A must read - How Martin Gardner Bamboozled the Skeptics

[CallofDuty]

But this wouldn't be a record of Fiske's conversation with Hodgson at the time of the sittings - even a letter from Hodgson might not contain this, which was one of the points I mentioned.

What did Fiske actually say to Hodgson which might have given Hodgson the impression he reported - as opposed to simply branding Hodgson a liar?

The answer is probably that we simply don't know and perhaps shouldn't jump to conclusions about Hodgson's honesty or Fiske's for that matter.

Given what you've said so far, your conclusion that Hodgson was in fact a liar doesn't seem sufficiently made out to me.

Let's just look at this again. Here's the source:

Mr Clodd wrote to Professor Pellew, George's brother, and found that this was the case. The family has been pestered for fifteen years with reports of the proceedings and requests to authenticate them and join the S.P.R. They said that they knew George, and they could not believe that, when freed from the burden of the flesh, he would talk such "utter drivel and inanity." As to "intimate friends," one of these was Professor Fiske, who had been described by Dr. Hodgson as "absolutely convinced" of the identity of "G. P." When Professor Pellew told Professor Fiske of this, he replied, roundly, that it was "a lie". Mrs. Piper had, he said, been "silent or entirely wrong" on all his test questions."

So Pellew's brother had communicated with Fiske and noted that what Hogson claimed was a lie.

So it comes down to this - either George Pellew's brother was lying about Fiske or Hodgson was. We happen to know that Professor Fiske's sittings with Piper were not successful. How do we know this? It's discussed by Edward Clodd who personally knew Fiske. The lie definitely came from Hodgson. He was trying to pass off the séances with Fiske successful but when this was checked, he was caught out. There is no other way round this unless you want to invoke a huge conspiracy involving Clodd, Fiske and George Pellew's brother and they were all in it to "set up" Hodgson. I understand the spiritualists have a long history of invoking conspiracy theories, but it does not fit the facts.

 

[Obiwan]

I'm afraid I'd need to see much more than this to be convinced about who was lying. What were the dates of these communications and of the sittings for example? What was said by Fiske (if anything) that Hodgson says indicated he thought the medium valid?

Clodd isn't a dispassionate observer is he in this?

Simply referring to letters without producing some timeline (which I accept is impractical) after the fact like this doesn't prove anything. Why would I trust Fiske's word above Hodgson's?

I can think of at least one reason why Fiske might retract what he may have said to Hodgson at the time of the sitting and it's the same reason that many prominent people of the time (and now) did not freely admit to being even open-minded about the phenomena. It doesn't require a huge conspiracy as far as I can see - simply a human need to avoid the ridicule that might follow and damage to one's career and public profile. As evinced for example by the insults levelled at Sir William Crookes.

I'm not saying your position is wrong - just that I don't see enough evidence to convince me you're right.

 

[CallofDuty]

As noted above, there is no evidence that he "failed every time", and besides, you're cherry picking from the small and single set of "tests" discussed in the source selected by the CSICOP fellow, and completely failing to explain all of the documented successful experiments carried out with Ossowiecki, which you've likely not even read.

I have read some of these. The most "successful" feat on record for Ossowiecki was in 1933. It is published in an SPR report by Theodore Besterman titled "An Experiment in 'clairvoyance' with M. Stefan Ossowiecki". It involved Ossowiecki correctly drawing in a sketch the words "Swan Ink" with a bottle. This was correct and the original sketch had been sealed up in an envelope. So proponents have claimed there was no possible way he could have guessed the swank ink with a bottle. All looks good until you realise he was in the same room when the envelope's were being handled and when the original sketch had been drawn. If you are familiar with magic literature, then you would know about billet reading. It is a magic trick nothing more. Have you heard of Bert Reese? He performed a similar trick. Have a read here of "Bert Reese Secrets" published by the magician Theodore Annemann. See pages 4-12.

http://www.bonus.manualsforall.com/Self-Help/Practical Mental Magic.pdf

 

[Obiwan]

I have read some of these. The most "successful" feat on record for Ossowiecki was in 1933. It is published in an SPR report by Theodore Besterman titled "An Experiment in 'clairvoyance' with M. Stefan Ossowiecki". It involved Ossowiecki correctly drawing in a sketch the words "Swan Ink" with a bottle. This was correct and the original sketch had been sealed up in an envelope. So proponents have claimed there was no possible way he could have guessed the swank ink with a bottle. All looks good until you realise he was in the same room when the envelope's were being handled and when the original sketch had been drawn. If you are familiar with magic literature, then you would know about billet reading. It is a magic trick nothing more. Have you heard of Bert Reese? He performed a similar trick. Have a read here of "Bert Reese Secrets" published by the magician Theodore Annemann. See pages 4-12.

http://www.bonus.manualsforall.com/Self-Help/Practical Mental Magic.pdf

Possibility is not actuality.

 

[CallofDuty]

I'm afraid I'd need to see much more than this to be convinced about who was lying. What were the dates of these communications and of the sittings for example? What was said by Fiske (if anything) that Hodgson says indicated he thought the medium valid?

Clodd isn't a dispassionate observer is he in this?

