Agreeing on a validation test for mediums..

[onewheeldave]

You said

 

 

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.

 

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 don't know- I never claimed to.

 

If, I'd said-

 

 

It was, instead, a tiny sample consisting only of those 'mediums' who were attracted to an event because it promised 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.

 

 

then you'd have a point- in that case I would have made the assumption you apear to be accusing me of, as I do not know that they entered because of the fame/cash.

 

But I didn't say that, what I said was-

 

 

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.

 

 

i.e. that they were attracted to an event promising fame/cash, which is undeniably true and contains no assumptions whatsoever about their intent/motivations.

 

I think this is a case where you have not really read what I said, but, instead, introduced some assumptions of your own and, gone on the dispute something which I didn't actually say.

 

The gist here is that if you want to run a scientific study, then do so, using valid scientific methodology. Most scientific studies tend to be somewhat 'clinical'- maybe there's good reason for that?

 

Most scientific studies aren't run as some kind of media circus, with a $1,000,000 cash prize for the 'winner', run by a 'rationalist' celebrity.

 

Regardless of whether or not the prime motivation for the entrants is cash/fame, or, something else, it's pretty clear that the cash/fame/celebrity/media aspects, could, somewhat skew the demography of the entrants.

[onewheeldave]

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.

 

 

 

 

What 'mutually agreed test' here are you referring to.

 

Given that you and I agree, that-

 

there is no test (at present) which can show this 100%.

 

 

then how could we possibly construct a valid test. Are you saying such a test is possible? In which case, state the details, I'll look at them, and then indicate whether we both do agree it is a valid test.

 

(to save you some time, let me remind you that, of the tests proposed thus far, I do not agree as being valid).

 

Or are you saying such a test is impossible?

 

Conversly, maybe you're talking about a test which maybe a medium could agree on, while I wouldn't agree?

 

In which case, clearly I'm not going to accept it as a valid test, probably on the grounds that the medium, perhaps not being quite so sharp as me, has missed some important point in the protocols.

[onewheeldave]

 

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.

 

Again- I've never said that a 'test group' isn't good enough for scientific evidence! Please stop with the strawmen.

 

I did say that one specific 'test group' (the one used for Randis media event) probably wasn't good enough for scientific evidence. And, I stand by that.

 

I've also, at least implied, that, IMO, finding a test group that is good enough for scientific evidence, is either highly unlikely, or, maybe impossible.

[onewheeldave]

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).

 

I don't know whether that's relevant, due to the complete lack of any details whatsoever

 

It's probably safe to assume there's no point elaborating, but, if you feel strongly that it is particularly relevant, then you'll have to post more details before I can comment.

[PaliRichard]

What 'mutually agreed test' here are you referring to.

 

Given that you and I agree, that- 'there is no test (at present) which can show this 100%'[/Quote]

 

I was referring to a mutually agreed test between the tester and the medium, not between you and I.

 

I have also already explained the difference between absolute proof and scientific proof.

 

As it appears you are referring to absolute proof I agree that there isn't a test which can show this. The tests suggested by HbroChris, RootsBooster and Randi are all adequate for deciding if a medium has some sort of supernatural ability from the scientific perspective. If both party's agree that this test is also sufficient to prove life after death then until further evidence is presented which shows that it is in fact some other supernatural ability being demonstrated then this could also be included.

 

then how could we possibly construct a valid test. Are you saying such a test is possible? In which case, state the details, I'll look at them, and then indicate whether we both do agree it is a valid test.

 

(to save you some time, let me remind you that, of the tests proposed thus far, I do not agree as being valid).

 

Or are you saying such a test is impossible?[/Quote]

 

I'm not suggesting any test that gives absolute proof.

 

Conversly, maybe you're talking about a test which maybe a medium could agree on, while I wouldn't agree?[/Quote]

 

What you (or I) agree on is irrelevant, it is down on the party carrying out the test and the person being tested to agree on the criteria (actually it's down to the person devising the test - but I'm trying to make it as fair as possible, apparently the mediums in the Randi test agreed to the criteria).

 

In which case, clearly I'm not going to accept it as a valid test, probably on the grounds that the medium, perhaps not being quite so sharp as me, has missed some important point in the protocols.

 

Why should your or my opinion be taken into account unless we are directly involved in the test?

 

Again- I've never said that a 'test group' isn't good enough for scientific evidence! Please stop with the strawmen.

 

I did say that the 'test group' used for Randis media event wasn't good enough for scientific evidence. And, I stand by that.

 

I've also, at least implied, that, IMO, finding a test group that is good enough for scientific evidence, is either highly unlikely, or, maybe impossible.[/Quote]

 

I'm not creating any strawmen, unless you have been reading someone else's posts instead of mine it should have been clear that I have been talking about the scientific method in general, not just Randi's test.

