FriendsCommunitiesMetaphyiscalHeader

Forums Forums Answering Skeptics and Debunking Cynics John Edward, what else?

16 voices
65 replies
  • Author
    Posts
  • #75689
    Cantata
    Participant

    sgrenard,

    That’s fascinating! Can you show me references to that survey?

    #75654
    VTFlowerGirl
    Participant

    Originally posted by Cantata
    VTFlowerGirl,

    …. But if looking good and being a nice person helps the results, then there is a problem. Because then it’s not merely a communication between the other side and the relatives, but involves the psychic too. The psychic will be an interwoven necessity in the process, whose qualities determines the outcome.

    TV, by the way, is not entertainment. TV is commercials, interrupted by entertainment! :)

    Actually Cantata, as with the case of the Superbowl, most of the commercials can be considered entertainment too. Don’t you remember the most entertaining ones? That one with the multiplying bunnies as the guy is waiting to get his check approved always makes me chuckle.

    As for “a problem” with “results” because a psychic happens to be attractive and has a pleasing personality, I disagree. For the most part those that are superior physically and mentally in any career will go further in life than those who are not. JE’s message is that the psychic IS NOT an interwoven necessity in the process, and that we all have the ability to communicate, appreciate, and validate those who have crossed over. This is fully explained in the tapes and books he has published.

    #75627
    Cantata
    Participant

    VTFlowerGirl,

    I’m confused.

    Didn’t ariechert just say that (most) scientists don’t get messages from the other side, because they would simply refuse them? People from the other side don’t try at all?

    That means that not all of us have the ability to communicate with those who have crossed over.

    Ahhh….I think I see: You have to be open to the possibility that the phenomenon exists first, right?

    #75626
    Jude
    Participant

    John Edward’s true appeal is shared by all who get “the message.”

    That appeal comes from the goodness and honesty that shines through when he speaks. He has helped to remove the mystery that has previously shrouded this subject matter. His ability to be down-to-earth and matter-of-fact in his presentation has helped to spur his popularity, and his accuracy is undeniable.

    He could be the guy next door, just an average guy with a great sense of humor, but with a message so powerful that it’s impossible to ignore.

    #68237
    sgrenard
    Participant

    Originally posted by Cantata
    sgrenard,

    That’s fascinating! Can you show me references to that survey?

    Why certainly. The study was performed by Dr. S. Karagulla of the American University (Beirut) but was done in Edinburgh under
    Sir David K. Henderson. Karagulla also spent 3 years as a research associate under Wilder Penfield. The survey involved well known names in medicine at Cornell, the Mayo Clinic and other institutions of a similar caliber. She documents it in her book: “Breakthrough to Creativity.”

    Dr. Dolores Krieger of NYU suffered similar constraints on work she did surveying physicians who wanted to remain anonymous because they outright stated if they admitted publicly what they would admit anonymously about psi and, for example, diagnosis using auras, it would negatively impact their careers. Frankly knowing what I know, this doesn’t surprise me.

    S. Grenard

    #69165
    ariechert
    Participant

    I’m sorry, but I find it is much easier for me to take a message from John Edward than Sylvia Browne. I’m not talking about looks here either. I have tried to read some of Sylvia Browne’s books and I found them to “preachy” . Too much of the book was taken up with messages that I would consider “religious” in nature. I think Sylvia Browne is a “real” medium but for some reason I like watching John Edward better. I also like watching George Anderson give readings, but that pen scribbling across the paper drives me nuts! – Art

    #69871
    VTFlowerGirl
    Participant

    Also, I’m a person who’s easily bored. JE seems to keep my interest as a whole person. I consider him a teacher, and like with many classes I’ve taken over the years I feel I tend to do better and learn more in those where the teacher keeps my interest. Being a gentle, understanding, yet effective teacher is a real gift. No matter what you look like.

    #72793
    Cantata
    Participant

    sgrenard,

    Thanks for the references. I’ll look out for the authors from now on.

    However, I don’t like this “unnamed sources” thingie. It seems unnecessary and too spooky – too much like “Deep Throat” in Watergate! :)

    The problem I have with these claims is that there is no way to verify them. It comes down to belief: We have to believe these authors at face value when they say they met many who secretly agreed with them.

    Both authors are both believers in the paranormal. They claim they have more support than can be proved.

    That, to me, sounds extremely fishy.

    How do we verify these claims? If we can’t, why should we attach value to a claim made by believers?

    #70965
    sgrenard
    Participant

    Originally posted by Cantata

    Thanks for the references. I’ll look out for the authors from now on.

