Webmaster note: The following was found at this URL address  It is here reproduced without alteration.

See also: dearjames2.htm

Dear James,

Your latest "article" has so many mistakes, deceptions, and example of arrogance, that I must respond in detail. I am inserting comments for all interested parties to read. I am passing this along widely, so that people can circulate the information through the web.

My perception of your tactics is that they lack understanding and integrity. Since you purportedly represent the skeptic community, you do them a great disservice.

As I have said before, and will repeat again, when you are right, I applaud you, and when you are wrong, I attempt to educate you. Thus far, you have shown little sign of being educable.

My major comments are in Arial 16 bold font below – the insert uses VERITAS – Harvard’s motto which means "Truth."

Best, Gary

May the Schwartz Be with You, the Tooth Fairy's Existence Proven by Science!, The "Sylvia Clock" is Up, the Academics Check In, and Leroy's back....!

It won't stop. Dr. Gary Schwartz of the University of Arizona is the current darling of the media, who eagerly quote his belief in spiritualist mediums, remote viewing, and other wonders, and stick him in front of cameras to bury himself in wild claims — and though a recent claim that he also believes in the Tooth Fairy, may be somewhat hyperbolized, there is evidence to the contrary, up ahead.

VERITAS: I am not a "darling" of the media. However, it is true that our work has been featured on some shows involving research mediums. These shows do not quote my "belief" in "spiritualist mediums, remote viewing, and other wonders" – they present our scientific studies using research mediums under ever more tightly controlled experiments. We will return to your inaccurate slander about the "tooth fairy" later.

The media adore him because he's a real scientist, an actual "Doctor" who embraces bump-in-the-night ideas without a trace of shame — though with carefully-added caveats, so he can always back out — and he never tires of telling about his academic qualifications, numerous papers and other writings.

VERITAS – True scientists always speak in terms of probabilities, and are careful to qualify their statements in order to be accurate. Non-scientists who are biased use definitive statements such as "never tires of telling" or "without a trace of shame." I rarely speak of my credentials….however, the media does.

And how would know if I experience shame or not? Here is a fact. I do experience shame, for example, about your behavior and its impact on the public’s perception truthful skepticism.

His latest foray into never-never land was a "debate" earlier this month, "Soul Science research at the University of Arizona's Human Energy Systems Laboratory" which turned out to be a love-in with "mediums" and others, lots of feel-good speeches, but nothing new or useful.

VERITAS – It is true that Ray Hyman (the person representing CSICOPs) added nothing new in terms of criticisms. The possible criticisms, by the way, do NOT apply to our studies, except when Hyman speculates that maybe our sitters are misremembering the names of their loved, causes of death, etc., or that we, the experimenters, are somehow cheating.

For the record, Ray showed up over 20 minutes late for the debate – he kept 300+ people waiting. We finally began without him. The debate was briefer because of his lateness plus each speaker taking a few more minutes to present their opening remarks. Ray claims that he got lost – I will give him the benefit of the doubt.

A good question for Dr. Schwartz: if he is not really sure of these bizarre matters, when the media present him, worldwide, as having firmly established the existence of mediumistic powers — by science — does he correct them by mail, by phone, in person? If so, we don't see any such amendments.

VERITAS – I can’t even get the media, typically, to fact check stories with us. The recent story in the Times of London was so filled with inaccuracies that I experienced "shame" for the reporter. He said I was 58 (I am 56), he said my glasses are held together by sticky tape (actually, they are expensive wire-wrapped frames), that Linda’s father was a heart surgeon (he was a cardiologist), that we had been conducting the research in secret for 8 years (we have worked in this area for 7 years, and began publishing 3 years ago!). Randi – we tell you the facts, and you appear to ignore them.

It might be a warning sign to us that Schwartz was educated at Harvard, which also gave us Dr. John Mack, the man who apparently has never met anyone who hasn't been abducted by space aliens.

VERITAS – John Mack would likely call "never met anyone who hasn’t been abducted by space aliens" an example of your extreme, inaccurate, and potentially slanderous remarks. You may think you are cute, but your misinformation is quite unbecoming.

I'm getting increasingly alarmed calls from scholars who are wondering about what they might do to counter all this credulous academic acceptance and validation of nonsense. For that reason, I'll give you the following bit of background.

