Agreeing on a validation test for mediums..

[Obelix 11]

Your just going round in circles, never mind Roots post, it was YOU who has been banging on about scientific tests, I think it has been shown that it cannot possibly be proven so you should just accept that science cannot prove everything one way or another.

 

It hasn't been shown in the slightest, certainly not by you and not by others n the thread.

 

Ultimatly I'm not responsible for you lack of, or unwillings to understand. I do feel sorry for you however.

[Deltic 10]

Hardly conclusive is it?

 

I have to ask; Did you actually read the article? .

 

The medium took part in a test, the protocols of which she had agreed to, and scored zero out of ten.

[onewheeldave 22]

Originally Posted by Skirmisher View Post

Hardly conclusive is it?

 

 

I have to ask; Did you actually read the article? .

 

The medium took part in a test, the protocols of which she had agreed to, and scored zero out of ten.

 

You've got to be careful though- some people would read that and go on to think that it in some way shows mediumship to be invalid.

 

All it actually shows is that one medium, could not demonstrate what she thought she could.

[Obelix 11]

You missed the part where it said hundreds have applied with the same results though...

[RootsBooster 24]

Could you clarify that last bit please? If the 'medium-side' of the organisation doesn't consist of mediums, how will the mediums be represented when it comes to getting agreement that the test is 'good'?

Yes I can clarify, you quoted teh part of my OP where I said

"The details of the test would have to be agreed upon by both sides."

then followed it with your response

"So really you'd need to check with some mediums as to whether they have a problem with the test idea- I'm pretty confident that they will."

so I was just pointing out that in the OP, I never said that mediums would be members of either side (the organisation of believers/non-believers) or that they'd have any say in it.

As far as I'm concerned, the mediums can have as much input as they want, this is after all, a hypothetical situation.

 

But, as history shows, voluntary authentification can very quickly turn into compulsory authentification.

That's not really relevant here, this thread is simply about coming up with a test we can agree on.

Feel free to begin a poll about whether or not mediums should take compulsory tests

 

Like I said above, my advice to any medium would be to stay well away from this, purely because, IMO, proving/disproving mediumship is not possible via science.

Why do you think it can't be proved?

If a medium sat the test in an empty room, with no way of gleaning information from the other participant (no communication, no view of the person), they were total strangers and the medium could give exact details of a relevant deceased person (full name, address, pets, lifetime events etc.) AND they could repeat it with another 9 guaranteed total strangers under the same conditions, I think it would convince me that the medium may well be genuine. What would you think of it?

[onewheeldave 22]

You missed the part where it said hundreds have applied with the same results though...

 

My same point applies to that- at best, all it says is that those hundreds couldn't do what they claimed, not that mediumship in general is invalid.

 

I say 'at best' as the subjects were self-selecting, and, by the nature of the testing, will very much tend to attract the, perhaps, less intelligent type of medium and/or those whose eyes are firmly on the $1,000,000, rather than love of their craft.

[RootsBooster 24]

It's not possible to apply science to this 'profession', because you know as well as I do, it's all a load of rubbish.

 

No I don't.

I don't believe that mediums can communicate with the dead, simply because I have no reason to. I do not know that they can't speak to the dead.

 

How do you know?

[onewheeldave 22]

Yes I can clarify, you quoted teh part of my OP where I said

"The details of the test would have to be agreed upon by both sides."

then followed it with your response

"So really you'd need to check with some mediums as to whether they have a problem with the test idea- I'm pretty confident that they will."

so I was just pointing out that in the OP, I never said that mediums would be members of either side (the organisation of believers/non-believers) or that they'd have any say in it.

As far as I'm concerned, the mediums can have as much input as they want, this is after all, a hypothetical situation.

 

 

 

 

 

So, it's going to be none then, isn't it?

 

No medium with any kind of respect for their craft or any degree of intelligence is going to get involved in that.

[RootsBooster 24]

So, it's going to be none then, isn't it?

 

No medium with any kind of respect for their craft or any degree of intelligence is going to get involved in that.

 

Why on Earth not?

[Skirmisher 10]

I have to ask; Did you actually read the article? .

 

The medium took part in a test, the protocols of which she had agreed to, and scored zero out of ten.

 

Yes, can you tell me just what you think was proved there by the scientific experiment?

[RootsBooster 24]

Yes, can you tell me just what you think was proved there by the scientific experiment?

 

You cannot prove that they are fake, but there's no reason why they shouldn't e able to prove themselves genuine.

[onewheeldave 22]

 

 

That's not really relevant here, this thread is simply about coming up with a test we can agree on.

Feel free to begin a poll about whether or not mediums should take compulsory tests

 

 

Actually, i consider it relevant. I was simply pointing out that voluntary regualation in this instance would likely become compulsory regulation: given that mediums may well read this thread, I consider that worth mentioning.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Feel free to begin a poll about whether or not mediums should take compulsory tests

 

I've no interest in such a poll- if you're curious, feel free to begin one.