Garvarn's Blog Archive

2010-08-04T20:41:00.004+02:00

Garvarn

2002 - 1st August 2010

"The dead don't speak"

(Although no new posts will be published, comments on old ones will be.)

A match made in heaven! Or rather in woo-woo-land...

2010-06-22T17:16:00.004+02:00

A new TV series is to be launched in Sweden this fall - Bevis från andra sidan (Proof From the Other Side). Greenworks Television in cooperation with Egmont and the Nära magazine is producing the show that is aimed at finding solid proof from "the other side", proof that shows on film, sound or photography. It will feature the psychics Benny Rosenqvist, Erika Andersson and also a representative of "open minded skepticism" - parapsychologist Adrian Parker. If you have followed my blog, you may get a notion of what is coming. Rosenqvist and Andersson are the standard kind of psychic frauds and Adrian Parker is so open minded that anything that flies into his mind turns into proof, or at least evidence of paranormal phenomena.

This is of course just yet another in a string of woo-woo-oriented productions flooding mainly commercial channels in Sweden. One positive effect might be that Swedish skeptics may take the time to look into the works of crackpot Parker, who for too long has been allowed to pose as a representative of science, a field of human endeavour he is extremely unfamiliar with. The time is ripe for a reality check, and perhaps some notes of concern addressed to the psychology department of Gothenburg University who gave Parker a professor's chair not long ago. A disgrace to higher education in Sweden.

The process of normalizing superstition in Sweden is ongoing. It should be a matter of concern for those who champion ideas of reason and rationality. And it should be noted that a TV series is shouting it out loud, so those who profess to be in opposition of it better not whisper...

The Mysterious Creature of Skeptic Woo-Wooism

2010-06-09T16:53:00.007+02:00

Although Bigfoot has been exposed as a hoax, traces of Nessie have yet to be found, and the remains of Chupacabras always seem to turn out to be ordinary dogs, there are still some very peculiar supernatural beings out there. One of them is championed, not by woo-woos, but by skeptics. It is known as "the fence sitter" and it lurks in the shadows of intellectual impotence.

Contrary to other mystical beings, more is known about the fence sitter's behavior than its appearance. There are no rough sketches of it, no imaginative renderings. Instead, many skeptics seem to know the emotional state and thinking of this creature. It only comes out, for instance, if skeptics adopt a "nice" approach towards woo-woos. Confrontational approaches scare the fence sitter away. It is very sensitive in that respect. Incidentally, it also seems as if it is skeptics who favor the "nice" approach who have the best knowledge of the fence sitter.

There are several definitions of the fence sitter circulating. The first one describes a being who has not yet formed an opinion of either superstition or a science based world view - it is indifferent to the options available. The second has formed opinions but not chosen one or the other. A third has formed an opinion and chosen but is so open to delicate and nice arguments that the creature might swing the nice skeptic's way as long as no arrogant skeptic scares it away. There might even be more types of fence sitters; since many skeptics are keen on focusing their entire strategy on these very sensitive beings, they must be a numerous crowd indeed. They certainly outnumber the few that might be upset about the onslaught of New Age and superstition and would be attracted to someone opposing it in a confrontational and straightforward manner.

However, as in the case of other mystical creatures, a bit of skepticism is to be adviced. Why would the first type of fence sitter, if it exists, be interested at all in what and how skeptics are doing? And why would such interest be stired up by some factual arguments in the context of friendly conversation? What would catch the fence sitter's attention in such a converstation? The skeptic answer is: "Nice people are more likable." I wonder it that is valid? If I came across two people opposing racists or neo-Nazis, would I be more attracted to the one treating the racists or neo-Nazis in a respectful and friendly manner, or would I be more attracted to the one making a firm and confrontational stance against them? Oh, it isn't fair to compare woo-wooism and racism? Okay, I guess there is a difference between trying to send people back intellectually fifty years and 500 years, but not necessarily to the advantage of superstition.

So, what about the second type. It sits on the fence and swings back and forth, leaning towards one side for a moment and then the other. It knows the alternatives but can't make its mind up. Really? Are the alternatives a popsicle with strawberry flavor or one with pineapple flavor? Mustard or not on your hot dog? Boot cut jeans or loose fit? No, the alternatives are two fundamentally different ways of viewing existence. Two uncompatible philosophies, if you wish. A creature that so easily swings between those two different worlds, and is so sensitive that only influence under disguise prevents it from running away, is such a creature really worth the effort? Honestly, suppose you get the creature to chose side - it becomes the third type. Why wouldn't it just as easily swing back? If the fence sitter shares psychological traits with humans, social psychology states that attitudes easily changed are changed back with equal ease. Are such fence sitters, if they exist, really worth focusing on?

Let's go to the numbers. Skeptics don't know their actual count, but have a good enough idea to consider these cretures worthwile focusing on. So, on one side we have the woo-woo:s, then comes the fence sitter, and then - blank. There is nothing more. There are no people who shares the skeptic cause but are not yet active or organized. Or if there are, they are so scarce compared to the mystical fence sitter that paying them attention is a waste of time. In addition, such sympathizers would probably favor a more confrontational style, at least not be as sensitive to it as fence sitters. So they are of no interest to the fence sitter-believeing skeptics.

Why not? Because fence sitters are not really the goal, they are the means. Fence sitters are created and defined to legitimize a comfortable tone, an approach many skeptics find comfortable and are used to from campus debates and the lecture hall. But when they find that the public debate is very far from the academic discussion, and that the moderate "nice guy" approach is very far from rational in that context, they need something to make it appear so. And the fence sitter is born. Irrational? Of course. Devastating for the promotion of skepticism? Of course. But the important thing for many skeptics is not the advancement of skepticism, it is to feel good, and to be liked bÿ as many as possible. After all, who in their right mind would enjoy coming forth as a brute!?

So, in the case of the fence sitter, there are no skeptics asking for "extraordinary proof" of this extraordinary creature. There are no skeptics asking for verification of its existence, in fact, most take it for granted. Why? Because the creature makes them feel good. They need the fence sitter to be true. Thus, skeptics may in some cases provide a valuable insight into the core motivational factors of woo-woo.

http://www.formspring.me/Garvarn

Droppings of a Crank; The Sheldrake Research Pt. 3

2010-06-01T12:50:00.010+02:00

[ Read the second part ]

The Critique

A predominant problem of the reviewed experiments is the sampling. Sheldrake & Smart use rather vague terms in their report; it is explained that the phenomena studied is the most common example of telepathy in the modern world and you get the impression that the ability to sense who is calling before you answer is general. But does the study sample really represent the general public? The receivers who responded to the advertisment reasonably considers themselves to have telepathic ability, a notion stronger than a general supposition. Futhermore, it is reasonable that the callers nominated by the receivers to some extent shares this notion and also thinks the receiver has the supposed ability. The sample must therefore be considered representative of a population of what is usually called "high scoring subjects" rather than the general public. This narrowing down is, however, not done by Sheldrake & Smart, an error also noted by Schmidt, Müller, & Walach (2004).

The snowball sampling of callers is motivated by the theory that telepathy occurs between people belonging to the same social group. But in a group of relatives and friends, there is so much more than an alleged telepathic connection. There is affinity, loyalty, shared values, group pressure, and social obligations. A systematic error to be considered in all psychological research is the "good-subject tendency," i.e. the tendency of experimental participants to act according to what they think the experimenter wants. In the classic Milgram experiments, two thirds of the participants were willing to administer dangerous electroshocks when told to do so by a "professor" in charge, even when the victims begged to be released or in the end responded to the shocks only with tormented screams (Milgram, 2004). Dissimulation as well as lies can be part of participant strategy to achieve what is believed to be the experimenter's goal. In an experiment with members of social groups participating together, with an established affinity, it is imperative to be aware that this type of participant tendency can manifest itself in both implicit and explicit cooperation within the participant groups. In an experiment on telepathy it is of the utmost importance that both verbal and non-verbal communication can be ruled out as cause of a measured effect, especially when participants are allowed to act within the frames of existing social bonds and forms of communication perhaps unknown to the experimenter. Are Sheldrake's & Smart's experiments controlled in these respects? Does the experimental design allow other forms of communication than telepathy? Here are some suggestions of confounding variables:

Positive interpretation

All reported methods allow what can be called "positive interpretation." The experimenter is actually totally unaware of what is being said during the calls between receiver and caller. The receiver reports his or her guess to the experimenter first after the call and any caller confirmation is also done after the call. The experiments thus lack any control for interpretations in line with the following:

- Uhm, I'm guessing Frank. Is it Frank?
- No, it's Mary. Sorry.
- Oh, I thought of you first but then I changed my mind.
- You did? Well, you were right then, from the beginning.
- Yeah, typical...
- But let's report you were right. The idea is to follow your intuition, isn't it?
- I suppose... But can I do that?
- Of course you can. It's not cheating since you thought of me first.
- I guess... Okay, I'll report I was right.

Both receiver and caller then reports that the guess was right, even though it de facto was wrong - the receiver might even have thought of all callers. None of Sheldrake's & Smart's methods is protected against this threat to internal validity. This type of interpretation is also more likely to emerge within a social group than between strangers who doesn't know each other. Thus, the results of the study don't exclude this kind of error; the fact that no telepathic connection beyond chance has been measured between receiver and unknown caller can be explained by the lack of social bond that permits this type of "agreement", rather than lack of a shared "morphic field." And it doesn't take many such instances of positive interpretation to significantly affect the data.

Caller number identification

The report carefully describes what kind of die was used in the random selection of caller and calling time but there is no description of what kind of telephones were used by the receiver. It would have been appropriate that the equipment used had been accounted for. Was it an older type of phone or a more modern with a display? Does the receiver have caller number identification service and if not, can this be verified by the receiver's service provider? None of this is accounted for in the report.

Cell phone/SMS

Since both receiver and caller are sitting all by themselves in their homes, there is no possibility to control possible verbal or text communication by cell phone. To exclude such communication, careful monitoring of both receiver and caller is required - a receiver may even have a cell phone set to "silent" kept close to the body, and be directed by agreed upon vibration signals.

Sensory leakage

Even if the calls had been controlled, Schmidt, Müller, & Walach (2004) notes the possibility of sensory leakage as the receiver might apprehend cues from different sounds from the caller and his or her environment. This threat is eliminated if the receiver has to make a guess before answering. But as already noted, the Sheldrake & Smart experiments lack control of the calls altogether.

In Sheldrake's & Smart's own discussion on errors, mortality and how it might have affected the statistical analysis is considered. But the mortality itself is not. In both experimental series, the mortality is 57%, i.e. more than half of the receivers dropped out before completing the ten trials. For an experimental study in which the participants have been informed in detail about procedure and in addition gets compensated, 57% is a whopping number. Sheldrake & Smart provides the following explanation:

They withdrew for a variety of reasons, most commonly because they could not persuade all 4 callers to agree to be available at the same times. (Sheldrake & Smart, 2003a).

In the discussion on errors, this is somewhat elaborated on:

In fact most participants who stopped did so because their callers were unable or unwilling to continue. (Sheldrake & Smart, 2003a).

The receivers, who at one point decided to participate, were thus unable or unwilling to complete the experiment. Why? Sheldrake & Smart claims that it usually was due to the four caller not being able to participate at the same time. What were the reasons that cannot be sorted under "usually"? Is it possible that some of the receivers saw no point in continuing because of weaknesses in the experimental design? Sheldrake & Smart doesn't say.

It should be noted that the vague formulations regarding mortality allows for it all to be explained by unwillingness to complete a scientific experiment because it was experienced to be unscientific or otherwise not worth completing, despite compensation. Even if the participants knew each other well in the groups, they were not familiar with participants in the other groups. If you dropped out from the experiment because you considered it meaningless you might still get the impression from Sheldrake's & Smart's report that most of the others left the experiment due to time factors.

Sheldrake & Smart use initials for the receivers in their report. An account of the mortality, listing the reasons for dropping out, would have been possible considering both space and practicality. In light of the methodological weaknesses of the experiment, such an account should have been in the report.

In the discussion on errors, Sheldrake & Smart dismisses cheating for three reasons: (1) It is unlikely that a majority of the participants would have cheated and had that been the case, the results would have been different, (2) Sheldrake & Smart themselves did not cheat in the preliminary experiment, nor did the unknown callers in the second experimental series, and (3) the tests in a completely different experiment was videotaped (Sheldrake & Smart, 2003b).

It is certainly unlikely that a majority of participants would cheat, had the sample been random and representative of the general public, but that is not the case in the Sheldrake & Smart experiments. Instead, the researchers have a non-random sample of people who think they have a telepathic ability or that the receiver does. It is not unlikely that a majority of such a sample considers it reasonable to somewhat adjust guesses in line with the "positive interpretation" principle described above - even if it means cheating in a strict experimental sense, it doesn't have to have that meaning to the participants. Sheldrake & Smart also presumes that cheating would have rendered even better results than was the case, thus ignoring the possibilty of participants assessing that major "adjustments" would be suspicious. Since the experimenters beforehand informed the participants of the procedure, they certainly disclosed information about what outcome would be expected by chance and thus hinted what results would be enough to be significant. It would be foolish - and revealing - to achieve more than necessary.

That Sheldrake & Smart themselves didn't cheat doesn't say much, unfortunately. The fact that Sheldrake is looking for support for his very controversial theory on morphogenetic fields makes him more than inclined to "interpret positively". Smart was alredy convinced she had telepathic connection to her dog (Sheldrake & Smart, 2000) and must be considered just as inclined as Sheldrake to adjust results. Furthermore, it is rather remarkable that experimenters double as participants in experiments.

The argument that unknown callers did not cheat (their results are at chance level) is only valid if the only possibility of cheating is the one suggested by Sheldrake & Smart. As is evident from the above, that is not the case.

The experiment videotaped in another study (Sheldrake & Smart, 2003b) cannot guarantee that cheating was not used in the reviewed study. It is of course ridiculous to suggest such a thing. If you look at both studies you find that one woman, Sue Hawksley, scored 63% when her mother was calling in the reviewed study, but only 27% when her mother was calling in the videotaped experiments. The same woman scores at chance level when close friends are calling in the reviewed study, but 63% and 45% in the videotaped experiments. It seems highly unlikely that an alleged telepathic connection with the mother disappears entirely when someone turns on a videocamera, and that telepathic connection with close friends then suddenly emerges. A reasonable explanation would instead be that the mother is comfortable with "positive interpretation", which is possible in the reviewed study, while cell phone or caller number presentation, which are possible in the videotaped experiments, are more fitting cue tools for the close friends.

A fundamental experimental flaw is the fact that the research method is changed three times during the experiments. It indicates that the design was weak and not thoroughly thought out from the beginning. The fact that Sheldrake & Smart so freely reports this suggests a lack of fundamental insights into research methods.

Sheldrake (2006) claims that the experiments have been replicated but the study he refers to, Lobach & Bierman (2004), suffers from similar flaws as the one reviewed here. Another study, in which errors were eliminated and stricter controls adopted, reported results that would have been expected by chance (Schmidt, Müller, & Walach, 2004).

To sum up, no inference regarding the existence of telepathy can be made on basis of this study. As it has been reported by Sheldrake & Smart, it suffers from methodological flaws so severe that it must be considered worthless. The researchers present a seeming representability that doesn't exist och appear totally unaware of fundamental psychological dispositions, in themselves and in the participants, that might be of importance to the experiment. The design is very weak and sensitive to several confounds that may affect the results.

Next, a concluding post. Stay tuned.

References

Lobach, E., & Bierman, D. J., (2004). Who’s Calling at This Hour? Local Sidereal Time and Telephone Telepathy. Report presented at The Parapsychological Association Convention, Wienna, Austria.

Milgram, S. (2004). Obedience to authority: The unique experiment that challenged human nature. New York: Perennial.

Schmidt, S., Müller, S., & Walach, H., (2004). Do You Know Who is on the Phone? Replication of an Experiment on Telephone Telepathy. Report presented at The Parapsychological Association Convention, Wien, Österrike.

Sheldrake, R., (2006). In Conversation on Abc Radio National – Rupert Sheldrake [www dokument]. URL http://www.abc.net.au/rn/inconversation ... 754367.htm.

Sheldrake, R., & Smart, P., (2000). A Dog That Seems To Know When His Owner is Coming Home: Videotaped Experiments and Observations. Journal of Scientific Exploration, 14, 233-255. URL http://www.sheldrake.org/Articles&Paper ... video.html

Sheldrake, R., & Smart, P., (2003a). Experimental Tests For Telephone Telepathy. Journal of the Society for Psychological Research, 67, 184–199. URL http://www.sheldrake.org/Articles&Paper ... _tests.pdf

Sheldrake, R., & Smart, P., (2003b). Videotaped Experiments on Telephone Telepathy. Journal of Parapsychology, 67, 187–206. URL http://www.sheldrake.org/Articles&Paper ... video.html

http://www.formspring.me/Garvarn

Droppings of a Crank; The Sheldrake Research Pt. 2

2010-06-01T01:51:00.009+02:00

[ Read the first part ]

The Design and Reported Results

In September 2006, Swedish tabloid Expressen published an article titled "Scientist proves tricky telephone classic" (2006). Reuters news agency reported that Rupert Sheldrake claimed he had evidence of telepathic ability in conjunction with e-mails and phone calls. In tests with both e-mail and telephone, test participants had scored 40%, which is far better than the 25% which is to be expected by chance. The odds that the results were caused by chance was 1 in 1 000 billion, reported Reuters. That the research had been received with some suspicion was due to the fact that only 63 people had participated in the telephone study and 50 in the e-mail study.

The background of these news is several studies on telepathy that Sheldrake conducted between 1999 and 2004. His interest in telepathy derives from the belief that this phenomena confirms the theory of morphic resonance and its application in morphogenetic fields to which members of a social group are connected. These fields cannot be measured as such, but only by the effects they have and one effect is telepathy, suggests Sheldrake (2006). Another effect is the sense of being stared at, which Sheldrake claims is due to vision not being a one-way process. The image that is created by consciousness during visual perception also radiates from the eyes and can be sensed by the person being stared at (Blackmore, 2005).

The following review, however, deals with one of the studies on telepathy which, according to Sheldrake, constitutes evidence of the existence of telepathy: Experimental Tests For Telephone Telepathy (Sheldrake & Smart, 2003a). The review only covers experimental design and tests - Sheldrake's statistical analysis is not commented on.

Sheldrake's basic experimental design consisted of one person (the receiver) being called by one person (caller) randomly chosen from a group of four persons. In some of the trials, all the callers in a group were known and nominated by the receiver, in others at least two were known and the rest unknown and chosen by the experimenter. If Sheldrake's hypothesis was correct, people from the same social group would have telepathic contact, but people who were not members of the same social group would not. If the receiver was able to name the right caller to a greater extent than what was expected by chance, 25%, telepathy was considered to be the cause. In these tests, Sheldrake reported results that were slightly above 40% concerning callers known by the receiver and 25% concerning callers not known by the receiver, i.e. an obvious support for Sheldrake's hypothesis.

Sheldrake used a convenience sample for the study. Participants were recruited through newspaper advertisments which read: “Do you know who is ringing before you pick up the phone? Good pay for fun and simple experiments as part of psychic research project.” Additional recruiting was done through a recruitment website. Those who responded (receivers) was sent a more detailed description of how the experiment was to be conducted, and was also asked to nominate four people in their circle of acquaintances who also were willing to participate (callers). Thus, callers were recruited through snowball sampling.

Faithful to Sheldrake's approach, the experiments were done in the homes of the participants. The receiver sat in his or her home, the callers in their respective homes, and experimenters Sheldrake and Smart at yet another location. The experiments consisted of a preliminary experiment and two real experimental series, in which the following methods were used:

Method 1
Two callers from the group of four known callers were chosen randomly by throw of a die where the numbers five and six were thrown again. If the same number came up twice, that caller got to call twice. The time for the call was also selected randomly but kept within the stipulated 60 minute test period, which in turn was divided in six segments. An experimenter called the caller one or two hours before the chosen calling time and notified the caller when to make his or her call. The caller was also asked to think about the receiver a minute before making the call. The callers who weren't chosen were also notified that they were not selected for the current trial. A couple of minutes after the test call, the experimenter called the receiver and asked what he or she had guessed. Sometimes, the caller was asked as well. The experimenter then made notes of the result, date, time, receiver, caller, and guess. This method was used in a preliminary experiment and with the first 17 receivers in the first real experimental series, in total 198 trials.

Method 2
The random choice of time for the call was changed to a fixed schedule, for instance 10.15 and 10.45. Otherwise, it was exactly like method 1 and used for the remaining five receivers in the first experimental series and the first three in the second experimental series, in total 87 trials.

Method 3a
Only one call was made during the test. The experimenter chose a caller less than 15 minutes before the chosen time and the caller was notified, at latest, 10 minutes before the call. This method was used for 37 of the receivers in the second experimental series.

Method 3b
This method was similar to 3a but the callers who were not chosen were not automatically notified. Instead, they were told that if they hadn't been notified at least five minutes before the calling time, they had not been chosen. This enabled more tests during a shorter time period, in general with a 15 minute interval. This method was used for the remaining 34 receivers in the second experimental series, in total 268 trials.

Analysis
Sheldrake's & Smart's null hypothesis was that the receivers would make a right guess in 25% of the calls, which is to be expected by chance. The alternative hypothesis was that the receivers would guess right in more than 25% of the cases, which would then be explained by telepathic ability. For hypothesis testing, an exact binomial test was employed. To combine the results of different test trials, Stouffer was used. For comparison between results from known and unknown callers and first and second trials, Fisher's Exact Test, an alternative to Chi2, was used. A 95% confidence limit was calculated when analyzing the probability of right guesses.

In a preliminary experiment reported by Sheldrake & Smart, Smart was the receiver and two sisters, her mom, and Sheldrake were callers. Sheldrake also acted as experimenter. Smart's result was 43%, i.e. significantly above 25%. Smart's best result (67%) was achieved when Sheldrake was calling.

In the first real experiment series, 9 receivers carried the stipulated number of trials (10) through and all but one guessed right in 40% of the calls. This series had a mortality - people who dropped out during the test - of 12 receivers. The most common mortality cause was said to be an inability to get all four callers to participate at the same time.

During the second and last experiment series, yet another hypothesis was introduced: phone calls from callers known by the receiver could be sensed but in calls from unknown callers, the result was what would be expected by chance. 16 receivers carried the stipulated number of trials (10) through. They guessed right in 54% of the calls from known callers and in 24% of the calls from unknown callers, results that lends support for the new hypothesis. This series had a mortality of 21 receivers.

All in all, Sheldrake's & Smart's experiments supported both the original alternative hypothesis and the one introduced in the second series; it seems confirmed that you can sense, telepathically, who is calling and that this ability is dependent on the caller being someone you know.

Are Sheldrake's & Smart's results to be trusted? Are the experiments well designed and conducted, or do they have weaknesses that threats the conclusion? This will be discussed in my next post. Stay tuned.

[ Read the third part ]

References

Blackmore, S., (2005). Confusion Worse Confounded. Commentary on Sheldrake. Journal of Consciousness Studies, 12, (6), 64–66. URL http://www.susanblackmore.co.uk/Articles/jcs2005.htm.

Forskare bevisar lurig telefonklassiker. (2006, 7 September). Expressen, URL http://expressen.se/index.jsp?a=676876.

Sheldrake, R., (2006). In Conversation on Abc Radio National – Rupert Sheldrake [www document]. URL http://www.abc.net.au/rn/inconversation ... 754367.htm.

Sheldrake, R., & Smart, P., (2003a). Experimental Tests For Telephone Telepathy. Journal of the Society for Psychological Research, 67, 184–199. URL http://www.sheldrake.org/Articles&Paper ... _tests.pdf

http://www.formspring.me/Garvarn

Droppings of a Crank; The Sheldrake Research Pt. 1

2010-05-30T15:10:00.007+02:00

Introduction

A researcher who turns his back on traditional science is British biologist and parapsychologist Rupert Sheldrake. As a young and esteemed scientist at Cambridge, he caused some commotion in 1981 when he published A New Science of Life: The Hypothesis of Causative Formation. The book, and a New Science article published before it, got a strong but mixed reception (Freeman, 2005).

Sheldrake champions the morphic resonance thesis, which suggests that the phenomena of existence becomes more probable the more times they occur and that biologic evolution and behavior therefore are adapted to patterns defined by previous organisms. He is of the opinion that the laws of nature, for instance, should be regarded as changeable habits evolved since the birth of the planet (Wikipedia, 2006) – subsequently, existence and nature has no conformity to law.

The discussion was settled when Nature published an editorial in September 1981, attacking Sheldrake's theories and condemning them for being unscientific. It was suggested that Sheldrake was trying to bring magic into science and his book was nominated as suitable for book burning. The Nature article wrecked Sheldrake's academic career and since then, he is more or less excommunicated from the world of science (Freeman, 2005).

Sheldrake's response has been to go his own way, in several respects. He publishes his theories and research in popular science books aimed at layman audiences (Wikipedia), he runs his research from home (Sheldrake, 2006), he does field studies on phenomena others would try to isolate in the laboratory and urges the public to conduct private research (Sheldrake, 1994) with the help of ready-to-use experiment designs which can be downloaded from his website (http://www.sheldrake.org).

To fit Sheldrake into any traditional science can therefore not be done. He is trained in natural science but is strongly influenced by everything from Goethe to Eastern mysticism. Sheldrake's activities can be viewed as an attempt to change paradigm, from a science springing from a physical reality to research more open to a non-physical dimension (Freeman). He himself describes his world view as "holistic" and is of the opinion that the current direction of science lends support to the view that everything is connected. In addition, he defines his field of research as "everyday mysteries," which are best studied in their own contexts, i.e. in everyday life and not isolated in a laboratory (Sheldrake, 2006).

At the same time, Sheldrake shows many signs usually associated with pseudoscience and "cranks," signs described by Goode (2000) among others. He condemns his critics as being dogmaticly prejudiced, as opposed to "sound" skeptics who are willing to accept his theories at large but express views about details. In his opinion, most scientists suffer from "tunnel vision" but he himself has a broader outlook on things and the phenomena he studies are real for other scientists too but the dominating scientific culture forces them to deny them (Sheldrake, 2006). So Sheldrake displays an ill-concealed conviction of his own excellence and the notion of a widespread scientific "conspiracy" preventing the real truth from being disclosed.

So is it reasonable to examine the work of Sheldrake according to traditional scientific criteria? Yes, for several reasons. First, Sheldrake is making traditional scientific claims of truth; even if his research methods may be considered as unorthodox, Sheldrake claims his hypothesises kan be tested and confirmed by the real world. He further claims that his experiments can be replicated by anyone anywhere, with similar results. It is therefore justified to put Sheldrake's methods and the results he has achieved under scrutiny. This can be done according to prevalent criteria since Sheldrake claims his research satisfies these (Sheldrake, 2006).

Secondly, a considerable part of Sheldrake's undeniable popularity is the fact that he has a researcher's authority, i.e. he is presumed to have reached his conclusion by scientific method. He is also expected, as a researcher, to be motivated by a strong desire to find out what reality is, rather than prefering it to be a certain way. Thus, Sheldrake is presumed to differ from other researchers philosophically, but not methodologically.

Finally, Sheldrake has gained some popularity among other parapsychologists. In the news bulletin of the Swedish Society for Parapsychological Research, it is stated that Sheldrake is "viewed by many, inlcuding many here in Sweden, as one of the more exciting and promising researchers in parapsychology" (SPF, 2005), that he is "very good at conducting experiments on quite ordinary phenomena" (SPF, 2003), and the American parapsychologist Daryl Bem (2006) claims that, since 1986, Sheldrake has "constantly improved his experiments to eliminate sensory leakage." Thus, there is a general as well as methodological appreciation of Sheldrake as scientist. Scrutinizing Sheldrake's research may therefore also indicate a level of methodological awareness in other parapsychologists.

In the following blog posts, I will look into Sheldrake's experiments on telepathy - the 2003 study Experimental Tests For Telephone Telepathy in particular. Stay tuned.

[ Read the second part ]

Note: This text was first published in Swedish in 2007 on the Swedish Skeptics forum. It is still available here.

References

Bem, D., (2006). Sheldrake och hans kritiker: Känslan av att vara iakttagen. Notiser och Nyheter, 33. Sällskapet för Parapsykologisk Forskning.

Freeman, A., (2005). The Sense of Being Glared At. What is It Like to be a Heretic? Journal of Consciousness Studies, 12, (6), 4–9.

Goode, E., (2000). Paranormal Beliefs. A Sociological Introduction. Prospect Heights: Waveland.

Sheldrake, R., (1994). Seven Experiments That Could Change the World. London: Fourth Estate.

Sheldrake, R., (2006). In Conversation on Abc Radio National – Rupert Sheldrake [www document]. URL http://www.abc.net.au/rn/inconversation ... 754367.htm.

SPF, Sällskapet för Parapsykologisk Forskning, (2003). Notiser och Nyheter, 19. URL http://parapsykologi.se/nyheter/2003/2003-09.html.

SPF, Sällskapet för Parapsykologisk Forskning, (2005). Notiser och Nyheter, 29. URL http://parapsykologi.se/nyheter/2005/2005-09.pdf.

Wikipedia, (2006). Rupert Sheldrake [www document]. URL http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rupert_Sheldrake.

http://www.formspring.me/Garvarn

Anti-psychic poster

2010-05-27T00:50:00.014+02:00

I've put together a mini-poster you can download and distribute as you see fit. I'm estimating that it can be upscaled two times without loss of quality. There is space at the bottom if you want to add a logo of your own. The original PDF is 210 x 297 mm, a standard A4. Do you have any modification requests, I'll be happy to oblige.

Now, run off and litter your neighbourhood! If you do, I'll be happy to post a photo of the poster in place here at the blog. Just mail it to garvarn@hotmail.com.

Download English version

Download Swedish version

Another great posting at Halmstad University, Sweden.

Ängelholm has been blessed with one more mini-poster!

Another image from a local supermarket, this time from Ängelholm in Sweden.

This image was sent from Tranås in Sweden. Yet another lovely posting next to some church propaganda!

Great photo from a reader in Kalmar, Sweden, who posted the poster in a local mall, under two flyers from psychic Lasse Rydström. Bullseye!

This photo comes from a supermarket in Färjestad, Sweden. Apparently, a psychic is promoting himself on one of the adjacent notes. Great!

