I repeat below, word for word, my introductory remarks to your previous commentary about our research on your website. They apply to your current commentary. You are a living example of someone who seems incapable of learning through honest feedback. It is clear that I am failing as a professor to educate you about the facts of this research, and research in general.

To keep the record straight, I will again correct all of your errors of fact and interpretation. You will likely again dismiss these details as if they are unimportant.

Meanwhile, the public will come to understand your methods, and they will make their own decisions about your honesty and credibility.

Also Randi, I publicly thank you for inspiring us to create the MSAT (Mediumship Science Aptitude Test). You are the prime inspiration for creating it. As you will see below, your score would be very poor if this was the test. However, if you chose to study the correct answers, you will have the chance to take the test and hopefully, eventually, pass it. I always encourage people to learn and grow.

My previous comments are quoted below, followed by my latest corrections of your factual and conceptual mistakes.

"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
 
 

RANDI - It has been suggested to me that perhaps Dr. Gary Schwartz, who was featured on last week’s page here, will require a "triple-blind" protocol because his subjects all have second-sight. Good suggestion!

VERITAS – This suggestion is not only cute. If anomalous information retrieval exists, the use of "blind" procedures in research will become questioned as a scientific method. I repeat for the record. The term "triple-blind" was added because Randi questioned the integrity of our current double-blind procedures, and made specific suggestions that we implement further safeguards that made the design even more "blind" than is typically the case. We plan to implement them if the current double-blind studies turn out to be positive.

RANDI - Dr. Schwartz has issued frenzied responses to my comments, which I am tempted to publish here, but that would make a very long document indeed. He is not a man of few words. In addition, he has chosen — again — to invent opinions and statements for me, and it wastes my time just refuting those canards.

VERITAS – The fact is, I issued a single document, like this one, to correct the numerous errors in Randi’s previous commentary. I separately responded to comments by others, which I cc’d to Randi to keep him in the loop. Is this Randi’s ego that interprets all of my emails as a personal response to him?

Instead of responding to the numerous corrections of fact, Randi simply says I "invent opinions" and it "wastes my time just refuting those canards." Apparently, corrections of fact are labeled by Randi as merely "invented opinions." His response to scholarship is to ignore the facts, since it would be a "waste" of time to address them.

I do not consider it a waste of time to attempt to communicate facts. However, in the future, Randi will have to take the MSAT, and pass it, if he wishes to have conversation with us about mediumship science.

RANDI - I notice that the man does not address the crucial question that I have raised: why does he conduct, by his own admission, "experiments" that are not double-blinded?

VERITAS – There is no sentence, written to me, or in his commentary, that focuses on why scientists do not typically begin research doing double-blind studies. If Randi knew how medical research operates, he would understand that often drug research operates in Phases. Phase III research involves multi-center, double-blind studies. The reason why this is not Phase I or Phase II is because (1) scientists need to have a good reason to conduct such a massive study, (2) details need to be worked out to make sure that such a massive study is properly conceived and design, and this requires research (Phases I and II), and (3) such studies are expensive and time consuming.

If Randi knew our research history (e.g. had he read Chapter 9 of the Living Energy Universe book and the peer reviewed, published paper reviewed in that chapter), he would know that we have already conducted exploratory double-blind studies with Laurie. This is because with a single medium, in a single setting, it is practical to conduct double-blind studies.

However, as we describe in the paper that just appeared in the Journal of the Society for Psychical Research (January 2001), when we began multi-medium, multi-sitter experiments (and the mediums had very limited time for research), it was neither appropriate or practical to begin this research using double-blind procedures. Hence, single-blind procedures were used.

RANDI - If he were to begin his project by applying proper, secure, protocols, it would

not be necessary to spend time and money gradually tightening up the controls.

VERITAS – Previously explained above. Our protocols are always as secure as possible (Randi should read the paper in JSPR to see the efforts we went to make this semi-naturalistic, partially blinded study as secure as possible). Regardless of the design - naturalistic, exploratory, single-blind, double-blind, triple-blind – one always tries to make research as honest and accurate as possible.

RANDI - The results would be definitive, ready for publication, and peer-examinable.

