Mod+ A mediumship reading with a non-believer

Discussion in 'Extended Consciousness & Spirituality' started by Ian Gordon, Jul 23, 2014.

  1. Ian Gordon

    Ian Gordon Ninshub Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2013
    Messages:
    1,676
    I just found this on youtube, while looking at another mediumship video. I haven't looked into this research, but I think it's worth a watch.

    Donna Smith-Moncrieffe, director of Metaphysics Research (www.medium7.com) conducts a series of non-believer experiments under controlled conditions. In this particular video, the sitter (Chad) experiences a life changing moment.

    The the study's findings with 88 sitters (clients) and 10 mediums and a review of the most up to date literature on the afterlife can be reviewed in the book: Medium7: Evidence of the Afterlife and Predictions (Author: Donna Smith-Moncrieffe, 2013).




    Chad interviewed after the sitting:


    It seems Donna Smith-Moncrieffe is a Canadian mediumship researcher and has recently published a book about her research.
    http://www.amazon.com/Medium7-After...FZ8_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1406157305&sr=1-1
     
    Hurmanetar, Mr Opti, Pollux and 5 others like this.
  2. Ian Gordon

    Ian Gordon Ninshub Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2013
    Messages:
    1,676
    I suggest if people look at this video, they look at it through the end, because the more evidential stuff (donkeydick, pickles) is towards the end.
     
  3. BotchCat

    BotchCat New

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2014
    Messages:
    128
    Thanks for posting this.
     
  4. Ian Gordon

    Ian Gordon Ninshub Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2013
    Messages:
    1,676
    You're welcome. :)
     
    BotchCat likes this.
  5. satyanveshi

    satyanveshi New

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2013
    Messages:
    32
    Interesting, thank you.

    However, as a poster on the comments section in youtube points out - the research protocol is very flawed, it's not blinded, provided plenty of feedback and there is no statistical analysis of hits/misses.

    As scientific evidence it offers very little to those who are sceptical or who already know better.

    Yet, very interesting on a human level. Thank you for posting this.
     
    Obiwan likes this.
  6. JKMac

    JKMac New

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2014
    Messages:
    163
    I don't understand this sort of comment.

    Let's take the reference to "pickles" as a single example. Would the "scientific" contention be that it is simply a coincidence? What sort of experimental protocol would make that reference "scientifically" significant? For example- would a multi-blind protocol where the sitter was a proxy somehow make that statement much more more valid?

    I see so many examples where something with obvious significance is blythly disregarded for what feels like the pretty lame excuse that it isn't "scientific" enough.

    Come on now- let's use a little common sense here. Lets take off our lab coats and simply listen to the interview. You can't see that something quite veridical is going on here?

    To me, the only way to casually dismiss this is to claim simple fraud. Is that your claim?
     
  7. satyanveshi

    satyanveshi New

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2013
    Messages:
    32
    "To me, the only way to casually dismiss this is to claim simple fraud. Is that your claim?"

    No, please re-read what I wrote.

    1. No statistical analysis (quantification is the foundation of modern scientific method)
    2. Sensory leakage (major problem in all parapsychological test setups)
    3. No counting of hits/misses and hit relevancy (see Julie Beischel's work for how it should be done, when the aim is science)

    Of course I don't believe it is a fraud. I think the sitter was genuinely reacting. I believe the medium is honest.

    However, that is my opinion. Not scientific evidence.

    If you stop two-camping people into believers and non-believers you will perhaps come to understand that there is a middle-position called "I don't know, let's look at the actual evidence, case by case basis".

    I'm not a debunker, not a professional (pseudo-)skeptic and I believe (both personally and in terms of scientific evidence) in majority of parapsychological phenomena (to a degree anyway).

    Yet, I evaluate every single case on the weight of the actual evidence, NOT my belief, WHEN I evaluate scientific proof.

    Things can be quite convincing on a personal level without being scientific proof.

    Did I make the difference clear now?
     
  8. Formal Dining Room Set

    Formal Dining Room Set New

    Joined:
    May 3, 2014
    Messages:
    631
    So you're saying it was most likely fraud then?
     
    Hurmanetar and JKMac like this.
  9. JKMac

    JKMac New

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2014
    Messages:
    163
    Sorry to say- it's clear as mud.

    1- Analysis?
    So lets say we have 10 misses and 1 hit. How does this change things? I'll point back to the Empire State Building analogy... How does the death of the 98 change the miraculous nature of the two who walked away? Are you saying that the 1 hit (there is actually more than one here but just sticking with my example) is an anomaly? An outlier data point that should be ignored or discounted? This is simply irrational. How do you justify that stance?

    2- Sensory leakage?
    As in ESP? Or as in "cold reading"? What the heck are you referring to?