Gardner on Pseudo-scientists

2010-05-24T17:41:00.003+02:00

Martin Gardner 1914-2010

Martin Gardner's Fads and Fallacies in the Name of Science was first published in 1952 under the title In the Name of Science. It soon became a classic of skeptic literature and it is easy to understand why. Reading it now, more than fifty years later, it feels just as necessary as it must have been then. Gardner's prediction has come true. We do have a multitude of pseudo-scientists promoting different weird ideas as though they are unquestionable truths. The cranks of the mid 20th century discussed by Gardner has been replaced by new ones, sometimes even weirder. From the traits and characteristics described by Gardner, it is easy to recognize a Rupert Sheldrake or Gary Schwartz, or - if you're involved in debates on paranormal phenomena - the followers of such cranks. Like Torbjörn Sassersson, who are able to forward the arguments of his Masters but lack the intellectual capacity to develop ideas of his own. Interestingly enough, the more devoted the follower, the more personality traits he or she seem to share with the Master. In some cases, the paranoia described by Gardner doesn't seem to be connected to a specific theory or set of theories. As in the case of Rickard Berghorn, former sci-fi publicist turned self-proclaimed genius, the paranoia itself is the main drive - he is just waiting for some lunacy to come along. Anyway, I am sure you won't lack contemporary references to the excerpt from Gardner's introductory chapter quoted below. I hope it will serve as a teaser for the book. It is, as far as I know, still in print and a must in any skeptic's library. Buy it and read it. Gardner comes in handy when taking part in the struggle for skepticism.

"The modern pseudo-scientist - to return to the point from which we have digressed - stands entirely outside the closely integrated channels through which new ideas are introduced and evaluated. He works in isolation. He does not send his findings to the recognized journals, or if he does, they are rejected for reasons which in the vast majority of cases are excellent. In most cases the crank is not well enough informed to write a paper with even a surface resemblance to a significant study. As a consequence, he finds himself excluded from the journals and societies, and almost universally ignored by the competent workers in his field. In fact, the reputable scientist does not even know of the crank's existence unless his work is given wide-spread publicity through non-academic channels, or unless the scientist makes a hobby of collecting crank literature. The eccentric is forced, therefore, to tread a lonely way. He speaks before organizations he himself has founded, contributes to journals he himself may edit, and - until recently - publishes books only when his followers can raise sufficient funds to have them printed privately.

A second characteristic of the pseudo-scientist, which greatly strengthens his isolation, is a tendency toward paranoia. This is a mental condition (to quote a recent textbook) "marked by chronic, systematized, gradually developing delusions, without hallucinations, and with little tendency toward deterioration, remission, or recovery." There is a wide disagreement among psychiatrists about the causes of paranoia. Even if this were not so, it obviously is not within the scope of this book to discuss the possible origins of paranoid traits in individual cases. It is easy to understand, however, that a strong sense of personal greatness must be involved whenever a crank stands in solitary, bitter opposition to every recognized authority in his field.

If the self-styled scientist is rationalizing strong religious convictions, as often is the case, his paranoid drives may be reduced to a minimum. The desire to bolster religious beliefs with science can be a powerful motive. For example, in our examination of George McCready Price, the greatest of modern opponents of evolution, we shall see that his devout faith in Seventh Day Adventism is a sufficient explanation for his curious geological views. But even in such cases, an element of paranoia is nearly always present. Otherwise the pseudo-scientist would lack the stamina to fight a vigorous, single-handed battle against such overwhelming odds. If the crank is insincere - interested only in making money, playing a hoax, or both - then obviously paranoia need not enter his make-up. However, very few cases of this sort will be considered.

There are five ways in which the sincere pseudo-scientist's paranoid tendencies are likely to be exhibited

(1) He considers himself a genius.

(2) He regards his colleagues, without exception, as ignorant blockheads. Everyone is out of step except himself. Frequently he insults his opponents by accusing them of stupidity, dishonesty, or other base motives. If they ignore him, he takes this to mean his arguments are unanswerable. If they retaliate in kind, this strengthens his delusion that he is battling scoundrels.

Consider the following quotation: "To me truth is precious. ... I should rather be right and stand alone than to run with the multitude and be wrong. ... The holding of the views herein set forth has already won for me the scorn and contempt and ridicule of some of my fellowmen. I am looked upon as being odd, strange, peculiar. ... But truth is truth and though all the world reject it and turn against me, I will cling to truth still."

These sentences are from the preface of a booklet, published in 1931, by Charles Silvester de Ford, of Fairfield, Washington, in which he proves the earth is flat. Sooner or later, almost every pseudo-scientist expresses similar sentiments.

(3) He believes himself unjustly persecuted and discriminated against. The recognized societies refuse to let him lecture. The journals reject his papers and either ignore his books or assign them to "enemies" for review. It is all part of a dastardly plot. It never occurs to the crank that this opposition may be due to error in his work. It springs solely, he is convinced, from blind prejudice on the part of the established hierarchy - the high priests of science who fear to have their orthodoxy overthrown.

Vicious slanders and unprovoked attacks, he usually insists, are constantly being made against him. He likens himself to Bruno, Galileo, Copernicus, Pasteur, and other great men who were unjustly persecuted for their heresies. If he has had no formal training in the field in which he works, he will attribute this persecution to a scientific masonry, unwilling to admit into its inner sanctums anyone who has not gone through the proper initiation rituals. He repeatedly calls your attention to important scientific discoveries made by laymen.

(4) He has strong compulsions to focus his attacks on the greatest scientists and the best-established theories. When Newton was the outstanding name in physics, eccentric works in that science were violently anti-Newton. Today, with Einstein the father-symbol of authority, a crank theory of physics is likely to attack Einstein in the name of Newton. This same defiance can be seen in a tendency to assert the diametrical opposite of well-established beliefs. Mathematicians prove the angle cannot be trisected. So the crank trisects it. A perpetual motion machine cannot be built. He builds one. There are many eccentric theories in which the "pull" of gravity is replaced by a "push." Germs do not cause disease, some modern cranks insist. Disease produces the germs. Glasses do not help the eyes, said Dr. Bates. They make them worse. In our next chapter we shall learn how Cyrus Teed literally turned the entire cosmos inside-out, compressing it within the confines of a hollow earth, inhabited only on the inside.

(5) He often has a tendency to write in a complex jargon, in many cases making use of terms and phrases he himself has coined. Schizophrenics sometimes talk in what psychiatrists call "neologisms" - words which have meaning to the patient, but sound like Jabberwocky to everyone else. Many of the classics of crackpot science exhibit a neologistic tendency.

When the crank's IQ is low, as in the case of the late Wilbur Glenn Voliva who thought the earth shaped like a pancake, he rarely achieves much of a following. But if he is a brilliant thinker, he is capable of developing incredibly complex theories. He will be able to defend them in books of vast erudition, with profound observations, and often liberal portions of sound science. His rhetoric may be enormously persuasive. All the parts of his world usually fit together beautifully, like a jig-saw puzzle. It is impossible to get the best of him in any type of argument. He has anticipated all your objections. He counters them with unexpected answers of great ingenuity. Even on the subject of the shape of the earth, a layman may find himself powerless in a debate with a flat-earther. George Bernard Shaw, in Everybody's Political What's What?, gives an hilarious description of a meeting at which a flat-earth speaker completely silenced all opponents who raised objections from the floor. "Opposition such as no atheist could have provoked assailed him"; writes Shaw, "and he, having heard their arguments hundreds of times, played skittles with them, lashing the meeting into a spluttering fury as he answered easily what it considered unanswerable."

In the chapters to follow, we shall take a close look at the leading pseudo-scientists of recent years, with special attention to native specimens. Some British books will be discussed, and a few Continental eccentric ones, but the bulk of crank literature in foreign tongues will not be touched upon. Very little of it has been translated into English, and it is extremely difficult to get access to the original works. In addition, it is usually so unrelated to the American scene that it loses interest in comparison with the work of cranks closer home.

With few exceptions, little time will be spent on theories which come under the broad heading of "occult." Astrology, for example, still has millions of contemporary followers, but is so far removed from anything resembling science that it does not seem worth while to discuss it. The theory that sunspots cause depressions (popular among conservative businessmen who like to think of booms and busts as natural phenomena to be blamed on something remote) is the last respectable survival of the ancient view that human affairs are linked with astronomical phenomena. This literature, however, belongs more properly to economics than to astronomy. The social sciences have, of course, their share of eccentric works, but for many reasons they form a separate subject for study.

Our survey will begin with curious theories of astronomy, the science most removed from the human landscape. It will proceed through physics and geology to the biological sciences, then into human affairs by way of anthropology and archeology. Four chapters will be devoted to medical quasi-science, followed by discussions of sexual theories, psychiatric cults, and methods of reading character. Finally, we shall make a serious appraisal of the reputable work of Dr. Rhine, with quick and not so serious glances at a few other venturers into the psychic fields.

The amount of intellectual energy that has been wasted on these lost causes is almost unbelievable. It will be amusing - at times frightening - to witness the grotesque extremes to which deluded scientists can be misled, and the extremes to which they in turn can mislead others. As we shall see, their disciples are often intelligent and sometimes eminent men - men not well enough informed on the subject in question to penetrate the Master's counterfeit trappings, and who frequently find in their devotion an outlet for their own neurotic rebellions. More important, we shall have impressed upon us the traits which these "scientists" hold in common. The atmosphere in which they move will become familiar to us as we begin to breathe the air of their fantastic worlds.

Just as an experienced doctor is able to diagnose certain ailments the instant a new patient walks into his office, or a police officer learns to recognize criminal types from subtle behavior clues which escape the untrained eye, so we, perhaps, may learn to recognize the future scientific crank when we first encounter him.

And encounter him we shall. If the present trend continues, we can expect a wide variety of these men, with theories yet unimaginable, to put in their appearance in the years immediately ahead. They will write impressive books, give inspiring lectures, organize exciting cults. The may achieve a following of one - or one million. In any case, it will be well for ourselves and for society if we are on our guard against them."

http://www.formspring.me/Garvarn

Cash is king!

2010-05-21T12:35:00.010+02:00

Scandinavian mediagroup Egmont state that they "bring stories to life." Well, last year their Swedish subsidiary also decided to bring fortune to a couple of charlatans, Swedish psychics Erika Andersson and Benny Rosenqvist, when it launched the magazine "Nära" ("Close"). This effort to cash in on the current interest in New Age and spiritualism is presented as dealing with spirituality, "providing well-being for both body and spirit" and features the standard mixture of psychics, "experiences", NDE's and additional, contemporary woo-woo.

Andersson and Rosenqvist are the magazine's in-house psychics. They have been on the cover of the three issues published so far and much of the content is focused on them. Egmont also arranges seances and online chats with the two and is therefore an active partner in the psychic scams they perpetrate. Providing swindlers with a marketing platform in form of a magazine distributed nationwide is of course an all-time low for the publishing industry in itself, but engaging in the actual fraud is repulsive.

For the psychics, the magazine is without doubt an opportunity denied most of their peers. Although broadcasting companies Channel 5 and TV4 have boosted the careers of several psychics, commitment has been restricted to the TV series. That a major publishing company condescends to active participation in the actual swindle must be a marvellous stroke of luck for the psychics Andersson and Rosenqvist. A recent incident on the magazine's online forum also suggests that the publisher is keen on covering up any blemishes appearing on the light-hearted surface.

Just before noon April 5th, a posting questioning the quality of the messages conveyed by Andersson and Rosenqvist appeared on the forum. The poster, "Lina76", had attended - or arranged - a séance with Andersson and reported that the messages were very vague and general. Several in the audience of 20 people had expressed similar complaints. In addition, Andersson had charged nearly a thousand dollars for a two hour session and gave no receipt, i.e. the transaction was made behind the taxman's back.

"Lina76" had also been on a private sitting with Rosenqvist who told her that she would have another child in the future. It was going to be a boy, but could also be a girl, according to the medium. Profound messages indeed.

Several posters came to the psychic's rescue, testifying how wonderful experiences they had provided. But the discussion soon turned to the question of the receipt. Poster "Slingshot" suggested "Lina76" and the other dissatisfied sitters should file a joint complaint to the police. "Liviaxx" then asked if anyone seriously thought that the magazine Nära would encourage its partners to become black marketeers. Skeptic "Trilobite" responded that the transaction was private, without the magazine's knowledge.

Then enters the magazine's editor in chief, Madeleine Walles. She states that Erika Andersson is employed by the magazine and is running her psychic business on the side. As an employee of Nära, Erika Andersson is required to run her side business in accordance with the law, i.e. provide written receipts. Andersson had informed Walles that such a receipt was in fact brought to the séance in question. In conclusion, Walles states that if Andersson wasn't serious and reliable, the magazine wouldn't employ her. So, there it is. Every testimony of Andersson's wrongdoings is flawed, because she is an employee of the magazine Nära. And since Nära doesn't employ dubious persons, Andersson can't be one. Circular reasoning in absurdum.

Although "evigaeva" expresses her gratitude to the editors for assuming their responsibility (!), "Lina76" won't give in. She now claims that Andersson also failed to provide a receipt at another séance in the town of Limhamn. In addition, she quotes several complaints she received after the séances. At this point, the forum administration kills the discussion and erases it from the forum.

Thanks to skeptic "Trilobite", who fortunately copied the entire thread before it was deleted and posted it here on the skeptic's forum, we have an illustrative testimony of how a reputable publishing company engages in the sordid business of mediumship and, steeped in the obvious tax evasion of its protegés, doesn't hesitate to use a line of argument straight from the crackpot textbook on rhetoric.

I guess no one informed Walles about the motto historically linked to psychic business: cash is king!

http://www.formspring.me/Garvarn

Printable versions available

2010-05-14T01:59:00.007+02:00

As you may have noticed, I tend to post rather long texts - contrary to all recommendations. For your convenience, I have started making printer friendly versions in PDF format, with centred layout to enable double-sided printing. I will add a link to such a version on all my postings, starting with these seven:

THE SUPREMACY OF PERSONAL EXPERIENCE
Exposing the cold reading and trickery of psychic fraud Terry Evans, one of Sweden's renowned TV mediums.
Download printer friendly PDF here:
A4 format
US letter format

IS THE SMALL FRY A BIG FISH?
Investigating how well British psychic Colin Fry is doing in live séances.
Download printer friendly PDF here:
A4 format
US letter format

ADRIAN PARKER'S FABRICATION OF REALITY
A close look at an article on evidence for PSI, written by Swedish parapsychologist Adrian Parker. In the paper reviewed, Parker systematically belittles critique raised against claims of paranormal phenomena made in several studies and distorts comments made by fellow parapsychologist Richard Wiseman. Document contains all posts in this matter, including Adrian Parker's reply.
Download printer friendly PDF here:
A4 format
US letter format

FORGIVE THEM; FOR THEY KNOW NOT WHAT THEY DO?
Proposing that the notion that psychics are unaware of what they are doing is an understandable fallacy among believers but an ignorant misconception among skeptics. The psychic session offers intellectual tasks that cannot be accomplished unconsciously. The notion persists among skeptics because they tend to read Hyman or McLaren instead of visiting a séance and see what is actually taking place during a psychic session.
Download printer friendly PDF here:
A4 format
US letter format

OLOF JONSSON - THE SWEDISH SWINDLER
An exposé of the life and feats of Sweden's greatest psychic ever: Olof Jonsson. A pathological liar and fraud, Jonsson swindled his way through the Rhine Institute and the Apollo 14 project.
Download printer friendly PDF here:
A4 format
US letter format

LOOK INTO MY EYES, LOOK INTO MY EYES...
On Jörgen Sundvall, "not active" hare krishna and bogus therapist.
Download printer friendly PDF here:
A4 format
US letter format

ON SWEDISH SKEPTICISM
Is Swedish skepticism being taken over by the secular humanist society and if so, is that necessarily a bad thing?
Download printer friendly PDF here:
A4 format
US letter format

http://www.formspring.me/Garvarn

Lyzell goes Duncan

2010-05-08T03:13:00.006+02:00

I recently wrote about British psychic Helen Duncan and the fact that there is nothing unexplained about her - she was an obnoxious, obese fraud who dabbled in materializations such as "ectoplasm". She was arrested for having tried to hoodwink a naval officer on leave, then charged with psychic fraud and sentenced to nine months imprisonment (see Nothing unexplained about Helen Duncan. Justice was served.

Materialization mediums have been a diminishing crowd. Harry Houdini and his debunking followers exposed this fraudulent practice to such an extent in the beginning of the 20th century that since, there is no doubt in reasonably sane people that materialization is one of the most pathetic attempts to exploit superstition and gullibility. This kind of kindergarten mysticism has survived through closed sessions for invited sitters only - mainly those deluded enough to consider the hilariously funny archive footage of psychics with cheese cloth hanging out of their ears and nostrils as evidence of spirit communication.

In one such session as late as 1992, British psychic Colin Fry was caught redhanded. When, by accident, someone turned on the light at that seance, he was found standing with an illuminated trumpet in his hand (see Colin Fry revisited. Notably, Fry was also into cheese cloth for a while, as you can tell from the picture below. Psychics are of course ready to explore every deception - and exploit every believer - available to them.

In Sweden, Fry's protégée Jane Lyzell has taken over his spiritualist center Ramsbergsgården. Lyzell has started to experiment with "ectoplasm", i.e. tissue tricks like those performed by Helen Duncan. As I have noted before (see Jane Lyzell knows), Lyzell considers Helen Duncan a genuine medium. So she readily clings to the folklore made up after Duncan's death in preparation for her own scams.

Lyzell has also issued some "evidence" of her accomplishments in manifestation. It's a picture with her sitting in darkness, apparently during some kind of spirit visit. Although there are no visible signs of such a presence, Lyzell says it is "ectoplasm." I cannot post the image here, but I will gladly link to it:

Lyzell waiting for "ectoplasm" to appear, probably from a body cavity

Obviously, we will have to wait for the cheese cloth, torn sheets, or towels to appear on Lyzell photographic "evidence" but if she has any intelligence at all, she will go through the literature on Helen Duncan. It is more than explicit regarding how Duncan executed her tricks. And since Lyzell shares so many of Duncan's other characteristics, why not share her modus operandi? For Lyzell, as for Duncan, it's all about the money in the end and if some dupes are stupid enough to accept it, why not provide it?

The ethics of psychics will never cease to amaze me.

http://www.formspring.me/Garvarn

Nothing unexplained about Helen Duncan

2010-04-04T19:34:00.013+02:00

I have always enjoyed the performances of British actor Tony Robinson. First and foremost, he is the charmingly nutty sidekick of Blackadder in the classic BBC comedy series. But he is also great as presenter in the archaeology programme "Time Team", where he runs around among archaeologists and researchers on intensive three-day excavations all over Britain and sometimes abroad. But there is a dark cloud...

In 1982, Tony Robinson received a call from TV producer John Lloyd, who wanted him to audition for the role of servant to the Duke of Edinburgh in a sitcom set in 15th century England. Robinson got the job and when BBC 2 aired the pilot in June 1983, his portrayal of several generations of Baldricks in the service of several generations of Blackadders granted him a place in the Great Hall of Comedy Fame. Four series were produced, along with several one-off installments and if you haven't seen any of it, I strongly urge you to do so - preferably something from the second or third season of the original TV series.

After Blackadder, Robinson turned to digging. In 1994, UK Channel 4 launched the archeology show "Time Team", with Robinson as presenter. The format is simple. During three days, a team of archaeologists and experts conduct an excavation somewhere in Britain or, on occasion, abroad. Robinson acts as a kind of middleman between the scientific crew and the viewer, asking questions and explaining in laymen terms. After more than 200 episodes, the show is considered to have improved public understanding of archeology in Britain and Robinson, along with others in the crew, has been awarded several honorary degrees for popularizing science.

In 2005, Robinson hosted Wildfire Television's two hour documentary "The Real Da Vinci Code." The show is an almost ruthless demolition of the myths and hoaxes presented as facts by Dan Brown in his bestselling novel, and by Baigent, Leigh and Lincoln in their Dänikenian "Holy Blood, Holy Grail" from 1982.

So when Robinson turned up as host and associate producer of the three episode paranormal documentary series "Tony Robinson & ..." in 2008, my hopes were high that he would bring his fact oriented and inquiring mind from "Time Team" and "The Real Da Vinci Code." The production company, Flashback Television, did indeed announce that the series, also known as "The Unexplained", would "bring a rational approach to the world of psychic mysteries and the myths and legends of the past." Having seen the first episode dealing with psychic medium Helen Duncan, aired on British Channel 4 on 29th of December 2008, I must conclude that Robinson's dig into the sewers of spiritism is yet another example of how journalistic inquiry turns into naïve ignorance when facing supernatural claims.

Although Robinson is accompanied by freelance scientific journalist Becky McCall, the episode on Helen Duncan adds to the myth surrounding her rather than present facts. Even if Richard Wiseman in one sequence stresses that one needs to "look very closely in the records", no such scrutiny is employed. Instead, the viewer gets the standard "eyewitness" accounts, albeit over 60 years old, and an emotional testimony of Duncan's granddaughter Mary Martin.

I understand the need for television shows to be entertaining, but I don't understand how someone honored for popularizing science so easily converts to popularizing myth and fraud. And I particularly don't see why the facts about Duncan are less entertaining than the fiction.

Let's look at some of the claims made in the show. First of all, there is the suggestion that Duncan was hunted by MI5, that she in some way was a threat to national security during WWII. Did she pose such a threat? And her granddaughter claims Duncan was arrested as a spy. Was she really?

The suggestion that Duncan had revealed war secrets during her séances was put forward by Percy Wilson at a conference organised by the College of Psychic Science in 1958, i.e. two years after the death of Duncan. Prior to that, nothing. There is no such claim or suggestion in the 1944 court proceedings - and nothing in the Old Bail Trial report that covers over three hundred pages. No public mention of it at all by anyone prior to 1958. It is in essence a later fabrication aimed at rendering Duncan martyrdom. Several circumstances supports this conclusion. First, Duncan had allegedly conveyed the message that HMS Barham had went down in the Mediterranean before that information had been made official by the naval authorities. The Barham was sunk on 25th of November, 1941 and the news was released 28th of January, 1942. Helen Duncan was arrested two years later. It is an absurd thought that a suspicion of being a security threat would take two years to result in an arrest, in wartime.

Second, according to myth, Duncan received the Barham message in the form of a sailor with the name "HMS Barham" on his capband. But during WWII, capbands had only "HMS" on them, ship names were omitted for security reasons. This is illustrated by a sculpture at the memorial Robinson and McCall visits in the episode, see picture below.

Similar claims regarding another ship, HMS Hood, are made by one of the "eyewitnesses" in the episode. Duncan is supposed to have received a message during a séance on the same day it went down. This is, in lack of any supporting evidence whatsoever, of course another fabrication.

Was MI5 involved in the arrest? Well, let's recall what really took place. In January 1944, Helen Duncan gave a series of séances at The Master Temple Psychic Centre in Portsmouth. The establishment, along with the drugstore above which it was situated, was run by spiritualist couple Homer. Duncan was paid £112 for six days of performance. During one of these séances, two naval officers attended. One of them, Lieutenant Worth, received a vivid message from his aunt, which left the officer unimpressed since he didn't have any deceased aunt. Later during the sitting, he became even more suspicious when a spirit materialised claiming to be his sister. When Worth confronted Duncan about the fact that he had no sister, the psychic explained that his sister had been premature.

When Worth's mother assured him she had never had a premature child, he was disgusted by the psychic's show and reported the matter to the local police. Following instructions, Worth booked two seats for another seance and attended in the company of a policeman in plain clothing. During a materialisation, Worth switched on a light and the policeman sprang forward grabbing the psychic in order to remove the white drape. Sitters rushed to the psychics defense and as one turned the light off, another snatched the cloth from the policeman's grasp. When the light came on again, the cloth had disappeared.

This incident, and nothing else, is what brought Helen Duncan to the Old Bailey, along with her assistant Mrs Brown and the Homer couple. Duncan was sentenced to nine months imprisonment, Brown to four, and the Homers were bound over for two years. An appeal was made but the verdicts and sentences were upheld. The group was sentenced for falsely conspiring to pretend that Duncan was able to communicate with the dead, under section four of the Witchcraft Act. Nothing else. Not for spying or revealing war secrets. Duncan was accused and committed for being exactly what she was - a psychic fraud. MI5 had nothing to do with it.

Twelve years later, in 1956, the Nottingham police raided another of Duncan's séances. She became ill and died after a month, 59 years old. And no, there was nothing odd about her death. It was not caused by her "trance" being disturbed by the police or other ridiculous claims in that line of thinking. Duncan's medical records showed that she had a long history of ill-health and as early as 1944 she was described as a large, obese woman who could only move slowly as if she suffered from heart trouble.

So, contrary to the suggestions of Robinson, there is nothing unexplained about Helen Duncan. Had Robinson followed Wiseman's advice and looked into the records, he would have found that Duncan was exposed as fraudulent by the research department of the London Spiritualist Alliance and by Harry Price in 1931, that following Price's report, Duncan's former maid came forward and confessed in detail to having aided Duncan in her psychic feats, that her husband admitted that he believed the materialisations to be the result of regurgitation, and that a suspicious sitter in a 1933 séance grabbed the psychic and when the lights were turned on, Duncan was found sitting in stockinged feet, hastily stuffing a torn white west up under her clothes. Perhaps Robinson would have had something to respond to the "eyewitness" account of how a one-piece garment was sufficient safe-guard against any fraud - Duncan's trick with that garment was exposed as early as 1931.

In closing, I would like to quote Price's report from the Duncan tests, as quoted by Paul Tabori in The Art of Folly:

At the conclusion of the fourth seance we led the medium to a settee and called for the apparatus. At the sight of it, the lady promptly went into a trance. She recovered, but refused to be X- rayed. Her husband went up to her and told her it was painless. She jumped up and gave him a smashing blow on the face which sent him reeling. Then she went for Dr. William Brown who was present. He dodged the blow. Mrs. Duncan, without the slightest warning, dashed out into the street, had an attack of hysteria and began to tear her seance garment to pieces. She clutched the railings and screamed and screamed. Her husband tried to pacify her. It was useless. I leave the reader to visualize the scene. A seventeen-stone woman, clad in black sateen tights, locked to the railings, screaming at the top of her voice. A crowd collected and the police arrived. The medical men with us explained the position and prevented them from fetching the ambulance. We got her back into the Laboratory and at once she demanded to be X-rayed. In reply, Dr. William Brown turned to Mr. Duncan and asked him to turn out his pockets. He refused and would not allow us to search him. There is no question that his wife had passed him the cheese-cloth in the street. However, they gave us another seance and the "control' said we could cut off a piece of "teleplasm" when it appeared. The sight of half-a-dozen men, each with a pair of scissors waiting for the word, was amusing. It came and we all jumped. One of the doctors got hold of the stuff and secured a piece. The medium screamed and the rest of the "teleplasm" went down her throat. This time it wasn't cheese-cloth. It proved to be paper, soaked in white of egg, and folded into a flattened tube... Could anything be more infantile than a group of grown-up men wasting time, money, and energy on the antics of a fat female crook?

Needless to say, Helen Duncan was one of the more revolting and offensive con-artists on the psychic scene, so perhaps Robinson should let her remains stay in the sewers of spiritism, where they belong. Or at least look for facts instead of boosting myth.

See the episode on youtube.com:

Part 1,
Part 2,
Part 3,
Part 4,
Part 5

On Swedish skepticism

2010-03-05T17:50:00.008+01:00

(Download printer friendly PDF of this posting in A4 format or US letter format.)

What would motivate Jane or John Doe to join the skeptic movement? That is a question the Swedish Skeptic society may need to address very soon. Because in the public eye, it seems like the Swedish Humanist Association has already found an answer. Under chairman Christer Sturmark, the secular humanists have had an exceptional growth in the last five years. Sturmark has achieved lots of media exposure and he is often the preferred choice when TV producers cast debates on issues concerning religion, creationism, and, yes, New Age, occultism and paranormal phenomena - issues that one would think are more appropriate to be dealt with by the skeptic society. There is a reasonable possibility that the Humanist Association soon will start to attract support and members with a main interest in skepticism rather than secular humanism, if it doesn't already.

Is such a development necessarily a bad thing? Of course not. The skeptic cause needs active promotion and the keyword in the term "skeptic movement" is movement, i.e. the opposite of standing still. I would also like to add being open to change, and ability to adapt according to the conditions provided by the environment in which the movement aspires to have an influence. An organization not willing to actively promote the skeptic cause, not willing to move in a direction beneficial to the growth of skeptical influence, and not able or interested in adapting to its environment should not carry the skeptic torch. An organization willing, able and interested should, even if it means that the torch in Sweden is carried by the Humanist Association or a completely new skeptic society. As New Age is spreading and getting increasing support, acceptance, and media exposure, the skeptic cause has to be furthered through active effort. A skeptic movement has to oppose and even confront this development. Just being available to provide rational and natural explanations to supernatural claims, if somebody wants them, is not enough - such an approach is in reality a non-approach, it is lack of movement and activity.

In a recent article in the public online article portal Newsmill.se, skeptic chairman Hanno Essén and former chairman Jesper Jerkert stated that they mainly see the Swedish Skeptics as a sort of consumer agency that students, authorities, journalists and people in general can turn to with questions about paranormal claims. They also noted that public official statements from the organization will continue to be scarce in the future. They do, however, encourage members and supporters to actively defend a scientific perspective. So the message is clear and explicit: availability, not activity, is to be expected from the board of the Swedish Skeptics, i.e. the core of the organized Swedish skeptic movement does not include movement. That this is the strategy dominating the actual work of the board is admitted by a board member on the skeptic forum; the board isn't that active in public discussion and when it is, it's only after long and slow discussion aimed at not offending anyone. Is that a rational adaptation to a modern society characterized by the information highway and communicative speed? Is that a rational strategy in a media climate where individual cranks make the effort to seek attention and very often gets it? In a culture where new media collides with old, where the distance between media consumption and production is shrinking at rapid speed and audience mobility is a striking feature - is a public relations policy of the 1960's sound? When technology, economy and accessibility is more favorable than ever for small and relatively poor actors on the opinion market - is this the time to chose silence, or answering only when questioned, as a principal approach?

The Humanist Association has chosen a very different strategy. Whenever a media discussion that concerns the organization's interests emerges, chairman Sturmark or someone else on the board makes a contribution in the form of an article or a public statement. Always. Regarding ongoing issues such as creationism, religious influence on education, or confessional schools, the board initiates public debate in every way and media they can. Representatives from the board regularly participates in arranged panel discussions on topics like humanism, religion, and even New Age. They also arrange such events and seminars themselves. Last year, the Association ran a nationwide ad campaign themed "God probably doesn't exist." They engage in networking and even have a group in the Swedish parliament. And, as indicated earlier, media increasingly tend to pick them as representatives for a skeptic view as well as for secular humanism - even when the Swedish Skeptics would be a more appropriate choice.

