Medium experiment - views anyone?

maccored

I think this is quite interesting. Its not trying to prove mediums are real, nor that ghosts exist, but the data which was logged is interesting. I'd love to hear from the more skeptical on this as they might actually have good ideas on why they might have gotten the data they did. I find it interesting (and again, its not trying to make a point one way or another - the data is just interesting)

Did I type 'interesting' enough? I may think of a better word.

http://www.perception9.com/david-rountree-paranormal-science/research-experiments-equipment.php?article=The-Medium-Experiment

maccored

no-one finds it worth a discussion? Maybe this should be in the skeptics forum.

Gumbi

The law of conservation of energy proves that something of us continues after our death. Whether or not it includes consciousness remains to be proven by science.

He got some 'splainin' to do. What's being implied here is hilariously... unscientific is too mild a word for it.

The only thing that remains is the body, and it is consumed by natural forces, and converted into other forms of energy. What is hard too understand about this?

Forgive my unscientific mind, but does "resonating at a higher frequency" mean anything? The author talks about death being a period in which one "shifts to a higher frequency" and enter into a parallel universe (wtf?!?! that came out of nowhere). Then, somehow, this parallel universe occupies the same space as our own.


Another gem from this esteemed scientist: A few years ago I ran an experiment on a psychic friend of mine. OKKKK. Slow down there buddy. How very scientific of you. I didn't realise the scientific investigation of the paranormal involved presuming the existence of it.

Look, I could go on about this. I only briefly glanced through the article, but I couldn't stomach it. Pseudoscience is too forgiving a term for the kind of nonsense found in the article. I don't think the author knows what frequency actually means, nor what a parallel universe actually is (or might be).

RGDATA!

maccored wrote: »

Its not trying to prove mediums are real, nor that ghosts exist, but the data which was logged is interesting. I'd love to hear from the more skeptical on this as they might actually have good ideas on why they might have gotten the data they did.

It's not trying to prove mediums are real, but it does assume from the outset that they are.

He states in his intro "some [psychics and mediums] are very good at what they do." This particular experiment, he says, is conducted with a "celebrated medium".

So this experiment is taking for granted that psychic activity will be taking place and what he's actually testing is whether he can capture any readings that might point to some scientifically measurable correlation with this already assumed activity.

You're asking for a skeptic's point of view specifically, so you can understand how that's a problem from the outset for me

I understand in theory what the equipment he's using does but I don't know much about typical readings, or reading the nuances, if any in those graphs. So I may be missing something through ignorance but the methodology seems vague.

How is he doing his test readings? He doesn't say how long he tested for or precisely the circumstances. Were the group gathered at that point? Was the psychic present?

What kind of reading do EMF meters typically give around groups of people where no psyhic activity is assumed to be taking place? Did he attempt any kind of control group after these observations?

How about the same group in a different location?
He might even be interested, since he says he can tell the difference between a real psychic and a charlatan, to do a test group where a charlatan and not a "real psychic" is leading the group. Are there ways a charlatan could secretly manipulate an EMF meter reading to give similar effects?

He lists the results anecdotally. I don't understand the gravitometer data the end but I'm assuming the crux of his findings are where he presents the various graphs and explains the correlations.

I have my Major Problem #2 with just taking his word that these readings precisely correlated with his anecdotal account of what was happening in the 'seance' at that moment. If he can present side by side audio recording/data feed he can answer that somewhat.

At the end of the day, no more than the Persinger's "God Helmet" experiment he talks about in his introduction, it seems like a very easily repeatable experiment, which surely could repeated by others, perhaps more rigourously, and if there were really reproducible and remarkable results then it will get due attention. He even acknowledges what I would guess is the real effect of the God Helmet which is possibly also what's happening here - i.e., and assumption is made that psychic activity is occurring, so an effect is observed by the believer.

maccored

What I got out of that was - regardless of what mediums do - the emf floor was constantly changing throughout the experiment with the medium - without the aid of any electrical devices. EM fields really should stay much the same. EM meters arent affected by people, by the way RGDATA! equipment isnt that sensitive.

I do realise though, its easier to miss that actual point, and start blabbing on about how mediums arent real. Well done chaps.

RGDATA!

maccored wrote: »

What I got out of that was - regardless of what mediums do - the emf floor was constantly changing throughout the experiment with the medium - without the aid of any electrical devices. EM fields really should stay much the same. EM meters arent affected by people, by the way RGDATA! equipment isnt that sensitive.

I do realise though, its easier to miss that actual point, and start blabbing on about how mediums arent real. Well done chaps.

Hi, I tried answering honestly from my perspective, since you asked for a skeptics perspective and nobody had answered at the time I started responding. I'm sorry you didn't find anything in my response worthwhile, or if you felt that I was just "blabbing on about how mediums aren't real".
I do think the assumption that they are real in the context of this experiment is affecting the results though.

Do you have any plans to replicate this experiment yourself? If you do please post the results and methodology, will be very interested to read them with an open mind.

RGDATA!

Sorry, I also meant to ask since you mentioned it how the experiment ruled out the use of electrical devices? Again I may have missed something through ignorance but I don't recall anything in the methodology that ensured participants didn't have any electrical devices that may have interfered with results deliberately or accidentally.

maccored

two reasons. Firstly, he told me himself that to the best of his knowledge, people werent carrying emf creating devices. secondly, to affect the sensors from the distance people were from them, then'd have need to be carrying a microwave oven in their pocket.

maccored

I have no plans to recreate this experiment, though I am working on tracing environmental changes in apparent 'paranormal' occurrences. the main issue is finding a 'paranormal occurrence' in the first place, considering you'd have to have the gear set up when such a thing happens. He went for mediums as he was studying the chances of some kind of relationship between environmental changes and the paranormal. im not that big on mediums to be honest, so instead Im trying to create a smaller device that would datalog the info and be small enough to stick beside a camera. I have to admit, it isnt easy as its tricky working out the antennae side

RGDATA!

maccored wrote: »

two reasons. Firstly, he told me himself that to the best of his knowledge, people werent carrying emf creating devices. secondly, to affect the sensors from the distance people were from them, then'd have need to be carrying a microwave oven in their pocket.

Fair enough, this wasn't explained on that page. Obviously if you were repeating this you would want to be quite sure that nobody in the group was manipulating the readings wittingly or unwittingly.
A skeptic, when looking at an experiment, would like to see that there was a concern to eliminate this possibility in the first place.

RGDATA!

maccored wrote: »

I have no plans to recreate this experiment, though I am working on tracing environmental changes in apparent 'paranormal' occurrences. the main issue is finding a 'paranormal occurrence' in the first place, considering you'd have to have the gear set up when such a thing happens. He went for mediums as he was studying the chances of some kind of relationship between environmental changes and the paranormal. im not that big on mediums to be honest, so instead Im trying to create a smaller device that would datalog the info and be small enough to stick beside a camera. I have to admit, it isnt easy as its tricky working out the antennae side

Well I hope somebody does try to repeat it and elabourate on it.

If he is arguing that these readings couldn't have been manipulated by the participants, and if he can rule out other sources of interference within the house or surroundings, then perhaps he has discovered something extraordinary. If I was in his position and really believed I was on to something here I'd be anxious to repeat it and bring it to a wider audience.

Yes, I'm skeptical that there is any paranormal effect here but totally open to the possibility, so as such I hope someone pursues it.