    However, I don’t like this “unnamed sources” thingie. It seems unnecessary and too spooky – too much like “Deep Throat” in Watergate! :)

    Reply: Your welcome. Hmm. I think that I named the sources. Are you calling a NYU professor into disrepute? I trained at NYU Medical Center and Dr. Krieger’s reputation is well known to me.

    The problem I have with these claims is that there is no way to verify them. It comes down to belief: We have to believe these authors at face value when they say they met many who secretly agreed with them.

    Reply: Hmm again. I thought that I did verify them. If you want the name, rank and phone number of every person who ever fills out a questionnaire, think again. Plus what may I ask is the big deal about this? I can personally vouch for the thesis that there are any number of physicians who privately express an ability to diagnose patients using a combination of both accepted clinical means as well as intuition and what they feel are abilities beyond their normal senses. Insofar as aura diagnosis, you are obviously not familiar with biophoton research or the extent of the work in that area. Nor, do I suppose, you have ever taken the time to concentrate on biophoton (aura) emissions. Try it sometime on your own fingers.

    Both authors are both believers in the paranormal. They claim they have more support than can be proved.

    Reply: Hmm again and again. Before I gave you these names you didn’t know who these authors are and now you state both of them are “believers” in the paranormal. Now I would be interested in your references on that statement. What exactly does “they have more support than can be claimed” mean and how do you know this, quanitatively speaking….

    That, to me, sounds extremely fishy.

    Reply: If it sounds fishy to you, so be it.

    How do we verify these claims? If we can’t, why should we attach value to a claim made by believers?

    Reply: The claims are verified by reason of the status and reputation of the medical professionals who made them. In medicine we do not reveal the identities of patients in published case histories either so by your reckoning this makes evey case history and every study subject to the ethics and legal requirement of confidentiality suspect. It must be sad to be so
    suspicious all the time. What if I “believed” in the value of a new medication and tested it on anonymous patients who had excellent results. Since YOU cannot personally interview these patients for yourself does this make my claim of the results suspect? Frankly my dear it doesn’t, in the end, matter whether YOU can verify such claims or not. And, if I gave you the names of 150 physicians and other scientists who express acceptance of the validity of psi, are you going to call each and everyone of them on the phone and verify this? To find the names of respected physicians, physicists, Nobel prize winners and the like who are in this category and are “outted” because they have published on this subject, feel free to visit:

    http://www.survivalscience.org

    and spend a few hours a day going through it with a fine tooth comb to verify. The fact that there are 100s of names that are public should at least indicate to you that there are probably as many or more which are not but which exist. There is nothing spooky about this. :)

    The problem with the skeptics is that they do not have the scientific experiments, decades of research, tens of thousands of trials and the hundreds of reputaable and respected scientists including heart surgeons, neurologists, psychiatrists, internists, pediatricians, general surgeons, who have seen, evaluated and tabulated the evidence on, for example, NDEs and OBEs, to name just one area of mind/body duality and have gone on the public record, in peer reviewed mainstream medical journals just in the past year (The Lancet and Resuscitation) by publishing their study of this phenomenon. What closed minded skeptics do have are secular humanists, philosophers, atheists, magicians and historians who have nothing to offer in true rebuttal other than sophistry. And we all know what that is. Sure a magician and hoaxer like Randi can easily unmask a fraudulent medium or other hoaxer but he can do little, or nothing experimentally, to rebutt the reams of data that exist which support the validity of psi and to a great extent, the duality of mind and body. Retired psychologist Ray Hyman couldn’t effectively rebutt the validity of the statistical analysis of the CIA’s Remote Viewing (Stargate Program) either and said so. As a skeptic all he could say is that there must be a flaw in all this data somewhere but I don’t know what it is and I couldn’t find it. Oh well. Before I looked at this data myself, I too was skeptical but remained open minded, and as a result I accept its obvious validity and yes, I couldn’t find Hyman’s elusive flaws either.

    S Grenard
    Science Moderator

    #70661
    ariechert
    Participant

    My sister-in-law (SIL) has been a nurse for eighteen years now. She and I got to talking about all the paranormal stuff that she has seen since she has been a nurse. My SIL told me about a young 17 year old girl that had liver cancer that was having pre-death visions, and conversations with those that had crossed over, shortly before she died and right before she died she told them that her grandfather, who had died, was there to help guide her to the other side. She said the nurses she works with all have stories of stuff that have happened with the patients they have worked with. Another thing she says that happens more than is generally talked about is “spontaneous remissions” from people who were supposed to die, but don’t. When a patient who is supposed to die – doesn’t – I’m sure that the doctors wonder what happened to cure someone. – Art

    #70654
    Phigalilly
    Participant

    Steve,
    I’ve never responded to one of your posts, but I wanted to let you know that I read each and every one of them and greatly appreciate your presence on the board and your input into these discussions.
    ((((((BIG C.A.V. for the Science Moderator)))))
    Sandra:)

    #70474
    RC
    Participant

    Ditto, Steve. Always patiently and thoroughly answering all questions. Cheers.