Devoted skeptics are complaining, of course. However, they don't arrive at the conclusion that skeptics can learn from the humanists. Instead, they've started to engage in bashing them. Chairman Sturmark has a history in computer and internet market speculation which means that he is immoral and a bad representative for the humanist movement. Whenever he appears on TV, he fails to explain all relevant facts and arguments and relies heavily on repeating catchword phrases. During the expansion, the humanists have also attracted some celebrities and that's always a big help. Oh, and they receive donations. And the humanist boom is not an effect of the efforts of the Swedish humanists, but of a global secular humanist boom. Etcetera, etcetera. What the complaining skeptics fail to realize is that the undeniable success of the humanists is the result of strategy and organizational change. Their member stock has increased with 500% since 2005, which means that they once were a rather small organization with very limited resources, much like the Swedish Skeptics is now and has been since it was founded in 1982. But the humanists are going somewhere, they have made a change. They are able to convey their message in a more effective and attractive way now as a result of intentional effort. The key elements in this effort are not celebrities or donations - those are bonuses, but motive and intent. They have also realized that promoting secular humanism will upset a lot of people but chosen their cause over the convenience of their opponents, i.e. they have remained loyal to their reason to exist, even if it means that some, or even many, will consider them evil or immoral.

Sadly, it appears as if the skeptics are inclined to chose the convenience of their opponents over the cause. At the moment, the main topic of interest at the skeptic forum is the current "tone" of argument. Apparently, some members are afraid that heated discussion and frank dismissal of certain woo-woo claims might scare people off. Don't take this the wrong way; the skeptic forum has an excellent staff of moderators who are doing a great job, it offers the standard possibilities to report abuse and of course the obvious choice not to take part in heated discussions or the forum in general, but some say that isn't enough to prevent people from "feeling bad". There is a lack of empathy among some of the forum members. Not among the hordes of attending woo-woos - their everlasting claims of being subject to "intellectual oppression" has rooted successfully, but among skeptics. There has even been a motion submitted for the upcoming annual meeting suggesting that the board appoints a committee to define ethical guidelines for member behavior. So, instead of worrying about how to promote the skeptic cause effectively, the concern is how to cripple it.

But let's go back to the initial question: What would motivate Jane or John Doe to join the skeptic movement? Well, if Jane or John are predisposed for New Age or some related lunacy, the chance they would join the skeptic movement is nil. What if they are "sitting on the fence"? Well, the probability that they are interested at all in these issues is rather low and to make them interested under the conditions stipulated by the media culture we live in would demand resources that even the humanists lack. But what if Jane and John have started to react negatively on the current swarm of psychics, healers and miracle mongers and would be inclined to contribute to an organization that is against woo-woo? Would they be attracted to an organization that is available for questions and mainly concerned with not upsetting anyone, or would they be more attracted to an organization that often, actively and publicly denounces woo-woo claims in a clear-cut and uncompromising manner? I know the bulk of devoted skeptics will yell that there is a middle course, but in the end I think the Swedish Skeptics will have to come up with rational answer to this question. I know the Swedish Humanist Association has done so.

Who Can You Trust?

2009-09-20T16:14:00.005+02:00

Adrian Parker and Göran Brusewitz have outdone themselves again. In a letter to the Dagens Nyheter editor (Brusewitz and Parker, 2009), the two representatives of the Swedish Society for Parapsychological Research comment on a recently broadcast TV show on paranormal phenomena. The show featured two hosts, one alleged skeptic and one believer, who "investigated" different paranormal phenomena and, every now and then, comments from more renowned people of both sides were cut in. This apparently opened a window of opportunity for Parker and Brusewitz, who writes (my translation):

An important factor in deciding whom to trust, skeptic or proponent, is the question of who appears more reliable. Was it the rather calm proponent Jan Fjellander or the considerably more determined and cocksure skeptic, humanist Christer Sturmark? Who appears more science oriented?

Apart from the fact that Fjellander is a fellow board member of the SSPR, Parker and Brusewitz make no room for doubt that he is the more trustworthy.
　
Is the board of Gothenburg University aware that one of its psychology professors, Parker, is publicly promoting appearance as a hallmark of scientific legitimacy? Not scientific method, but social appearance - who is the nicer guy? However revolting this notion might be - held by a man who is allowed to teach students in an higher educational setting - it explains why Parker has refused to answer any questions about the paper he and Brusewitz published in 2003, A Compendium of the Evidence for Psi. Instead of addressing specific inquiries, he has suggested that we all should get along and turn our attention elsewhere, away from his paper. In an act of benevolence, he refered me to, not published research, but a TV show. He added some name dropping and ended up proclaiming insolence since his alleged authority didn't rid him of questions about his claims.

But my inclination was all wrong! Asking Parker specific questions about his paper was not in line with scientific reasoning, him trying to be a nice guy was (although I think he failed miserably at that too). Scientific fact does not rest on research and empirical evidence, it is a matter of what people you have socialized with, of how willing you are to neglect research and just be nice. What does it matter that a paper is seriously flawed, as long as we pretend and act as if it isn't? A giftwrapped box of dung is still a gift, isn't it?

In Adrian Parkers world of academic make-believe, deceit is perfectly in order - as I have clearly demonstrated, Parker does not hesitate to fabricate and distort the positions held by fellow researchers. Nor does he feel obligated to explain obvious flaws in his own writings (Garvarn, 2007). In every aspect, he resembles the typical crank. The only paranormal phenomena in this context is the fact that Gothenburg University allows him to waste research funds and teach.

My previous discussions with Parker suggests that he is the last person to ask for advice on whom to trust, especially regarding science. I would even go as far as stating that the term "science" has no meaning to Parker - he makes it up as he goes along. And if it has some particular meaning, Parker does not have to submit to it.
　
Garvarn. (2007). Web document: Adrian Parker's Fabrication of Reality.Part I: The Delmore Tests. URL: http://garvarn.blogspot.com/2007/01/adrian-parkers-fabrication-of-reality.html

Parker, A., & Brusewitz, G., (2003). A Compendium of the Evidence for Psi. European Journal of Parapsychology, 18, p. 33-51.

Parker, A., & Brusewitz, G., (2009, September, 12). Paranormala fenomen långt ifrån tillräckligt utforskade. Dagens Nyheter.

The Men Who Stare at Goats

2009-06-27T01:47:00.004+02:00

It may be old news, but I was happy to see that one of my favourite books is being adapted for the screen. The Men Who Stare at Goats, Jon Ronson's hilarious non-fiction book about a journalist's encounter with the US military's psychic warfare efforts, puts the lunatic remote-viewers claiming military merit in an enlightening context. The movie boasts an impressive all-star line-up with George Clooney, Ewan McGregor, Kevin Spacey and Jeff Bridges, and is scheduled for release in December. If the movie is true to the book, the skeptic movement is up for a real treat this Christmas.

Jon Ronson's website

Mitchell the Lunar Lunatic

2008-08-08T23:35:00.021+02:00

On 4th of July, Apollo 14 astronaut Edgar Mitchell appeared on the Larry King Live show, stating that aliens have indeed visited Earth. High ranking civilians and military officials told him so. In addition, the Roswell incident was indeed an extraterrestrial vehicle that crashed and since then has been kept in secluded and top-secret care of the US government. The fact that Mitchell knows this and the rest of us don't, is of course due to a massive cover-up by a government conspiracy against Truth and Mankind, a conspiracy embodied in an extremly secret organization called MJ-12, instigated by Harry S. Truman and ordered to take care of the ET matter. Basically, it's the same story that Mitchell has been telling over and over again for years. So the Larry King Live appearance was in no way sensational and American media subsequently did not bother to follow it up. Perhaps they know Mitchell by now.

Almost three weeks later, Mitchell repeated the story in an interview on a London radio station. This time, all hell broke loose and he made international headlines. In Sweden, conspiracy fetishist Torbjörn Sassersson hooked on and started to make accusations against Swedish ufologist organization UFO-Sverige, claiming they are in liaison with the military in keeping the lid on UFO reports. Clas Svahn, head of UFO-Sverige, rebutted referring to an old interview he did with Mitchell. Sassersson immediately counter-attacked with an alleged e-mail correspondence with Mitchell that in essence confirms Svahn's stand, which brings further doubt about Sassersson's state of mind. Once thrown out of the ufologists' forum due to misconduct, Sassersson then applied for a new account and triumphantly announced their reluctancy to grant him one as a sign of fear of his questions. And so the battle goes on, and on...

The promotor supreme of Swedish psychics, Mrs Caroline Giertz, is said to have described Sassersson as a terrier; once he gets a grip on something he doesn't let go. That is perhaps a too mild description of the pathological hysteria so often displayed by Sassersson. But Svahn, on the other hand, is far from critical concerning claims of paranormal nature and they both have one thing in common - they glorify Mitchell in a way that is naivë at best and deceptive at worst.

Years before Edgar Mitchell embarked on the Apollo 14, he took a trip to woo woo land - on a one-way ticket. Popular myth suggests that he had some kind of revelation in space but in reality, he was a woo woo during his student years and was later baptized into mysticism by Reverend Arthur Ford, the alleged medium who in 1928 claimed to have conveyed a message from the late Harry Houdini to his widow. The Houdini hoax was publicly exposed almost immediately after it was executed but mediums tend to survive such blemishes. Mitchell became friends with Ford in December 1969, perhaps because they shared a common interest in the idea of a rocket-to-earth ESP experiment. Unfortunately, Ford died just weeks before the Apollo 14 launch in 1971 and, incidentally, the nature of his mediumship became more than evident when a multitude of biographical notes and clippings on his sitters, disguised as the "poetry books" he used to read before seances, were discovered. (Christopher, 1975) But by then, Mitchell was probably too busy with space matters to learn from the lesson involuntary given by his friend. Or confirmation biased beyond reproach.

In the Olof Jonsson entry, I mentioned the Apollo 14 ESP experiment involving Mitchell as "sender" in space and four psychics - not two, as Svahn (2007) states in Det okända - as "receivers" on earth. The project was Mitchell's private sneak operation. A proposal from the American Society for Psychical Research for a telepathy experiment had been turned down by NASA in 1970, so Mitchell played it safe and kept his plans to himself and those involved.

The experiment was of fairly simple design. Christopher explains:

Mitchell wrote down two hundred numbers in eight columns of twenty-five numbers each on a piece of paper. The figures, chosen at random, ranged from one to five. The numbers would represent the five ESP symbols in a sequence to be chosen each time he attempted to transmit his thoughts earthward. The receivers were given the days and hours they should be receptive to the images Mitchell hoped would reach them. (Christopher, 1975, p. 106)

But things didn't go as planned. The launching of Apollo 14 was forty minutes late so Mitchell's first two "broadcasts" were delayed as well, i.e. the receivers of the first two runs were receiving on the scheduled time without anything being sent. Then Mitchell had to cancel two transmissions but was able to complete the last two on his way back to earth. But Jonsson and one of the anonymous receivers made notes on all six of the planned transmissions. I think you understand where this is going. Due to the first two delayed transmissions, parapsychologists Rhine and Osis, who volunteered to evaluate the "data", decided it was not a test of telepathy, but of precognition. It's a good thing that research design is so flexible... And what about the scores? You may have heard or seen Mitchell stating that the experiment was successful and yilded results of 3000 to 1. Journalist and ufologist Svahn (2007) quotes him stating it, but also refers to Semitjov (1979) who states a somewhat more modest, but still significant, result. Something unusual did happen during the experiment, concludes Svahn.

If Svahn had read Mitchell's Psychic Exploration, he would have realized that something unusual happened after the experiment, namely during evaluation. Randi did read Mitchell, and quotes him:

The results were statistically significant, not because any of the receivers got a large number of direct hits but because the number of hits were so amazingly low. The statistical probability of scoring so few hits was about 3000:1. This negative ESP effect, called "psi-missing", is something that has frequently arisen in other psychic research work, and theorists are attempting to explain its significance. In any case, it offers good evidence for psi, because the laws of chance are bypassed to a significant degree. (Mitchell quoted in Randi, 1982, p. 115)

Please note that these are Mitchell's own words in his own book. And he is saying that telepathy, or precognition, was abscent during the experiment to such an extent that the absence must be judged as paranormal. That is the truth behind the "3000 to 1" result that Mitchell is flaunting around - the psychics performed remarkably poor! But Mitchell prefers to omit that part of the analysis. And journalists prefer to ignore Mitchell's account in Psychic Exploration. I wonder why...

Mitchell left NASA shortly after the Apollo 14 flight and founded the Institute of Noetic Sciences in Palo Alto, California. Its mission was to study theoretical and applied consciousness research and one of Mitchell's first endeavours was to raise funds to bring Uri Geller into the laboratory of the Stanford Research Institute (Christopher, 1975). He met the Israeli con artist at the luxurious home of Dr. Andrija Puharich, who had brought Geller to the US. Puharich and Mitchell then arranged a meeting with Targ and Puthoff, and the rest is pseudoscience history. Initially, Mitchell sat in during the SRI experiments but to his credit, he got frustrated because Targ and Puthoff totally lost controll of the situation, and left (Marks, 2000). Mitchell is, however, a devoted Gellerite, by all accounts. And Uri Geller is still the most exposed fraud in the history of psychical research.

For decades now, Edgar Mitchell has proven himself to be an ardent believer in all kinds of mumbo-jumbo. And as a fund raiser for a wide variety of paranormal projects, he has probably flushed more money down the toilet than most people. In assessing his credibility, people unfortunately focus on his space mission - someone who has walked the moon must know what he is talking about! And this blank check of confidence has kept Mitchell in the spotlight far too long, and far too often. Although a moon-pedestrian, the guy is a full-fledged woo woo and doesn't care what is right or wrong. He is willing and able to go to any lengths to promote the notions he feels must be true.

Take, for instance, the MJ12 documents. They have been proven forged over and over again (Klass, 2000). Yet Mitchell still refers to them. Why? Because he wants them to be genuine. And because some people will believe whatever he says because he walked the moon and because he tells them what they want to hear. That is what living in woo woo land is like. They make their own rules, and to hell with reality.

The only lid that is being kept on is the one covering the facts rebutting all the lunacy Mitchell is spreading. And while the likes of Sassersson are sitting on the lid, the likes of Svahn look the other way out of undeserved respect.

References
Christopher, M., (1975). Mediums, Mystics & the Occult. New York: Thomas Y. Crowell
Klass, P., (2000). The New Bogus Majestic-12 Documents. In Skeptical Inquirer, May/June 2000. Available online: http://www.csicop.org/si/2000-05/majestic-12.html
Marks, D., (2000). Psychology of the Psychic. New York: Prometheus
Randi, J., (1982). The Truth About Uri Geller. New York: Prometheus
Semitjov, E., (1979). Mellan dröm och verklighet. Askild & Kärnekull
Svahn, C., (2007). Det okända. Övernaturliga fenomen från Sverige och världen. Stockholm: Semic

Olof Jonsson - the Swedish Swindler

2008-07-30T00:19:00.029+02:00

(Download printer friendly PDF of this posting in A4 format or US letter format.)

The popularity of physical mediums and spiritualistic seances faded inexorably during the first decades of the 20th century. Most of the prominent psychics were exposed as fraudulent and as some of them confessed and revealed the methods used, business for those remaining wasn't exactly blooming. The reputations of researchers like Sir William Crookes, Charles Richet, Baron von Schrenck Notzing, Sir Oliver Lodge, Henry Sidgwick, Edmund Gurney, Frederic Myers, and Sir William Barrett, were unsparingly blemished when spiritualistic mediums they had once declared genuine now admitted to fraud or were exposed beyond doubt. (Edmunds, 1966; Hansel, 1989)

In 1934, Joseph Banks Rhine published Extra-Sensory Perception, in which he described very promising research on telepathy, clairvoyance, precognition, and psychokinesis at Duke University in Durham, North Carolina. It aroused huge interest among the lay public and the term "ESP" was suddenly on everyone's lips. But the critique was severe, and rightfully so; Rhine's experimental conditions were far from satisfactory (Hansel, 1989). Nevertheless, his work set the standard for modern parapsychology. And the people who claimed contact with the dead were not welcome. Although religiously inclined, Rhine left no laboratory door open for spiritualism. His research subjects were mainly university students. A special group of individuals did however emerge - the birth of modern parapsychology paved the way and introduced an academic label for a new breed of swindlers: "high-scoring subjects".

You have probably heard of some of the names. There was Ingo Swann who "remote viewed" the content of boxes by simply peeking into them when no one was looking (Randi, 1982). Bill Delmore made his way into the annals of parapsychology by doing parlour card tricks (Diaconis, 1978). Ted Serios produced "psychic" pictures by holding gadgets in front of camera lenses (Christopher, 1975; Diaconis, 1978). In the Soviet Union, Nina Kulagina was able to move objects by "psychokinesis", i.e. with the help of thin threads and magnets (Björkhem & Johnson, 1986). There was of course Uri Geller, who managed to hoodwink hordes of parapsychologists and gullible scientists. He is probably the most exposed fraudster in history but there are still grown-ups, even on university payroll, who credit him with genuine psychic abilities. Not bad for a con artist.

These dexterous and unscrupulous attention-addicts were met by researchers who were gullible and presumptuous, to say the least, by experimental conditions that could be altered or overturned at whim, and by experimental analysis that demanded few successful deceptions to cause "statistical significance". But if the parapsychologists were clowns in the laboratory, they excelled in covering up. Diaconis notes that reports from ESP experiments "are often wholly inadequate" and offer poor record of what has actually taken place (Diaconis, 1978). When Barber suggested that parapsychological research very well could serve as a model to other fields of science regarding stringency and control (Johnson, 1980), it was on the basis of reports, not actual experiments.

Into this hodgepodge of deception, delusion and sloppy science entered a flamboyant Swedish psychic in the middle of the 20th century. His name was Olof Jönsson.

Most psychics create some sort of interesting background narrative to gloss over their often ordinary and banal descent. In Jönsson's case, the story is passed on by long time friend, Swedish literature professor Olle Holmberg (1968), and American writer Brad Steiger (1971), and it carries the standard elements of mindblowing miracles as everyday fun for the innocent psychic child. Jönsson, born in Malmoe 1918, claimed that he started to experience strange things at the age of seven. At his parental home, he one day discovered, allegedly, that he could make a bottle fall from the table to the floor just by concentrating on it. According to Jönsson, he realized that he could affect lots of objects just by looking at them. He also claimed to have started to dream of events that later occured and that he knew what people were thinking; he could answer questions before they were asked. In school, he didn't need to study because he dreamed up the answers the night before the tests. That no one heard of those miracles when they were performed is astonishing...

One of his school teachers is said to have lulled Jönsson into Rosicrucianism. Later, when he was beginning his psychic career, Jönsson used to start his sessions with a lecture on the fundamentals of this branch of mysticism, but he soon gave that up since his audience had more taste for miracles than for ludicrous "wisdom".

Jönsson studied engineering and after a couple of odd jobs following his exam in 1941, he was employed as a draftsman at the Monark bicycle manufacturing company in Varberg 1946. By then, he had also dabbled a bit in healing together with a sidekick whose stutter Jönsson claimed to have cured. But it was during his time in Varberg that Jönsson's reputation as a miracle man started to spread. He soon became the pet psychic of a number of influential names in Swedish psychic research. Unfortunately, that doesn't say much since Swedish parapsychology has been, and still is, the playground of woo-woos with or without academic badges. Subsequently, the "experiments" with Jönsson, as described in Holmberg's, Steiger's and other's tributes, were in most cases carried out in the comfort of someone's home, during dinner, in the living-room, or at a restaurant, always in the company of friends and devotees. The feats reported is the standard routine for most mentalist entertainers; a lot of card tricks, identifying apparently random words in "never-before-seen books", and an occasional pullling of bottles with threads. Yes, that's right - Jönsson was performing parlour magic. But he, and his fans, called it "clairvoyance", "telepathy", "psychokinesis", and so on.

In 1949, the professor of telephony and telegraphy of the Royal Institute of Technology, Torben Laurent, conducted a series of experiments with Jönsson. Laurent was astonished but could not explain Jönsson's accomplishments with other than it had to be tricks. And again, as you read the "reports", the "experiments", although in an academical setting, are nothing but card tricks. Jönsson was allowed to do exactly what he was doing among friends in their homes; he had full controll over the situation.

A couple of years ago, I made notes on several of Jönsson's most common effects. Now, when you describe a magic trick, you have to separate what is being performed by the magician from the effect it has on the audience. The most important psychologichal tool of the magician is misdirection, i.e. leading the audience to look somewhere else when the feat is executed. But the misdirection can also be in time, i.e. the presentation of a trick is done long after it has been executed.

The reports on Jönsson's effects are available en masse, but I wanted to find out how some of them could have been produced. I e-mailed a translated compilation of my notes to a very prominent British mentalist, who was kind enough to take the time to read and answer my letter. He admitted he had trouble identifying the exact tricks that would cause the described effects. But not because he didn't know how they had been produced, but because he couldn't decide which of many possible ways to produce the same effect had been used. Every effect, i.e. what the audience experience, often has a multitude of different ways to be accomplished. That is another very important tool of the magician. Never produce an effect the same way twice.

Indeed, when magicians were present during Jönsson's "experiments", they had no doubt about what he was doing. At one private dinner party, Erik Truxa and his wife were invited and when Jönsson demonstrated his "telepathy", Truxa immediately duplicated the trick, showing that all it took was some sleight-of-hand (Wikipedia.se, Truxa). Eric Cubis was another magician who debunked Jönsson several times.

But the downfall of Jönsson in Sweden was his own doing. In the small village of Tjornarp in the south of Sweden, a murder occupied the police and the national press in November 1951. Mill owner Allan Nilsson was found dead in his bed after a fire had almost burned his house down. During the following investigation, the police soon suspected arson and in the autopsy, the cause of death was found to be severe battery. But the police had no leads and in desperation, one of the many psychics that had announced their interest in the matter was called in - Olof Jönsson.

Jönsson was confident and stated that he at anytime would be able to disclose who committed the crime, even if the murderer had made his way half around the world. With the help of objects belonging to the victim, Jönsson spent a day trying to "sense" the killer. He was assisted by local police officer Tore Hedin - seen here together with Jönsson who is "feeling" a rifle. The picture was published nationwide and confirmed Jönsson's reputation as a miracle man. But Jönsson was unable to come up with the name of the murderer and the crime remained unsolved for almost a year.

On the night of Friday 22 August 1952, local police officer Tore Hedin slew his sleeping parents with an axe in the village of Saxtorp. After having set the house on fire, he proceeded to Hurva village, and a home for old people where his former fiancée was working, and living. He crushed the back of her skull with the axe, in her sleep. The next victim was the manager, who received three blows to the head and died. Hedin dropped the axe, got two cans of gasoline from his car and set the house on fire. Four more people died in the flames.

Hedin wrote a suicide note and had some sausages in his car. Then he took a rowing-boat, went out on lake Bosarp, tied some weights to his body, jumped in the water, and drowned himself. He was found on Saturday. In his note, he admitted to having killed mill owner Allan Nilsson the year before. In the following investigation, it was discovered that Hedin had saved a clip with the picture of him and Jönsson during the arson investigation in 1951. The national headlines that followed cunningly mocked the psychic for apparently being too close to the perpetrator (Nilsson, 2008). Jönsson's reputation was wrecked and only the Swedish parapsychologists still had faith in him. With their help, he left for the United States in 1953(Steiger, 1971).

In the US, Jönsson got rid of the dots over "o" to make it easier for Americans to pronounce his name. He moved to Chicago, where he found work with the help of an aunt. In Durham, J. B. Rhine had heard about the Swedish miracle man - although I doubt that the Swedish parapsychologists had informed him of Jönsson's assistance in the Hurva murder case or the many fraud exposures - and offered him to come down for testing. Jönsson willingly complied and of his accomplishments at the Rhine laboratories, there are several versions.

According to Jönsson (Steiger, 1971), Rhine considered him one of the most talented psychics he had ever tested. His results were so significant that Rhine even asked some research assistants to "adjust" the best ones because they were too good. And Jönsson told his fan club back in Sweden that he was performing well in controlled experiments (SM, 1998). The "tests" he bragged about were those conducted at night, during a stop with the car on a road, or in someone's home (Steiger, 1971) - conditions very far from those prescribed by Rhine as necessary when verifying parapsychological hypotheses (Rhine & Pratt, 1974).

Rhine, on the other hand, had a slightly different version. The testing of Jönsson was terminated because he never managed to produce anything convincing. In fact, Rhine noted that Jönsson's performances diminished as controls increased. At an important presentation for a group of scientists, Rhine even caught Jönsson red-handed, when he was about to cheat. Rhine whispered to him:
- Ollie, stop that at once!
Jönsson blushed, embarrased, and failed miserably with the test. Rhine had also figured out how Jönsson did some of his other "telepathy" card feats. (Semitjov, 1979)

Holmberg (1968) notes that both he and Jönsson overestimated the support Jönsson would get from American researchers, so I guess it is safe to conclude that Rhine's version is closer to the truth. But, in fairness, there are some parapsychologists in the States that were completely taken in by Jönsson. Norman Don, for instance, illustrates how completely deluded you can be and still hold an academic title. Although Jönsson died in 1998, Don corresponded with him as late as 2001 (Harrell, 2001). There is also William Cox who readily acknowledged that Jönsson was a fraud but still considered him a "sensitive" (Cox, 1974). Yes, the same Cox who, at the 1976 Parapsychological Association convention in Utrecht, declared that magician Ulf Mörling, who was demonstrating how paranormal phenomena could be accomplished with trickery, was a genuine psychic without knowing it (Johnson, 1980).

Jönsson's next big escapade was the telepathy experiment during Apollo 14's space trip in 1971. In short, four psychics on earth were supposed to receive telepathic signals from astronaut Edgar Mitchell in space. The tests failed miserably, of course. In fact, Jönsson's results were so bad the parapsychologists decided it was supernaturally bad, so-called PSI-missing (Randi, 1982). Jönsson even "received" during a day when Mitchell had to cancel "sending" due to other commitments (Semitjov, 1979). What is interesting about this experiment, though, is Jönsson's stunt with the press. NASA had decided that the test, which was Mitchell's private project, should be conducted in secret and it was stipulated that the names of the four psychics not were to be disclosed, they were only to be referred to as A, B, C, and D. But days before Apollo 14 landed, someone leaked to the press and the experiment made big headlines. Only one of the psychics was named. Olof Jönsson. He was psychic A. None of the other psychics have ever been disclosed. According to Mitchell, the leak was Jönsson (Backstrom, 2001). He simply couldn't restrain himself from seizing this opportunity to personal fame and glory.

One of many outrageous psychic accomplishments Jönsson claimed was helping adventurer Mel Fisher to find a Spanish galleon with $300,000 (or sometimes $140million) worth of gold in July 1974. The site of the wreck was outside Florida Keys and Jönsson was allegedly able to direct the search team to the spot were the treasure was found (Semitjov, 1979). But no one at Fisher's company - it is still in business, or at the Mel Fisher Maritime Museum, has any recollection of any such assistance or knowledge of a man by the name of "Olof Jönsson" - and some of the people now (or when I contacted them a couple of years ago) working for the company did so back in 1974. In fact, no galleon was even found that year, no major discoveries at all were made. The famous gold treasure and pieces of a ship found in 1985 was the result of a long-time search effort with findings of scattered pieces preceeding it. And Olof Jönsson had nothing to do with it, although he may have claimed that too.

The stories about Jönsson led Philippino president Ferdinand Marcos, a certified woo-woo with psychic aspirations of his own, to hire the Swede for a World War II treasure hunt, the gold cargo of a sunken Japanese heavy cruiser, the Nachi. Jönsson's reward, if he found anything, was to be more than generous. This time, Jönsson was sort of lucky. The location was already marked on a map. When a first dive failed, Jönsson insisted that they should try some hundred yards away. Ka-ching, there was the Nachi! Jönsson had actually found war loot using his psychic powers! And a map marked with the location of the wreck... (Seagrave & Seagrave, 2003) On the picture below, Jönsson meets with Marcos.

In closing, perhaps Olof Jönsson's obituary in the Chicago Tribune may serve as a proper summary of his life as a psychic. I quote:

Yet Mr. Jonsson did establish an international reputation as a psychic as a young man growing up in his native Sweden. After a small town in Sweden had a series of bizarre murders in which 12 women were brutally slain, police authorities contacted Mr. Jonsson, who had a detailed vision of the crimes and the murderer. After Mr. Jonsson identified the suspect as a young policeman, the officer confessed the crimes in a suicide note. Mr. Jonsson later told the Tribune that the situation disturbed and depressed him, and he swore to never again get involved in solving violent crimes. (McSherry Breslin, 1998)

Remember Jönsson's complete failure in finding the Hurva murderer, police man Tore Hedin? Well, in the US, Jönsson converted that to a success. He didn't even bother to keep track of essential details, such as the number or gender of the victims, or the fact that Hedin only had slain one person at the time when Jönsson was involved in the investigation. He sometimes counted the victims to thirteen, and claimed that Hedin made a note in his suicide letter that it only was a matter of time until Jönsson would identify him (Semitjov, 1979). No journalist ever bothered to check Jönsson's stories...

Olof Jönsson was a simple trickster, with an amazing career. Next to Uri Geller, he may very well be the swindler that managed to cheat the largest number of parapsychologists ever. Then again, anyone can call him- or herself a parapsychologist. And if you take an interest in these matters called "paranormal", you will soon find that anyone does.