VERITAS – We never claim that any single experiment is "definitive." Most single experiments in science deserve further replication and extension (especially in a controversial area). However, our studies are designed to be ready for publication, and peer reviewed.

Case in point, the paper just published in JSPR.

Naturalistic studies are regularly published in scientific journals, as are single-blind studies. Randi should read the literature. What percentage of studies published regularly in Science and Nature are double-blind? The correct answer is, relatively few.

RANDI - More importantly, the media would not be able to trumpet that a scientist from a responsible University has demonstrated that belief in life-after-death has been validated, even though that is mere media-puffery. But Schwartz opened that door, and they rushed through.

VERITAS – The media recently published world-wide stories based upon the peer-reviewed paper that was published in JSPR. Here are the last two sentences of the abstract to that paper. They speak to the fact, not what was reported either by the media, or by Randi.

"Since factors of fraud, error, and statistical coincidence can not explain the present findings, other possible mechanisms should be considered in future research. These include telepathy, super psi, and survival of consciousness after-death."

Do these sentences, quoted from the scientific paper, suggest that we are claiming that we have "demonstrated that belief in life-after-death has been validated"? Obviously not.

However, it is true that we "opened that door" simply by publishing the findings in a peer-reviewed journal. That is the price we pay for publishing in this area in the first place. The problem is, not only does the media bend the facts, the super-skeptics bend the facts as well. The truth is, the media presented the facts of the research more accurately than Randi does.

RANDI - Let me suggest a parallel situation. You have a sturdy boat, but there are a number of leaks in it. Do you set to sea with only a few of the leaks repaired, so that you have to turn back and fix a few more when you begin to sink? If you repair all the leaks, right from the beginning, your voyage is completed efficiently and safely. You don’t have to go back to port repeatedly to do what you knew from the start you would have to do.

VERITAS – Cute metaphor, but inappropriate as stated. We "don’t have to go back to port" – on the contrary, each experiment takes us further on the journey. The "leaks" that are discovered in well prepared ship are easily patched as the ship takes its journey. Discovery is a learning process.

Most experienced scientists are well prepared to repair minor leaks at sea. Of course, I have been sailing research ships for over 30 years. I know that the seas can be rough.

I also know that sometimes others will attempt to shot huge holes in ships, and cause them to sink. Most captains do not shot holes in their own ships.

However, there are dangers at sea from others who would choose to sink the ship themselves rather than have the ship make its appropriate journey of discovery.

RANDI - Schwartz’s method of edging up on doing real science, has one big advantage for him. It allows others to get excited and to assume conclusions that are not supported by the half-research he conducts. And that can attract funding and attention.

VERITAS – In the MSAT, one of the questions will be whether science that takes a step by step approach to addressing controversial questions is simply "half-research" that allows people to "assume conclusions" (recall our careful languaging of the last two sentences of the JSPR abstract, and the history of doing drug research in medicine). Hopefully Randi will know the correct answer now.

RANDI - I have a proposition for the University of Arizona, expressed in a letter which I have sent off by post, today. They may be interested in a million-dollar grant (formerly a prize), which Schwartz can bring to them easily if he will submit his data for examination and if that data establishes what he thinks it does. Let’s see if changing the language and the terminology will bring a better understanding of the million-dollar challenge we offer at the JREF.

VERITAS – In the MSAT, maybe we should include a question about what a grant is. Researchers typically apply for grants to conduct future research. The grants are given without regard to how the research comes out (since the granting agency is typically interested in the truth, and wants the scientists to seek the truth, whatever the data reveal). Randi wants to re-label his "paranormal" challenge and prize as a "grant" – and he says we will receive the grant IF "he will submit his data for examination" and IF "that data establishes what he thinks it does."

Interesting. What we claim in our research is the last two sentences of the abstract to the JSPR paper. I repeat them again:

"Since factors of fraud, error, and statistical coincidence can not explain the present findings, other possible mechanisms should be considered in future research. These include telepathy, super psi, and survival of consciousness after-death."

