Agreeing on a validation test for mediums..

[perplexed]

Like you said in your OP-

 

 

 

So really you'd need to check with some mediums as to whether they have a problem with the test idea- I'm pretty confident that they will.

 

I think it's more of a case of requiring someone to sit a test without the answer sheet in front of them.

 

Under scientific, controlled, conditions, it's a case of ensuring that the person claiming to be a medium cannot possibly be given any physical information by way of verbal information, body language, clothing etc which may be latched upon to build a story. Subjects may give this wittingly or unwittingly, so this needs to be taken from the equation.

[PeteMorris]

I think it's more of a case of requiring someone to sit a test without the answer sheet in front of them.

 

Under scientific, controlled, conditions, it's a case of ensuring that the person claiming to be a medium cannot possibly be given any physical information by way of verbal information, body language, clothing etc which may be latched upon to build a story. Subjects may give this wittingly or unwittingly, so this needs to be taken from the equation.

 

That's actually a test for mind reading. Sit them in an empty room, with no physical clues, and expect them to 'read' and say things about the person you have in 'your' head!

 

I don't see that it's really possible to 'test' mediumship in a controlled way. Maybe that's why it's never been done, or likely to be done!

[Skirmisher]

Not to hand no, and it'd need a bit of digging to find them. You'd almost certainly need a subscription to the journals as well.

 

Or

 

Even the most craziest of scientists knows beyond doubt that it is something that they cannot test.

[Deltic]

Or

 

Even the most craziest of scientists knows beyond doubt that it is something that they cannot test.

 

So what are your specific criticisms of James Randi's protocol?

[Moosey]

IMO, no.

 

In our society there are plenty of 'professionals' who do not have to back up their claims.

 

For example, various bankers who claimed possession of actual banking skills, who, it turned out, didn't

 

I don't think mediums should be picked out to back up their claims, until all professionals are called upon to prove themselves.

 

All professionals have to back up their claims.

 

You can't for example be a lawyer without training, whether on the job or through qualification. To back that up, we have regular training and a governing body. Bankers, doctors, accountants - all professional bodies have regulation and a way to monitor their performance.

 

Even the most useless accountant can prove that at one point he had passed the relevant exams to become an accountant. Whether he retains those skills or ends up useless is a matter of ability over time, but he has at the outset of his career had to prove his claim of an ability.

[onewheeldave]

All professionals have to back up their claims.

 

You can't for example be a lawyer without training, whether on the job or through qualification. To back that up, we have regular training and a governing body. Bankers, doctors, accountants - all professional bodies have regulation and a way to monitor their performance.

 

Even the most useless accountant can prove that at one point he had passed the relevant exams to become an accountant. Whether he retains those skills or ends up useless is a matter of ability over time, but he has at the outset of his career had to prove his claim of an ability.

 

That's kind of the point I was making. If professionals have to 'prove' they can do what they say, and, if that's done via regulatory bodies, the exams and regualtory system has to actually be effective.

 

I question the effectiveness of many such regulatory systems and so, again I say- mediums should only have to proof themselves if/when all professionals have to prove themsleves, and, not via a bought exam certificate that often, actually does not, in reality, prove anything.

[onewheeldave]

I think it's more of a case of requiring someone to sit a test without the answer sheet in front of them.

 

Under scientific, controlled, conditions, it's a case of ensuring that the person claiming to be a medium cannot possibly be given any physical information by way of verbal information, body language, clothing etc which may be latched upon to build a story. Subjects may give this wittingly or unwittingly, so this needs to be taken from the equation.

 

Of course- I know about scientific methodology and the need to exclude, as far as possible, factors which could influence experimental outcomes.

 

All I was saying was that the OP specifically mentioned the necessity of both the medium and the scientist/s agreeing that the test was to their satisfaction, and, that in this case, I don't think the medium is going to be happy with it.

 

My own view is that mediumship is never going to be proved or disproved by science- I also believe that if people want to visit mediums they should be able to do so, and, that mediums should stop wasting their time trying to get scientists on board.

[RootsBooster]

Really? Can you back up that claim i.e. that all genuine powers or skills are necessarily provable?

No but I'm happy to change the statement to "I can't think of a human power or skill that can't be proven beyond reasonable doubt".

Can you think of any that can?

Like you said in your OP-

 

 

 

So really you'd need to check with some mediums as to whether they have a problem with the test idea- I'm pretty confident that they will.

That's the whole point of the thread, to come up with a test that every could be agreed upon. As no mediums have opposed this yet, it seems to be okay. If they do have a problem, I'm interested to hear what they don't like about it and why.

(And I never said it had to be agreed upon by the medium, just both sides of the organisation holding the tests.)

IMO, no.

 

In our society there are plenty of 'professionals' who do not have to back up their claims.

 

For example, various bankers who claimed possession of actual banking skills, who, it turned out, didn't

 

I don't think mediums should be picked out to back up their claims, until all professionals are called upon to prove themselves.

 

IMO, bankers should be able to prove their skills and abilities also.

I didn't say this should be a compulsory test for the mediums or that any would be "picked out to back up their claims". It would be an optional test for mediums who want something to endorse/authenticate their services. I will add this to the OP, thankyou.

[Moosey]

That's kind of the point I was making. If professionals have to 'prove' they can do what they say, and, if that's done via regulatory bodies, the exams and regualtory system has to actually be effective.

 

I question the effectiveness of many such regulatory systems and so, again I say- mediums should only have to proof themselves if/when all professionals have to prove themsleves, and, not via a bought exam certificate that often, actually does not, in reality, prove anything.

 

I can only comment on law, as that's what I'm in, but our regulatory body is very strict. We're answerable all the time if we do anything wrong, to a number of different people. We are monitored constantly, by the Solicitors Regulatory Authority, by work providers, by the ISO people - we have so many audits a year it's a wonder we get any work done as the files are always out of the office and with an auditer!

 

People will always make mistakes of course; no one's perfect, but so much regulation means that those mistakes should be minimised.

 

Part of the problem is the definition of "success" for a banker. For us, our rules provide that we have to do everything we can for the client. For a banker, I suspect their mission is to make money for the bank and its shareholders, which I suspect they do fairly well (again, I'm not an expert, so this may be wrong).

[Obelix]

Or

 

Even the most craziest of scientists knows beyond doubt that it is something that they cannot test.

 

The only things that cannot be tested are things that are not repeatable or falsifiable. Everything else can be tested, no matter how wacky it sounds.

 

I mean who would have imagined that an electron can go through two seperate holes at the same time and interfere with itself. That's a crazy idea but it's true.