Simply referring to letters without producing some timeline (which I accept is impractical) after the fact like this doesn't prove anything. Why would I trust Fiske's word above Hodgson's?

I can think of at least one reason why Fiske might retract what he may have said to Hodgson at the time of the sitting and it's the same reason that many prominent people of the time (and now) did not freely admit to being even open-minded about the phenomena. It doesn't require a huge conspiracy as far as I can see - simply a human need to avoid the ridicule that might follow and damage to one's career and public profile. As evinced for example by the insults levelled at Sir William Crookes.

I'm not saying your position is wrong - just that I don't see enough evidence to convince me you're right.

I am sorry I do not have all the dates or extra information like I said this is ultra rare stuff. I am very interested as well and would like to see it. I have looked everywhere but we only have passing mention of it in a handful of second-hand sources. The only other researcher I have seen who has tried to get to the bottom of this is Ben Steigmann, he is a spiritualist so he will have his own biases just like the skeptics but he says Alan Gauld, in The Founders of Psychical Research described the letter as unreliable. Do you have Gaulds book? What he means by this I am not sure. There was more than one letter but Charles Arthur Mercier has reprinted the letter from Hodgson and he concluded it is reliable i.e. legit letter that undermines Hodgson's credibility. Other researchers have also seen the letter and after they read it described Hodgson as credulous, so what ever he has written must have been quite a stinker. I will do my best to try and get hold of the letters, apparently they have been reprinted in an SPR article. User Ersby is a member of the SPR, so perhaps he can help here??

 

[Obiwan]

I am sorry I do not have all the dates or extra information like I said this is ultra rare stuff. I am very interested as well and would like to see it. I have looked everywhere but we only have passing mention of it in a handful of second-hand sources. The only other researcher I have seen who has tried to get to the bottom of this is Ben Steigmann, he is a spiritualist so he will have his own biases just like the skeptics but he says Alan Gauld, in The Founders of Psychical Research described the letter as unreliable. Do you have Gaulds book? What he means by this I am not sure. There was more than one letter but Charles Arthur Mercier has reprinted the letter from Hodgson and he concluded it is reliable i.e. legit letter that undermines Hodgson's credibility. Other researchers have also seen the letter and after they read it described Hodgson as credulous, so what ever he has written must have been quite a stinker. I will do my best to try and get hold of the letters, apparently they have been reprinted in an SPR article. User Ersby is a member of the SPR, so perhaps he can help here??

No I don't have that book by Gauld alas. I think it might be worth adding to my collection though. Gauld strikes me as thorough if a little reluctant to commit himself sometimes.

I am wary, especially in such contentious matters, of fully accepting the opinion of people I don't know about things I can't see for myself. I don't think there is a single person alive (or dead) - maybe especially dead, who cannot easily have aspersions cast on their character or credulity which are hard to counter. I don't know who Charles Arthur Mercier is or whether he has his own agenda. Similar for the other researchers you mention.

Opinion in matters like this is always a minefield imho. That's why I'd suggest not making definitive statements on Hodgson's character. That's all I am saying. The fingers that point one way can also be reversed. It don't think it really takes us forward one way or the other.

 

[billw]

Possibility is not actuality.

Yeah, but it's easier to obfuscate things by refusing to discuss the specifics, throw out mentalist techniques and supply no evidence that it could possibly apply to this instance, then ignore all the other cases where Ossowiecki wasn't even present when the target was drawn.

Cheers,
Bill

 

[Obiwan]

Yeah, but it's easier to obfuscate things by refusing to discuss the specifics, throw out mentalist techniques and supply no evidence that it could possibly apply to this instance, then ignore all the other cases where Ossowiecki wasn't even present when the target was drawn.

Cheers,
Bill

I think it's a useful litmus test of mindset sometimes don't you?

The question isn't "what might have happened" but rather "what did happen".

 

[Haruhi]

Attention to comments by Ben Steigmann:

http://michaelprescott.typepad.com/michael_prescotts_blog/2014/10/the-duke-of-url.html

 

[Lusikka]

For your information: Alan Gauld has written a book, Mediumship and Survival, A Century of Investigations. There is much information about this topic in the book. It can be accessed for free here:
http://www.esalen.org/ctr-archive/mediumship.html

Here are some topics in the book:

· 3. The Mediumship of Mrs Piper
· 4. The Mediumship of Mrs Leonard
· 5. ‘Drop-in’ Communicators
· 6. Manifestations of Purpose
· 7. Manifestations of other Personal Characteristics
· 8. The Controls of Mediums

 

[Lusikka]

I am saying both Greg and Gardner have the picture incomplete.

Well, you must have rather strongly colored skeptical eyeglasses on you, comparing Taylor and Gardner thus simply. Gardner was a dishonest debunker and nothing else. He has used vitriolic language and told innumerable outright lies. Taylor used civilized language and his points were well grounded.

But, I am already in agreement with you that there are some errors and mistakes in Gardner's essay. "Outright fraudulent" is unjustified though. And yes Gardner's essay was incomplete. He was slacking and he has been caught out.

