Agreeing on a validation test for mediums..

[PaliRichard]

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.

 

I agree.

 

Just before I go I would just like to say that despite our (it seems unfortunately common) disagreements I do enjoy reading your opinion, and I hope to have many more (hopefully more fruitful) conversations with you

[onewheeldave]

 

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

 

 

 

Rubbish!

 

The test can only be fair in the first place if the test subjects are a truly representative sample of mediums- running a scientific test as a media circus means there is a strong possibility that the sample isn't truly representative.

 

Which I expect is the reason why most scientific studies aren't run as media circuses with a big cash prize

[onewheeldave]

I agree.

 

Just before I go I would just like to say that despite our (it seems unfortunately common) disagreements I do enjoy reading your opinion, and I hope to have many more (hopefully more fruitful) conversations with you

 

Good. And, likewise. While I usually find myself dissagreeing, especially as the discussions progress and get deeper, it's obvious that you put intelligent thought into the points you make.

[declan12]

I didn't ....