As I said to another post in reply, it’s open ended. Very scientific approach but very little details for us the public to pin our outcome to in justifying terms of empiricism or belief. Still, this doesn’t mean that these mediums are debunked. We are suspended in this for the lack of data. As outsiders to this experiment, I think you listed all the potential and outright fallacies. However, the blur on truth and evidential data is still there.
The fallacies and flaws listed here are continually to do with the lack of data and our public access to it. The data is also one experiment that hasn’t been done by other scientists and groups to measure for comparison between just a singular case. Gary can say of his impression with the performance of such but it doesn’t make our doubts and hesitations clear. I think having sitters who were well known with the mediums doesn’t make this a strict clear cut way of doing things. It can mean that information is intimately tied between friendships and other relations. For me, it indicates a familiarity of the two. Also, they never checked if the medium had any connections or data from beyond this acquaintance on whether they got information from the internet or social media. In an Age of Information, it’s very easy to access to people’s info. Also, not much research on the medium’s methods and gains of guessing to what they pinpoint on certain details of the decease’s life. It seems able to be taken advantage of. The craft of mediumship should also be established in terms for their investigation for validity. As scientists and professionals, they should make clarity in what is mediumship. They didn’t include that detail. So even if their report is mostly correct and empirical, there is a lack of data and ambiguity to it. Even as a public, we must deduce our own findings to see if this is actuality or just fabrication. Science can go many ways. It doesn’t mean mediumship is false, but how did you get this results? Transparency of data to all.
This certainly lacked a lot of information for me. I would have liked to know the questions that were asked. Overall without transparency it seems to me that I cannot accept what is in this passage, there are too many questions that arise after one reads this passage. If they wanted to give something that seemed more accurate and believable they should have been more open about everything.
Great post, the lack of data and access to it is so important.
when we are looking for flaws I believe that the biggest one in this is allowing the medium to ask their own question even if there are only yes or no. I believe that this allows them to have a control of the whole scenario that was created to limit them in the first place. I believe that if they had set question that we’re still in depth enough to get proper information that the medium would still struggle to answers as correct as when they had the control of the questions.
from what I have learned and been told is that mediums will ask questions that bounce around what you want to hear, so they have information to give you. They will also use general terms in order to get you to start saying things that they can then add to. For example, my grandfather loved roses and I wear rose earrings. If on that day the medium notices this she may say that I am getting that your loved one liked flowers. excited about the fact she has said this I will say yes yes he loved roses and that then gives her information that she can then add to.
yes, I said the same. The medium controls the situation. when you say one thing it allows them to predict another thing that excites you and gives you what you want.