References
Backstrom, F., (2001). Private Lunar ESP: An Interview with Edgar Mitchell. In Cabinet Magazine, 5. [web document] http://www.cabinetmagazine.org/issues/5/esp.php
Björkhem, Ö., & Johnson, M., (1986). Parapsykologi och övertro. Stockholm: Forum
Christopher, M., (1975). Mediums, Mystics & The Occult. New York: Crowell
Cox, W. E., (1974). Parapsychology and Magicians. In Parapsychology Review, May-June, pp. 12-14.
Diaconis, P., (1978). Statistical Problems in ESP Research. In Science, 201, (14)
Edmunds, S., (1966). Spiritualism. A critical Survey. London: Aquarian Press
Hansel, C. E. M., (1989). The Search for Psychic Power. ESP & Parapsychology Revisited. New York: Prometheus
Harrell, M. A., (2001). Condition Three. [web document] http://www.marharrell.com/Pages/NDon01.html
Holmberg, O., (1968). Den osannolika verkligheten. Stockholm: Bonniers
Johnson, M., (1980). Parapsykologi. Zindermans
McSherry Breslin, M., (1998). Olof Jonsson obituary. In Chicago Tribune, quoted in [web document] http://paranormal.se/topic/olof_jonsson.html
Nilsson, K., (2008). Polis - och mördare. Tore Hedin utredde sina egna mord. In Aftonbladet, 9 July.
Randi, J., (1982). Flim-Flam. Psychics, ESP, Unicorns and other Delusions. New York: Prometheus
Rhine, J. B., & Pratt, J. G., (1974). Parapsychology. Frontier Science of the Mind (5th printing). Springfield: Charles C. Thomas
Seagrave, S., & Seagrave, P., (2003). Gold Warriors: America's Secret Recovery of Yamashita's Gold. Verso.
Semitjov, E., (1979). Mellan dröm och verklighet. Askild & Kärnekull
Steiger, B., (1971). Fallet Olle Jönsson. Ockulta fenomen - parapsykologiska experiment. Zindermans. (Am: The Psychic Feats of Olof Jonsson, Prentice-Hall)
SM, (1998). The laws of nature were put out of play. Conversations with Sune Stigsjöö. In Sokaren. [web document] http://www.sokaren.se/INDEX98.HTML
Wikipedia.se, article Truxa, [web document] http://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truxa

Colin Fry revisited

2008-07-19T19:53:00.013+02:00

In August 2007, English psychic Colin Fry signed over charlatan hothouse Ramsbergsgarden, Sweden, to Jane Lyzell and her spouse. Lyzell served as Fry's sidekick during his time in Sweden (see Is the Small Fry a Big Fish?) In a way, it's a shame that Fry's Swedish engagement has been reduced. After all, he brought a bit of class and style to the Swedish psychic scene. Now we are left with nasty rabble like Terry Evans, Jörgen "Cry Baby" Gustafsson, Elisabeth Lannge, and of course the absolute scrapings, Jane Lyzell.

As a tribute to Fry, it would be nice to revisit a definite highlight in his career -- the trumpet incident. I know he has made everything he can to pass this occasion to oblivion, but it is such a great moment I just have to repeat the story again. I do it in form of the actual article in Psychic News that broke the news to the world. Just click the following images to open high resolution versions in new windows. As an extra bonus, I've added an image of Colin Fry playing around with so called ectoplasm at the bottom. What a great showman, what a great fraud - enjoy!

Banners

2008-07-18T17:30:00.013+02:00

Someone requested a banner so here are some models. Just right-click and choose "Save image as" to download it to your computer. The link URL is http://garvarn.blogspot.com/

88x31

120x60

120x90

120x240

125x125

234x60

Jane Lyzell knows

2008-07-14T14:28:00.002+02:00

Ooops, I just noticed that Jane Lyzell, former sidekick of trumpet-swinging British fraud Colin Fry, claims that the facts are already there for you to find, if you just bother to check. But she is not willing to back up her claim with links, since this generation lives in "syberspayce" (I think it means "cyberspace"). The right thing to do, according to Lyzell, is to search for knowledge in our libraries and ask psychics. Then you will discover the real facts! Indeed, Helen Duncan was tested! (And was declared an obvious fraud, but I think Lyzell missed that shelf.) Anyway, in an act of benevolence, Lyzell suggests an old title from 1922 by Björke. I happen to have it and it's the standard anecdotal stories being repeated over and over again on the internet, with the exception of a few Scandinavian cases. But since she is devoted to books, there are some titles I would like to suggest for her to read:

"A Beginners Guide to the Swedish Language"

"Hair-care for Dummies"

"Sociopathy and hysteria combined? How to adapt to social contexts."

I'm sure Lyzell will find them if she just bothers to check...

Psychic and brain incompatible?

2008-07-14T13:40:00.003+02:00

Mr Johan Lundberg, the "psychic in training" that was thrown out of the Swedish Psychic Challenge by his peers in 2007 and since have been somewhat unobtrusive, is now calling out for a power demonstration by Swedish psychics who claim to be able to aid the police in finding missing persons. According to Lundberg, or Manthrax as he also calls himself, such a demonstration would be possible through "some sort of test". That is, Lundberg doesn't know how the test is to be designed. He just knows that a test may show skeptics the power of psychic ability "once and for all". Apparently, the multitude of cases of missing persons so far has not been ample opportunity for psychics to prove their abilities "once and for all". As psychics tend to shower police switchboards with "insights" as soon as a case makes headlines, you would have expected some success by now. There has been none. Zip. Zero. Nada.

However, as a demonstration of pure delusion, Lundberg's initiative is very illustrating indeed...

Holy Crap! Or Myrna Nazzour - the Miracle Faker of Damascus

2008-07-12T01:57:00.001+02:00

Take a look at the objects below. The first is the Holy Lance that is kept in the Schatzkammer of Vienna. Allegedly, this is the spear that was used to pierce Jesus on the cross. There are of course other relics like it and we don't even know for certain that the story of the crucifixion - or Jesus for that matter - is anything more than religious myth. But for our purpose, it is sufficient that if the incident took place at the time suggested, and if Jesus was pierced by a Roman spearhead, it would a have been roughly similar to the one below in shape.

What kind of wound would such a spear produce? What would a wound from a Roman spear look like? Painters and other artists have imagined and depicted it for centuries and if you google for "stab wound" or "knife wound", perhaps you can get a general idea. Now, would it look like on the picture below?

As you can see, this is not a cut and it is not an open wound. The shape of this wound to the side of the chest is irregular so it has not been produced by a blade pushed into the body and then pulled out. And even if the blade had been turned and twisted during the penetration, it would have produced a wound with totally different irregularities - and something of a mess. In addition, alongside the wound in the picture, there is coloring of the skin suggesting that it has been scratched rather than pierced. I think it is fair to say that a) this wound is not caused by a Roman spear and b) this wound is not what you would imagine that such a wound would look like. Why these two alternatives are equally important, I will explain later on.

The next object is a replica of a Roman nail as they were designed during the time of Jesus. It is fairly safe to say that nails had to be quite large and look something like this to hold a body in place on a cross. And it is a fact that crucifixions were Roman practice at the time.

We don't really know if it was the palm of the hand or the wrist that was spiked, or if the feet were penetrated on the instep or through the heel. Some suggest that the arms were tied to the cross with ropes. Regardless of which, you should be able to imagine what kind of wound a Roman nail would cause. And keep in mind that the nails were not withdrawn right after the penetration, but stayed in place for at least one or a couple of days. Now, is it probable that the wounds pictured below were caused by Roman nails?

If you saw these wounds out of context, would you suggest they were caused by a thick nail having been pierced through the limbs? Of course not. They are similar in type to the chest wound, only shorter. It is likely that these palm and instep wounds derive from the same source and it is fair to say that a) these wounds are not caused by Roman nails and b) these wounds are not what you would imagine that such wounds would look like.

Jesus is said to have been wearing a crown of thorn. The image below is just a costume replica and it is of course impossible to know exactly what such a headgear would have looked like but we do know thorn and it could have looked something like this. We can be certain that it would have had lots of thorns, since crucifixion and everything pertaining to it was intended to cause as much pain as possible, for as long time as possible.

Would a crown of thorn produce wounds like on the picture below?

This time, it's hard to tell because of the blood. But if you look carefully you see that just above where the blood seems to spring from, there is a scratch or irritation of the skin close to the wound. You can also see that there is only one wound, perhaps with the other, upper scratch being a failed attempt. But there are no other wounds around the head, just the one at the center of the forehead. So this stigmata corresponds with a crown of thorn with only one thorn. It is fair to say that a) this wound is not caused by a crown of thorn and b) this wound is not what you would imagine that such wounds would look like.

All the objects above are essential to the myth of the crucifixion of Jesus, and to the phenomena of stigmata, the appearance of bodily wounds, or sensing of pain, in locations corresponding to the wounds of Jesus on the cross. Apart from nail wounds to the palms and feet, a spear wound to the chest area or abdomen, and marks from the crown, stigmatics may also show wounds to the shoulders from carrying the cross or sweating or crying blood. The phenomena is regarded as a sign from God and stigmatic persons tend to be canonized by religious believers and sometimes even by the church - such a miracle is of course only displayed by someone who is pure in heart and faith.

There are three major suggested explanations for the phenomena of stigmata:

1. Wounds or other signs are produced by a suggested supreme being.

2. Wounds or other signs are produced through self-suggestion, i.e. the "victim" inflicts the wounds him- or herself by power of suggestion. The stigmatic has such a strong faith that it effects the physiology.

3. Wounds or other signs are faked.

In our case, the first option must be considered totally out of the question. If a supreme being would have the power to inflict wounds, it would surely not restrain itself to scratches -- we would see wounds that actually resemble what wounds would look like if they were caused by the objects suggested. In our case, they don't. Not by a long shot.

There is scientific evidence that lends support to the second option. There are studies suggesting that dermatological changes can occur as a result of suggestion (Spanos & Chaves, 1989). However, not in any case have such changes been in the form of scratches. Blisters, warts, hemorrhages, or burns may appear, but never scratches.

So none of the wounds above look like what might be expected if they were inflicted by a supreme being, or what might be expected if our imagination was aided by strong suggestion and the skin subject to change in accordance.

That leaves us with the third option: fake.

Myrna Nazzour of Damascus, Syriah, is stigmatic. The wounds you have seen so far are all pictures of Myrna. She is a fake. All her wounds appear when she is hiding under a blanket. Although there are a lot of footage of her, not one sequence shows a wound actually appearing. Myrna's case is similar to that of Therese Neumann, another stigmata faker (Spanos & Chaves, 1989).

In fairness, Myrna's wounds do derive from Jesus, just not in the way they are supposed to. Under the blanket, Myrna uses her crucifix pendant to produce the wounds. That is why she needs a blanket and that is why she keeps twisting and turning under it. That is why the wounds look like they have been caused by an object with features like those of a crucifix pendant.

Crucifix pendants are designed to hang from necklaces. They come in different sizes and models but the three pictured below are fairly common.

These pendants each have at least four points that would produce wounds such as Myrna's. There are the ends of the cross itself and then there is the attachment to the necklace. The ends of the cross can very easily be sharpened without making it visibly obvious. As you can see on the following pictures, Myrna wears her pendant at every time the wounds appear under the blanket. (Feel free to browse the internet for more pictures and footage.)

If the pendant doesn't show, it is concealed under Myrna's clothes. This is evident when you watch the following movie clip:

[Movie clip: watch closely from about 03:35 into the film] (opens in new window)

What you see in this clip is how a hand removes the crucifix pendant to make the wound visible. This tells us two things: if the necklace and pendant doesn't show, it is concealed under Myrna's clothes, and the necklace is of such length that it is more than possible for Myrna to produce wounds below her breasts.

This movie is the third part of a Swedish TV3 documentary, Reportage, televised 16 September 2004. Along with the TV-team, there was a team of Nordic scientists present at Easter that year, monitoring Myrna and the event. The research team was headed by Norwegian cardiothoracic surgeon Knut Kvernebo. No wounds appeared when the researchers were present, but when they all went shopping on the last day, a wound of course appeared. What a proud moment for the scientific community when research is conducted in this way. And what a proud moment for the Swedish skeptics, the VoF, when their chairman at the time, Dan Larhammar, suggests in an interview that the wounds may be caused by bacteria or blood vessels starting to bleed spontaneosly. Larhammar illustrates perfectly the fallacy of misplaced rationalism as described by Sheaffer in the July/August issue of Skeptical Inquirer:

"Before suggesting such a bizarre and complex yet still ultimately rational explanation, it would be more rational to inquire whether there is really any mystery in need of explaining." (Sheaffer, 2008)

In the case of Myrna Nazzour, there is no mystery - she is using jewelry to scratch her skin. It is obvious to anyone that cares to look. There is no need for far-fetched explanations. Skeptics that are afraid to state that fakers are fakers should not comment on fakers.

The simple and obvious explanation for Myrna Nazzour's alleged stigmata is this:

And should Myrna be deprived of her jewelry, and if her nails were checked properly, no wounds would appear. That such precautions are not taken by a research team is an outrage. The scientist's "testimonies" that they have "no explanation" for the wounds displayed by Myrna are now flaunted all over the internet in support for "miracles" that are nothing but fraud. Knut Kvernebo has prostituted science for the benefit of superstition. Hallelujah...

Swedish TV3 documentary: Part 1, Part 2, Part 3.

Sheaffer, R., (2008). The Fallacy of Misplaced Rationalism in Skeptical Inquirer, 32, (4).

Spanos, N. P., & Chaves, J. F., (1989). Hypnosis. The Cognitive-Behavioral Perspective. New York: Prometheus.

Look into my eyes, look into my eyes...

2008-07-10T20:32:00.002+02:00

(Download printer friendly PDF of this posting in A4 format or US letter format.)

Let's say, hypothetically, that you suffer from skin disorder, anorexia, bulimia, obsessive compulsive disorder, obsessional neurosis, post traumatic stress disorder, asthma, allergy, tinnitus, migraine, depression, phobia, or anxiety. Or perhaps you want to quit smoking, ejaculate later rather than sooner, or stop sucking your thumb. If you had one or more of these health-care problems and wanted to get rid of it or them, would you call Jörgen Sundvall or Zoe D. Katze?

You probably don't know anything about them, but let me assure you that they both have documented qualifications to treat your problem or disorder. Jörgen Sundvall holds diplomas in hypnotherapy from both HCB in England and ISEAH in Ireland. He's also a member of both the International Association of Hypnoanalysts and the Irish Association of Hypnoanalysts. Zoe D. Katze on the other hand, is a psychotherapy Diplomate in the American Psychotherapy Association and has been certified as a hypnotherapist by the American Board of Hypnotherapy, the International Medical and Dental Hypnotherapy Association, and the National Guild of Hypnotists. Does this information make your choice easier? Both Sundvall and Katze have impressive credentials, but you may be leaning towards Katze. In comparison, she appears to have a more solid background, being certified and all. She holds a Ph.D, a C.Ht., and a DAPA. Very impressive indeed.

But what if I told you that Zoe D. Katze is a cat? And I mean it literally - Zoe D. Katze is a felis silvestris catus, a furry animal that has long tail, sharp claws and often is kept as a pet. However, there is nothing wrong with Zoe's credentials, they are all issued in her name, and she is listed as a practitioner in therapist registries. When a reporter found "Dr. Zoe D. Katze" in such a registry and called her to get her opinion on hypnosis in childbirthing, Zoe's owner, Steve K. D. Eichel, felt compelled to disclose the trick he had played on some organsiations he considered a bit too generous when handing out credentials. I won't give you the whole Zoe story here, but I urge you to take the time and read it at http://www.dreichel.com/Articles/Dr_Zoe.htm.

By now, you probably have made your mind up. Let's face it, credentials aside, Jörgen Sundvall is at least homo sapiens! Surely, you would prefer being treated by a human rather than a household pet!? But before you make your final decision, let me tell you about Jörgen Sundvall.

First, let's check his credentials. A diploma from HCB -- what does it represent? HCB stands for Hypnotherapy Control Board. However, when you visit http://www.hypnotherapy-control-board.org, you soon realize that it isn't a "board" at all and it doesn't "control" anything. HCB is actually the Successful Hypnotherapy Diploma Course. But when you visit http://www.successfulhypnotherapy.com, you arrive at the International Association of Pure Hypnoanalysts, IAPH. Confusing, isn't it? Well, if we ignore the name juggling we find that this is a course, and an association that is comprised of people who have completed the course. So when you finish the Successfull Hypnotherapy Diploma Course, you get a HCB diploma and a IAPH membership. Two credentials in one. Why? Simply because two merits look better than one. And to the lay person, "International Association of Pure Hypnoanalysts" sounds just like an organisation of independent professionals, formed to manifest professional practice and code of ethics -- a sort of health-care professional's guarantee. But in this case, it only manifests that the members have completed a course.

So what profound education is necessary to achieve these impressive titles? What kind of hard studies have Jörgen Sundvall undertaken and what qualifications did he have in order to enrol?
To become qualified to treat phobias, compulsive disorders, neurosis and depressions, Jörgen Sundvall bought a 20 lecture CD course. That's right, the Successful Hypnotherapy Diploma Course is a home-study course. But surely, since hypnosis is just a therapeutic tool, Jörgen Sundvall must have had some professional healt-care experience? No, he had none, and it was not required. This home-study course "is very thorough and covers all aspects of hypnosis, psychology and hypnotherapy" so you don't have to have any knowledge whatsoever prior to enrolling. And to think that I spent five months of full time university studies to finish an introductory psychology course, which doesn't make me qualified to give treatment of any kind to anyone! I could have paid £1495 and studied in the comfort of my home. And besides all aspects of psychology, I would have learned hypnosis and hypnotherapy as well -- and become qualified to treat premature ejaculation and frigidity! What a bummer... I would have had a clinic up and running by now, just like Jörgen Sundvall (http://www.sseah.se/index_eng.htm).

People like Jörgen Sundvall, "institutions" and bogus credentials as the ones mentioned above, are the reason why real healt-care professionals with real education and background issue warnings like these:

"In most cities, the Yellow Pages of the telephone book carry a listing of 'Hypnotists' or 'Hypnotherapy'. While this should make finding an appropriately trained clinician of hypnosis relatively easy, in fact, it does not. In these pages, professionals in Medicine, Psychiatry, Psychology, and Social Work are lumped together with individuals who have no such formal training -- that is, with what are called lay hypnotists. [...] A further difficulty in finding a properly qualified clinician who is trained in hypnotic procedures is that many of the lay hypnotists confer upon themselves and each other official sounding names, titles and letters after their names; some even designate themselves as 'Doctor', or 'Professor.' These letterings after the name and pseudo-titles imply a legitimacy that, usually, does not exist.The Bulgarian Institute of Hypnosis or the Norwegian College of Hypnotherapists, for instance, could be the name of a legitimate professional practice, but it could, as equally, be the name of a lay hypnosis organization." (Perry)

"It is time that the general public be informed that there is no such person as a 'qualified hypnotherapist', and claims of degrees in this speciality exist only in the fantasies of the so-called 'therapist'. No properly recognised degrees in hypnosis are issued anywhere in the world." (David Waxman, 1984, quoted by Wheeler, 2008)

"Whether your training costs you two hundred pounds or nearer twenty thousand pounds makes no difference: the certificate or hypnotherapy qualifications you will receive are only worth the value of the sheet of paper it is printed on. The reason for that is because there is no one governing body controlling the system." (Wheeler, 2008)

"In Britain anybody can be regarded as a psychotherapist, and there are many 'hypnotherapists'. We strongly believe that hypnosis is not a therapy in its own right, and should only be used alongside standard psychological treatment by a suitably qualified professional." (Whalley, 2008)

In Sweden, where Sundvall is operating his Swedish School of Ethical and Analytical Hypnotherapy, use of hypnosis in clinical practice is regulated by law (LYHS, 1998:531). It clearly states that anyone that lacks professional training controlled and authorized by the Swedish National Board of Health and Welfare is forbidden to examine or provide treatment with the use of hypnosis. Examining and treating with the use of hypnosis is exactly what Jörgen Sundvall is doing. Do you think that the Swedish National Board of Health and Welfare has approved the Successful Hypnotherapy Diploma Course? Neither do I. But the people that should be on the lookout for the likes of Jörgen Sundvall, the Swedish Society for Clinical Hypnosis, are busy lobbying against stage hypnotism (Lindahl, 2005), so they don't have time to bother with a self-proclaimed health-care practitioner who treats real health problems with amateur methods and bogus credentials. It's better to focus attention on hypnotists who make people behave silly on stage for entertainment. And Jörgen Sundvall is sort of a peer, although he prefers to associate himself with New Age riff-raff like Jörgen "Cry Baby" Gustafsson, renowned psychic and charlatan.

So, by now you know that Zoe D. Katze is a cat and that Jörgen Sundvall's diplomas are worth nothing more than the paper they are written on, and that he probably is breaking Swedish law. So who would you choose? Zoe? Come on, it's a cat! Even if Jörgen Sundvall is a total fraud, at least he is human. And he looks nice. Even if he is a con artist, it must be better to have a conversation with a nice-looking person than a cat? But wait, there's more to Jörgen Sundvall than the above.

Do you know Vegavan Das? No? It's Jörgen Sundvall. Vegavan Das was the name he chose for himself when he joined the Hare Krishna, or ISCKON. In fact, Sundvall was instrumental in introducing Hare Krishna in Sweden back in 1973. Although he nowadays claims to be a passive member only (Essén, 2008), he is still listed as a guru and leader (www.krishna-das.com) and holds seminars on international krishna gatherings (Radhadesh, 2006). For a passive member, Jörgen Sundvall is very active. And respected among the krishna members, almost a legend.

So how involved has Sundvall been in the systematic child abuse in the Hare Krishna movement? The sexual child molesting aside, there is the child labor, the systematic malnutrition, the disintegration of families, the concentration camp conditions at the movement's schools for children, the kuru-gulas, that were aimed at keeping the children as far away from the parents as possible (Essén, 2008). Did Jörgen Sundvall look the other way or did he take active part in it? To me, both alternatives disqualify him from coming anywhere near my children and the fact that his religious beliefs, as dictated by the founder Prabhupada, states that women are inferior to men (Essén, 2008) probably makes me want to keep my wife away from him too.

So now, finally, would you choose Jörgen Sundvall or Zoe D. Katze?

Essén, C., (2008). Sektbarn. Stockholm: Bonniers

www.krishna-das.com. List of leaders. Web document: http://www.krishna-das.com/ksyberspace/docs/leaders.rtf

Lindahl, S., (2005). Angående ansökan om tillstånd för scenhypnos. Web document: http://www.hypnosforeningen.se/etikestradhypnos.htm

LYHS, Lag om yrkesverksamhet på hälso- och sjukvårdens område, 1998:531. Web document: http://www.riksdagen.se/webbnav/index.aspx?nid=3911&bet=1998:531

Perry, C. Key Concepts in Hypnosis. Web document: http://www.fmsfonline.org/hypnosis.html

Radhadesh Newsletter, (2006). Web document: http://www.radhadesh.com/pdf/RNL_6_06.pdf

Whalley, M., (2008). Finding a clinician. Web document: http://www.hypnosisandsuggestion.org/clinician.html

Wheeler, J., (2008). Hypnotherapy Training and Qualifications. Web document: http://www.dangers-of-hypnosis.co.uk/hypnotherapy_qualifications.html

My name is not Susan...

2008-07-06T16:55:00.004+02:00

For as long as I've been active in internet discussions regarding charlatans and the paranormal, my true identity has been of some concern for both psychics and their followers. They want to know my real name. Why? I don't know. But since they have been so eager, I have found it best to stay anonymous. Some of the louder followers seem to be psychologically unstable, so you never know...

Lately, several psychics have declared that they actually know who I am. One of the contestants in Psychic Academy (the Swedish version of Psychic Challenge), Mr Johan Lundberg, approached me at the Swedish Skeptics forum, www.vof.se, and declared that he had identified me. Apparently, I had made some sort of mistake somewhere that lead him on the right track. He didn't want to post the name out in the open forum, so we agreed that he would send it in a private PM and I would answer truthfully. I did. And I also posted the name on the open forum for all to see. Mr Lundberg was totally wrong. But he doesn't trust me so he probably still thinks my name is the one he suggested.

But wait a minute! This self-deluded man thinks that he receives information from spirits, that he can speak to the departed! How come he is dead wrong on such an easy task as finding out my real name? And isn't his way of finding it out superfluous when he could take a shortcut and ask the Other side? I had to make a mistake first!? Psychic, my ass... Mind you, Mr Lundberg gets all cranky when you call him "psychic", you have to call him "psychic in training". Anyway, he got thrown out of Psychic Academy, failed in his attempt to put together a Swedish Psychic Association, and now keeps a low profile. But it won't be long before he is fully "trained", I guess, and busy ripping people off.

Another charlatan who claims to know my name is Mrs Elisabeth Lannge. She has "seen" it, whatever that means. But she won't say what it is until I decide to announce it in public. Yep, she knows it but I have to say it first... Remember the arguments you used to hear in Kindergarden? Smells just the same, doesn't it? But this old bag claims superior insight and contact with the dead - are the spirits not able to tell her that she is displaying the rhetoric capacity of a five-year-old? It is truly amazing that there are grown-ups who take Mrs Lannge seriously. She's not even house-broken -- when she abruptly left the judging panel of Psychic Academy and left her fellow swindlers gasping, she clearly demonstrated that it's her way or the highway. You'd better rub her up the right way or you're in for a verbal frenzy.

Next in line is Mrs Elisabeth Johansson, an upcoming tarot-tart who claims that she has seen me at the entrance of some psychic demonstrations, so she knows who I am. What makes this pathetic liar hilarious is that she actually has met me once, but in a totally different context and setting. But isn't it educational to see how she, and her peers, so easily make things up in order to gain prestige in the eyes of the gullible mob that flocks around her?

Perhaps it's time to announce the Garvarn Challenge; any psychic who claims to know my identity is hereby invited to e-mail me his or her suggestion and if it is correct, I promise to post a full declaration here on the blog with due credits to the psychic who made it. Nope, no money award this time -- just the glory. And Torbjörn Sassersson, the ravin lunatic "editor" of www.soultravel.se, is invited too. His wisdom always cracks me up...

The psychic can of worms

2008-07-05T18:30:00.000+02:00

Don't you just love the way woo-woo people glorify psychics and other charlatans? Oh, besides having access to the wisdom of spirits, psychics are so kind-hearted, altruistic and understanding! They give so much that whatever they gain is nowhere near enough to compensate for the emotional and spiritual distress they suffer from their "work". Bordering to outright worship, this idolatry is of course aimed at rendering the psychic untouchable - any allegations of fraud or moral misconduct will bounce off someone that is closer to divinity than to fellow humans. And for every benevolent trait the woo-woo worshipers ascribe to a psychic, they add a little bit of confirmation that their trust and faith haven't been badly invested.

Although serious investigative journalism seems to make exception for psychics, we sometimes come to know that there is something ugly behind the varnish. If you scratch the surface of Sylvia Browne, you find grand theft and investment fraud (Lancaster, 2006). If you scratch the surface of Mervyn Johnson, former president of the International Spiritualist Foundation, you find a rapist and child molester (Garvarn, 2007). Of course, psychics are swindlers as such. But if you go beyond the explicit deceit of their "trade", you may very well find that the immorality is not restricted to messing with people's memories of deceased loved ones and charging for services they cannot provide -- the apple tends to be bad all the way through.

In December 2004, I visited the website of one of our more "prominent" Swedish psychics, frequently featured on psychic shows televised nationwide. As I browsed through the posts in the guestbook, I noticed one poster who was criticizing the psychic for the way the "training courses" was being managed. The psychic's answers were of course evasive empty phrases and since the upset poster didn't settle for that and continued with detailed accusations, the guestbook was soon shut down by the psychic. In addition to the critique, one post had stated the e-mail address of the poster, so I decided to make some further inquiries. I found out the following.

An associate of the psychic had started to question some of the psychic's doings, suggesting they were dubious and wrong. In response, the psychic promptly ended the collaboration, claiming that the associate had broken a vow of silence. When asked for specific reasons, the psychic told the associate that the spirit world had strictly forbidden any disclosure in the matter.

I was able to get in touch with some more of the psychic's former associates and regular sitters. Some of them were reluctant to tell anything about their time with the psychic and those who were willing to talk explained why. Threats is one of the common tools of this charlatan. The psychic is in the habit of threatening people, in dislike for major or minor reasons, with the spirit world. In the comfort of the inner circle of people around the psychic, the "happy messages" conveyed during public seances and TV shows are substituted with warnings of forthcoming suicides or fatal diseases. Scare tactics is the glue that holds this particular little psychic group together. And the psychic expects everyone to submit to any little whim, at any time -- be it administrative work or household duties. There is really no limit to what this voice of the dead may require from the sheep in service.

Another tool is lying. The image this psychic paints of the business conducted has no resemblance with the actual state of affairs. Claimed successes turn into disasters when scrutinized. Reasons for relocation turn out to be more evasive than strategic when checked. In essence, this character is a genuine conjurer.

The funny thing is that the truth about this scumbag is only a couple of phone calls and e-mails away. So when I see this psychic on television, being lead through a haunted house by the major Swedish promotor of these fraudsters, Mrs Caroline Giertz (who claims to be a journalist!), smiling and acting all "sensitive", I rest assured that some day the bubble will burst. Some day one of these women, scared to silence, will realize that "the spirit world" really doesn't pose any actual danger and she will be the one who teaches this sociopath psychic that people are not be juggled with. Hopefully she will display the lesson in public but if not, a court of justice will do.

Make no mistake, this and other psychics are sociopaths. James Randi expresses their line of thinking eloquently: "If it's good for me, it's good" (Skepticality, 2006). They just don't care about other people at all. People are just means to their ends. And they know exactly what they are doing, they know that they are fooling people. Randi again:

"It's lika a violinist. He didn't just pick up that violin and started playing. He took lessons. And he has to concentrate on what he is doing." (Skepticality, 2006)

And don't make allowance for the psychics who doesn't charge for the "services". We have at least one of those in Sweden too, Elisabeth Lannge. She doesn't need to charge money because she is married to it! Her currency is social acceptance and "being someone". Those who don't understand the value of that has little understanding of human nature. Her fraud is just as severe, or perhaps more so.

Are the psychics to blame for the gullibility of their worshipers? No, they are not. But it isn't immoral to be gullible. To exploit the gullibility is. Is it silly to feel threatened by the wrath of made up spirits? Of course it is. But being silly is not immoral. Exploiting the silliness in order to rule a semi-cult is. And for some people, the spirit world is far from imaginary. Psychics know this, and they feed on it.

All psychics suffer, to some extent, from personality disorder. The psychological faculty that restrains sane people from messing with people's most sacred thoughts and emotions are non-existent in psychics. They just don't give a damn.

So, for your own enjoyment and other's benefit, open a can of worms -- pick a psychic of your choice and do some background checking. I'll bet something nasty will crawl out...

Garvarn, (2007). Psychic rapist sentenced to five years. Garvarn's blog. Web document: http://garvarn.blogspot.com/2007/01/psychic-rapist-senteced-to-five-years.html

Lancaster, R. S., (2006). The People vs. Sylvia Brown(e). www.stopsylviabrowne.com. Web document: http://www.stopsylviabrowne.com/articles/peoplevsbrown.shtml

Skepticality, (2006). Podcast, September 24.

Healer's appeal turned down

2007-06-06T13:52:00.000+02:00

Reader "Eva S" informs me about some developments in the Mervyn Johnson case. The psychic, who was convicted to five years imprisonment for rape, previously made an appeal to the Court of Appeal that was turned down. According to "Eva S", Radio P4 Varmland reported last Tuesday that a further appeal by the psychic has been turned down by the Supreme Court, who decided not to open the case again. And thus, Johnson has run out of options in his attempts to escape punishment.

So, to paraphrase a famous cable guy: psychic going down, going down, down, down...