    3- You are simply stating the first thing over again.

    These sorts of test rarely meet the standards of scientific experiments. As a matter of fact, I'm not sure I can recall a single example of a mediumship or channelling the test that has met with wide "scientific approval".

    Your need for a this level of scientific accuracy pretty much guarantees one outcome.

    Which is of course- fine, your choice. Just wanted to point it out that from the perspective of a third party, you appear to be creating a nearly impossible standard. That being the case- why look at the data at all?
     
  10. satyanveshi

    satyanveshi New

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2013
    Messages:
    32
    No.
    I'll try once more. It's up to you then to accept it or not. That is for you to decide.

    1. No, I don't believe it's a fraud. I believe it is genuine.
    2. It can be genuine, regardless of what I believe.
    3. My belief or the test setup in question is not strong, scienfitically valid proof (it has too many methodological/statistical holes, to be that).

    The three statements above are not logically mutually exclusive.

    I will not answer your other questions to rhetorical arguments you pose, because I did not make them nor would I. I don't like straw man talk, not good form.

    PS. I always look at the data, but I also look at the test setup. I'm not your debunker, stop painting me as such. I study this professionally, I belong to a society that studies these, I go to conferences. I have published on anomalous cognition. Please stop putting things into my writings and read what I write.
     
    Last edited: Aug 7, 2014
    Roberta, Psiclops, Ian Gordon and 2 others like this.
  11. Formal Dining Room Set

    Formal Dining Room Set New

    Joined:
    May 3, 2014
    Messages:
    631
    I don't get it. If you're a parapsychologist, I would think you'd at least be open to the possibility of such anomalies. Perhaps you haven't encountered much of anything with your work up to this point?
     
  12. Obiwan

    Obiwan Member

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2013
    Messages:
    1,226
    I thought it was pretty clear what satyanveshi means, that is; 'whilst I accept the phenomena is genuine it's evidential value to a dispassionate outsider or sceptic is limited because of the weak controls'. That's all. As far as I can see it's perfectly reasonable to say that, whilst at the same time either accepting the phenomena as genuine or at least not saying they are fraudulent in some way.

    Plenty of things in life are valid personally to ourselves without controls or rigorous analysis. If we want to fully convince others though, often we will need to eliminate areas which introduce doubt.
     
    Psiclops, K9! and Sciborg_S_Patel like this.
  13. satyanveshi

    satyanveshi New

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2013
    Messages:
    32
    You have totally and completely misunderstand me, and painted thing like "I'm not open to such possibilities", which are patently untrue and which are totally opposite to what I have written.

    You have not understood what I have written, although I have tried three times.

    I give up. I don't know how to else explain this. You can think of me anything you like, but believe me, it probably isn't true :)
     
  14. satyanveshi

    satyanveshi New

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2013
    Messages:
    32
    Thank you for putting this in other words, perhaps it clears things up.

    I'd actually split the phenomenon of conviction from scientifically valid evidence (or even proof).

    We all know that even evidence that passes extremely strict criteria of valid scientific evidence, does not always convince others. That is unfortunately true, yet it doesn't detract from the power of the evidence itself.

    In this case under discussion, I don't see how the setup could pass the validity of scientific, evidential criteria. The convincing part is another separate issue, which happens or does not happen, sometimes regardless of the validity of the evidence itself :)

    And regardless of validity of evidence, the phenomenon can be quite real. As it quite probably (to my belief) is in this case.

    And yes, I've had my experiences :)
     
    Roberta, Ian Gordon, K9! and 3 others like this.
  15. JKMac

    JKMac New

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2014
    Messages:
    163
    OK. So I get what you are saying.

    I'm really just trying to tease apart an example of what WOULD satisfy someone that completely rejects a story like this. (Please don't get me wrong- I'm not saying that this is a case of irrefutable evidence. It is just the one up for discussion this moment)

    In my experience there IS no setup that that would satisfy the bulk of sceptics.

    If there is a point of disagreement we might have: it is that when you say that this particular event, although interesting, doesn't come up the the standard of proof of science, this is a misnomer: it presupposes that the standard could ever be met for the majority of sceptics. I'm sensing that you feel there is a whole group of people out there that are openmindedly looking for an example of a mediumship experiment that comes up to that level.

    OTOH- I don't think that type of sceptic is openminded at all. Why? because I think the level of proof has been met at various times and in those cases, rather than acknowledge the validity of the results,,, there is always just one or two more things that are being proposed to really make the test valid. And on and on it goes.

    Often I don't think standard of science is being used as a yardstick to judge the event, but rather a magic wand to make it disappear.

    I guess I should stop trying to engage people on this question, because it is feels like a fools errand. Those who see the point are not the ones who NEED to see it. And those who need to see it, simply wont.
     
