches adulthood.) I also recall when the early studies on those diets came out and don’t recall ANYBODY calling it “bad science.” Sad science, perhaps, since it gave us low-cholesterol diets (which were especially bad at first because few people knew how to cook that way) but never BAD science.
This is like when people say, “They all laughed when Edison said he was going to invent the light bulb,” when the reality was that his reputation was already so good that his announcement caused gas company stocks to plummet. In other words, what people say isn’t true. Ditto for Einstein and cholesterol.
Lekatt is right. Look at phrenology. That was supposed to be bad science. So was the idea of exposing people to radiation to improve their health. Doctors said it was sheer crackery.
When I went to high school, IQ tests were given to each student. The scores were supposed to be super secret, but my teachers would tell me my level of work was far below the level of my IQ. I joined the Navy while still in school and went to boot camp during the summer months. I was called into the Captain’s office so he could “look” at me. He told me he had never seen a score as high as mine on the Navy entrance exam.
I have read more than 3000 non-fiction books on the human condition called life. Philosophy, psychology, theology, anthropology, etc. Passing through this much data I have learned not to sweat the small stuff. I look for patterns, flows, and waves now. When people read what I write I get one of two responses. They think I am some kind of super intelligent guru or they think I am some kind of super ignorant toadstool. I believe this happens because I am truly an independent thinker, not one that just talks about it.
It is always a pleasure to meet someone like you, PatriotX, while you may or may not agree with what I say, you always have the courage to listen.
Well, Einstein didn’t get his Nobel for GR, or even SR, but otherwise, that’s pretty much how it went.
There were some Germans who objected to Relativity because it was “Jew science”. Of course, they also tried to get Heisenberg and his team to put E=MC[sup]2[/sup] to practical use for energy production and weapons development, so I have to wonder how sincere those objections really were.
The issues ultimately explained by SR were heavily “in the air” at the time, and though Einstein get’s the credit, it’s quite likely some other folks, like Poincaré, would have rendered much the same theoretical framework in short order if Einstein hadn’t.
GR was something else entirely, and some claim that without Einstein, we might have waited decades longer for the same insights. It indeed was so revolutionary that some very respectable folks balked at its predictions and implications. However, there was already an observation calling Newtonian gravity into question, namely Mercury’s perihelion precession, which was so accurately predicted by GR even before publication that, upon making the calculation, Einstein recalled it gave him palpitations. Of course this postidiction didn’t sway some sceptics, and that probably wasn’t a bad thing. The logic behind the equivalence principle, and the mathematics that followed, however, were so sound, and so compelling, most folks who grasped it (including Einstein) were 100% confident in it without observation. There is no substitute for experimental confirmation, but GR followed so inevitably and profoundly from what was already established, many felt there was little rational cause to doubt it.
I obviously should have preceded my post with “massively oversimplified, exagerated, and time compressed and twisted for ‘effect.’” 
But my point was that no scientists, except possibly those so entrenched in their ways that they needed gentle pressure toward retirement, called any of Einstein’s work “bad science.” They may have viewed some of the less intuitive conclusions with a “lemme see your math” attitude but even then they accepted the possibility it was all true.
I hope that was a whoosh.
Well, I’ll have you know that many, many legitimate studies have been done on phrenology. I’ve read them because I’m a genius.
I’d love to keep this up, but I can’t do it with conviction. OK, I’m wooshing you. It’s a woosh with a point. The vast majority of things that have been called “bad science” were, in fact, bad science. Lekatt’s argument blows away like so much dandilion fluff.
But does he realize it or not?
I must admit, there might be some heuristic value in attempting to engage such a mind in something resembling substantive debate. Unfortuately, the marginal returns converge on zero with an alacrity almost as astonishing lekatt him/herself.
Well, it seems the protocol is, if you are not bowled over by spurious evidence, you’re a skeptic, and you don’t believe the stuff because you’re a skeptic, because skeptics don’t believe stuff anyway. I may be missing some of the subtler shades of meaning in this formula, but the answer to your question is “no.”
Sorry for doubting but after spending time listening to lekatt my BS/whoosh meter is permanently pegged. And I was HOPING you were joking, though I’ve heard the speech, vision, etc centers of the brain used as support for phrenology and radiation treatment of cancer “proving” the value of all manner of dangerous practices.