The Money Factor

2007-05-09T20:45:00.000+02:00

In The Psychic Mafia, an exposé of his years as a spiritualistic medium, Lamar Keene states that

Mediums, even for professional predators, are an extremely avaricious lot. /… / No doubt incomes vary greatly, according to the skill and popularity of the medium, but the fact is that nobody on earth knows the truth about mediumistic incomes except the individuals themselves. (Keene, 1997)

Keene also describes how it was common practice to deposit in bank accounts only the amounts that had been reported in income-tax returns, and how many psychics kept piles of cash, some of them in safes, some in Swiss bank accounts, and some in the form of gems.

Although Keene’s account was originally published in 1976, the psychics of this millennium are surely no different from him and his psychic colleagues during their heydays. In fact, Joe Nickell went back to Keene’s old domain, Camp Chesterfield, in 2001 and concluded that it’s conjuring business as usual at the spiritualistic fortress (Nickell, 2002). In spite of Keene’s and other’s exposures, psychics still pull the basic stunts to rip a buck – or a small fortune – off the superstitious in the seclusion of this front for organized fraud.

It is no surprise that the psychic scene in particular and New Age in general attracts people who are keen to make money as easy as possible, legally or not. After all, transactions between psychics and their clients are strictly personal and who bothers with receipts when you’ve just received word from your dear, dead grandmother? In addition, the psychic practice demands no tools, no offices or other facilities, no education, nothing but the willingness to deceive and the lack of conscience.

Consider Sylvia Browne, one of the world’s most renowned psychics. It’s no coincidence that she had to bargain her way out off a prison sentence in the late 80’s, when she and her husband was charged on six counts of grand theft and investment fraud (SSB, 2007). Although she escaped that one, she is still in the deception business; she sells bullshit, claiming it is messages from the dead. Or consider the former president of the International Spiritualist Foundation, ISF, Mervyn Johnson, who was sentenced to five years imprisonment for raping a 14-year old girl, and sexual molestation or misconduct concerning six other women. Mr. Johnson was one of the most prominent psychics in Sweden for several years, constantly on séance tours, holding ”courses”, or abroad on ISF conferences. Yet in recent years he has declared having no income (Sidenvall, 2006). How is that possible?

When looking into the income-tax returns (to some extent a matter of public record in Sweden) of our Swedish TV psychics, it is amazing to see how poor they are. Although performing 10-15 public séances per year (making somewhere around at least 1,500–2,000 dollars net each time), announcing to be over-booked with private sessions months ahead (charging 60–80 dollars net each session), holding ”mediumistic training courses” on several occasions per year (charging 300–500 dollars net for a weekend per person), it is still impossible for one of our TV psychics to earn enough to keep his head above the official poverty level. His probable earnings from the TV shows have not been taken into consideration. Nor the fact that his public séances and courses are held in the cheapest facilities possible – school halls, cheap motels, etc.

A couple of years ago, another of our TV psychics was reluctant to admit to having any work at all. His contribution to Sweden’s tax revenue is corresponding to his degree if admitted activity. But he is also over-booked with private sittings, tours, holds ”training courses”. How does it add up? One wonders…

The last time I saw the Grand Old Lady of Swedish psychics appear in one of the Swedish ”haunting” TV shows, she was so well-hung with gold and jewellery that I for a moment thought she was doing some kind of bad Gipsy impression. But then the cash management policies of Camp Chesterfield sprung into my mind, and the ridiculous adornments suddenly made sense – cash converted to bling-bling in order to evade taxes.

One of Sweden’s most active Tarot-tarts has a full-fledged webshop offering everything from crystals to books. She arranges New Age-fairs all around Sweden and, if I’m not mistaken, operates one or a couple of psychic phone-lines charging more than two dollars a minute. Last year, 2006, she declared an annual income of 1 dollar and 50 cent. Go figure…

The money aspect of psychic mediumship is rarely discussed, not even by skeptics. I find this strange, since money is probably the main motivation for most people who claim they are psychic. It is very easy money, you get paid for feeding people’s superstition with unsubstantiated gibberish, there are no obstructs between your client’s wallet and your pocket, no receipt needed, and you have no expenses, at least none that makes it necessary to report real income. In essence, psychic mediumship is a business that can be, and probably is, conducted more or less outside the realm of the tax authorities. And the best part is that the psychic has an army of supporters that will go to any lengths to defend the psychic’s right to his or her loot.

Some supporters argue that it is OK for the psychic to earn money because s/he is providing a service, just like a mechanic or a dentist. This is all fine and dandy – there is nothing wrong with an agreed payment as long as the agreed goods have been delivered. But in the case of the psychic, the agreed-upon goods are not delivered. In fact, no psychic has ever been able to show an ability to deliver anything but bullshit under controlled conditions. Instead, during the last century and a half, in case after case, a multitude of alleged psychics have been busted committing fraud. It is fair to say that psychic mediumship is a tradition of deceit. So it is not OK for the psychic to earn money because s/he is not providing the service s/he is selling. It would be equally wrong for the mechanic to charge for an engine repair never performed, or for the dentist to charge for a filling never done.

But, the supporter argues, as long as the client is satisfied, no harm is done, no deception performed. By this kind of logic, crimes not detected don’t exist – as long as a victim is ignorant of the fact that s/he is the object of a crime, the crime doesn’t exist; as long as you don’t miss anything from your house, it hasn’t been burglarized; as long as you have fallen for a deceit, you haven’t been deceived. Can you think of an argument better designed to protect a deceiver? It is the complete de-criminalization of the act as such.

However, some supporters apparently sense that there is something wrong with psychics making money. They point to those psychics who charge nothing and contend that they are genuine just because of their lack of interest in money -- thus indicating that the medium charging money may be motivated to cheat. There may be, however, several practical reasons why a psychic would not want to charge anything from his or her clients:

1. S/he doesn’t need money – a wealthy spouse, inherited wealth, or some other source of fortune or income makes money less or not at all desirable.

2. Some previous arrangement prevents him or her from getting new income – in Sweden, a common practice is that retirement agreements cease should the benefactor get new employment or other income.

3. S/he claims to charge nothing but expects ”gifts” – a practice mastered by psychics like D. D. Home and John of God.

4. S/he claims that services are free as a promotion gimmick, but when push comes to shove there is a fee. Sylvia Browne is known to pull this one.

And does the psychic who charges nothing earn nothing? No, on the contrary. S/he earns something that can be very valuable; ”observers may fail to realize that pseudopsyhics can be motivated by personal fame, raised self-esteem, a desire to be socially helpful, and increased personal power” (Wiseman & Morris, 1997). The inability to identify these benefits among supporters implies an almost complete ignorance of human psychology. It is amazing to see how a ”no charge” policy renders a psychic an air of benevolence. And it doesn’t matter how crappy s/he performs (even on TV) – as long as s/he doesn’t charge anything, s/he is untouchable. That is of course nonsense. Whether a psychic charges money or not doesn’t say anything regarding his or her ability to communicate with dead people.

When I attend public séances, I always take note of how many people are in the audience. That times the attendance fee gives a good estimate of how much the arranger and the psychic are splitting between themselves when the séance is over -- the psychic’s share is undoubtedly bigger. I also try to find out how much the facilities cost, and if there has been any advertising. Hall rental is generally very low -- when I’ve checked it has been in the region of 100-120 dollars. And advertising generally consists of small text ads in local papers, running for about the same. Deduct that from one night’s takings (at least 1,500-2,000 dollars), and you realize that two hours of telling people bullshit can be very profitable. Take that night times 10 or more nights a year, and you realize that a declared annual income of 10,000 dollars has the same authenticity as messages from the dead.

This is easy math that any tax official can do. Most psychics have websites where they display their schedules for the year or season. On top of their public séances and ”courses in mediumistic development”, most of them also do private sessions. So the sky is the limit, as far as tax evasion goes.

So why not spend the rest of this week checking a local psychic of your choice and mail an anonymous tip to the local tax authorities on Monday? It may turn out to be the most effective skeptic strategy yet.

References

Keene, L., (1997). The Psychic Mafia. New York: Prometheus.

Nickell, J., (2002). Undercover among the spirits: Investigating Camp Chesterfield – Investigative Files. Skeptic Inquirer, March, 2002. Online here.

Sidenvall, K., (2006, November, 9). Healerns sexoffer berättar. Nya Wermlands-Tidningen, s. 6.

SSB.; Stop Sylvia Browne, (2007). The People vs. Sylvia Brown(e). [WWW document] http://www.stopsylviabrowne.com/articles/peoplevsbrown.shtml

Wiseman, R., & Morris, R., (1997). Modeling the Stratagems of Psychic Fraud. In R. Wiseman, Deception & Self-deception. Investigating Psychics. New York: Prometheus.

The Cry Baby's Wisdom

2007-04-10T02:36:00.002+02:00

"Thoughts have no language."

This profound-sounding wisdom was put forward by Swedish psychic Jörgen "Cry Baby" Gustafsson on a TV-show aired 28th of February. It was in answer to host Alexandra Pascalidou's question if Gustafsson would be able to convey a message from her much loved departed Greek grandmother who never uttered a word of Swedish. But according to Gustafsson it doesn't matter if the spirit spoke Mandarin or Swahili in this life, the post-life communication is done with imagery. So when the dead speak to Gustafsson they do so by showing images that he interprets. This explanation is very convenient as it opens up a cultural and language independent market for every psychic and at the same time suggests why psychic statements are so vague and dim. By freeing thinking from the shackles of language, psychic omnipotence emerges.

Do thoughts really lack language? Well, most of us have experienced the occasional inability to find the words for some thought and people who have suffered a stroke may experience how their thoughts are turned into gibberish as they try to speak, due to some degree of brain damage or malfunction. And we obviously don’t need to speak words to be able to think so maybe it is justified that an aphorism such as “thoughts have no language” is taking root in New Age lingo?

No, it is not. If we move beyond the intellectual boundaries of the likes of psychic Gustafsson, we find that language in fact is essential to our thoughts and ability to think (Kowalski & Westen, 2005). True, we think in images as well as in words; our thoughts often rely on visual representations of some kind. But it is our ability to think in words that pretty much makes us human. Tattersall notes:

“Language is, indeed, the ultimate symbolic mental function, and it is virtually impossible to conceive of thought as we know it in its absence. For words, it is fair to say, function as the units of human thought, at least as we are aware of it.” (Tattersall, 2006)

Since words often are symbols of objects and phenomena that are absent, it is speech and language that enables us to intellectually move beyond the immediate perceptual field. This ability is one of the things that separate us from other species (Crain, 2005). Words are also necessary to capture concepts that are impossible to visualize. What image would you use to explain the concept of “democracy”, to account for your holiday plans this summer, to describe what you think of the latest Outkast album or explain a solution to a math problem?

Even if we restrict ourselves to the context of Gustafsson’s psychic performances, we find phenomena that would be hard or impossible to communicate through images. When I recorded a séance with Gustafsson a couple of years ago, he allegedly channeled, for instance, how a departed woman was someone who didn’t let herself be pushed around in her lifetime. How was that shown by imagery? Or that the woman was energetic? Or that she was ignorant regarding her own illness? And how was the different opinions supposedly held by the woman’s relatives conveyed through images? And why did Gustafsson, all through the séance, refer to the information being passed on to him from the other side in terms of “she is saying to me”, “he tells me”, “I hear”, “she is talking about”, and so on? If an alleged spirit had shown Gustafsson images, shouldn’t he be using expressions such as “she is showing me”, “I see”, etc?

Of course he should, but Gustafsson is a money-grabber, a parasite that feeds off people’s emotional needs by means of deception and psychological trickery. He will say anything to get away with what he is doing. At the séance he hear words, the spirits are talking to him. In the TV studio he would understand a Greek grandmother because the dead communicates by showing images. One day communication is based on language, the next it isn’t.

Gustafsson makes it up as he goes along. He has learned that as a psychic, he can get away with lies and fraud – no one will do a background check on him, no one will check his claims. Even when he tells the TV hosts that a TV studio really doesn’t provide an ultimate setting for psychic contact and that he needs half an hour in seclusion with one person for it to work, no one asks him how it is possible for him to pull off séances in front of hundreds of people.

Of course thoughts have language - thinking and words are intertwined and inseparable. And just as our language defines us as human beings, it defines us as individuals in many ways. If we were able to communicate with people that have died and passed over to some other form of existence, words would be essential units in that communication as well as it is in communication between the living. And language would be essential to the personalities of the dead to the same degree as it is for the living. To claim anything else is ridiculous. To suggest, as Gustafsson does, that “thoughts have no language” and then perform séances were language obviously is the main ingredient, is deliberate deceit and the only paranormal about it is how he gets away with it.

References

Crain, W., (2005). Theories of Development. Concepts and Applications (5th ed.). New Jersey: Pearson
Kowalski, R., & Westen, D., (2005). Psychology (4th ed.). Hoboken: Wiley
Tattersall, I., (2006). How we came to be human. Scientific American, 16, (2), pp. 66-73.

An E-mail About Evans

2007-02-16T02:26:00.000+01:00

I received an unexpected e-mail last week. It was from one of the participants of the Swedish TV show “The Unknown” (“Det Okända”) who explained that she recently attended a séance with the same psychic that previously “cleaned” her house from “spirits” in the TV show, Mr. Terry Evans. The woman writes:

“I never thought I’d say this, but this is how it is. I still do not know how he did it when we met and taped ‘The Unknown’. He was right then. However, after having seen him in action during the séance, I changed my mind. I feel awfully stupid, because if he is a deceiver, I have to be terribly stupid to fall for it.”

I do not know who this woman is or what episode she took part in and I have no intention to turn this into yet another dissection of a particular episode of psychic TV. Terry Evans is of course a deceiver. In fact, Evans is one of the more cunning and experienced exploiters of superstitious belief in Sweden today. He also has the advantage of being a protégé of Mrs. Caroline Giertz’s, the producer of most, if not all, Swedish woo-woo TV shows. For a confidence man, that’s about the best promotion and back-up you can get – having a national TV show vouch for your supernatural gifts makes the deceit so much easier.

The woman’s sentiment is, however, worth some thought. She assumes she has to be terribly stupid to fall victim of fraud, which is perfectly understandable; most of us assume that we are or would be able to detect a hoax aimed at ripping us off and most of us believe we have the intellectual skill to recognize a conjurer just by looking at him or her. This is a double-edged sword that not only cripples the critical capacity of the victim, but also works to the advantage of the perpetrator – if someone is not recognized as a fraud, he or she cannot be a fraud. I know, it is circular argument but that is how the mind works sometimes. Aiding in this illusion is hindsight bias, i.e. when someone or something has been exposed as a fraud, we afterwards state that we knew all along there was something fishy about the whole thing and we consider the people who fell for it naïve, at best.

Before we look at what this woman has been up against, let us consider what she brought to the table. I do not know what traits in particular caused her to approach the TV show but I would suggest that the most common denominator among believers of paranormal phenomena is the need for meaning in life. In her research on alleged alien abductees, Susan Clancy discovered that

“At the end of every interview, throughout the five-year course of the research, each abducted was asked the same question: ’If you could do it all over again, would you choose not to be abducted?’ No one ever said yes. Despite the shock and terror that accompanied their experiences, the abductees were glad to have had them. Their lives improved. They were less lonely, more hopeful about the future, felt they were better people. They chose abduction. Being abducted by aliens is a transformative event. Not only does it furnish an explanation for psychological distress and unsettling experiences; it provides meaning for one‘s entire life.” (Clancy, 2005, p. 149)

I think the same is true for all variations of paranormal belief, regardless of the object – whether you end up searching for Bigfoot, pursuing signs of global, mystic conspiracies or teaching your mind to fake “out of body experiences” is a matter of pure chance. They all fill the need of meaning in life. The notion that most people go to see a psychic to get in touch with dead relatives is a misconception. David Marks notes:

“We seem to have a profound yearning for a magic formula that will free us from our ponderous and fragile human bodies, from realities that will not obey our wishes, from loneliness or unhappiness, and from death itself.” (Marks, 2000, p. 228)

In this perspective, what attracts people to séances is not the possibility to get in alleged contact with dead loved ones, but to be part of a miracle, to experience something “more than life”. The substance of what is generally conveyed by psychics during sessions supports this – the joint effort to find out who is the alleged spirit is most often followed by a very meager and general greeting. Although the actual message from the dead is close to ridiculous, the overall psychic experience is close to sensational. You go to a psychic session to get your beliefs confirmed and the psychic delivers. Does that imply that you are stupid? Of course not.

Psychics like Terry Evans are devious. He has been on television, he cannot be a fraud. That is why Evans does not hesitate to sit in the foyer before a séance and collect information – so called “hot reading”. For the average visitor, Evans does not need to cheat so whatever he does that looks like cheating is coincidental. Even when he bluntly uses the information during the séance, as I caught him doing [link], the average visitor does not recognize it as cheating. Why? Because the average visitor needs Evans to be genuine. If he is nothing but a trickster, the visitor is not part of something fantastic; is not having something amazing added to his or her life; is not getting more meaning in his or her life. Evans knows this too well. That is why he so boldly tells a woman of the audience of every séance that she should write a book. Because that is what many women want to hear. Not necessarily that they should write books, but that their lives and their thoughts are important enough to provide material for books. Although he messed that one up when I recorded him [link], I know of a woman that actually took him up on the tip and got published. But he tells that to a woman in the audience during every séance, so he cannot be credited for that one.

In addition, one or more sitters are always psychic material themselves. They should learn more, Evans tells them, because he can sense that they are “open to the spiritual world“. That is a variation of the same trick; most women (and many men) regard themselves as more sensible than the average person. And here is a known authority confirming that you are a “sensitive”. An emotional ka-ching!

You do not have to be stupid to be hoodwinked by this type of psychological trickery. You just have to be in need for something more in your life.

I think that the woman who wrote to me realized that Evans is a trickster during the séance because she already had her ”meaning” boost during the taping of the show. In her episode, she was the focus of attention, she was the main concern. After it had been aired, the production team’s interest in her faded, as did the psychic’s. Caught up in the process of making the episode, her experience was colored by the narrative version of the show and the attention she got from friends and strangers alike. Afterwards, the discrepancy between the show and reality is growing in her mind. And when she attends a séance with Evans to get a ”meaning” refill, what he does without editing and a supporting production team suddenly seems so obvious and not at all psychic.

Having published this blog, I will probably never hear from this woman again. She explicitly stated that her e-mail was for my eyes only. That is a shame. She had no problem promoting this fraud called Evans when she believed he was genuine, but she will not say a thing in public about realizing that he has duped her. The lesson I would have hoped she learned is that deception and conjuring demands that deceivers and conjurers are not easily identified, that being duped does not mean that you have been stupid. And perhaps that her story would save others from being deceived by Evans. But just as Evans feeds on the need for meaning like a plunderer of the dead scavenging a battlefield, he survives due to the silence of his victims.

References

Clancy, S., (2005). Abducted. Why People Come to Believe They Were Kidnapped by Aliens. London: Harvard University.

Marks, D., (2000). The Psychology of the Psychic (2nd ed.). New York: Prometheus.

“Both me and my horse have been cured”

2007-02-04T12:41:00.002+01:00

It’s easy to be overcome by the uncritical reporting of alleged paranormal phenomena in media. Big business, politics, and celebrities are carefully scrutinized without any stone being left unturned. But when it comes to claims of supernatural powers or abilities, critical thinking is out of the office. Such claims are in general left unchallenged and “left for the reader or viewer to decide.” But not always. One refreshing Swedish exception was unfolded in the morning paper Eskilstuna-Kuriren in November 2006.

On the 25th, journalist Peter Larsson reported on his visit to a “quantum medicine” practitioner, Veronica Niva, 31, who uses a “frequency machine” to diagnose and cure both physical and psychological conditions, diseases, and “unbalances” in humans as well as in animals. When seated in the reclining chair at the “quantum clinic” (in reality the basement of Niva’s villa), Niva attaches Velcro ribbons to Larsson’s wrists, ankles and head, ribbons with cords running through a little box and then into a laptop computer. The software has taken researchers 30 years to develop, according to Niva. Of only three “frequency machines” on the market, Niva is proud to have the only one capable of treating everything.

According to this amazing machine, reporter Larsson suffers from a beginning bronchi infection, a problem with his feet on a “cellular level”, an overloaded liver, some fungus, a beginning inflammation of the small intestine, an unbalance in the production of thyroxin and oxytocin hormones, a slightly incapacitated immune system, and he is oversensitive to pollen and newspaper sheets. A pain in the back of his neck is also on a “cellular level”, which is why Larsson cannot feel the pain. In addition, Niva states that Larsson is sensitive to gluten of all grains, which is why she recommends him to avoid all kinds of bread. But lucky for Larsson, as a “quantum medicine” practitioner, Niva treats gluten.

The machine allegedly measures the “frequencies” of all organs and cells. Frequencies that lead to bad health when not in balance, according to Niva. The revolutionary software is in essence recorded “healthy frequencies” that replaces the bad ones when you are hooked up to the system and treated. The technique works as good with animals as it does with humans. Subsequently, Niva treats pets and horses as well. The machine sees everything but there are laws prohibiting Niva from treating cancer. But she claims that it is an amazing treatment for cancer and lots of “quantum” practitioners do treat cancer.

The check-up took about two hours and set Larsson back $110. He didn’t tell Niva he is a reporter; when asked he told her he is in construction but temporarily unemployed. And he didn’t tell her he recorded the entire session or that he would consult a MD for a second opinion.

On the 27th, Eskilstuna-Kuriren published what Professor Lars Rombo, senior physician and director of the Infection Clinic at Mälaren Hospital, told Larsson after a regular check-up of his health: no inflammations, blood value excellent, no deficiency of white corpuscles, kidney functions normal, liver normal, urine sample OK, no metabolic disturbances, neither shortage or overproduction of thyroid gland hormones. In short, Peter Larsson is in perfect health.

But what about the unbalanced frequencies leading to bad health? Rombo has no knowledge that a sick liver has different “frequencies” than a healthy one.
- What we can do is check how the liver is doing and that is what we have done, says the clinic director.
But what about the pain in the neck that can’t be felt by Larsson because it’s on a “cellular level”?
- If you don’t feel any pain, you are not in pain, states the doctor. Niva’s explanation sounds very strained.

When confronted with the results of the hospital health exam, Niva maintains the belief in her machine. In an interview published the 28th, she explains:
- It’s like this. We have a machine that locates unbalances. Homeopaths find their things, quantum practitioners theirs and medical doctors theirs. Unfortunately, that’s how it is.
Niva doesn’t want to change her diagnose but wants the word “diagnose” to be changed to “opinion”. Regarding why her clients should have knowledge about pains they cannot feel and are not troubled by, Niva explains:
- Why come to me if you don’t want to know about your unbalances? Each client must decide what to do with the information he gets. Some people come here because they are curious about what processes are at work in the body.

She also thinks that Eskilstuna-Kuriren’s articles are giving the wrong impression of the possibilities offered by quantum medicine.
- You want to debunk people that are not serious, and I can understand that. But there are people who want to do good in this life. Quantum medicine is fantastic and I sincerely hope that it becomes a major thing in Sweden and that the hospitals also get it.

Although Peter Larsson and Eskilstuna-Kuriren have no evidence that Niva treats or have treated cancer patients, Niva maintains the potency of quantum medicine as treatment of cancer:
- This is going to be the 21st century thing against cancer in that you can locate the unbalances at such an early stage.

In a follow up on the 29th, some reader’s opinions are accounted for. “Maria” claims that both she and her horse have been cured by Niva:
- Last fall a veterinarian concluded that my horse suffered from a pulled muscle and I was recommended to let him rest. I was told it could take well up to three months for him to get well. Waiting for the vets revisit, the horse had five treatments by Veronica Niva. When examined by the vet later, the horse was declared fit and healthy. Personally, I had severe pain in my arms last spring. After three of Niva’s treatments, the pain went away. She’s no charlatan; she has a heart of gold.

The Veronica Niva case is a textbook example of how faith healers and "alternative medicine" scams operate. The way Peter Larsson investigates Niva should be a textbook example of how these miracle mongers are dealt with by the press. Unfortunately, this piece of journalism was a rare exception, even for the paper in question. As I checked the Eskilstuna-Kuriren web page to see if the Peter Larsson articles were part of an editorial strategy, I soon discovered that its life style weekend supplement regularly promotes “alternative treatments” and New Age hoaxes of all kinds. Peter Larsson probably had some personal reason to expose this particular one, but he did it thoroughly and is to be credited for it.

Should you be interested in reading more about the “Quantum Life” scam, I suggest the Quantum Life blog and the Quantum Life web page.

Forgive them; for they know not what they do?

2007-01-31T13:26:00.003+01:00

(Download printer friendly PDF of this posting in A4 format or US letter format.)

The notion that cold reading is something that can be executed unconsciously seems to be almost as popular among skeptics as it is among the advocates of psychics and soothsayers. The general idea is that the psychic is so convinced of his or her authenticity that s/he is unaware of the fact that s/he is using a technique of psychological trickery to accomplish a so called "reading". Thus, it may very well be that psychics are using trickery, but they cannot be blamed for doing so, since the fraud is committed unconsciously. Believers of spirit communication use this line of thinking to excuse every debunked or busted psychic – often in combination with the old "using-deception-to-compensate-for-bad-days" argument. Skeptics use it as an excuse for treating psychics with respect and taking their claims seriously – a deceiver unaware of using deception cannot be blamed for deceit. This respectful approach seems more in line with the concept of a "curious" or "investigating" mind – it gives the skeptic an air of benevolence, which is more likeable than simply dismissing psychic readings as fraud.

One often cited example of this alleged unconsciousness is Ray Hyman's account in his classic The Zetetic article on cold reading from 1977:

"One danger of playing the role of reader is that you will persuade yourself that you really are divining true character. This happened to me. I started reading palms when I was in my teens as a way to supplement my income from doing magic and mental shows. When I started I did not believe in palmistry. But I knew that to 'sell' it I had to act as if I did. After a few years I became a firm believer in palmistry." (Hyman, 1996)

A more recent example is the "coming-out" of former New Ager Karla McLaren:

"I never knew what cold reading was, and until I saw professional magician and debunker Mark Edward use cold reading on an ABC News special last year, I didn't understand that I had long used a form of cold reading in my own work! I was never taught cold reading and I never intended to defraud anyone - I simply picked up the technique through cultural osmosis." (McLaren, 2004)

Now, Hyman's contribution to the skeptic movement is, without a doubt, monumental. Nevertheless, I suggest that there are fundamental differences between the fortune-telling of the 1940's and the psychic séances and private sittings of today. And although I have the greatest sympathy for McLaren's attempt to make two opposing sides reach out and touch, I think it is of some importance to note that even if McLaren did not identify what she was doing as 'cold reading', she was apparently aware that she was employing a technique. In addition, the lack of intention to defraud is a somewhat slippery argument; the ethical status of an act may very well be assessed according to its effect on the object – it cannot be fraud without an abused victim. Since the technique used by McLaren did not cause apparent damage to anyone, her unintention to deceive is irrelevant.

Whether a psychic knows that s/he is using something called 'cold reading' or not is of course of no importance. What is essential is if the psychic knows that s/he is doing something else than receiving messages from the dead or from some other supernatural source. The deception is not the use of 'cold reading', but the use of anything but supernatural means. Following hunches, intuition, guessing, or any means other than supernatural, is deception if you claim it is divination or talking to the departed.

There is no doubt that a fantasy-prone person may seriously believe that his or her intuition is in fact the voice of a spirit. But mistaking whatever pops into your head for divination is far from what today's psychics are doing. Let's first consider what 'cold reading' is, before deciding if it can be employed unconsciously.

The common definition of 'cold reading' is something in line with "a procedure by which a 'reader' is able to persuade a client whom he has never before met that he knows all about the client's personality and problems" (Hyman, 1996). Wikipedia suggests "a technique used to convince another person that the reader knows much more about the subject than they actually do" (Wikipedia). Both of these variations are misleading in that they suggest that 'cold reading' is a subject-object relation, when it in fact is a subject-subject interaction. Defining 'cold reading' as something an active agent (the psychic) delivers to a passive receiver (the "sitter") is simply not accurate. Instead, it must be defined as a joint effort by at least two persons to confirm one's belief in the other's supernatural knowledge or ability. For 'cold reading' to work, the client's desire for it to work and active participation in the process are absolutely necessary. Consider how a believer readily identifies stock spiel or some other cold reading tool when performed or exemplified by a skeptic. But when a psychic uses the exact same wording, the believer denies that it is cold reading. Thus, the client must have faith in the performer's authenticity for it to work. Skeptic demonstrations of cold reading are subsequently pointless; they will not work when used to refute beliefs, only to confirm them.

Faith is a primer even stronger than rational assessment. On two occasions, I have presented transcripts of actual séances to believers, without disclosing the name of the psychics at hand. On both occasions, believers easily identified the multitude of cold reading elements in the transcripts and dismissed the psychics as obvious frauds. However, when I told them the names of the psychics (both renowned TV-psychics), the believers immediately recanted. What they moments before considered to be cold reading was suddenly profound mediumship. So cold reading is not depending on how it is performed, but by whom.

Establishing cold reading as a subject-subject interaction, a joint social process towards a mutual goal, does not belittle the tools of the trade. If the context is a situation where a client has faith in a psychic, stock spiel and other techniques are very powerful. But can they be executed unconsciously? No, they cannot. Although the psychic session is a joint effort, the psychic and the client face different tasks - the medium that of suggestion, the client that of confirmation. Although the client tends to lend personal significance to very general suggestions, the medium still has the task of navigating through the client's responses and this navigation is an intellectual effort that demands conscious action and choice. It can not be done without knowing what you are doing, regardless of whether you call what you are doing cold reading or not.

Skilled pianists are able to play complicated pieces and participate in conversations at the same time. The conversations require their conscious awareness, the musical pieces does not. Is playing a piece on an instrument equal to executing cold reading? No, it is not, because playing complicated pieces on a piano does not offer an intellectual challenge for a skilled piano player in the way a psychic session does to a psychic, regardless of skill. There are no sudden interruptions when playing a piece of music you've played ten or hundreds of times before, demanding you to chose between one, two or more optional routes to continue. The psychic session is nothing but optional routes, nothing but adaptation to the client's responses. The psychic session is thus comparable to the pianist's conscious conversation rather than his unconscious playing.

Walking is done more or less unconsciously. You don't think of the steps you take and that works fine, until your path offers an obstacle, let's say a curb. If you are not conscious of the curb and adjust your steps to it, you will stumble on it. Your walking is unconscious but your adjustment to obstacles is not. If you don't become aware of the obstacle, your unconscious walking will be interrupted.