Gardner's essay was so strongly misleading that it is right to call it outright fraudulent. Saiko was right in saying:

You are bamboozling yourself and/or attempting to bamboozle other readers here. The essay by Taylor is not on the topic of "Piper was genuine" it is on the topic of Gardener's pseudo-skepticism passed of as genuine inquiry.

The point - that is made more than clear - is that Gardener's approach was shoddy, incomplete, inaccurate and at times outright fraudulent. It was an attempt to malign not to assess.

And of course Taylor was selective. In any article the writer is selective. But he also selected and mentioned areas of valid skepticism.

Anyone can edit Wikipedia if they cite sources, doesn't matter if you are a believer or skeptic.

An outright lie. That becomes clear reading for example:
http://www.skeptiko-forum.com/threads/wikipedia-cyberbullying-a-case-study.411/
http://www.skeptiko-forum.com/threa...a-problem-tumbleman-sheldrake-case-study.381/

 

[CallofDuty]

Well, you must have rather strongly colored skeptical eyeglasses on you, comparing Taylor and Gardner thus simply. Gardner was a dishonest debunker and nothing else

If someone makes a mistake it doesn't necessarily imply they were a dishonest liar like you seem to be implying. Gardner was mislead in some cases like all researchers will be at times, but if you want someone who was caught lying it was Richard Hodgson about the Fiske séances. But there is no mention of this from Taylor.


Actually my statement was not a lie. Anyone can edit Wikipedia.

http://www.skeptiko-forum.com/threa...a-problem-tumbleman-sheldrake-case-study.381/

Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia, written collaboratively by the people who use it. It is a special type of website designed to make collaboration easy, called a wiki.

Don't be afraid to edit – anyone can edit almost every page, and we are encouraged to

be bold! Find something that can be improved and make it better—for example, spelling, grammar, rewriting for readability, adding content, or removing non-constructive edits. If you wish to add new facts, please try to provide references so they may be verified, or suggest them on the article's discussion page.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Introduction


Craig Weiler only had one edit on Wikipedia:http://www.skeptiko-forum.com/threa...a-problem-tumbleman-sheldrake-case-study.381/

http://skeptools.wordpress.com/2014...-viharo-tumbleman-rupert-sheldrake/#more-7324

Read the above article by Tim Farley, who concludes:

But I will point out that Craig Weiler is rather egregiously unskilled as an editor. Despite writing thousands of words bragging about his heroic efforts to fight the skeptics, the truth is he has made only one single edit to Wikipedia! It wasn’t even a contribution, it was a deletion, and you can see it here. That Weiler holds himself out as some sort of expert on Wikipedia is a joke

 

[CallofDuty]

For your information: Alan Gauld has written a book, Mediumship and Survival, A Century of Investigations

Yes I have read this book. The problem with the book is that almost no skeptical literature is cited. We need to see a book with both the proponent material with the skeptical objections. The book "The Case For And Against Psychical Belief" is a good book written by both proponents and skeptics. It has chapters by spiritualists such as Oliver Lodge and skeptical material from magicians such as Harry Houdini. Online here:

https://archive.org/stream/caseforandagains032328mbp#page/n9/mode/2up

 

[Obiwan]

Chris Carter's works look at sceptical perspectives. Personally I find it doesn't really help reach a conclusion on the matter simply hearing opposing sides battle it out.

Yes anyone can edit Wikipedia. Having the edits remain is a different matter. I think Craig Weiler's work on Wikipedia and the way a few people dominate certain subject areas is remarkable and interesting.

 

[Lusikka]

If someone makes a mistake it doesn't necessarily imply they were a dishonest liar like you seem to be implying. Gardner was mislead in some cases like all researchers will be at times, (…).

You are right. There is only one problem with Gardner: he has lied innumerable times. Outright lies, impossibly only mistakes. And he never corrected the lies. Was mislead? Not in reality.

Actually my statement was not a lie. Anyone can edit Wikipedia.

You are right again, but only in theory. In practice you lied, because you certainly know about Guerrilla Skepticism, ideologically governing Wikipedia. I have found innumerable examples of wrong information in Wikipedia concerning parapsychology. And it has become clear that if I try to correct them so I will be banned. No references to the best experts in parapsychology will be accepted. Instead, the crap by Guerrilla Skeptics can stay there.

 

[Doppelgänger]

Callofduty, did you post on the old forum? I only read stuff on the old forum when it is linked and go from there. But you do sound like a poster from there. Are you Forrests?

 

[CallofDuty]

Callofduty, did you post on the old forum? I only read stuff on the old forum when it is linked and go from there. But you do sound like a poster from there. Are you Forrests?

No account on the old forum, only one on here which I do not remember the pass to. But nope I am not Forrests but I have spoken to him before and yes he is well educated in the skeptical literature like me but it's pretty well known that Forrests was an alias name for the well known skeptic Jon Donnis. http://badpsychics.blogspot.co.uk/

 

[Doppelgänger]

Okay. I read an extensive thread in the old forum between Open Mind and various skeptics and a wikipedia editor. You really do sound like that guy though. I am a fan of Open Mind and really wish he would post here.

Ps I am not familiar with Jon Donnis.