    MysticG likes this.
  16. Obiwan

    Obiwan Member

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2013
    Messages:
    1,226
    I think perhaps we need to make a distinction when we use the word sceptic, between those who are genuinely open-minded and persuadable and those who have really made up their own minds and for whom no evidence, short of their own death and physical survival, would be admitted.

    Unless they experience such phenomena personally, for some there will be no conclusive proof as far as I can see. This is because there is no way, at least that I can think of, that could eliminate any suggestion of fraud, error or trickery. There is probably no more effective evidence than a direct, personal, undiluted experience to establish conviction - as a friend of mine says 'who feels it, knows it'.

    The individual who has already made up their mind but poses as open-minded can easily suggest a fraudulent method and use this to undermine the evidence of witnesses however reliable and throrough. Interestingly perhaps, to gain an acquittal in a criminal court one need only establish doubt. Then the underlying case fails. It sometimes feels a bit like this when discussing psi with pseudo-sceptics.

    For me, a better approach is to consider probabilities. Given the scenario presented, what is the most likely explanation (accepting psi may be genuine)? The downside is that this approach doesn't yield heart-felt conviction, for me at least. For that, a personal experience is required.

    IMHO Science is not the yardstick we use when making a whole host of decisions in lives, in the sense that everything must be observable, repeatable, measurable and predictable. If it was, it would take a long while to make some decisions. Certainly science can help us understand the 'why and how', but in this case I don't think it helps us much with the 'whether or not'. I think science is neutral in this until it has something to apply itself to.

    It seems to me that looking for categorical laboratory proof and replication as if we were conducting a physics experiment isn't going to help us here. At least not at the moment. For whatever reason, the phenomena do not seem to lend themselves to this kind of analysis. To reject the experiences of others because we cannot replicate that experience seems to me very short-sighted.
     
    Last edited: Aug 8, 2014
    JKMac and Typoz like this.
  17. JKMac

    JKMac New

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2014
    Messages:
    163
    I agree with all you have said. I would only add that where you have created two categories of sceptic, (those who are truly open minded, and those who have already made up their own minds) I imagine three.

    The third group is as follows-
    I think there is a large group of people who BELIEVE they are open-minded and are just looking for "scientific proof", but are in reality enveloped in a world view that wont allow these things to occur. These people feel like they are looking for the way things really work but are (probably unknowingly) a prisoner of their own embedded core world model where these things simply CAN'T and therefore don't happen. These people haven't "made up their own minds", as that would have been a conscious choice,,, they are stuck in a mindset that colors how they view, and how much they accept, the source data.

    Recently I watched a pretty hokey TV movie based on the book, Heaven Is Real. Trust me, it won't win an academy award,,, however it is based on the facts. It's about a true story where a son of a minister has an NDE, goes to Heaven and returns to tell about it.

    One of the things that jumped out at me was the fact that the boy's father, a minister, had a personal crisis of belief. He had a hard time believing that the stuff he had been preaching for years, was actually true. Think about it: this is a man who preaches to people every week about (among other things) the fact that heaven is a real thing, but when confronted with the fact that his son perhaps really experienced it, he was brought face to face with the ACTUAL reality of what he had been saying all along. Essentially he discovered that deep down, he had a hidden (and to him totally surprising) core belief that this stuff was all metaphorical and not actually real. This showed to me how compelling and hidden these core beliefs can be. And for these people, I think it is this sort of latent and unseen rejection of even the possibility of these strange phenomena which is at the root of it all.

    Anyway- that's how it looks from my perspective.
     
    Sciborg_S_Patel, MysticG and EthanT like this.
  18. Obiwan

    Obiwan Member

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2013
    Messages:
    1,226
    Yes I think it is possible to be sincerely open-minded but actually have criteria that are unreasonable.
     
  19. Ian Gordon

    Ian Gordon Ninshub Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2013
    Messages:
    1,676
    You're welcome, Satyan.

    BTW, how do you know what you know about this research protocol?

    Through the unsolicited "magical" help of a friend :), the researcher, Donna Smith-Moncrieffe, has seen this forum thread and responded: Please say thanks to your colleague for sharing these videos! As soon as I have a chance I will share my input on the methodology. This was in fact part of a double blind study as I had independent recruiters bring male non believers to the experiment. No one including the medium knew anything about the participants. I explain the scoring method in my book and on my website.

    I see this part of the website has information regarding the methodology:
    http://medium7.com/?page_id=84 (just click Next at bottom of succeeding pages)
     
    Last edited: Aug 8, 2014
    Sciborg_S_Patel likes this.
  20. Elessar

    Elessar New

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2014
    Messages:
    47
    I guess you didn't read his last post before yours, 40 minutes earlier.
     

Share This Page