The JREF suggested a protocol for testing so-called "mediums" to Gary Schwartz during his visit to the Foundation in Fort Lauderdale in August of last year. He found this quite acceptable. In fact, he commented on its high quality and "ingenuity," though it was a quite ordinary design and one with which he should have already been familiar.

VERITAS – We came to Randi to get his suggestions about our planned multi-center, double-blind experiment. Randi made some suggestions which we have incorporated in the design. For example, Randi likes the idea of having sitters guess which is their reading (a binary, yes-no decision). We prefer having every item scored, for hits and misses. We told Randi we would add his scoring request even though we consider it to be less precise.

This is a very definitive protocol, one that could be easily and economically implemented, one that would result in a clear picture, not only of whether the performer was able to produce as claimed, but whether the methods we at the JREF believe are being used to accomplish trickery, are in fact the reasons for apparent successes. Now Schwartz seems to have abandoned any plans to use that excellent design. One can only wonder why.

VERITAS – Our multi-center, double-blind procedure has been approved by the IRB at the University of Arizona, and we are pilot testing it right now. It includes Randi’s suggestions.

Since Schwartz has admitted that he's never done a double-blind experiment, insisting that when he does get around to that mode he will improve it to "triple-blind" — whatever that means! — I will await his implementation of proper controls before making further comment; there is no need to explain something that has not yet been shown to exist. What he has done so far appears to be a series of games and amateur probes, quite without any scientific value — though the mediums are quick to quote him and claim academic validation from the University of Arizona.

VERITAS – The latest single-blind experiments rule out cold reading, guessing, selective memory of hits and misses, rater bias, and experimenter bias, from the findings. However, Randi doesn’t believe the data. This is because he is convinced this is all "nonsense."

By the way, the idea of a "triple-blind" study came up because Randi did not trust our double-blind procedures! We will do a triple-blind study once the double-blind study is completed. Triple-blind is ever more "bells and whistles" (see below).

Agreed, Schwartz has employed masses of technical attachments, lots of bells and whistles, and has applied statistics to the half-data obtained, but that is much like measuring chimneys with a laser beam to determine whether a fat man in a red suit can get down them, and to thereby explore the reality of Santa Claus.

VERITAS – The above statement is an example of extreme language by someone who does not know science nor care about data that goes against his view of how the universe must operate. Such extreme language is insulting to the intelligent mind who cares about truth in the reporting of data. We do not analyze
the half-data," we analyze all the data, and Randi knows this.

And in what reliable, peer-reviewed, prestigious, scientific journal has this research been published? In the Journal of the Society for Psychical Research, which also recently featured a book review of Sex and the Paranormal and papers titled, Telepathic Phone Calls, and Further Evidence for a Statistical Balancing in Probabilistic Systems Influenced by the Anomalous Effect of Conscious Intention. So there! Perhaps the "orthodox" journals like Nature and Science aren't able to grasp the importance of such new discoveries, and will be left behind when this next paradigm becomes established.

VERITAS – In the early 1970’s, I published six papers in the journal SCIENCE. When SCIENCE changed editors, they eliminated all psychology articles! The journal PSYCHOLOGICAL SCIENCE was founded to correct this editorial decision. All academic journals employ editorial control before they send papers out for peer review.

Most journals dismiss research on mediumship, regardless of the experimental design. Hence, our papers on this topic have been published in peer reviewed journals that are open to the content. One publishes where open minds are….

I should also make this clear: Schwartz gleefully advertises my own refusal to be a participant in his games, and the psychics are now snickering that I fear his findings may bring my own conclusions into jeopardy. That hope may be safely abandoned. Dr. Schwartz fails to mention the reason for my refusal, which is based entirely on his insistence that I declare, in writing, that I will never share any of my observations or conclusions with anyone, in any way. I cannot operate under such onerous limitations, nor will I ever contemplate doing so. This man of science, who preaches loudly about forthrightness, openness, sharing, honesty, and evidence, will have none of it when it might damage his own cherished notions. This is not science, not in any degree.