    #70300
    romanov1918
    Participant

    I agree, three cheers.

    #70265
    Cantata
    Participant

    Originally posted by sgrenard
    Your welcome. Hmm. I think that I named the sources. Are you calling a NYU professor into disrepute? I trained at NYU Medical Center and Dr. Krieger’s reputation is well known to me.

    I am not calling anybody into disrepute. But if we are to give credit to her credentials, we also have to give credit to the many of her colleagues who do not agree with her.

    Originally posted by sgrenard
    Hmm again. I thought that I did verify them. If you want the name, rank and phone number of every person who ever fills out a questionnaire, think again. Plus what may I ask is the big deal about this? I can personally vouch for the thesis that there are any number of physicians who privately express an ability to diagnose patients using a combination of both accepted clinical means as well as intuition and what they feel are abilities beyond their normal senses. Insofar as aura diagnosis, you are obviously not familiar with biophoton research or the extent of the work in that area. Nor, do I suppose, you have ever taken the time to concentrate on biophoton (aura) emissions. Try it sometime on your own fingers.

    No disrespect, but I don’t know you. You showed me some references, but you cannot verify them for me, simply by saying so.

    What the big deal is? You bring up the subject of scientists who support psi, but are suppressed in their opinions – done to strengthen the claim for psi itself. You give two names, both authors of books on parapsychology. Karagulla (“The Chakras and the Human Energy Fields”, “Through the Curtain” and “Breakthrough to Creativity”) and Dolores Krieger (“Accepting Your Power to Heal”, “The Therapeutic Touch: How to Use Your Hands to Help or to Heal”, “Foundations for Holistic Health Nursing Practices”).

    Can you point to any scientific test that shows the existence of auras? Double-blind tests, peer-reviews in a noted scientific publication, etc.? The big problem with aura “emissions” is – what is actually being emitted? Energy? Where does this energy come from? Is it measurable? How many joule does it represent? And so on…

    Originally posted by sgrenard
    Hmm again and again. Before I gave you these names you didn’t know who these authors are and now you state both of them are “believers” in the paranormal. Now I would be interested in your references on that statement. What exactly does “they have more support than can be claimed” mean and how do you know this, quanitatively speaking….

    As their books will tell you, they are clearly believers in the paranormal. Chakras, Human Energy Fields, Therapeutic Touch, Holistic Health?

    They claim more support, but since we cannot verify if they tell the truth, their claims are not proven true. We only have their word for it.

    I am not saying they are lying. Not at all. But it is testimonial, and testimonials are not proof.

    Originally posted by sgrenard
    The claims are verified by reason of the status and reputation of the medical professionals who made them.

    I have to believe them at face value, because of their status and reputation? Science is not (merely) about status. I agree that when Einstein speaks about the Universe, we are wise to listen. But that doesn’t mean we should accept him at face value. The word of experts do carry a lot of weight, but in the end, it comes down to the validity of their data. In this case, we can’t see the data. Therefore, their claims are not verified. If they are doing scientific research, they cannot claim validity by belief. Science does not work that way.

    Originally posted by sgrenard
    In medicine we do not reveal the identities of patients in published case histories either so by your reckoning this makes evey case history and every study subject to the ethics and legal requirement of confidentiality suspect.

    Not at all. But when the replication of other studies confirm the findings, we start to have a clearer picture. And with more and more data coming in, that are freely available, the picture reveals what is. Not what we want it to be.

    Originally posted by sgrenard
    It must be sad to be so suspicious all the time.

    Actually, I lead a very happy life. No need to feel sorry for me. :)

    Originally posted by sgrenard
    What if I “believed” in the value of a new medication and tested it on anonymous patients who had excellent results. Since YOU cannot personally interview these patients for yourself does this make my claim of the results suspect? Frankly my dear it doesn’t, in the end, matter whether YOU can verify such claims or not.

    Actually, it does. That’s how science works. By independent verification.

    Originally posted by sgrenard
    And, if I gave you the names of 150 physicians and other scientists who express acceptance of the validity of psi, are you going to call each and everyone of them on the phone and verify this?

