Agreeing on a validation test for mediums..

[onewheeldave]

 

 

 

I do understand what you're saying here but again you seem to have mis read my post.

 

If both sides of the argument agree that the test would proved that there was life after death and someone passed it then it would be evidence that there was life after death.

 

If further evidence came along at a later date saying it was, let's say for the sake of argument telepathy (which I agree is equally as plausible) then at that time the theory of life after death would be dismissed, that's how science works.

 

But if both sides agree that it validates life after death then as far as science goes until further evidence comes along that's exactly what it would do.

 

No- if you want to test for communication by the dead, then you need to devise a test whose results establsih that. If, as we both agree, telepaphy/akashic records are equally valid hypotheses to explain the results, then the test needs to be modified to exclude that possibility.

 

if both sides agree on a suitable set of protocols- the results are still only valid if they are actually correct.

 

For example, the aformentioned test by Randi had the agreement of both sides, yet, as a test to establish communication with the dead, it was deeply flawed, as, even if the results had been positive, they could just have been caused by telepaphy/akashic records.

 

If the results had been positive, all that could be concluded was that there was 'something wierd' going on, something not covered by current science.

 

So, you need to decide what you're trying to prove with this test- is it the ability of a medium to communicate with the dead: in which case, you need to devise a test that would show that (the current ones don't).

 

Or, are you simply aiming to show (in the event of a positive result), that mediums can do 'something weird/not explainable by current science.

 

Which is it?

[HbroChris]

Ok, so the way to test the hypothesis here is as follows:

 

1) Find a terminal, yet mentally sound patient (important so that your experiment passes the Ethics Board).

2) Let the medium and the patient spend as much time together as the medium requires or circumstances allow.

3) Prior to the patient passing, give them four or five (or more!) simple answers to remember. Doesn't matter about the relevance. Randomness is important here.

4) Allow the patient and medium no more contact.

5) After nature takes its course, get the medium to contact the patient in the afterworld.

6) The medium's goal is to obtain the answers. Eg "What was the answer to question one?" "A mauve penguin".

7) Repeat with the same medium, different patients etc.

 

That should fairly handily disprove the null hypothesis to everyone's satisfaction, no?

 

The other type - subconcious clues etc:

1) Find a person who has severe retrograde amnesia/that neurological condition where you suddenly start speaking only French/locked-in syndrome.

2) Get the telepathic medium to determine a couple of provable facts about the patient's life prior to the onset of their condition.

NB: Not likely to get Ethics Board approval.

 

 

Sorted. Next?

[PaliRichard]

That last bit isn't an argument I've tried to advance though.

 

My point was that results testing a (relatively small) subset of all mediums, cannot lead to a conclusion about all mediums.

 

That's a straightforward point about very basic logic- if you don't understand it then you'd be best to take it up with a professional logician of some kind.

 

If, as i suspect, you're taking a more induction-based approach, then yes, there's a case to be made, and, multiple precedents for, coming to a working conclusion based on probability rather than logical certitude.

 

That could happen if, for example, from the set of all mediums, a representative sample of a significant percentage of the group had been tested, and, failed the test.

 

That is clearly not the case here though- I've already pointed out that the subsection tested was not representative.

 

It was, instead, a tiny sample consisting only of those 'mediums' who were attracted to an event promising fame and large amounts of cash, run by a celebrity of the sceptical movement, to which, IMO, few sincere/genuine/intelligent mediums would enter into the test.

 

Any test which happily passes itself off as fair and scientific, with full awareness that sincere/genuine/intelligent mediums are going to be severely under-represented, is, IMO, deeply flawed.

 

You're whole argument is based on assumptions, the assumption that the tested subsection wasn't representitive, the assumption that those tested were only after fame and cash (where in fact we don't know if they'd have even accepted the cash, many people win money only to give it away) the assumption that in your opinion few sincere mediums would enter into.

 

Isn't it in fact more likely that those who aren't sincere (those who in fact know their ability isn't genuine) are far less likely to take the test, if conducted voluntarily, than one who genuinely believes they have that ability?

 

Of course we're not talking on a purely logical basis, we're talking about a scientific test, therefor a test group is perfectly reasonable, as is a voluntary test group, I'm not sure why you've brought 'logic' into it at all, it's irrelevant unless you're purposefully trying to be akward.

 

As I said every advancement humanity as ever made has been through a 'test group' of one form or another.

 

Your whole argument relies on these assumptions that you are making about the test group, assumptions that neither me, you, nor I suspect even those conducting the test know the answer to.

 

No- if you want to test for communication by the dead, then you need to devise a test whose results establsih that. If, as we both agree, telepaphy/akashic records are equally valid hypotheses to explain the results, then the test needs to be modified to exclude that possibility.

 

if both sides agree on a suitable set of protocols- the results are still only valid if they are actually correct.

 

For example, the aformentioned test by Randi had the agreement of both sides, yet, as a test to establish communication with the dead, it was deeply flawed, as, even if the results had been positive, they could just have been caused by telepaphy/akashic records.