VERITAS – When we learned how Randi operated, we decided that he could not be trusted to present the facts and the truth (see example below). Hence, we told him that we are happy for his consultation, but not his journalism, PRO OR CON the research. Randi does not like it when people question his questionable ethics. We have no need or interest in Randi’s praise or propaganda; however, we do respect his suggestions on experimental design.

Were I a participant in the Schwartz operation, the kind of information that I would look for, may already be available, either through others who participated in the work, or from video records that seem to come to hand by mysterious means. Please note the video frame shown here. It was made from one of Schwartz's "scientific experiments" with John Edward. The "medium" has just taken his seat in the lab, adjacent to another chair to his left where the subject is located. This is what Schwartz considers to be "isolation" of the two persons. Lo! Do we perhaps see Edwards here taking a quick test peek through an opening in the partition? Say not so! This is science, tight controls and all that, and Schwartz himself told Edward, "There will be no eye contact, so a screen will separate you." I'll bet that Edward chuckled when he saw the set-up!

VERITAS – The video clip shows John possibly looking through a crack that is less than ¼ inch wide (not the 2 inches reported in Randi’s misinformed comments in the Times of London). Randi has not seen the raw footage. If he did, he would discover that the reading is done with John (and the other mediums) facing the cameras – therefore, they could not see the sitter while they were doing a reading. Randi selects a single frame and then seemingly gleafully dismisses hours of recordings.

The fact is, Randi was invited to the lab to see the raw footage. Furthermore, in subsequent experiments, the crack was sealed with tape, then full floor to ceiling screens were used, and then the readings were done long distance.

Randi mentions none of this, even though he knows this is the case. His "omission" of the facts is a disgrace to the honest reporting of the facts. He knows his criticisms are without merit for the preponderance of the experiments and findings.

Now, I make no claim that Edward actually peeked through the opening during the "reading." If we had the original material, we could not only make that observation, but many others, as well. But we'll never see that. What I'm pointing out here is that the opportunity to peek was certainly there, and it should not have been, had Schwartz known how to — or cared to — implement proper security. It's not too hard to do, Dr. Schwartz, even for a Ph.D.

VERITAS – Note, in our initial study, we were not concerned if John (or the other mediums) momentarily saw the sitter because they heard her voice almost immediately, and could tell she was female. However, when the reading actually occurred, John was looking at the camera, not at the tiny crack in the screen. And remember, the crack was subsequently sealed with tape, etc….

Why does Randi make a mountain range out of an ant hill? (I was being poetic for a moment)

And how "definitive" was John Edward in this "reading"? Let me quote a short part of his guessing-game, prefaced by his usual opening. This 119-word excerpt takes exactly 26 seconds; try reading it in that period, and you'll see just how rapidly Edward speaks. The responses from the sitter are shown in square brackets.

VERITAS – The opening statement WAS general. It usually is. The approximately 100 pieces of information obtained during John’s reading included initials, names, historical facts, personal descriptions, and temperament descriptions. Randi knows this, supposedly, since he read the published paper….

Okay, what's going to happen, is there'll be a series of impressions, pictures, and words, and things that make no sense to me, come through in my mind. I'm going to tell you what I'm seeing, hearing, and feeling, and eventually ask you to confirm it and verify it, simply by yes's and no's. [Okay] Okay. Um, the first thing that's coming through is that somebody's talking about a male figure to your side. A male figure to your side would be a husband or a brother who has crossed over. Do you understand that? [Yes] Okay, actually there's two... there's three, there's three. They're showing me, one seems to be like a husband figure to you. Do you understand that? [Yes]. Smug

This is just the same old fare, cold reading, exactly what Edward and the other "readers" do! If we had an entire transcript or tape of this series of guesses, we'd be able to evaluate it, wouldn't we? But we will never have that. Dr. Schwartz won't share it with us. Why? That slamming noise you hear is the door to his Ivory Tower closing.

VERITAS – All media who come to the lab have seen the raw footage. So have magicians, visiting scientists, and others. Randi could have come to the lab, he could have come to the conference. Instead, he complains that we do not give him the raw data. Given all the misinformation presented by Randi above, can anyone blame us?

We told Randi he should come to the lab, and we would film him watching the raw video, and then film him commenting on the data. We also invited him to try to be a medium, and see if he can do as well as our mediums can. Randi declined both offers.