    Why not? It is one way of doing it. Research was never meant to be a walk in the park. Do you have that list?

    Originally posted by sgrenard
    To find the names of respected physicians, physicists, Nobel prize winners and the like who are in this category and are “outted” because they have published on this subject, feel free to visit:

    http://www.survivalscience.org

    and spend a few hours a day going through it with a fine tooth comb to verify. The fact that there are 100s of names that are public should at least indicate to you that there are probably as many or more which are not but which exist. There is nothing spooky about this.

    Interesting site. I wasn’t able to find any Nobel prize winners named on the site, though. Can you point me in the right direction?

    The only physicists I was able to pin a name on, was Jack Scarfatti and Helmut Schmidt, both well known in the paranormal society. Robert Jahn is an engineer at PEAR.

    The only physicians I was able to find mentioned were Dr. Thomas Glendenning Hamilton who died in 1935 and Galvani who lived between 1737–1798. Are there any living physicians that support psi? :)

    In fact, the site does not cite 100s of names. So they have to be elsewhere?

    Originally posted by sgrenard
    The problem with the skeptics is that they do not have the scientific experiments, decades of research, tens of thousands of trials and the hundreds of reputaable and respected scientists including heart surgeons, neurologists, psychiatrists, internists, pediatricians, general surgeons, who have seen, evaluated and tabulated the evidence on, for example, NDEs and OBEs, to name just one area of mind/body duality and have gone on the public record, in peer reviewed mainstream medical journals just in the past year (The Lancet and Resuscitation) by publishing their study of this phenomenon.

    But it isn’t merely the skeptics who aren’t persuaded. It is also the mainstream scientific community. How does the scientific community work? Open access to data, replication of tests, peer-reviewed publications, a never-ending cycle of “I check on you, you check on me”.

    Having an article peer-reviewed in a noted publication is one step of the way. How was it received? Were its findings confirmed or refuted? As we have seen with Benveniste and Gauquelin who both had their articles publicised, their findings were found to be lacking in validity.

    Originally posted by sgrenard
    What closed minded skeptics do have are secular humanists, philosophers, atheists, magicians and historians who have nothing to offer in true rebuttal other than sophistry. And we all know what that is. Sure a magician and hoaxer like Randi can easily unmask a fraudulent medium or other hoaxer but he can do little, or nothing experimentally, to rebutt the reams of data that exist which support the validity of psi and to a great extent, the duality of mind and body. Retired psychologist Ray Hyman couldn’t effectively rebutt the validity of the statistical analysis of the CIA’s Remote Viewing (Stargate Program) either and said so. As a skeptic all he could say is that there must be a flaw in all this data somewhere but I don’t know what it is and I couldn’t find it. Oh well. Before I looked at this data myself, I too was skeptical but remained open minded, and as a result I accept its obvious validity and yes, I couldn’t find Hyman’s elusive flaws either.

    To claim that skeptics have nothing but sophistry is not correct. You mentioned James Randi, who is indeed a magician. However, his challenge (worth a million dollars) is a fair offer, where all that is needed is to show you can do what you claim you can do. There are no demands of scientific peer-review or later verification.

    I assume you are talking about the “Evaluation of Program on Anomalous Mental Phenomena”? Ray Hyman did indeed agree that the SAIC experiments were “statistically and methodologically superior to the earlier SRI remote viewing research as well as to previous parapsychological studies.”

    You are correct in noting that he couldn’t find any flaws in the methodology used. But he also acknowledged that the possible flaws weren’t eliminated. He asked for more research, as well as pointed to possible bias in the judges, as well as using experienced viewers.

    Hyman does not agree with J. Utts on the conclusions of the experiments. Where Utts clearly sees proof of paranormal activity, Hyman does not. Hyman points to the problems of using a negative hypothesis instead of a positive one. He also mentions that effect size does not, in itself, say anything about its origin.

    #69875
    ForumModerator
    Participant

    My job is to keep the conversations productive and respectful, and non personal.

    Steve, your comment about being suspicious is out of bounds because we’re not here to talk about each other.

    Cantata, you ask 14 questions by my count. It’s unreasonable to expect answers to all questions, and still have a focused discussion. You have quoted 11 statements, which makes it extremely hard to follow your point. I suggest quoting no more than three statements at a time.

    This discussion is becoming unproductive. Someone either name the specific topic (not “John Edward, what else?” for that it is too broad and unfocused) or this thread will be closed down.

    Feel free to start several new threads focused on a particular subject if necessary.

Viewing 15 posts - 46 through 60 (of 66 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.