Unconscious actions are essential to us humans. We would not be able to cope with everyday life if everything we did demanded our conscious awareness. In fact, a great portion of our lives consists of performing unconscious acts. But convincing people that we are in contact with their departed loved ones is not one of those acts.

On February 26 and 27, 2005, I and a friend of mine recorded two séances held by self-proclaimed psychic Pehr Trollsveden. He is a peddler in superstition who, apart from doing psychic séances, operates a psychic hotline phone service and provides online shopping, should you be interested in buying crystals or other "spiritual" gadgets. I don't think he is held in high regard even in the psychic community, but he has a very interesting technique. He simply walks around among the sitters of the séance, stops behind a person, lays his hands on the client's shoulders and rattles off for three to five minutes about older women cleaning kitchen floors and ancient viking spirit guides. He has a flow of words comparable to that of John Edward, but unlike him, Trollsveden makes no room for client feedback. So when he is done with one person, he doesn't wait for confirmation or comments, he just goes on to the next client. In an hour, he works through an impressing amount of clients, finishes off making alleged contact with some dead pets, and that's it. The money, 100 Swedish Kronor (approx. $12) a head, is stuck right down his pocket.

This technique is a variation of what I call shotgun. You produce so many details and statements at a fast rate that the client will be hit by some detail or details that he or she is able to render personal significance and forget all the rest that have no significance at all. John Edward and many others use the same technique, I'm pretty sure that you're familiar with it. It enables the psychic to be more detailed than when using stock spiel, which is a set of general statements that fits most people. And when two such details out of 20 stick and the rest is forgotten, the client is convinced; if two features of a passed away grandmother fit and the rest is forgotten, the client is satisfied.

Trollsveden offers no opportunity for feedback; there is no interaction whatsoever in his sessions. Thus, it could be accomplished unconsciously (not that I think he doesn't know exactly what he is doing). Comparing the first day's session with that of the second day, it is also apparent that Trollsveden recycles the same statements over and over again. So it could in theory mean that he is unaware of what he is saying and just repeats often used phrases unconsciously.

But when John Edward is using the shotgun technique, he is doing it in interaction with the clients. He is constantly faced with feedback from the client that requires him to make choices, to adapt to what the client is saying. That is an intellectual task that demands conscious awareness, i.e. Edward must know what he is doing in order to accomplish anything (although we know much is accomplished during editing of his shows).

There is more to be said on this subject, but for now, I propose that the notion that psychics are unaware of what they are doing is an understandable fallacy among followers of psychics but an ignorant misconception among skeptics. The psychic session offers intellectual tasks that cannot be accomplished unconsciously. The notion persists among skeptics because they tend to read Hyman or McLaren instead of visiting a séance and see what is actually taking place during a psychic session.

I also propose that the definition of cold reading as a technique is at fault and does not sufficiently describe what a psychic session is about. It is better defined as a joint effort by at least two persons in social interaction to confirm one's belief in the other's supernatural knowledge or ability, employing one or more psychological methods of illusion or suggestion.

I see no reason to forgive psychics; for they know that they do not speak to the departed.

(Thanks to Mr. Jespert Jerkert for language corrections.)

References

Hyman, R., (1996). 'Cold Reading': How to Convince Strangers That You Know All About Them. In J. Nickell, B. Karr, & T. Genoni (Eds.), The Outer Edge. Classic Investigations of the Paranormal (pp. 71-84). New York: Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal, Inc.

McLaren, K., (2004). Bridging the Chasm between Two Cultures. Skeptical Inquirer, 28, (3).

Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_reading

Adrian Parker's Fabrication of Reality.Part IV: Some Final Notes.

2007-01-22T17:10:00.001+01:00

(Download printer friendly PDF of all postings on Adrian Parker's paper in A4 format or US letter format.)

In A Compendium of the Evidence for PSI, Swedish parapsychologist Adrian Parker (Parker & Brusewitz, 2003) claims that most of the studies listed "would still [today] be quoted as providing strong evidence" of paranormal phenomena. As I have shown, that is simply not true. Both the Targ & Puthoff research, and the Schmidt studies are so flawed that referring to them as evidence of any kind must be considered, at least, naive beyond comprehension. But Parker is not naive; there is something very explicit and intentional in the way he perverts what Wiseman has written on the Delmore tests. And the systematic belittling of the criticism raised against the studies listed is far from accidental. Parker is out on a mission and the end justifies the means, even if they include deception.

Consider the Maimonides dream experiments. Taylor (1981) points to the fact that significant results don't matter if they are derived from subjective judging, as was the case in the Maimonides studies. Others have noted violation against experimental protocol as well as lack of replication (Hines, 2003). But Parker claims that no fatal flaw has been discovered regarding these studies. It's that easy – just stick your head in the sand.

The same goes for the Brugman experiments during the early 1920's. Parker conveniently leaves out that the subject, van Dam, was a performing magician specializing in finding hidden objects using unconscious cues from others. There were also indications that the targets were selected non-randomly (Björkhem & Johnson, 1986). But Parker claims that no flaws have been discovered in the Brugman studies.

In the case of the research at Duke University, Parker claims that it "requires special comment since there are so many misconceptions surrounding it" (Parker & Brusewitz, 2003). But Parker does not account for any such misconceptions or the possible relevance they have for his compendium. It may be that he feels obligated to assign a certain amount of text to Rhine's research, due to the lab's historical significance. Or maybe it's just a way to create an illusion of credibility regarding the Rhine research. In any case, no study conducted at Duke University would be considered providing evidence of PSI by serious researchers. The time before 1940, which Parker claims was a time of "experimental achievement," was in fact a period of immense sloppiness. For instance, the first editions of Zener cards used had such bad printing that the figures could be seen on the back due to an embossing effect or through the cards due to poor paper quality (Hines, 2003).

Poor experiment control, lack of replication, self-deception and wishful thinking marked the entire lab, before and after 1940. The most evident flaw, however, is perhaps best noted by Rawcliffe:

"Yet it is on the question of safeguards against sensory cues that all ESP experimenters are shown to be at fault. None of them appear to have studied this problem seriously and their claims to have 'obviated' all sensory cues are often pathetic in its naivety and evident sincerity. Pathetic too is their much advertised confidence that only parapsychologists can fully appreciate the problems raised by the exclusion of sensory cues in the ESP experimental situation. It is perhaps significant that nearly all the competent work on this important question has been carried out by individuals who were not parapsychologists at all." (Rawcliffe, 1959)

As usual, Parker tries to make it appear as if Hansel is the only one who has put forward severe criticism. In reality, the Rhine research has been scrutinized and criticized by so many researchers that even Rhine himself probably would have admitted most of the flaws. But not Parker.

It is evident that A Compendium of the Evidence for PSI is not worth the paper it's written on. But, you may argue, it has been published in an alleged scientific journal – the European Journal of Parapsychology! There must be something to it if an editor has decided to publish it!? So, who was the editor who published Adrian Parker's paper? According to the journal website, the editor that year was... uh, blimey! It was Adrian Parker who published Adrian Parker!

Adrian Parker is an illustrative example of what I think is fundamentally wrong with parapsychology as a field of science. First of all, too many parapsychologists are reluctant to distance themselves from the obvious con-men and frauds – "high scoring subjects", in the past and in the present. There is no scientific benefit in promoting scam-artists, or in treating them with some kind of "scientific respect". They are conjurers and belong behind bars, not in research labs.

Secondly, too many parapsychologists are reluctant to distance themselves from their crackpot colleagues. For instance, Adrian Parker goes around thinking that the reason his compendium has not been refuted is because it is supported by his peers. Having corresponded with some of them, it seems that very few, if any, has even read the paper. Thus, a crap paper is unchallenged and the blame is on the competent researchers who ignores it, not the incompetent who wrote it – he can't help himself. In the end, parapsychology as a field of science suffers and the methodological researcher has to share the title of 'parapsychologist' with the crank.

If parapsychology is to have a future as a scientific discipline, this has to change. The Adrian Parkers of the field has to be recognized and challenged.

Openly and often.

Go back to Part III: The Schmidt experiments

References

Björkhem, Ö., & Johnson, M., (1986). Parapsykologi och övertro. Forum.

Hines, T., (2003). Pseudoscience and the Paranormal. New York: Prometheus.

Parker, A., & Brusewitz, G., (2003). A Compendium of the Evidence for Psi. European Journal of Parapsychology, 2003, 18, 33-51.

Rawcliffe, D. H., (1959). Illusions and Delusions of the Supernatural and the Occult. New York: Dover.

Taylor, J., (1981). Science and the Supernatural. An Investigation of Paranormal Phenomena. London: Granada

Respons to Adrian Parker

2007-01-16T12:07:00.001+01:00

(Download printer friendly PDF of all postings on Adrian Parker's paper in A4 format or US letter format.)

First of all, I must thank Adrian Parker for taking the time to comment on the criticism I have put forward regarding his paper A Compendium of the Evidence for PSI (Parker & Brusewitz, 2003). In a previous discussion, Parker tended to discuss anything but the paper, so I am also thankful for the fact that he restrains himself to the issues questioned. However, as his reply is ridden by the same rhetorical markers as his paper, I am compelled to consider it, not a clarification, but a smoke screen. As Parker has announced that he does not have the time to involve himself in further debate, I will respond to his reply in the form of statements rather than questions.

"I am also a Swedish sceptic so I am thankful for your criticisms, some of which I think are at least in some measure, valid. I do however note a slight tone of animosity which makes you response in danger of loosing all its effect."

In a world where words have no meaning, you can call yourself what you want. And I can call myself a senior lecturer at Gothenburg University. It's all fine and dandy, but unfortunately, it's make-believe. In your paper, you have shown that you praise research that even the more gullible of your peers consider worthless. Regarding the studies I have discussed so far, you systematically neglect the multitude of critique raised against them and claim that the fragment of doubt that you do convey have been refuted. If Social Psychology were to look for a materialization of "confirmation bias", you would be the first in line (you can look up "confirmation bias" in any introduction to social psychology, Mr. Parker). When confronted with a paranormal claim, your impulse is to salute it and pay homage to it without reservation. Mine is to investigate the claim, pretty much like I'm checking your compendium now. By calling yourself a "skeptic", you hope to avoid controversy, but to be a "skeptic" you have to be able to employ rational and critical thinking. So "skeptic" you are not, whatever you choose to call yourself.

"For my part, I have to apologize if my joint paper with Goran seemed just too positive for your taste. However, we repeatedly have said that psi is not proven: I find some of the experiments persuasive to the degree of making me want to do further research."

I'm aware that you state that PSI has not been proven. But you also state that it is impossible to prove phenomena in empirical science – in any empirical science – so by extinguishing proof as a possibility, you render your statement about proving PSI worthless. What you do consider possible is for research to provide evidence, in the case of your listed studies strong but not compelling. Whatever wordplay you choose, the quality of findings in parapsychology will be compared to the quality of findings in other fields.

It is of course hilarious that you have been persuaded by the experiments you have listed, given that you label yourself a "skeptic". If crap science and almost total lack of methodological stringency has that effect on you, no wonder you produce papers like the one at hand and get offended by criticism.

"If I am fooling myself I want to know and research seems a better way than armchair criticism or concerning myself with what comes over at times as rather fanatical criticism. Therein lies the true difference between us."

Of course you are fooling yourself. But my problem is that you are trying to fool others, by deceit and cover-up. And you are doing it by posing as a scientist.

I appreciate your effort to belittle my argument by calling it "armchair criticism" – it is completely in line with the strategy employed in your paper. But since your paper in itself is a result of "armchair science", it is only appropriate that it is confronted with "armchair criticism". I take it you are not conceited enough to label A Compendium of the Evidence for PSI "experimental research". Besides, it seems that the data of your "armchair research" is outperformed by the data of my "armchair criticism".

"Otherwise, let me admit again: you are right that Wiseman rather Hansen thought of the shoe shiner, but once again I ask: Why is this really so very important to you? The shoe shiner was their most promising counter hypothesis and the rejection of that hypothesis was defended by Wiseman. To that extent I was correct about 'Wiseman's defense' but you are correct my statement should have been more precise and less misleading. Of course we can all come up with other cheating scenarios but none of these easily explain Delmore's very high scores on the RNG. Nevertheless I regarded these experiments as a possible exception to valid evidence."

The matter of the "shoe shiner" is important because you claim that Wiseman has refuted something that Hansen has suggested. That is simply not true. Further more, you claim that the Wiseman paper constitutes a defense of the Delmore tests. It does not, in any respect. It is simply a test of Wiseman's own notion and he emphasizes that Hansen's critique – all of it – is valid. The "shoe shiner" was not their most promising counter hypothesis, not even a joint one – that is something you make up as you go along. I repeat: the "shoe shiner" was Wiseman's own idea, tested by himself.

I have not suggested that your statement should be more precise and less misleading. I am claiming that you are deliberately lying and exploiting a well-respected peer's name to promote crap science.

"Delmore's very high scores" doesn't add up to anything since the Delmore tests were seriously flawed in many ways – something you intentionally neglect to mention in your paper and still don't understand. You have not regarded the Delmore tests as exception to valid evidence – you use the authority of a methodologically superior peer, and the fake position you put him in, to include them. That is just plain nasty.

"I note that you never mention that Hansen has himself even as a skeptic believes that the border between what he regards as a genuine psi and magical skills (with in some cause even the use fraud) is a fleeting one. This I hope we can agree is, at least in this context , a cop out, but at least you see the diversity of opinion even amongst magicians such as Hansen."

I do not offer my agreement to anything you write without proper references.

"But why make so much of this when I said myself these experiments were controversial and a possible exception?"

The principle behind your question is precisely why I make so much of it. You have omitted the final, and vital, part of what you said. I quote: "A possible exception might be the Delmore experiments but as we note below these have been defended by no less a critic than Richard Wiseman." You are in essence stating that since Wiseman has defended the Delmore tests, you include them in your listing. Again: nasty, plain nasty.

"The same is true of the early Targ work which does not figure in my proper list and is mentioned included for historical reasons and then the references to both sides of the controversy were given."

Uhm, now you introduce a "proper list"!? But that wasn't published in EJP and nowhere else for that matter. So I'm sticking to what you actually have published. And in that paper, you list the "early" Targ & Puthoff remote viewing tests as evidence for PSI. I trust that your listing of studies providing evidence doesn't list studies that do not provide evidence.

"I do however thank you for pointing out the insufficiently of our statement that the Schmidt RNG experiments were replicated by himself many times. Despite the apparent safe guards, I agree, it is crucially important that they replicated by others and carried out under the critical eye of skeptics and of the three references that were given, one concerned just such conditions of critical observers."

The Schmidt experiments, as well as the Delmore tests, and the Targ & Puthoff research on remote viewing, does not constitute evidence of any kind, to any degree. Those studies are seriously flawed and any serious researcher with integrity should distance him- or herself from them. You don't.

"You are welcome to publish this in its completeness but I hope you understand I have no further time to spend on such debates. This means that you can of course continue with slander (before doing so you might like to ponder why you have 0 comments to your blog) but I hope you have the good nature not to do so and instead see our areas of common concern. I take note of your criticism and should you choose to use your real name, I suggest that we send a joint note to the EJP acknowledging the above points."

As I suspect that you label any criticism of your "work" slander, I will disregard your remark.

As far as the number of comments on my blog goes, it has only been active since Christmas and I already have the second most renowned parapsychologist in Sweden commenting it. And I have returned the favor by being the only one paying any attention to your paper. But I take it you consider that silence as a token of compliance.

I have no interest in doing anything jointly with you. I have no respect whatsoever for you as a scholar or researcher. Such a venture would at best make you able to forward my real identity to your woo-woo followers, at worst let you feed of my efforts that apparently exceeds your own in stringency by far. So I humbly decline your invitation.To acknowledge the above points in a note to EJP is, again, to belittle what should be done. Anything less than an unreserved retraction is futile.

I will continue my review of this Adrian Parker paper. Stay tuned.

References

Parker, A., & Brusewitz, G., (2003). A Compendium of the Evidence for Psi. European Journal of Parapsychology, 2003, 18, 33-51.

Adrian Parker Replies

2007-01-16T02:30:00.001+01:00

(Download printer friendly PDF of all postings on Adrian Parker's paper in A4 format or US letter format.)

Tonight, I received a comment on my criticism from Adrian Parker. It was sent to my Hotmail, with the stated option to publish it if I so choose. I do. So here is Adrian Parker's reply:

"Thanks for your skeptical notes. I am also a Swedish sceptic so I am thankful for your criticisms, some of which I think are at least in some measure, valid. I do however note a slight tone of animosity which makes you response in danger of loosing all its effect. For my part, I have to apologize if my joint paper with Goran seemed just too positive for your taste. However, we repeatedly have said that psi is not proven: I find some of the experiments persuasive to the degree of making me want to do further research. If I am fooling myself I want to know and research seems a better way than armchair criticism or concerning myself with what comes over at times as rather fanatical criticism. Therein lies the true difference between us. Otherwise, let me admit again: you are right that Wiseman rather Hansen thought of the shoe shiner, but once again I ask: Why is this really so very important to you? The shoe shiner was their most promising counter hypothesis and the rejection of that hypothesis was defended by Wiseman. To that extent I was correct about "Wiseman's defence" but you are correct my statement should have been more precise and less misleading. Of course we can all come up with other cheating scenarios but none of these easily explain Delmore's very high scores on the RNG. Nevertheless I regarded these experiments as a possible exception to valid evidence.

I note that you never mention that Hansen has himself even as a skeptic believes that the border between what he regards as a genuine psi and magical skills (with in some cause even the use fraud) is a fleeting one. This I hope we can agree is, at least in this context , a cop out, but at least you see the diversity of opinion even amongst magicians such as Hansen. But why make so much of this when I said myself these experiments were controversial and a possible exception? The same is true of the early Targ work which does not figure in my proper list and is mentioned included for historical reasons and then the references to both sides of the controversy were given. I do however thank you for pointing out the insufficiently of our statement that the Schmidt RNG experiments were replicated by himself many times. Despite the apparent safe guards, I agree, it is crucially important that they replicated by others and carried out under the critical eye of skeptics and of the three references that were given, one concerned just such conditions of critical observers.

You are welcome to publish this in its completeness but I hope you understand I have no further time to spend on such debates. This means that you can of course continue with slander (before doing so you might like to ponder why you have 0 comments to your blog) but I hope you have the good nature not to do so and instead see our areas of common concern. I take note of your criticism and should you choose to use your real name, I suggest that we send a joint note to the EJP acknowledging the above points." (Adrian Parker, January 16th, 2007)

I will of course respond in my next post. Stay tuned.

Adrian Parker's Fabrication of Reality.Part III: The Schmidt experiments

2007-01-14T18:54:00.001+01:00

(Download printer friendly PDF of all postings on Adrian Parker's paper in A4 format or US letter format.)

So far, I have pointed to the fact that Swedish parapsychologist Adrian Parker (Parker & Brusewitz, 2003) engages in deception and belittling of the criticism raised against the studies he lists as evidence for paranormal phenomena in A Compendium of the Evidence for PSI. In doing this, I have also made it clear that the Bill Delmore tests and the Targ & Puthoff experiments on remote viewing does not constitute evidence of any kind, to any degree – they are only evidence of crap science. It is now time to add yet another feature of Parker's: lack of methodological insight.

In the compendium, Parker writes:

"The RNG experiments by Helmut Schmidt have retained their status and were replicated by him many times." (Parker & Brusewitz, 2003)

Before I disclose the nature of the status the Schmidt experiments have retained, let's consider what methodological status Parker displays.

Now, he has obviously learned that replicability is something that is important in experimental research. But replicability means that the outcome of a study must occur again if the study is replicated by someone else. And here is Parker, senior lecturer at Gothenburg University, rendering credibility to a study that has been replicated by the same researcher over and over again! Parker doesn't have the methodological insight to realize that Schmidt can replicate his own studies for all eternity – they achieve validity only when they are replicated by someone other than Schmidt. How much credibility are we to render a researcher that lacks such fundamental knowledge in methodology?

So, what has Schmidt done and what is the status of his doings? "RNG" means Random Number Generator and is subsequently an instrument that generates random numbers (Journal of Parapsychology, 2003). Schmidt used RNGs to turn on one of several lights. In the precognition tests, the subject pressed a button to predict which light would turn on and in the clairvoyance tests, the light that would be turned on is decided before the subject responds (Hines, 2003).

The criticism of Schmidt's experiments is extensive. Most of Schmidt's studies lack control or control group, immediate feedback is a matter of routine, thorough analysis of data is missing, he works almost isolated from other researchers, except for his 1986 study data is not available to other researchers, the "Modulus 4" generator he used produces an excessive number of 4 compared to 1, 2 and 3 – in several cases it is number 4 that represent the significant result, he totally ignores suggestions on improvement of his methods, he sometimes acts as both experimenter and subject, in order to create a "auspicious environment" he lets subjects have free access to experiment equipment and in some cases subjects have conducted tests on their own without any experimenter present. Alcock concludes:

"My review of this data-base leads me to conclude that there is no evidence in any of these REG studies of any effect which needs explanation by reference to PSI forces. None of the studies as they stand would be accepted for publication in a good psychology research journal, in my view, quite apart from their subject matter. They are all flawed, some terribly so." (Alcock, 1988)

Parker notes that Palmer (1996) has rejected one bias hypothesis, but neglects to mention that Palmer (1997) himself suggests another bias hypothesis a year later.

It is evident that Parker's strategy is to belittle the criticism raised against the studies he lists, in the Schmidt example labeled "Some Well Controlled Proof Oriented Experiments." There is no sufficient control in Schmidt's studies at all! That is the real status the Schmidt experiments have retained.

Further more, in this case it is equally evident that Parker lacks fundamental methodological insight – the Schmidt experiments "were replicated by himself many times"!

Stay tuned: there is more to come in this farcical affair.

Go back to Part II: Targ's & Puthoff's remote viewing experiments

Continue to Part IV: Some Final Notes.

References

Alcock, J., (1988). A Comprehensive Review of Major Empirical Studies in Parapsychology Involving Random Event Generators or Remote Viewing. In Commission on Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education, Enhancing Human Performance: Issues, Theories, and Techniques. Washington: National Academy Press.

Hines, T., (2003). Pseudoscience and the Paranormal. New York: Prometheus.

Journal of Parapsychology, The, (2003). Glossary. Journal of Parapsychology, The, Fall.

Palmer, J. (1996) Evaluation of a conventional interpretation of Helmut Schmidt’s automated precognitive experiments. Journal of Parapsychology, The, June.

Palmer, J. (1997) Hit-contingent response bias in Helmut Schmidt‘s automated prekognition experiments. Journal of Parapsychology, The, June.

Parker, A., & Brusewitz, G., (2003). A Compendium of the Evidence for Psi. European Journal of Parapsychology, 2003, 18, 33-51.

Adrian Parker's Fabrication of Reality.Part II: Targ's & Puthoff's remote viewing experiments

2007-01-13T21:05:00.001+01:00

(Download printer friendly PDF of all postings on Adrian Parker's paper in A4 format or US letter format.)

In Part I, I showed that parapsychologist Adrian Parker engages in deliberate deception concerning the Delmore tests when he distorts the writings of his peers in order to turn seriously flawed research into "evidence" of paranormal phenomena. Let's continue with another post in Parker's (2003) compendium: Targ's & Puthoff's research on people claiming to be able to close their eyes and "see" distant places.

Remote viewing was launched in the 1970's mainly by physicists Russell Targ and Harold Puthoff at the Stanford Research Institute (no in any way associated with Stanford University). Targ and Puthoff claimed that remote viewing could be performed by anyone and that the very positive results of their research were replicable. In a remote viewing test procedure, someone (X) goes away to a location ("target") not possible to reach by ordinary sensory perception. Another person remains in the laboratory with the test subject. At a chosen time, the impression the test subject gets of the target is recorded. Usually the subject also produces sketches of the impressions he or she gets. A third person, a judge, then brings the subject's recorded impressions and/or sketch to the target and validates how well it corresponds with the location. Ordinarily, several targets are tested in one trial so that recordings and/or sketches can not be matched by other means than the impressions. If you omit the "secret intelligence" terminology used, remote viewing seems to be some sort of telepathy – the impressions X get of the location is somehow transferred to the subject (Nickell, 1992). In more imaginative anecdotes, remote viewers claim to be able to "see" every where, at any time and without anyone being at the target location.

In Parker's listing, the Targ & Puthoff remote viewing research is presented like this:

"The first series of remote viewing experiments by Russel Targ and Hal Puthoff produced a controversy in Nature as to wether references relating to the previous targets, occasionally present in protocols from sessions, could give cues to the judges and thereby explain the successes. Removal of these references by their colleague Charles Tart apparently made little or no different to scoring levels but Marks and Scott insisted there were still some cues." (Parker & Brusewitz, 2003)

From this, you get the impression that the critique raised against Targ's & Puthoff's research was refuted when Tart allegedly showed that the suggested flaws were superficial, but that the critics out of stubbornness maintained that there still was flaws. Was that really the case?

The Targ and Puthoff experiments were part of the government funded research at Stanford Research Institute (SRI) from the beginning of the 1970's until 1992, when the project was transferred to the Science Applications International Corporation (Wiseman, 1998). The tests Parker refers to where conducted during the first decade with alleged high scoring subjects like Pat Price and Hella Hamid. Some of them had been recruited from the Scientology Church, due to the fact that Puthoff at the time were a member of the sect (Alcock, 1998). Targ & Puthoff claimed that they had done hundreds of experiments and most of them had been successful. Some of the subjects performed amazingly well and one of them could even perform precognition by describing the targets, not only before they were visited, but before they were even chosen (Hines, 2003).

The SRI tests followed the standard design; when the subject reported his or her impressions, the recordings were handed to independent judges who then visited the target locations and validated the accuracy. Extrasensory perception was indicated when the judge were able to clearly link an assertion to a target location (Hines, 2003).

Impressed by Targ's & Puthoff's results, David Marks and Richard Kammann tried to replicate the tests with five subjects but failed to find scores beyond chance. Marks & Kammann had found it necessary to edit out information that could have provided the judges with cues to which targets had been visited, while Targ & Puthoff had reported that the subject records had been handed to the judges unedited. This means that if the judges in the Targ & Puthoff trials received transcripts with cues regarding the order in which the recordings had been made and, in addition, a non-randomized list of target locations, they could easily have matched the impressions with the targets, even if they were not consciously aware of the cues' significance.

Targ & Puthoff had reported that all transcripts were handed to the judges in random order, but when Marks visited SRI, one of the judges, Arthur Hastings, told him that the transcripts had been delivered in the order the targets had been visited during the tests. When Marks was able to read the transcripts from the trials with Price, he discovered a multitude of cues clearly indicating the order of the transcripts – for instance, in the third target transcript, reference was made to "yesterday's two targets". When Marks & Kammann conducted additional tests with the method used by Targ & Puthoff, five transcripts were perfectly matched to five targets (Alcock, 1998).

So what did Tart do? According to Parker, he conducted re-tests but omitted the cues and was still able to replicate Targ's & Puthoff's results. The problem is that no one was actually able to verify this – Targ & Puthoff refused to submit data until July 1985 and Tart had in part used material already public and even published (Hines, 2003).

But the question of cues in the transcripts is only one of several charges brought against the Targ & Puthoff remote viewing research. Alcock (1998) suggests four other serious flaws.

First, the tests were not conducted independently of each other. For instance, the subjects were taken to the target locations and received immediate feedback after each impression had been recorded. Thus, subsequent statements were not independent of prior targets. Hastings had also told that different subjects tended to focus on different factors. One was focused on architectural and topographical factors, while another focused on X's behavior. In addition, the subjects' names were noted in the header of the transcripts, which might have helped the judges.

Second, when analyzing the Hammid tests, Marks and Kammann found that sketches were missing for three out of six tests. They also found references to additional tests with Hammid that had not been accounted for by Targ & Puthoff. In the so called Technology tests, they found that anything from one to five tests with five subjects was reported. Why had Targ & Puthoff reported only on one of five tests with three of the subjects, four out of five with a fourth and all five with Hammid? Sketches were also missing from the records of these tests.

Third, there was no control or control groups, and thus no reference or relation to lack of remote viewing occurrence. A subject might for example have been asked to make two statements, one for a real target and one for a fictitious – without revealing to the subject that one of the targets did not exist. The judges would then have had to evaluate the "fake" statements too, resulting in a much more reliable notion of whether something paranormal really had occurred. There were also indications that the tests and the data analysis was subject to considerable sloppiness.

Last, but not least, the evaluations were completely subjective and Marks and Kammann noticed, during their own tests, that both X and the judge could feel very strongly for a correlation between subject and target, a correlation that de facto did not exist.

The best summary of the Targ & Puthoff remote viewing tests is perhaps Alcock's own words:

"Given these various criticisms, there should remain little doubt that the Targ-Puthoff studies are fatally flawed, and that rather than trying to save something from them by arguing whether or not a given flaw pertains to a given subset of trials, remote viewing proponents should instead design and run a proper, well-controlled experiment with an appropriate control group." (Alcock, 1988)

What is evident in the Parker compendium, is the fact that he again belittles the rather massive criticism raised against a study he lists as giving evidence for PSI. And again he claims that the fragment of criticism he do mention, has been refuted. What is compelling regarding the Targ & Puthoff research is that it so obviously constitutes "crank science". They refuse to submit data when requested – as they did in their Uri Geller "tests" too. All their research, not just the remote viewing experiments, shows fundamental methodological flaws. They have rightfully been called the Laurel & Hardy of parapsychology (Randi, 1982). But what do you call a scientist that refers to those clowns' activities as "evidence for PSI"? I don't know if Parker's merits stretches beyond psychology but any serious scientist engaging in experimental research should be able to recognize crap science when confronted with it. Targ's & Puthoff's "research" is without doubt utter crap but Parker doesn't want to see it. What does that make Parker?

I will comment on Parker's listing of the Schmidt experiments in my next blog. Stay tuned.

Go back to Part I: The Delmore Tests

Continue to Part III: The Schmidt experiments

References

Alcock, J., (1988). A Comprehensive Review of Major Empirical Studies in Parapsychology Involving Random Event Generators or Remote Viewing. In Commission on Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education, Enhancing Human Performance: Issues, Theories, and Techniques. Washington: National Academy Press.

Hines, T., (2003). Pseudoscience and the Paranormal. New York: Prometheus.

Nickell, J., (1992). Missing Pieces. How to Investigate Ghosts, UFOs, Psychics, & Other Mysteries. New York: Prometheus.

Parker, A., & Brusewitz, G., (2003). A Compendium of the Evidence for Psi. European Journal of Parapsychology, 18, 33–51.

Randi, J., (1982)., Flim-Flam. Psychics, ESP, Unicorns and Other Delusions. New York: Prometheus.