 

If the results had been positive, all that could be concluded was that there was 'something wierd' going on, something not covered by current science.

 

So, you need to decide what you're trying to prove with this test- is it the ability of a medium to communicate with the dead: in which case, you need to devise a test that would show that (the current ones don't).

 

Or, are you simply aiming to show (in the event of a positive result), that mediums can do 'something weird/not explainable by current science.

 

Which is it?[/Quote]

 

I'm not sure your really thinking this through properly.

 

As we have no test for life after death we have to rely on the next best thing.

 

The next best thing is those that claim they know that there is life after death.

 

As we cannot directly test for life after death we have to test those that claim they have ability's to communicate with life after death, the data provided may be applicable to other things but as both sides agree that it is the ability to communicate with life after death failure is reasonable evidence that there is no life after death (unless additional evidence is presented in the future) and success is reasonable evidence that there is.

 

If the test suceeds and someone else claims that telepathy or akashic records are the reason for its sucess and not clairevoyance then all the data has to be inspected and whichever the evidence fits best would be the one that had the most 'proof'.

 

There are at least two cases in 'natural' (as opposed to the 'super'natural) science that I can think of where one set of evidence has fit two different Hypothosis, as far as I know one is still undecided. That doesn't mean that the hypoyhosis should be abandoned, it means until such a time that further evidence comes along there will be more than one theory.

[onewheeldave]

Ok, so the way to test the hypothesis here is as follows:

 

1) Find a terminal, yet mentally sound patient (important so that your experiment passes the Ethics Board).

2) Let the medium and the patient spend as much time together as the medium requires or circumstances allow.

3) Prior to the patient passing, give them four or five (or more!) simple answers to remember. Doesn't matter about the relevance. Randomness is important here.

4) Allow the patient and medium no more contact.

5) After nature takes its course, get the medium to contact the patient in the afterworld.

6) The medium's goal is to obtain the answers. Eg "What was the answer to question one?" "A mauve penguin".

7) Repeat with the same medium, different patients etc.

 

That should fairly handily disprove the null hypothesis to everyone's satisfaction, no?

 

 

Yes, that's on the right track, and, would effectively exclude telepathy as a potential explanation.

 

However, it does not exclude the 'akashic records' as a valid hypothesis, and, i think that's going to be the tricky one.

 

As all the information that could be derived from a dead person who's existing in an afterlife, could equally be obtained from, if they exist, akashic records.

 

I guess you could try questions like 'what is it like to be dead/what is the afterlife environment like?' etc.

 

However, that has it's own issues, as, the questions could only be asked after the subject is dead, and, their is no way, as far as I can see, to verify any answers given.

 

But, good effort, it's nice to see someone else can see the flaws in the original proposed test

[onewheeldave]

You're whole argument is based on assumptions, the assumption that the tested subsection wasn't representitive, the assumption that those tested were only after fame and cash (where in fact we don't know if they'd have even accepted the cash, many people win money only to give it away) the assumption that in your opinion few sincere mediums would enter into.

 

Isn't it in fact more likely that those who aren't sincere (those who in fact know their ability isn't genuine) are far less likely to take the test, if conducted voluntarily, than one who genuinely believes they have that ability?

 

Of course we're not talking on a purely logical basis, we're talking about a scientific test, therefor a test group is perfectly reasonable, as is a voluntary test group, I'm not sure why you've brought 'logic' into it at all, it's irrelevant unless you're purposefully trying to be akward.

 

As I said every advancement humanity as ever made has been through a 'test group' of one form or another.

 

Your whole argument relies on these assumptions that you are making about the test group, assumptions that neither me, you, nor I suspect even those conducting the test know the answer to.

 

 

 

 

No, actually I'm going to say you're wrong there; in that I've made no assumptions whatsoever.

 

What I have done is point out the undeniable fact that many of those tested could have been in it for fame and cash, that it could be the case that sincere/good mediums don't enter such tests etc, etc.

 

I didn't say it was the case- (that would be no more than assumption), but, that it could be the case.

 

Do you understand that?

 

I mentioned logic, only because you made a claim that was logically invalid (the one when you tried to make out that a relatively small sample of people (hundreds) claiming to be mediums, could indicate that all mediums were frauds or inept) and, i simply pointed out that it wasn't.

 

Apologies if you don't like logic popping up in a discussion, but I'm trying to have a rational discussion here, for which occasional bursts of logic are, IMO, pretty much inevitable

[onewheeldave]

 

 

I'm not sure your really thinking this through properly.

 

As we have no test for life after death we have to rely on the next best thing.

 

The next best thing is those that claim they know that there is life after death.

 

As we cannot directly test for life after death we have to test those that claim they have ability's to communicate with life after death, the data provided may be applicable to other things but as both sides agree that it is the ability to communicate with life after death failure is reasonable evidence that there is no life after death (unless additional evidence is presented in the future) and success is reasonable evidence that there is.