If Schwartz were less interested in bragging — endlessly! — about his academic background, and would become more involved in doing real science rather than just doing the cosmetics, I think he might begin to be taken seriously. He is the perfect example of the Ivory Tower resident.

VERITAS – Most people who know me know that I do not engage in "bragging – endlessly" about my credentials. In fact, when I was a professor at Yale, when I would go to scientific meetings, I typically did not wear a nametag with my Yale affiliation, so people would talk to me as a person rather than talk to my Yale affiliation.

I previously mentioned that the media talk about my credentials because they find them unusual for someone conducting serious scientific research in this area.

Gary Schwartz has also claimed that his very favorite "medium," Laurie Campbell, is 100% accurate in performing some "highly anomalous" readings.

VERITAS – No, we claimed that in one experiment, a telepathy-like experiment, Laurie was 100% in guessing the sex, age, and living versus deceased status of the person the experimenter was imagining. We repeatedly state that this was one experiment. And this experiment has not been published (because it was exploratory).

What we always claim is that our mediums are like Michael Jordan (who on the average missed more than 50% of his shots, yet was a still a superstar because he was better than most of his peers).

Laurie Campbell happens to be Chair of our Mediumship Research Committee. She has participated in research for the past three years. If she is our favorite, it is because of her devotion to scientific research on mediumship.

Examine that terminology. Schwartz — as with all these folks — delights in rooting around in the data-base and coming up with names, numbers, initials, anything that he can point to as being highly unlikely to "connect" with the reality of the subject. This is blatant data-searching, one of the most pervasive and destructive aspects of bad science.

VERITAS – Randi knows that EVERY ITEM is scored. This is not "blatant data-searching" – it is thorough and complete data analysis (to rule out Randi’s mistaken claim that our sitters remember the hits and forget the misses) to explore the phenomenon in as much detail as possible. Randi’s statements here are erroneous.

One cannot fail, given enough time and opportunity, to find correlations with obscure elements. Pseudoscientists have wasted their entire academic lives finding repeated series of digits in the irrational number "pi" for example, and assigning significance to those discoveries.

VERITAS – Actually, many distinguished mathematicians have searched for a possible order in the digits of pi – to our knowledge, none has found a repeating order to date. Could it be that pi is random? Or, could it be that we have yet to discover how the digits in pi unfold (the more humble position)?

Well, I'd like to see a demonstration by Laurie with "binary-class" guesses, whether someone is thinking about — for example — a male or female, young or old, living or dead, relative or friend, and since these are inarguably yes-or-no matters, they should be absolutely ideal terms for testing. NOTE: "100%" means no misses, not one, but I'd settle for 80%, in a sufficiently large database. This is a perfect situation, and I await Schwartz's application for the million-dollar prize, which surely will come in shortly after Sylvia Browne submits hers. Which is to say, never.

VERITAS – Randi likes binary, yes-no, black and white kinds of data. We do not blame him. However, we are interested in researching the more natural process first, and then examining more artificial ones. Initials, names, causes of death, and personal appearance, are more complex than binary events, but equally solid pieces of evidence that a subset of mediums get naturally, accurately, and reliably.

Schwartz, challenged by a correspondent to apply for our prize, answered:

Three areas of our research would easily win the prize.... But we do not apply for prizes ...

VERITAS – Randi’s imagination reflects his biases which typically are not stated as imaginary hypotheses.

1. Schwartz is already wealthy and doesn't need the million dollars.

VERITAS – In the recent Times of London article, Randi claimed that we get millions of dollars a year in support. This is a blatant error of fact, one that is easily documented.

We would be happy if Randi gave us his millions dollars – to endow research in this area. However, we do not apply for prizes. We conduct research.

It is a fact that we apply for grants. However, as Randi knows well, the Federal government, as well as most private foundations, do NOT fund research in this controversial area.

So Randi, as we have said many times before, visit the lab. You will see that you are patently wrong in your claims, and you can give us the million as a donation if you wish. Even a hundred thousand would be helpful.

For the record, the total budget we have had for our research on mediumship research to date, over 7 years, is less that $30,000 total.