Wiseman, R., (1998). Experiment One of the SAIC remote viewing program: a critical re-evaluation – Sience Application International Corporation. Journal of Parapsychology, The, December.

Adrian Parker's Fabrication of Reality.Part I: The Delmore Tests

2007-01-13T04:14:00.001+01:00

(Download printer friendly PDF of all postings on Adrian Parker's paper in A4 format or US letter format.)

When the Parapsychological Association held its nineteenth annual convention in Utrecht in 1976, hosting professor Martin Johnson decided to treat the assembled scholars and researchers to some educational entertainment. This was in the days before Uri Geller became the most debunked psychic in history and the sort of tricks he performed was still on every parapsychologist's lips. So Martin Johnson invited magician/journalist Ulf Mörling, a.k.a. "El Globo", to demonstrate how alleged paranormal phenomena could be created through magic tricks. The intention was explicit and announced – Mörling was introduced as a magician, not as a psychic.

After successful demonstrations of precognition and metal bending, Mörling performed a telepathy experiment – in essence a variation of the old "draw-something-on-a-paper-and-put-it-in-an-envelope" trick. This also turned out successful but what happened next is truly astonishing (my translation):

"At least ten of the parapsychologists in the audience, some of them having recently earned fame for field studies, expressed their conviction that Mörling really was a genuine "psychic" without knowing it, something that was suggested to be "a parapsychologist's worst nightmare." One of those who most persistently argued that Mörling is a psychic without knowing it, was the same Ed Cox who had accounted for Uri Geller's wonders with a manipulated watch in The Journal of Parapsychology!" (Johnson, 1982, p. 115–117)

In retrospect, such an absurd gullibility and thirst for wonder seems almost sweet and innocent. Uri Geller was thoroughly debunked by Marks & Kammann in 1980 (Marks, 2000) and Randi in 1982 (Randi, 1982), and a multitude of further embarrassing exposures later, no serious researcher will lend any credibility to the Israeli Jesus-wannabe, or to others performing the same kind of carnival tricks he did (and still does).

Randi followed up his Geller exposé with a direct blow to the parapsychological community when he sent two young magicians posing as psychics to the McDonell Laboratory for Psychical Research at Washington University in St. Louis. The magicians, Steve Shaw and Michael Edwards, easily convinced the staff that they were the real thing and they were tested for a period of three years, without anyone even suspecting them of cheating. Prior to the tests, Randi had contacted the director, physics professor Dr. Peter Phillips, and offered to help with controls and protection against fraud and trickery. Phillips rejected Randi's offer. Videotapes from the experiments clearly showed that Shaw and Edwards were cheating, if you looked carefully. But no one at the McDonell lab had the inclination to look carefully. (Hines, 2003, p. 132–133)

When Randi finally revealed the ploy, the parapsychological community was taught a lesson that should be a textbook example in every science methodology and social psychology class. Since then, serious researchers have turned their interest to testing "normal" people rather than flamboyant gold-diggers and attention-addicts. Too bad so few have the spine to give Randi credit for this true progress in a controversial field of science. But enough about what serious parapsychologists have done, let's review what the less serious are up to.

Next to professor Etzel Cardeña at Lund University, Briton Adrian Parker is perhaps Sweden's most renowned parapsychologist. Besides holding a position as senior lecturer in Psychology at Gothenburg University, Parker is also a former board member of the Parapsychological Association and one of three researchers currently listed on the board of the Swedish Society for Parapsychological Research (SSPR). Parker's areas of interest are consciousness and PSI, although the latter seems to be his main preference. Together with the Psychology Department at Stockholm University and the Freiburg Institute, his Gothenburg group is developing an improved Ganzfeld technique. If you're not familiar with the term, Ganzfeld experiments are, according to its proponents, the best way to test individuals for extra-sensory perception.

In 2003, Parker, along with the SSPR chairman Göran Brusewitz, published A Compendium of the Evidence for PSI in the European Journal of Parapsychology (Parker & Brusewitz, 2003). The writers offer a list of studies they claim to provide evidence of paranormal phenomena. But not compelling evidence they point out: "the list is not intended to convince the reader that psi has been proven." In fact, they suggest that it is impossible to prove phenomena in empirical science. Thus it is futile to search for such compelling evidence. Instead, the intent is to collect studies that justify research aimed at understanding paranormal phenomena. Most studies in the compilation are still quoted as providing strong evidence today, according to Parker & Brusewitz, but not compelling. Oh, and there are proof-oriented studies listed, and experimental evidence, just not compelling.

What are Parker & Brusewitz really saying? Where exactly on a "proof" or "evidence" scale are these studies to be placed and does that position mean that paranormal phenomena exist or not? Do paranormal phenomena almost exist? What is the difference between strong evidence (which the writers suggest the listed studies provide) and compelling evidence (which the studies don't provide)? And how does the difference relate to the possible existence of paranormal phenomena? The writers give no answer.

I have tried to find references to this semantic orgy in methodology and science philosophy literature. Nothing, but that might only reflect the poor state of my library. Then I consulted the Cobuild English Dictionary for Advanced Learners, 2001, third edition, pp. 528, 1229:

1. Evidence is anything that you see, experience, read, or are told that causes you to believe that something is true or has really happened.

1. Proof is a fact, argument, or piece of evidence that shows that something definitely true or definitely exists.

Again, there might be scientific definitions that differ from these – a privilege of science is freedom of definition, i.e. freedom to define anything as you please, as long as you motivate and explain your definition, and use it in the same sense within the frame of your research. Parker & Brusewitz apparently don't think it's necessary to explain their definitions, and they toss them around in different variations without demarcation. Perhaps they hope that no one will question their terminology as long as they use it with ease. Or they might be caught up in a relativistic or postmodern frame of mind: what they write is true for them, in their context. Unfortunately, they have made a scientific claim and seek scientific acceptance.

In the dictionary definition, evidence pertains to belief and proof to knowledge. In that respect, I willingly submit to the notion that the Parker & Brusewitz compilation provides evidence, i.e. the studies may cause someone to believe that paranormal phenomena exists. But we don't need science for that. Many people just need to see something fuzzy in the corner of their eye to believe in ghosts. Others believe in paranormal phenomena because their neighbor said he saw a flying saucer. Science is applied when we want to verify that those beliefs are founded in real phenomena, not "seen", "experienced", "told", or "read about" phenomena. Science is applied when we want to know, when we want proof. That is what separates science from nonsense and knowledge from belief.

I suggest that a word-game such as the one displayed by Parker & Brusewitz, or anyone else, has one single purpose: to make nonsense appear as knowledge. That is to say, to give invalid claims the same status as valid ones. Note that they state that proof is impossible in empiric science. That means that nothing we do know for certain about this world can be regarded as proven. So the search for proof is futile, not only in parapsychology, but in any field of science. By denying empirical findings a higher status (or a "better" term) than mere suggestions, hunches or agreements, Parker & Brusewitz hope to narrow the gap between phenomena we know exist and phenomena they want to exist. Thus, they seek to promote a science that is unable to produce verifiable findings by degrading sciences that are able.

Let's see this modus operandi, and some even more disgusting behavior, at work by looking into some of the studies in the compendium. In the following, I will address only Parker since I am assuming that Brusewitz is only decoration – people who don't know that the SSPR is a rather sad group of gullible Gellerites and UFO fetishists might be impressed by the name of its chairman. I'm not. And when I commented on this paper on a Swedish internet forum, only Parker came forward to defend it (although he did not actually defend it – instead, he suggested that we should discuss other things, he complained about not getting the Lund University parapsychology chair and he dropped a lot of names in the field of parapsychology, allegedly his friends.)

The Bill Delmore Experiments

"A possible exception [from studies providing strong evidence] might be the Delmore experiments but as we note below these have been defended by no less critic than Richard Wiseman. /... / Parapsychologist and illusionist George Hansen was of the opinion that Delmore's success could be explained in this way [card skills] while parapsychologist and illusionist Richard Wiseman concluded after practical experimentation that the proposed method could not have been used." (Parker & Brusewitz, 2003)

Please note what Parker is doing here. He is presenting a study that may not qualify as providing strong evidence but claims that Richard Wiseman has defended it. So his reason for having the Delmore tests on the list is that they were defended by Wiseman, a much respected skeptic. Parker even elaborates on this and claims that the critique from one parapsychologist and illusionist has been refuted by another parapsychologist and illusionist through experimentation – it is obvious that Parker is seeking rhetorical points by this repetition of titles. 1-1=0.

So what is it Wiseman has tested? In the paper referred to by Parker, Wiseman (1995) reports on how he tested his own notion on the possibility of Delmore having used a "foot shiner". Writes Wiseman:

"While discussing the Delmore case, it occurred to me that the test conditions might not have prevented Delmore from using a "shiner" attached to his foot." (Wiseman, 1995)

From this, we can state that Wiseman did not test any idea proposed by Hansen. Further more, according to Parker, Hansen suggested "card skills" as an explanation for Delmore's test results. A "shiner" is a small mirror attached to the foot, it has nothing to do with "card skills". So not even in the context of Parker's own fabrication does it make sense. But has Wiseman defended the Delmore tests in any way? I asked Wiseman in an e-mail and got this reply:

"You are correct. I only experimented with that one idea and Hansen's other (and many) criticisms of the tests are valid." (Wiseman, 2006)

So Wiseman hasn't defended the Delmore tests at all, and in fact agrees with Hansen's critique. And when I corresponded with Hansen (2006) on the matter of Parker's paper, he commented on the fact that Parker do indeed make it sound as if Hansen has proposed the "shiner" while this is not the case. So Parker is making claims not only contradicted by himself in the previous text, but also by his own reference – Wiseman's paper on the "shiner" test, and by Wiseman himself, corroborated by Hansen. A benevolent conclusion would be that Parker has pulled an "Ed Cox" – contrary to facts, he persists in promoting his own fantasy. A more probable conclusion is that Parker is engaging in deliberate deceit.

Hansen's (1992) critique of the Delmore tests goes far beyond a suggestion of "card skills" (link to Hansen article). Parker knows this, but tries to trivialize it. He also minimizes Delmore's capacity as a conjurer to him having "some, albeit apparently elementary, card skills" -- thus displaying a fundamental ignorance of the time and practice necessary to execute the sort of sleight-of-hand techniques that Delmore bragged about and performed publicly.

The Delmore tests have no place on a list of studies providing evidence for PSI – whatever criteria for evidence you chose. But what is worse is that Parker, an alleged scientist, deliberately distorts verifiable sources, in this case using the authority of one of his more renown and respected peers in a deceitful way. As I will show in the next blog, this is not an isolated incident, but a systematic way of fabricating reality that underlines the entire paper.

Continue to Part II: Targ's & Puthoff's remote viewing experiments

References

Hansen, G. P., (1992) The Research With B.D. and the Legacy of Magical Ignorance. Journal of Parapsychology, 56, December.

Hansen, G.P., (Hansen's e-mail address). (2006, april, 20). Correspondence concerning the Parker & Brusewitz (2003) article. E-mail to recipient.

Hines, T., (2003). Pseudoscience and the Paranormal. New York: Prometheus.

Johnson, M., (1980). Parapsykologi. Försök till forskning i upplevandets och kunskapens gränsmarker. Göteborg: Zindermans. Note: To my knowledge, Johnson's book has not been translated to English. But his comments on the 1976 convention can also be found in Johnson, M., (1976). Some reflections after the P A Conference. European Journal of Parapsychology, Vol. 1, 3, 2–5.

Marks, D., (2000). The Psychology of the Psychic. New York: Prometheus.

Parker, A., & Brusewitz, G., (2003). A Compendium of the Evidence for Psi. European Journal of Parapsychology, 18, p. 33-51.

Randi, J., (1982). The Truth About Uri Geller. New York: Prometheus.

Wiseman, R., (1995). Testing the notion that a "foot shiner" could have been used during the Delmore experiment. Journal of Parapsychology, The, March.

Wiseman, R., (Wiseman's e-mail address). (2006, mars, 23). Answer to question regarding Wiseman's test of a "shiner" and its relation to Hansen's critique of the Delmore tests. E-mail to the recipient. (garvarn@hotmail.com)

Psychic rapist sentenced to five years

2007-01-06T13:41:00.002+01:00

Mervyn Johnson a.k.a. Mervyn Wright, president of the International Spiritualist Foundation, ISF, was sentenced by the Karlstad district-court to five years imprisonment and payment of damages in the amount of 472,000 Swedish kronor (almost 70,000 USD) to his victims. The 60-year old alleged psychic and healer was convicted of raping a 14-year old girl, and sexual molestation or misconduct concerning six other women. The trial was held behind locked doors so no details are available, but interviews prior to the court proceedings revealed that Johnson had incorporated some very explicit sexual touching into his healing sessions. One of the victims gives an account of his routine in the local newspaper, Nya Wermlands-Tidningen (9th November, 2006):

- We were divided into groups in order to "heal" each other, she says.
It was more touching than holding the hands above the body. And the healer?
- Well, he walked around, drinking tea and smoking, the girl recollects.
With a perfume producing a scent that sticks...
Then he chooses a group with "extra fine energies" and brings it into another room. He lies down on the bunk in order to feel the energies from the others. Suddenly he takes the 14-year old girl into yet another room, to give her a massage: "Take off your clothes." The girl is terrified but trusts her leader. The healer goes into trance. What happens next makes her cry to this day.

This sordid "healing" took place within the Swedish spiritual society "The Ocean", based in Västerås and attracting followers from several towns in the region. The girl decided to tell another member of the society, a woman she trusted, about the incident. Word got around to the female group leader, who called the girl on the phone and told her: "it's not what you think, it's part of the massage." Although the girl never set foot in Johnson's spiritual chambers again, she received several calls from the women of her group, all telling her that everything was in order.

Johnson claims to be a so called "trance healer". When going into trance, his body becomes the tool of a spirit, in this case "Dr Lu", a Chinese doctor. One of his devoted followers explains: "it sounds crazy, [she says,] but every man has an electro magnetic field, an aura. When the healer lets 'Dr Lu' enter your nervous system and work through it, he can see where the problems in the energy flow are." When asked about "Dr Lu" entering other parts of the body, the same woman says that she has heard women telling her that Johnson pawed them. But, "It only appears that way. He is so incredibly sensitive and compassionate."

One would imagine that a society with predominantly female members would turn their back on a suspected rapist or molester. Not so. In fact, when the victims persisted in their allegations and charges finally were brought against Johnson, The Ocean society was split in two and well over 200 members joined Johnson when he formed a new society. "We know he's not like that," as one of them comments in Nya Wermlands-Tidningen (7th November, 2006). A separate police investigation is looking into the threatening letters some of Johnson's victims has received, notifying them that "we know where you live", "we're watching you", etc.

Johnson's international commitment in the ISF, however, seems to have come to an end – he has been replaced by "acting president" Garth Willey on their website. He is still noted as the society's ambassador to Sweden, though. If this means that Johnson is persona non grata in the ISF and they have forgotten to omit him from the ambassador listing, or that he is still in the society's favor but they have found it appropriate to "degrade" him while he is serving time, only the ISF officials knows.

Reason and critical thinking exits the human mind when superstition enters. But what the Mervyn Johnson case also illustrates is that ethics and legislation are subordinate to doctrines of superstition in the minds of believers. The young girl did what every rape or molestation victim should do: she told what had happened. But the women she thought she could confide in turned their backs on her in favor of the rapist. They even launched a small campaign to convince the girl that what she had experienced never happened, a campaign that went on for almost a year – a time during which the perpetrator was able to continue his "healing". In this clash between the conduct of a guru and the law, the devoted follower's position is eloquently expressed in a 7th November NWT interview: "The law wasn't designed with this in mind." In other words, there's nothing wrong with what Johnson did, it's the law that's at fault. It is the same principle that makes people like Jim Jones and David Koresh possible, and the Johnson case shows that it doesn't need the social isolation of an extreme cult to be induced in the mind of the believer.

In the aftermath of Johnson's arrest, New Age proponents discussing the case on internet fora and boards were reluctant to put any blame on him. Instead, they questioned how parents could leave their children alone with him. According to this argument, the blame is really on the victim's parents. This is of course a variation of the same bias: the psychic is never wrong. But it is also a display of two important psychological phenomena. The first, hindsight bias, is the tendency to exaggerate one's ability to have foreseen how something turned out, after learning the outcome. In this context, the argument suggests that the commentators would never had let their children alone with Johnson like the victim's parents did. Gobbledygook. The complete devotion these same commentators show regarding other renowned psychics indicates that they would gladly submit their children to the care of the particular psychics they favor, simply because the semi-gods they trust would never do the terrible things Johnson did. That's where the second, self-serving bias, kicks in. We perceive our own judgment more favorably than it is. We also see ourselves as better, more ethical, more competent, friendlier, more intelligent and less prejudiced than the average person. But would a person that is willing to pay a psychic several thousand Swedish kroner for a "mediumship training course" really hesitate to leave her 14-year old alone for half an hour with that same psychic? If the alleged aim is to boost her child's "spiritual development?"

Judging by the statement by one of Johnson's followers quoted above, reports on his behavior was conveyed by other women in the society too. The seven plaintiffs in the trial are probably just the tip of the iceberg. How many women are too afraid or ashamed to tell, how many have been convinced by their fellow society members that what they experienced was an illusion, and how many have decided that the loss of the social bond with the society is too high a price to pay for telling the truth? And how many women actually enjoyed the sexual encounter with their spiritual leader or took it for a token of being the chosen one, and just waits for their next session with "The Enlighted One?" No one knows.

In closing, consider the fact that personal experience is the prime source of knowledge for New Age believers. Evidence, proof, facts and corroboration amounts to nothing when it comes to supernatural phenomena -- personal experience rules. But what happens when a young woman experiences that her spiritual leader is groping her genitals? Suddenly, experience is out the door -- "it only appears that way." Go figure...

Is the Small Fry a Big Fish?

2007-01-05T15:26:00.001+01:00

Note: This article was originally published on the BadPsychics website, under the name "Anne O. Nymous", along with a full transcript of the seance in question. The transcript is available at Double Exposure: Part 1 and Part 2.

(Download printer friendly PDF of this posting in A4 format or US letter format.)

It's hard to be objective when you like somebody, and I must confess I like Colin Fry. Being used to psychics looking like thugs, Fry is a fresh addition to the Swedish paranormal scene. And judging by his upcoming tour schedule, the new website, http://www.colinscollege.com/, it is apparent that Fry is in the process of increasing his share of the Swedish market of fantasy-prones. Although you might not consider it a loss in the UK, it is definitely a gain here in Sweden. Take my word for it, should you meet one of our domestic psychics, including Terry Evans, late one night, you would, without a doubt, choose to walk on the other side of the street.

Colin Fry is charming, eloquent, probably intelligent and very entertaining. He also dresses sharply, although his accentuation of some of his preferences may be disturbing to the older segments of the Swedish woo-woo audience. Personally, I think it adds a bit of glamour to a community that tends to be a bit too grey and too dull on the client side and a veritable bad-taste party on the supply side -- Fry's approach is a breath of fresh air in comparison. In fact, I could easily imagine him working in mid-level management or at some sales and marketing division in one of our global corporations. And although his preferences are not to my taste, meeting him late at night would include drinks and laughter instead of running for my life, as would be the case with the rest of the psychic lot in Sweden.

But Fry does not have a corporate career, he claims that he talks to dead people and makes the most out of it; it is evident that Fry is in it for the money and that he knows how to turn his claims into good business - the new http://www.colinscollege.com/ website has a distinctly commercial touch and features online course bookings and payment via PayPal. The "school" that has formed around another British psychic in Sweden, Mrs. Iris Hall, will have to face cut-throat competition from this hard-core spiritualist operating from the spiritual "college" of Ramsbergsgarden. He's charming, professional and has a background that can be checked and verified - qualities other Swedish psychics would kill for. And a union with the Hall school, formal or informal, is very unlikely - I very much doubt that Fry would mingle with the Hall school riff-raff.

As for the core of Fry's business, I would like to start with a bit of sincere advice to Fry - in case he reads this - before I commence with the experience of a live Fry séance.

Mr. Fry, if you are going to hold a séance, or any form of public demonstration, in Sweden, it is a must to have an interpreter who is able to put forward what you say to the audience. Thus, an interpreter should have a solid understanding of, and respect for, your language, English, and a solid knowledge of, and respect for, the language of your audience, in this case Swedish. It is especially important for a man like yourself, who, I imagine, takes great pride in being able to communicate with people of all types and of all ages. Unfortunately, Ms. or Mrs. Jane Lyzell's interpretation of you is degrading your efforts and is an insult to the audience. I don't care how valuable she is to your organization - on stage, she is a disaster. And I do not wish to be rude, I just want to state a fact.

Lyzell made so many errors, minor and major, during 90 minutes, that if the fact that the audience on several occasions had to correct her doesn't tell you something, her distortion of your words should. She made "arms crossed" come out as "arms crushed", "gold bars" come out as "gold logs", "pencil" come out as "paintbrush", etc., etc. She converted an aunt to a sister - I have kept this passage in the transcript. She also has the bad habit of trying to explain what you are saying, and in doing so, distorting the meaning of your words. That is not interpreting, that is to mess things up. If you want people to pay for your words, at least let them have your words. You started off the séance by telling me, and the rest of the audience: "For God's sake, smile!" I don't think you requested a spiteful smile, so my answer is: For God's sake, give her the boot!

Now, for those of you who are accustomed to the Sixth Sense series, a live séance with Colin Fry might be a bit disappointing. There are no amazing revelations, no on-the-spot messages or any statements indicating that Fry actually communicates with dead people. It's just the old standard cold reading techniques and perhaps even some hot reading, but above all, a hit and miss ratio that is far from what is being broadcast in the UK. If Fry is to get some credit, it is for his creativity in stock spiel and the confidence with which he handles the audience. And one must remember that Sixth Sense is a carefully orchestrated show with an audience that must book tickets, with names, and - according to some sources - also give an account of why they want to be on the Sixth Sense show. What is finally broadcast is, of course, edited in order to secure a "Wow!" reaction from the viewers. Nothing, absolutely nothing, can be said about Fry's "psychic powers" based on the TV show.

A live séance is a horse of a different colour. Well, you were recommended to book tickets in advance but I did as always, I just showed up. No problem, since it's about money and they want to fill up the hall. At first, I was happy to note that Colin Fry didn't mingle around in the ante-room before the show. But moments later, I noticed a chap sitting on a chair in a corner, alone, without outdoor clothes (everybody else brought theirs into the auditorium), watching everybody and typing stuff on his cell phone. He didn't speak to anybody, he was obviously not part of the coffee stand crew and he was a bit too interested in the people in the room to be typing at the same time. But, as I saw no signs of hot reading later during the show - except when he asked a lady if she had fallen on her right hip (the guy in the ante-room could easily have spotted a limp or her cane), I have decided to give Mr. Fry the benefit of the doubt on this one. If you're thinking of attending a live Fry séance, I suggest you keep your eyes open for this chap, just in case...

Once in my seat, I notice that one of Sweden's most renowned mediums, Mr. Jorgen "Cry Baby" Gustafsson, is in the audience, just a couple of rows in front of me. Since Gustafsson is a disciple of Mrs. Hall, I suppose that she decided to send one of her henchmen to check out the competition. The woman next to him will play a part in the séance later, but for now, the couple sitting in front of her and Gustafsson is more interesting, because before the show, Fry himself suddenly appears and advances to their seats in the middle of the hall. Apparently, they are good friends and I note that their conversation is carefree and hearty. Will Fry be cheeky enough to make use of his friends during the séance?

After the obligatory introduction, Fry starts off by telling the audience to smile, not to keep their arms crossed and to think of somebody else, thus eliminating selfishness which has a negative effect on "the energies" or something like it. Then he asks us to make sure that our cell phones are switched off, so he doesn't get interfering messages from babysitters. Fry's execution of this warm-up is excellent and it immediately sets the audience in a comfortable mood. Did I forget something? Oh, remember the checklist I have in my mind when I attend mediumistic demonstrations? It goes like this:

1. The medium gives accurate, detailed and personal information, pertaining only to the addressed individual.

2. The medium gives information that he or she couldn't have known beforehand by any means.

3. The medium does not engage in stock spiels, i.e. general statements that will apply to almost everyone, or any other cold reading technique as described by sceptics.

4. The medium does not seek the participation of the audience in order to convey any messages.

I have based these criteria on the assurances always supplied by "believers" when discussing personal experiences of psychic mediums. These are the points always put forward to let me know how to recognize a "genuine psychic". And what I forgot to mention about Fry is that in the end of his requirement list, he added:

"Now, it's very, very important, that when we do make a connection, you must talk to me. I always say that as a medium I'm like a telephone switchboard for the spirit world. I ring out for them. And if nobody responds or replies, they disconnect or they're disconnected. OK?"

So, I guess that takes care of number four. Fry explicitly asks the audience for their participation in order to be able to convey messages. Whatever Fry says, he needs the audience to tell him whether it has any significance or not. It also means that Fry is able to adapt to whatever the audience tells him. This is essential in cold reading and it does not match what the "believers" claim is the sign of a genuine psychic.

Fry's first contact is with a woman that never lived in Sweden, something he finds "very strange". Now, since the 60s, Sweden has been flooded by immigrants from different parts of the world, seeking work or refuge. My grandfather or my grandmother never lived in Sweden, nor did my husband's - we are both regarded as second generation immigrants. In an audience of 120-130 people, it would be very strange if Fry didn't find at least ten or more people who would "recognize" such a woman. So his bewilderment with this is obviously an act. His additional aspects of this woman - he sees "bright colours", doesn't narrow the selection much but he is observant enough to note that a woman in a purple scarf is whispering to her companion. But Fry's statement is far from enough for the woman, and she needs more information. Fry tries to deliver:

"What I'm going to ask you to do is, it's very important, that you don't tell me anymore than I need to know. Let me tell you what it is that, you know, that I'm feeling, alright? I get the feeling from this lady that in, uhm... her life, that she had either damaged her hands in some way or that, uhm... later in life her hands were very deformed. Does this make sense to you?"

Now, this is beginning to be more specific information and he also manages to put forward the standard phrase used by all mediums; they ask you to not tell them more than they need to know. Think about that for a moment. Why does Fry or any medium need to know anything to convey messages from alleged spirits? Would they need to know anything if they really were actually communicating with dead people?

OK, back to the séance. Fry is beginning to close in on the purple scarf woman - does the spirit having deformed hands make sense to her? Nope. So he tries a variation; does the purple scarf woman know of arthritis? Yes, she has it herself. Now remember that Fry just asked if she knows of the condition arthritis - it is the purple scarf woman that gives personal meaning to his general question. Fry adapts to it and says the spirit is empathising with her because the spirit had bad arthritis in her hands towards the end of her earthly life. Cunningly executed cold reading.

Moving on, Fry makes a thing of the spirit constantly struggling for money during her life. This, of course, applies to a vast majority of most people today and more so in previous generations. Thus a general statement that applies to almost everyone. It's also called stock spiel.

He gets no feedback when trying to put forth an alleged love for pineapple so he tries another path by asking why Brazil is important - something he immediately expands to the whole of South America when the purple scarf woman fails to react upon it. After some confusion when Fry thinks this is pertaining to some other people, the woman tells us that it is she who has been planning to go to Argentina. Remember that the woman told us that, Fry asked about Brazil and when that didn't work he tried South America. Standard cold reading technique.

When the woman asks Fry if the spirit thinks that she should stay home, since according to Fry it appears to be concerned about her going, he evades it with a general phrase about free will and then quickly jumps to a completely different subject; does the purple scarf woman understand about the spirit wanting her to be cautious about a matter concerning 48,000 Swedish kroner? The woman doesn't answer; she obviously doesn't know what he is talking about.

So he quickly jumps to the next subject; would she be able to understand that the gentleman who the spirit is trying to "enable" had bowel cancer? Nope, it doesn't ring any bells. And Fry decides to let go of this "sitter".

The next is a bit tricky. Fry crosses the stage and zooms in on two men to the far left. He is still on about bowel cancer and he now comes up with the name "Erik". Now, the couple that are personal friends of his are sitting very close to these gentlemen and this makes me wonder if the two men are just a diversion. Because it doesn't take long before Fry's personal friend declares that he recognizes bowel cancer and Erik. Would Fry be so blunt that he would use his friends to brush up the terrible hit ratio he got with the purple scarf woman? He does admit that it's a pain to get messages for people he knows. Nevertheless, he continues and what do you think happens?

First, he scores with some stock spiel about his friend doing things that the dead man did not have the courage to do. Then he scores with the man having played guitar and recently picked it up again - which isn't that odd behaviour for anyone who has played some sort of instrument, but still. Then he scores regarding a cheque or a bank slip, half-scores about the man being afraid that he's turning deaf and finally scores about a sign being showed to the couple on their boating holiday.

All scores - amazing! These people are Fry's personal friends and he now seems to have regained what he accomplishes on Sixth Sense. Let's continue to see if he keeps it up.

Don't mess with a missionary man. Well, Fry ignores Lennox and comes up with something that has never happened to him before and which he claims is very strange; he asks the 120-130 people in the audience if anyone would understand if they had a grandfather who did missionary work. If not, he would easily have converted this to a grandfather that did some charitable work of any kind, but Lonely man actually had a grandfather who was a missionary. Remember; Fry asked, Lonely man told him.

Then Fry checks if Lonely man has any living memory of his grandfather, which Lonely man says he doesn't. I don't know if Fry gets bolder because of this, but Fry now asks if his grandfather ever had any dealings with people who worked with leprosy or a leper colony. Lonely man says no and Fry is again able to execute a standard cold reading technique; he tells Lonely man to check with his family. This is actually very neatly done. He first makes sure that Lonely man has no living memory of his grandfather and then he can play around quite freely with the grandfather's activities. The grandson won't know anyway. And most people in the audience will be convinced that Fry is right and this will of course be verified by the grandson's later enquiries. But since this information is not recognizable by Lonely man - and all believers state that it should be, I'm counting this as a miss.

Fry also lets the grandfather convey some standard phrase about him not being overly concerned about money - as a missionary he would be more concerned with teaching Christian values and Western ways. Then he continues with a financial matter that has played on Lonely man's mind since June 2004, and Fry actually gets a hit with this one although we are not informed further in this matter. He ends this passage with the stock spiel that Lonely man will ruin the quality of his life by worrying about money. All relative terms that anyone can fit into his or her own line of thinking. Stock spiel.