 

If the test suceeds and someone else claims that telepathy or akashic records are the reason for its sucess and not clairevoyance then all the data has to be inspected and whichever the evidence fits best would be the one that had the most 'proof'.

 

There are at least two cases in 'natural' (as opposed to the 'super'natural) science that I can think of where one set of evidence has fit two different Hypothosis, as far as I know one is still undecided. That doesn't mean that the hypoyhosis should be abandoned, it means until such a time that further evidence comes along there will be more than one theory.

 

You're not sure I'm thinking this through properly

 

We don't need a test for life after death, as, if a medium successfully communicates with a dead person, as well as validating mediumship (in that individual anyway), it clearly also shows the existence of the dead.

 

Assuming, of course, we could devise a test to demonstrate a medium communicating with the dead, which, as I've repeatedly said, IMO, is not possible.

[onewheeldave]

 

 

 

There are at least two cases in 'natural' (as opposed to the 'super'natural) science that I can think of where one set of evidence has fit two different Hypothosis, as far as I know one is still undecided. That doesn't mean that the hypoyhosis should be abandoned, it means until such a time that further evidence comes along there will be more than one theory.

 

And those two cases are...?

[PaliRichard]

No, actually I'm going to say you're wrong there; in that I've made no assumptions whatsoever.

 

What I have done is point out the undeniable fact that many of those tested could have been in it for fame and cash, that it could be the case that sincere/good mediums don't enter such tests etc, etc.

 

I didn't say it was the case- (that would be no more than assumption), but, that it could be the case.

 

Do you understand that?

 

I mentioned logic, only because you made a claim that was logically invalid (the one when you tried to make out that a relatively small sample of people (hundreds) claiming to be mediums, could indicate that all mediums were frauds or inept) and, i simply pointed out that it wasn't.

 

Apologies if you don't like logic popping up in a discussion, but I'm trying to have a rational discussion here, for which occasional bursts of logic are, IMO, pretty much inevitable

 

You said

It was, instead, a tiny sample consisting onlyof those 'mediums' who were attracted to an event promising fame and large amounts of cash, run by a celebrity of the sceptical movement, to which, IMO, few sincere/genuine/intelligent mediums would enter into the test[/Quote]

 

Now you are claiming you've made no assumptions whatsoever?

 

How do you know the mediums only took part because it was an event promising fame and large amounts of cash and not ones that genuinly wanted their abilities verified by scientific means?

 

If you don't know then you were making assumptions, if you do know then I retract my statement, but I would like you to explain exactly how you know.

 

I hope you recognise that there is a difference between using the term 'logic' and having a conversation about the subject of logic. When speaking specifically about a scientific test it is logically invalid to claim that the test group doesn't represent the whole, it does.

 

I have no objection to the subject of logic entering a conversation if it is relevant, in this case it isn't, but you appear to have misread (or misunderstood) my use of the phrase logically invalid in the context of the conversation as being an introduction of the subject of logic, which it wasn't.

 

For my part I apologise if my wording was misleading

[PaliRichard]

You're not sure I'm thinking this through properly

 

We don't need a test for life after death, as, if a medium successfully communicates with a dead person, as well as validating mediumship (in that individual anyway), it clearly also shows the existence of the dead.

 

Assuming, of course, we could devise a test to demonstrate a medium communicating with the dead, which, as I've repeatedly said, IMO, is not possible.

 

You previously said that we couldn't guarantee that the results obtained regarding the mediums claims could be related directly to life after death.

 

Now you are saying that 'if a medium successfully communicates with a dead person', but we both agree that there is no test (at present) which can show this 100%. I merely said that if the medium passed the mutually agreed test then as far as evidence goes we would say that, until such a time that the evidence was overturned, that this would constitute 'proof' that the dead existed after death.

 

There is a difference between 'absolute proof' and the evidence being in favour of something - scientific proof. The big bang is evidence wise the start of the universe. It has been 'proved' scientifically, but the proof for it is not absolute proof, the theory may well be overturned.

 

What I'm trying to get at (sorry - this is turning rather more long winded than I hoped for) is that validating mediumship does not automatically validate (give 100% proof for) life after death - but - if both parties agree that the test is sufficient enough to use as validation (scientific evidence) for life after death then until such a time as further evidence comes forward passing the test would count as proof.

 

I'm not disagreeing with the fundamentals of what you are saying, I'm disagreeing with your statement that a 'test group' isn't good enough for scientific evidence, and that the aforementioned test isn't good enough to provide the validation of a mediums ability.

[PaliRichard]

And those two cases are...?

 

The one that is resolved is regarding volcanoes and an early warning system provided by the 'tone' of the tremors prior to an eruption, there were two alternative ideas that used the same evidence.

 

Likewise with (which I'm not sure has been resolved or not) the end of the dinosaurs.

 

Both of these used the same evidence but had different hypothosis derived from that evidence (I'm sure there are many, many more I'm not aware of).