 

You have repeatedly stated that a test group is not good enough, as it wouldn't test all mediums, as I have stated consistantly this is irrelevant in a scientific test where a test group is adequate.

 

By saying all mediums should be tested you are essentially creating a situation where the test (or any test) can never be carried out. It seems like nothing more than an excuse to avoid mediums being tested at all.

[PaliRichard]

I don't know whether that's relevant, due to the complete lack of any details whatsoever

 

It's probably safe to assume there's no point elaborating, but, if you feel strongly that it is particularly relevant, then you'll have to post more details before I can comment.

 

I was merely referring to your statement that a test would not necessarily prove communication with the dead, it may show some other supernatural ability.

 

I agree, but that doesn't make a scientific test itself redundant as there are known contradictory hypothosis/theories that rely on the same data.

 

The details of the above tests are irrelevant as they are nothing to do with our conversation, I was merely demonstrating that it is not unknown that one set of data can have alternative, and equally valid hypothosis built on that data.

[PaliRichard]

I'm sorry but saying

consisting only of those 'mediums' who were attracted to an event promising fame and large amounts of cash[/Quote] and

IMO, few sincere/genuine/intelligent mediums would enter into[/Quote]

 

and then claiming I have mis read your post and in fact you are not making assumptions seems very unlikely.

 

If, (and I'm always willing to hold my hands up if shown to be wrong) you were not making those assumptions then you may consider how you word your posts in future

 

The gist here is that if you want to run a scientific study, then do so, using valid scientific methodology. Most scientific studies tend to be somewhat 'clinical'- maybe there's good reason for that?

 

Most scientific studies aren't run as some kind of media circus, with a $1,000,000 cash prize for the 'winner', run by a 'rationalist' celebrity[/Quote]

 

I agree, but if the test is carried out in a fair and measurable manner then this point should be irrelevant.

 

Regardless of whether or not the prime motivation for the entrants is cash/fame, or, something else, it's pretty clear that the cash/fame/celebrity/media aspects, could, somewhat skew the demography of the entrants.

 

Again I agree that it could, but firstly this is not a premise that it automatically does and this is why very early on in this conversation I made the statement that it would be avoided by a compulsary test which could be carried out on all mediums.

[onewheeldave]

I was referring to a mutually agreed test between the tester and the medium, not between you and I.

 

I have also already explained the difference between absolute proof and scientific proof.

 

As it appears you are referring to absolute proof I agree that there isn't a test which can show this. The tests suggested by HbroChris, RootsBooster and Randi are all adequate for deciding if a medium has some sort of supernatural ability from the scientific perspective. If both party's agree that this test is also sufficient to prove life after death then until further evidence is presented which shows that it is in fact some other supernatural ability being demonstrated then this could also be included.

 

 

 

I'm not suggesting any test that gives absolute proof.

 

 

 

What you (or I) agree on is irrelevant, it is down on the party carrying out the test and the person being tested to agree on the criteria (actually it's down to the person devising the test - but I'm trying to make it as fair as possible, apparently the mediums in the Randi test agreed to the criteria).

 

 

 

Why should your or my opinion be taken into account unless we are directly involved in the test?

 

 

 

Good, we agree that absolute proof is impossible.

 

And, as far as I'm concerned, the tests proposed thus far, are, for me, inadequate to establish anything meaningful. Not because they aren't absolute proof, but, for the many other reasons I've posted previously.

 

On the adequacy of the proposed tests, you and me do not agree. Neither are the discussions we've had on that issue been, IMO, particularly fruitful.

 

I'd suggest we leave it at that, and agree to disagree.

[grababargin]

dont you think that if mediums can do what they claim they can,.......unsolved murders and crime like poor Keith Bennet would be solved

[onewheeldave]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'm not creating any strawmen, unless you have been reading someone else's posts instead of mine it should have been clear that I have been talking about the scientific method in general, not just Randi's test.

 

You have repeatedly stated that a test group is not good enough, as it wouldn't test all mediums, as I have stated consistantly this is irrelevant in a scientific test where a test group is adequate.

 

By saying all mediums should be tested you are essentially creating a situation where the test (or any test) can never be carried out. It seems like nothing more than an excuse to avoid mediums being tested at all.

 

No, I haven't stated that a test group is not good enough, rather, I've stated that particular tests groups posted here aren't good enough, by my standards.

 

I've never said all mediums should be tested- that's not possible.

 

I'm not going to waste more words- if you want to stand by your claim above, then post the quote where you believe I said that "all mediums should be tested".

 

I'm pretty sure that it'll be yet another instance of you attributing a claim to me that I havn't made