Then Fry asks Lonely man if he is annoyed by a crack in a wall or a ceiling of his home. Lonely man confirms that he has a crack in his car windscreen. Could Fry by any means have known this before hand? Yes, by looking out of a window before the séance. All it takes is a glance and to remember a face. Nevertheless, I'm feeling generous so I'll give him half a hit for this one. But one thought always comes to mind when I hear these kinds of "details" that are supposed to verify that it is a loved one's spirit communicating; do all loved one's turn into imbeciles when they die and go to spirit? Aren't there more important issues to convey? Aren't there bigger question marks to straighten out? Apparently not.

He continues with some stock spiel about Lonely man being bothered by small things (don't we all think that about ourselves from time to time?) and goes on by telling Lonely man to repair a relationship between a brother or a son. He then asks Lonely man if he is the one who is doing the pencil sketches. Nope, he isn't, after which Fry converts this into urging Lonely man to show interest in some brother's or son's drawing or sketching of some sort of design with pencil. After that he tells Lonely man he shouldn't worry about the headaches, he doesn't have a brain tumour and he shouldn't be preoccupied with the idea of dying. He ends this "connection" by letting Lonely man know that his grandfather wants him to read a specific passage in the bible, John 6:3. Lonely man is supposed to understand why when he reads it. Of course, no one in the audience has a clue about what this passage is, let alone what it could mean to Lonely man. And when I looked it up, I became very doubtful that Lonely man will ever know why he was asked to read it. Here it is:

"So Jesus went on up the mountainside and sat down there with his disciples."
John 6:3; (New English Translation)

Honestly, that's all. I kid you not. Do you have any hopes for Lonely man understanding this? Do you think that Fry knows what the quotes he tosses around actually say? But doesn't it sound mysterious and important when you say it like Fry does?

Next, Fry's contact is a woman that in character is a sweet lady, kind and gentle but also a sense of sadness. I know, this fits with your, mine and probably most parted grandmothers or mothers. It doesn't mean that our grandmothers and mothers actually were like this in life, but that is how we want to, and do, and should remember them!

This woman's personality changed a great deal towards the end of her life and she felt that she couldn't behave as herself. I know, this fits with your, mine and probably most departed grandmothers or mothers. This is because no one who dies of "natural causes" remains the same. We get old, we can't move like we used to, our minds are not as alert as they used to be. We, sadly but true, fade away.

Anyway, Fry also senses some names, Elena or Eleanor. It is not stated that those names pertains to this woman but since only one person "can understand this" and not a majority of the audience, I take it that the woman knows of an Elena or Eleanor that has passed. The woman is sitting next to the Swedish psychic Jorgen "Cry Baby" Gustafsson.

Fry begins this session by suggesting that the passed woman had changed a great deal, which caused the people who knew her great pain. He asks the woman next to the psychic if she would understand that the passed woman had to be restrained or stopped from hurting herself. The woman doesn't want to use the word "no" so instead she says that the passed woman was very weak, very old.

Fry doesn't take the hint but goes on about it and suggests the passed woman had a fit of hysterics and that her arms had to be held down to stop hurting herself. The woman next to the psychic still doesn't want to use the word "no" so she states that she thinks it must be another person because the woman she was thinking of didn't have that kind of strength.

It is obvious that Fry is out on a limb so he tries a variation of it by saying it feels as though this would have been through fear in some way but he insists on the restraining part. As this is apparently wrong, the woman next to the psychic says that she is not sure yet but she wants him to continue.

And now Fry changes the subject completely. He's now getting a strong taste of marzipan. And after some thinking, the woman next to the psychic is starting to realize who he is talking to. Uhm, wait a minute. Let's go back to the start of this session. The woman next to the psychic enthusiastically declared "oh, yes" when the names Elena or Eleanor was combined with a sweet, old lady. But this must have been wrong then! And how many deceased ladies does this woman next to the psychic have in stock that was under physical restrain before they died? This is perhaps the best example of cold reading I've ever witnessed, and it's ironical because I think that the woman next to the psychic did not intend to display it for this purpose. She is very clearly demonstrating how she is struggling to make sense of all the nonsense Fry has provided, refusing to say "no" to anything, and in the end when she has fitted all the scraps into her own creative mind and found someone that "it must be" - you cannot doubt a psychic, she has experienced a psychic medium giving "exact and accurate information he couldn't possibly have known beforehand". And that, ladies and gentlemen, is the exposed mind of a "believer".

Fry ends this turn with some stock spiel, letting the passed woman thank the woman next to the psychic for not letting anyone say anything bad about her after she had gone. As if it was common practice for family and friends to speak ill of the dead. And after this he lets the woman next to the psychic know that there is nothing wrong with the mirror not hanging straight, it's the wall that needs to be checked. She just OK's Fry through and it's hard to tell whether he's actually telling her stuff she's familiar with or if she just acknowledge his statements. The next connection is with a person feeling a terrible fear of water, a person that must have drowned. Among the 120-130 people in the audience, one man recognizes this and raises his hand. After some successful guessing regarding gender and age, Fry delivers some stock spiel about the spirit feeling embarrassed about being where he shouldn't have been where he was at the time it happened and because he had been told not to go there. Could the opposite be right when you are talking about a drowning accident?

Fry delivers another "detail" about the spirit remembering someone who could impersonate Donald Duck and I actually took an informal poll about this one. It appears that everyone in our family and all of our friends in pre-Cartoon Network generations know of someone who can or could impersonate Donald Duck. I can do it. Can you? Still, it's clever of Fry to think this stock spiel out.

He tries another one, this time a bit more specific and of course he flunks; the man does not understand two boys hanging upside down by their legs. Fry adds the year 1979 to the context and but doesn't manage to get acceptance even when he concludes that it must be the person who drowned who had visited an amusement park in 1979. So Fry returns to guilt feelings regarding the actual drowning, which the man acknowledges.

Then Fry goes for details again. The spirit remembers someone called Peter quite well, allegedly the drowned lad's age. The man has no clue about this. So Fry changes this from believing that it was a message for this Peter, to the drowned lad wanting the man to know that this Peter, whom the man has no knowledge of, also was in spirit. Fry then goes on, saying that this Peter, who the man still has no knowledge of, was killed in a car accident.

Does the man have any interest in snowboarding? Nope. Would he understand about someone going down a slope of snow on a tin tray? Nope. Well, it could indicate, Fry says, that it's another memory from some time ago. Go figure.

So Fry returns and elaborates further on guilt a bit, and ends the session in this safe area. Crossing the stage, he returns to the purple scarf woman; did someone ask her to invest money? Nope. In a business plan? Nope. It's something current... Nope. Did she agree to lend someone money over three or four payments? She doesn't understand. The interpreter explains and the woman finally says "yes, yes", but she wants to know if it could have anything to do with a bank. The interpreter refuses to take it down that lane and insists on keeping it to the general "lend someone money". The purple scarf woman decides that one could say that. How accurate...

Fry finds it best to leave the purple scarf woman for good. The spirit of a cross-dresser now appears. Does anybody recognize this? One woman thinks so, although the man she's thinking of didn't actually wear women's clothes, he just liked pink. Well there was something sad about this man and only five people at the end of his life understood the agony he was going through, Fry adds. The woman concludes that it can't be the man she's thinking of then.

But wouldn't the woman understand that very few people attended his funeral, Fry asks. Yes, she would - she didn't attend herself. Wasn't he involved in some violence a year before he passed? Nope, not that the woman knows of but it could have happened...

Not dejected by this obvious cul-de-sac, Fry now tells her that the man wants to thank her for listening when he told her how frightened he was shortly before he passed away. The woman is puzzled. But would she understand that he seemed to be very nervous? He was always kind of nervous, the woman replies. And would she understand that she still has contact with two of his other friends? Not often.

But she knows two other particular friends of his? Knows of them, she replies. But she at least agrees to let them know he says hello. Then Fry changes the subject completely. Is she the one that is very good at arranging flowers? The woman is reluctant to go along with this but she admits that she likes to arrange flowers, but ...

But isn't it something she has been doing quite recently? Not that she knows of, no.

Fry now explains that the man just wants to let her know that he was close to her when she was doing something with flowers or floral effects. Well, she admits to having attended a funeral. Spotting a way out, Fry asks her if she had something to do with the floral effects of a funeral. Nope. The interpreter now tries to tie everything together by stating that she was in an area where there were some floral effects. But Fry decides not to go further and ends it by telling her that the man just wanted to let her know that he was with her on that day. A lot of nothing, it seems.

Next is a woman, supposedly someone's mother, who passed away after contracting pneumonia. An elderly lady catches on to this one and Fry puts the remarkable question to her; was she the one who was concerned about the spirit woman being cold? The elderly woman nods. What a peculiar and uncommon concern for someone with pneumonia...

And, Fry continues, there was this thing about taking extra measures to make sure she wasn't cold. Uhm, right, the common practice is to keep pneumonia patients in freezers.

The spirit then puts the number 87 or 89 in Fry's mind. It is up to the elderly woman to find something in her or her mother's life to fit that number. She acknowledges 89. Nothing more comes out of this. Was it an age, was it her flat or street number?

Fry asks the elderly woman if she will be in a party of six during Christmas. Maybe, she says. What a pity then, Fry declares, that she only have five left of those special glasses, which Fry thinks are either coloured or with a gold rimmed top edge. Now, as I was taking a poll around the family regarding Donald Duck impersonations, I also asked about this one. It turns out that coloured or gold rimmed "fine" glasses are very common, especially among older people. They keep them in display cabinets and only use them on special occasions. And no, unfortunately they don't have the full (12) or half (6) set - one or two are missing or have been broken. Just for fun, check with mum or granny. You'll be surprised.

The elderly woman addressed by Fry also has glasses like this, but due to some confusion it is not clear whether she have five or six of them. Fry implies that a full set has been divided between two but as the elderly woman starts to explain that her sister had them first, she is cut off by Fry who is now more interested if she has recently fallen on her right hip. No, she says. Fry then asks if she still has an elderly aunt in this life. The interpreter asks her in Swedish if she still has a sister in this life. The elderly woman confirms that she still has a sister in this life. Having established that the elderly woman don't see her sister that often, but speaks to her, Fry declares that it is the aunt that has taken a fall and the elderly woman should ask her aunt why she hasn't told her about this, or the fact that her aunt's family is treating her bad.

After this rather serious advice, Fry asks why her mother is telling him to indicate the 14th of March. No, the 18th has some significance to her but not the 14th. Well, her mother is indicating that she must put something in her diary on the 14th, otherwise she will forget. Slick, very slick.

After a pause, Fry asks the elderly woman if her mother liked Charlie Chaplin. The elderly woman confirms this astonishing preference for a woman that probably was young during Chaplin's glory days. Fry continues by stating that her mother in fact thought that the silent movies were better than the modern sound movies. Now, my own preferences are that I still think that Peter Sellers' movies are better than Jim Carrey's, Clint Eastwood's are better than Tom Cruise's. It's a "those were the days" phenomena. Stock spiel.

Fry ends the elderly woman session by saying her mother is thankful for her making sure she was kept warm. All things must come to an end and after having had yet another stock spiel session with Lonely man, Fry ends the séance. I don't stay for the question period after the break - I would probably have been too tempted to ask him about his experience with wind-instruments.

So, in conclusion, did Colin Fry meet the demands imposed by "believers"? Let's see.

1. Did Fry give accurate, detailed and personal information, pertaining only to the addressed individual?
Fact: Apart from his personal friends, he gave no such information.

2. Did Fry give information that he by no means could have known beforehand?
Fact: No, he gave no such information.

3. Did Fry engage in stock spiels, i.e. general statements that will apply to almost everyone, or any other cold reading technique as described by sceptics?
Fact: Yes he did, all the time.

4. Did Fry seek the participation of the audience in order to convey any messages?
Fact: He started by explicitly asking for the cooperation of the audience and he also got it all through the séance.

Although he does it in style and with some creativity, Colin Fry is an obvious cold reader. But I'm fairly certain that most people attending this live séance thought it was an amazing experience. So he gave value for money. Even I think that I got value for my money - my expectations were also met. But does he talk to dead people? No way. If you're thinking of attending a live séance with Fry yourself, look out for the man studying people by the entré. I sure would like to know if it was right to give Fry the benefit of the doubt. And when you watch Sixth Sense or re-runs of it, keep in mind how Fry performs when he's not in full control of the conditions.

The Supremacy of Personal Experience

2007-01-05T15:02:00.002+01:00

Note: This article was originally published on the BadPsychics website, under the name "Anne O. Nymous". It was an introduction to a full transcript of the seance in question. The transcript is available at Skeptic Report.

(Download printer friendly PDF of this posting in A4 format or US letter format.)

"Of course I know about cold reading but that is out of the question in this case -- I gave the medium no information whatsoever and yet she produced very accurate details."

"Since you haven't experienced mediums yourself, your arguments are futile."

"You don't go to psychic readings yourself, which proves that you are scared to find out that it really works."

If you are a skeptic and sometimes engage in discussions with "believers" in the supernatural in general, and psychic mediumship in particular, I'm pretty sure that you are familiar with these arguments, or variations of them. Although it can be argued that it is possible and valid to discuss something, or anything for that matter, without personal experience, these arguments have a point in the respect that you are engaged in discussing someone's personal experience, of which you have no experience of your own. It's like reviewing a film you haven't seen or a book you haven't read. No, you say, that is a silly comparison. I agree with you. But it is the principle at work in the minds of the "believers".

"Believers" cling to the supremacy of personal experience as the only faculty of knowledge in issues of spiritual nature. They can go on for hours praising each other's experiences, recognizing other's testimonials as valid evidence without hestitation. But when you question their beliefs, personal experience rules.

You can make well supported claims that memory is fallible and subject to re-creation due to lots of different human factors, that such experiences are deceptions created by skilled conjurers -- and the "believer" may even agree with you! But in this particular case, he or she argues, circumstances were such that deception can be ruled out and yes, memory is indeed fallible, but he or she was mentally on guard against any foul play as he or she took part in this particular happening and he or she is able to describe it in such vivid detail, which rules out that he has forgotten or missed something.

You can't argue against that in the sense that you will never be able to challenge his or her personal experience. So, should you give it up? No, get experience of your own. It is true that you can never get the same specific experience of a "believer" - you would have had to be with him or her for that. But you can obtain the second best.

All "believers" have authorities, i.e. mediums, writers, celebrities, etc. These are the people that "believers" turn to for confirmation of their beliefs. They are the sources of inspiration, "knowledge" and even comfort. If you question, for instance, psychic mediums in general, there are always a couple of mediums the "believer" will claim are proven genuine. They don't have to have had a personal contact with the authority; a TV show, a book or interviews in the tabloids are enough.

The psychic authorities are unquestionable; a "believer" will eagerly admit that there are charlatans in the trade, but in discussions, those are rarely mentioned by name and this common agreement on the existence of anonymous frauds serve more as a reassurance to the "believer" himself that he still, in his mind, remains critical and, in is opinion, able to be objective in the matter. But if you question an authority, you will probably end up being regarded by the "believer" as insane or aggressively arrogant.

That's why the authority is the second best -- if you debunk the authorities, you weaken the belief of the "believer". The "believer" may not confess to that fact, but in his mind a process of disappointment is growing. He has invested a great deal of intellectual confidence in someone that turned out to be a scoundrel. If you restrict yourself to doubt the authority, you are going to lose. But if you experience the authority yourself and debunk him or her, you will end up with a great deal of useful knowledge and information to submit to other skeptics and the public.

It doesn't have to be fancy, it doesn't have to include a staff of scientists or stage magicians. Use the means available to you. Let me give you an example.

To the Swedish public, Terry Evans is known as one of the mediums that participated in the Channel 5 TV show "Sensing Murder" and the TV4 show "The Unknown" that is being aired during this fall in Sweden. "Sensing Murder" is of course a psychic detective show in which the mediums allegedly "sense" information that might bring new light to unsolved murders. "The Unknown" is the standard format of bringing mediums to haunted houses and flats in order to clean them from bad or worried spirits. Of the mediums consulted, Evans has perhaps made the best impression of being sincere and straight-to-the-point. He is held in very high regard among "believers".

Evans' base of operations is the small village of Strånäset in the middle of Sweden. From there, he runs the company Creative Experiences Terry Evans AB, staffed by himself and two women. The main branch of this enterprise is The Mountain Meditation which is a sort of hodgepodge of New Age personal development ideas and spiritualism. Courses are held in MM and Mountain Leaders are licensed. Among the twelve Leaders, Annie Lionnet, author of Tarot guide books and astrology tutor at the London Faculty of Astrological Studies, is the only non-Swede.

Evans, 55, is of British origin. In his Channel 5 profile, he states that he was brought up in London and that he discovered his psychic abilities at the age of twelve. On http://www.mountainmeditation.com/ he states that his first encounter with a spiritualist medium came at the age of twenty-two and it was that visit that motivated him to develop his own mediumship.

As is the case with another Swedish medium of British origin, Iris Hall, background information about Terry is very hard to come by so you just have to take his word for it. Regarding his work as a medium, he states that the foundation of it is based upon the philosophy of the British Spiritualist National Union. He is, however, not listed as an approved medium by the SNU. Evans' book "Berget" (The Mountain) is said to be based on teachings and inspirations he has received from the spirits.

As one way to demonstrate his work as a medium, Evans does clairvoyant demonstrations, what we call seances. He states that this is a way for the medium to demonstrate his or her ability to provide proof of the spirit contact and the messages the contact wishes to convey. As we shall see later, Evans may have imposed a standard on himself that he cannot fulfil.

I decided to personally experience Terry Evans -- that is the only valid way to obtain knowledge about him according to the "believers". So I went through the scheduled clairvoyant demonstrations listed on http://www.mountainmeditation.com/ and found a town only an hour's drive away. That suited me perfectly. In the car, I thought of the evidence the "believers" repeatedly had told me this experience would provide me with:

1. Terry Evans would give accurate, detailed and personal information, pertaining only to the addressed individual.

2. Terry Evans would give information that he by no means could have known beforehand.

3. Terry Evans would not engage in stock spiels, i.e. general statements that will apply to almost everyone, or any other cold reading technique as described by skeptics.

4. Terry Evans would not seek the participation of the audience in order to convey any messages.

With these criteria in mind, I smiled at the passenger seat. Not only was I mentally prepared for any attempts of deception, I was accompanied by a witness that would not recreate its memory, that would not forget or add anything as time passed after the experience, and that would deliver a reliable testimony to any man, regardless of bias; my Mp3-player with an omni-directional microphone.

It was easy to find the old school auditorium where the seance was going to take place. I arrived half an hour early and when I had reached the top floor of the building, I found myself at the admission desk in the ante-room. Behind me, just by the entrance door, sat Terry Evans. I don't know why -- it struck me as somewhat strange that the attraction of the evening would spend the time before the show looking at each and every person that came to see his demonstration. But I made an effort not to look startled by this and went into the auditorium to arrange my small but effective recording equipment.

Terry Evans speaks English and uses an interpreter. He understands and speaks Swedish but I can see the advantage of performing with the comfort of one's native tongue. Nothing strange about that. After an introduction by the interpreter, Terry Evans starts the seance with a short explanation of how he works:

"OK, as I'm working with the spirits, they will try to direct me to the person they want. So if they come to you, I need to hear your voice. If they come to you, please don't make the mistake a lot of people make. They suddenly become paralyzed with fear and then they try to slide off their seat and disappear."

Strike one. Hiding it in a bit of humour -- and the audience does laugh -- Evans starts by telling the audience that he needs their participation. Is he for real? This is a standard cold reading technique. Evans doesn't know who is "coming" so he needs the audience to tell him, i.e. Evans is not giving that information, the audience is. Evans suggests and the audience confirms or denies, thus leading him through.

Evans first target is a lonely woman at the far end of one of the middle rows:

"I'm being taken over here. I might be with that lady in the blue shirt or blue top. You're sitting at the end of the row. I think I'm with you, I'm not sure yet. Would you understand, is your father in spirit?"
"Yes."
"I've got your papa here. And before you came here tonight, as you were preparing to come, would I be correct in saying that you wasn't sure if you were going to have enough time to do everything?"

Note that Terry Evans is not stating that the woman's father is with him, he is asking if her father is dead. He is not giving her information, he is asking her to provide him with information. He claims her father is with him after she has confirmed that her father is indeed dead. That is textbook cold reading. And what do we have next? How many in the audience do you think was in some way worried if they would make it in time for the demonstration? That is textbook stock spiel. And very soon, he gives an example of hot reading, i.e. actually seeking information prior to the show:

"So what he wants to say to you, you were right and he was wrong. There is life after death. Have you bought those new shoes yet?"
"Today"

So that's why he was sitting and watching people by the entrance door. This is the only time when Evans gives any information that could be considered accurate, detailed and personal during this seance. And he did it, not by listening to the spirits, but by simply memorizing one person's face and the fact that she wore new shoes, before the demonstration, in the ante-room. "Believers" often claim that hot reading would demand an impossible ability to memorize loads of information but all it really takes is the ability to remember one or a couple of things and use them effectively. That is precisely what Evans did.

Immediately after, Evans makes a detailed guess:

"He can't find any restaurant where they sell good food. But he wants me to let you to know that he's happy. And he felt your prescence, he felt you close by, as he was passing. But what was all this confusion about his grave, of his headstone?"
"Uh, there isn't a stone..."
"Ah, well if you fix his stone he doesn't want any angels on it. You can put some pictures of trucks and things like that on it. Then he will feel at home. So he's driving the biggest trucks you can find upstairs. None of the spirits was as good as him at driving a truck. You understand? He's been watching your life quite closely these last three years. And he is aware of the personal difficulties that you've been experiencing. And if he may, he's going to give you some advice this evening. The situation that you have found yourself in, it doesn't matter what you'll say, or how you say it, no one is going to listen. You understand?"

Read this carefully. The alleged spirit communicating through Evans is stating that there is confusion regarding the headstone of the dead father's grave. This is totally wrong -- there is no headstone and probably not even a grave, given the common practice of memorial groves instead of graves. But this blatant miss does not put Evans off. He now suggest that if they were to arrange for a headstone, the dead father does not want angels on it. So, the confusion of the descendants turned out to be a wish of the deceased and the headstone turned out to be a possible headstone in an obscure future. Again, standard cold reading procedure.

And the trucks? Well, the woman neither confirms or denies anything about the trucks. She just sits there, listening. Had the trucks struck a core, I would imagine I would have seen a completely different effect on the woman.

And what do we have next? Standard stock spiel, again. Is it likely that every single person in the audience, or on this earth for that matter, has experienced personal difficulties of some kind during the last three years? And is it likely that you sometimes feel that no one listens to you?

It gets embarrasing sometimes, like when Evans asks if someone in the audience recognize having problems with a sewing-machine and when that fails, he changes it to if someone has a mother on "the other side" who is good at making cloth. Someone remembers that her grandma was good at that and the requested mother turned into a grandmother.

Or when Evans slaps his behind asking a woman who has a birthmark there, she or her dead father. When the woman denies knowledge of any such mark on anyone, he tells her to check it. Or when he states that spirits say that the same woman, who is stylishly dressed, likes shoes. On that supposedly personal note - it apparently doesn't pertain to every woman who likes clothes, he goes on:

"You've got a pair of dark red shoes that you, that don't even fit you properly but you won't throw them away."
"Dark red?"
"Yeah, or wine red. Have a look when you go home, they've been in the cupboard so long you've forgotten about them."

So, this well-dressed woman has forgotten about the dark red shoes that she loves so much that she won't throw them away although they don't fit anymore.

Evans next victim is subject to a more alarming message. Evans tell this woman that she has a natural gift for writing, especially children's books. He tells her that it doesn't matter how many excuses she makes, writing is what she is meant to do in this lifetime and if she doesn't follow this gift, everything she does in life will feel like second best. But read what happens when he decides to push it harder:

"But she wants to say this to you. If you're going to write, it's never going to be as perfect as you want it to be. So why don't you just write and stop talking about getting work published and let the readers and let the publisher decide whether it's good or bad. How many manuscripts do you have now?"
"Uhm, I'm actually not writing and... I'm painting."
"Oh, OK, whatever it is... But you are going to write too, I'm not going to change that."

Ooops, what happend to her destiny to write? Doesn't she realize that everything else she does in life, like painting, will feel like second best? Wouldn't her dead grandmother know what's best for her? And what about Evans remark after having bombarded the woman with reasons for her to give up everything and focus on writing? "Oh, OK, whatever it is..."

Evans is also keen on talking about household appliances. He will tell you that you have a problem with your washing machine and when you tell him that you've bought a new one, he cashes in on that by stating that the old one sure needed healing, thus turning a wrong statement into a right one. The spirits also keep themselves updated on the status of your car, your TV set, etc.

And if Evans states that you have a problem with something and you tell him you don't, he will say that you are going to have a problem with it, i.e. the spirits know stuff about your equipment that you don't know now, but will become aware of in the future. When exactly? Evans told you, in the future...

He makes a complete fool out of himself when he doesn't have any success with a very overweight woman. He stresses that she is a woman that doesn't like to be told what to do by stating that even her man can't tell her what to do. But this woman has no man. Evans comment: he can understand that. Now, if you're an overweight woman or man, single, but with a longing for a partner, is that a sensitive response? Even if the context would make excuses for this remark, who knows what complex may haunt her? But Evans is a medium. He talks to dead people. He's above ordinary courtesy.

Anyway, he doesn't manage to succeed in anything with this woman so he tries with another, suggesting that the overweight woman was not right for this particular spirit. He fails an attempt with another victim too and returns to the overweight woman again and asks her if she's had aches or pains in her legs. As she confirms this, she is suddenly right, in spite of the failures just a couple of minutes ago, for this particular spirits.

In seeking a connection with a dead lady, he finds a woman saying that it could be her neighbour. He asks the woman if the neighbour left any cats or a dog behind. The woman says "No" and as he always does when he is guessing wrong, he asks the woman to check with the lady's husband. As if the lady would have locked her pets up in rented storage somewhere before moving next to this woman. And then Evans tells the woman that the dead lady wants to thank her for her help and support to. The dead lady had enjoyed their conversations. To make sure this would be correct, Evans asked the woman moments before if she talked to the lady quite a bit.

I could probably work this séance through much more than this. But that would be to deprive you of a lot of fun so instead, there's a link to the complete transcript. Enjoy it and spread it around to your friends and family.

But let's get back to the criteria I mentioned in the beginning. Did the experience of Evans meet with them as suggested by "believers"? Let's see:

1. Terry Evans would give accurate, detailed and personal information, pertaining only to the addressed individual.
Fact: Terry Evans gave no accurate, detailed and personal information at all. OK, there's the new shoes statement but that doesn't count because Evans noticed that the woman had new shoes when he was sitting and scanning everyone that entered prior to the séance.

2. Terry Evans would give information that he by no means could have known beforehand.
Fact: Terry Evans gave no such information.

3. Terry Evans would not engage in stock spiels, i.e. general statements that will apply to almost everyone, or any other cold reading technique as described by skeptics.
Fact: Terry Evans séance was nothing but stock spiel, cold reading and even some hot reading. OK, there was a lot of old fashion guessing too - but without success.

4. Terry Evans would not seek the participation of the audience in order to convey any messages.
Fact: Terry Evans began the séance by stating that he needed the participation of the audience and he used that participation actively through the whole thing.

He starts off the séance by stating that he needs your participation, he needs "to hear your voice". Then he asks you who is dead, "would you recognize" someone or "is mama still in this life". He uses several different phrases to make his questions sound as he is only asking for confirmation. He is not, as you can tell by reading through the transcript. This is a technique, a skill. Evans is very skilled.

As soon as he has been told by you who is dead, he makes some very general statements based on gender or family stereotypes, by what he can find out about you just by looking at your appearance, age, and so on or by. Often, he will counter these very general statements, stock spiel, by making a guess about some ordinary thing that is likely to be right. It will be about your TV, your car, how you sleep or something trivial like that. If he guesses wrong, as he often does, he has a stock of evasions piled up - standard getaways that will fit into any household appliance or whatever, and come out looking like he was right although he in fact wasn't. The transcript is packed with examples of this.

A speciality of Evans is the phrase "check it". He uses this when he is totally wrong and can't find any way to make way for an exit. "Check it" means that Evans, or the spirits, are right but you don't know it yet. But if you check it later, away from the attention of the rest of the audience, who firmly believes that Evans is right, you will find that the statements were correct. This also implies that if you check it but can't find anything, you have looked in the wrong place.

The important thing is that Evans doesn't have to support his claim during the séance, and once it's over, what you don't recognize at all but Evans claims is right, may very well be counted as an amazing insight by the rest of the audience. So, this spiritual experience confirms, not the assurances given by "believers", but the claims of deception made by skeptics - in every way, in every instance.

Terry Evans is, in every sense of the word, a swindler, feeding on people's emotional needs and their longing for contact with passed relatives or assurance of an afterlife. Without hestitation, he engages in messing with people's memories of their loved ones. There are people, even skeptics, that claim that some psychics really think they have a gift. Terry Evans is not one of those psychics, Evans knows exactly what he is doing.

Now, there are some "believers" that claim that séances are worthless. If you want to really experience the powers you should book a private sitting. According to them, the con-artist of a séance is the miracle worker of a private sitting. This is of course nonsense. Evans doesn't issue a disclaimer regarding this before his séances. He's selling alleged contact with the spirits. Period. Be it in a hall in front of hundreds or in a room in front of one. The man is a fraud. Period. There are also those who say that every medium must be allowed to have a "bad day" -- we are, after all, dealing with very sensitive abilities -- and the séance I attended would probably qualify as such. I beg to differ. First of all, Evans did not excuse himself for not being able to deliver -- as far as he is concerned, this séance was a success, he got his money. Secondly, I am pretty convinced that I was the only one in an audience of over a 100 people that thought it was anything but a very good séance. But in the light of the transcript and the recording it was a scam. "Believers" will only admit to it being a bad day for Evans. But in reality, it was a scam executed routinely.

I don't want to dissect this séance completely. I want you to read it through and find things on your own. There are some passages that convey an almost incredible arrogance and insensitivity, some that convey funny slips of the tongue, some that, when you read them, will make you either laugh out loud or scream in dispair - how does he get away with it!? But keep in mind -- Terry Evans made more money in three hours that night than most people make in two weeks. This is not a harmless prank, but a coldhearted fraud. And please, attend a séance at a theatre near you, book a private sitting, go see a tarot-tart, a healer or your local hypnotherapist. And bring your little friend, Mr. MP3. It's worth it.

Just getting started...

2006-12-27T16:48:00.000+01:00

So, my first blog. Maybe I should have created one ages ago, considering the amount of text I've produced for message boards during the years. But, it's never too late, I guess. So here it is, at last. I hope to fill it with thoughts on superstition, alleged psychics, maybe some psychology and tips on further reading. Anyway, feel free to comment on my postings and I'll try to answer as soon as possible.