2. The University of Arizona will not accept gifts of money from Schwartz.

VERITAS – The University of Arizona will accept gifts for credible things by anyone, including us. We have personally supported some of this research. And our fund raising conference will hopefully give $15,000 to the University to help support this research. Again, Randi’s imagination is false and without merit.

3. Schwartz has no charity in mind such as hungry children, AIDS research, or the homeless.

VERITAS – How does Randi know, or even imagine, what is in my mind? I have "no charity"? Randi should sit in my class on the Psychology of Love and Spirituality. When he does, he will know that his biased imagination is without merit.

4. Laurie Campbell's performance on such a test is actually far closer to the 50% expected by chance.

VERITAS – 50% chance would only be for binary events. In the paper just published, when students guessed binary events such as "is your son dead?" (yes or no) or "is your daughter dead?" (yes or no), for these two items, for example, the students guessed 50%, while the 5 mediums guessed 100% accurately. Randi should read the paper closely to see how the data were calculated.

But Professor, you said you could "easily" win the prize, with any of three examples from your research! Then come and take it!

VERITAS – Randi’s prize is for "paranormal" research. We do not use the term "paranormal" or "supernatural." We use the term "human energy systems" which is based upon contemporary physics and systems science.

We use mainstream concepts to address frontier questions.

Randi could always claim that our findings were not "paranormal" using these theories, and therefore not award the prize.

As we said before, we do NOT apply for prizes. We do research, and follow the data where they lead.

As soon as Gary Schwartz produces data derived from a proper scientific experiment rather than from a game-show exercise, we can begin to examine that evidence — which I have always insisted must speak for itself. As it is, we hear only muffled mumblings and not one clear word.

VERITAS – We publish our papers in peer reviewed journals, including the Journal of Scientific Exploration. Randi can read the papers if he likes….

Schwartz observer Marc Berard writes that perhaps TIME writer Leon Jaroff was not incorrect in his assessment of Schwartz's belief structure, when he opined that the scientist believes in the Tooth Fairy:

It occurred to me recently that you can prove that Schwartz actually does believe in the Tooth Fairy. In his book he mentions how in thinking about stories, we create info-energy systems that can take on a life of their own. In my review of the book, I mentioned how that would mean that Santa, Ronald McDonald, Freddy Kruger, and Romeo, would then all exist as these info-energy system "spirits." In private correspondence with Schwartz, he agreed with that statement, that his theory predicts the existence of such beings.

Now, the Tooth Fairy has been in many cartoons, jokes, stories, and commercials over the years. Therefore Schwartz's theory actually predicts the existence of the Tooth Fairy. As it is fairly certain that Schwartz believes in his theory, and his theory predicts the existence of the Tooth Fairy, therefore Schwartz must believe in the Tooth Fairy.

VERITAS - The theory of systemic memory predicts that informed energy can take on a "life of its own." Hence, imaginary beliefs such as the toothfairy, even Santa Claus, can potentially exist as dynamical info-energy systems.

However, this does NOT mean that I believe in the toothfairy or Santa Claus. Once again, skeptics make the mistake of confusing theory and predictions with personal belief.

For the record, I believe that when I drop things, they fall However, if you ask do I "believe" in gravity (i.e. Newton’s version of gravity), my honest answer is "I don’t know." I know there are four or five major theories of gravity, and since I am not a physicist, I am in no position to hold a belief.

I believe in observations, and I entertain hypotheses. For the record, I have never seen a toothfairy, I know of no research on toothfairies, and therefore Randi’s abuse of language in making such a claim is irresponsible, inaccurate, and seemingly nasty.

"When men are most sure and arrogant, they are commonly the most mistaken."
David Hume 1711-1776.

VERITAS – Who offers hypotheses, and who claims to know the truth?

Who sticks to the facts and logic, and who makes up facts and mis-states information?

Who qualifies interpretations, and who uses extreme language?

I suggest that if you look at the facts, Randi, the person this statement most applies to is you.
 
 

CONCLUSION – Once again, Randi, I request that you refrain from making misstatements and presenting misinformation about our research on mediumship. I would like to believe that you are educable, and that you have enough decency and intelligence to revise your behavior accordingly.

With best wishes, as always,

Gary E. R. Schwartz