If Randi’s committee (see below) agrees that based upon the current findings, our large scale, expensive, time-consuming, multi-center double-blind mediumship studies deserve to be done, based upon the data we have collected to date (and Randi seems to claim that we should have done so right from the beginning, since he dismisses all the present data as flawed because it is single-blind, and does not know of the double-blind studies we have conducted with Laurie Campbell), then we should have won the prize and therefore should receive the grant.

However, this is not Randi’s intent. He thinks we are claiming that our current data prove that survival exists (which we do not – will simply say that the data to date are consistent with this hypothesis).

We would be happy to apply for a research grant to fund future research. We are not interested in applying for prizes, called grants, based upon prior research for media claims we are not making in the first place.

RANDI - If I’ve not had acknowledgment from the U. of A. within a month, I’ll post that letter here.

VERITAS – The reader may find it interesting that Randi did not inform me of this letter, nor did he ask my opinions about his highly qualified experts. They are highly qualified. However, they are not agnostics to the work. They have strong opinions, and the Committee is not balanced.

If I were to propose a Committee, it would contain 2 parapsychology oriented people (e.g. Krippner and Radin), 2 agnostic scientists who are neither parapsychologists nor skeptics (there are many choices here), and 2 skeptics who also know research methods (e.g. Hyman and Truzzi). They could then read the papers, and see if the present findings justify conducting multi-center, double-blind mediumship experiments.

The Committee would be balanced. It would represent three approaches to the work (skeptic, agnostic, and believer in the possibility). It would hopefully address the truth of what we are researching, not the media’s twist, or Randi’s further twist.

The panel of highly-qualified experts I have suggested to the University is:

1. Stanley Krippner, Ph.D./psychology, Northwestern University. Director of the Center for Consciousness Studies, Saybrook Institute, San Francisco. Member of the American Society for Psychical Research. Author and President of the Parapsychological Association, 1983.

2. Marvin Minsky, Ph.D./mathematics, Princeton. Mathematician, educator, author. Fellow of I.E.E.E., American Academy of Sciences, New York Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Science. Department of Electrical Engineering & Computer Science, MIT.

3. Ray Hyman, Ph.D./psychology, Johns Hopkins. Professor emeritus of psychology, University of Oregon. Author and founding member of the Committee for Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal. Consultant, U.S. Government, Department of Defense, CIA, inquiries into "remote viewing."

4. Michael Shermer, Ph.D./History of Science, Claremont Graduate School. Editor and publisher of Skeptic Magazine, columnist for Scientific American Magazine, multiple author, host of the Caltech Science Lecture Series.

This is our suggested qualified panel of scientists who have agreed with this Foundation to examine the data gathered by Dr. Schwartz. They are all Ph.D.s — so that Dr. Schwartz will not feel he is involved with poorly-lettered academics — they are informed, willing, specialists, who I believe will be acceptable to Dr. Schwartz.

VERITAS – As discussed above, I would recommend a balanced committee of six people – two skeptics, two agnostics, and two believers in the possibility. As for Randi’s comment about my being involved with "poorly-lettered academics" – he might be interested to know that one of the members of my Ph.D. Committee at Harvard University, Bernard Tursky (who ultimately became a Professor at Stonybrook after he left Harvard as a Lecturer) – did not have a Ph.D., M.A., B.A., or even a high school diploma. However, he had an honest and creative mind, and that is what matters to me. Tursky had integrity, and that is key. Because I question Randi’s integrity (for reasons stated in various emails now), I would not want him on the Committee. Because I question Shermer’s integrity (based partly on how he miscommunicated the facts of what happened on his TV program), I would also not want him on the Committee.

The issue is not letters after someone’s name, but their experience, reputation, and integrity.

I, James Randi, would of course not be involved in any evaluations made by the panel.

VERITAS – The next section I will not correct in detail because Randi makes the following comment at the end:

"Should the wording shown here be inaccurate":

Well, would the reader like to guess what percent of the second hand comments made below are accurate?

The answer is, probably less than 20%.

It has been said "God is in the details" (Hyman told me his memory of the phrase is that the "Devil is in the details"). Regardless of whom one attributes it to, details regarding facts (not "invented opinions" as Randi wish to label historical events), are critical in science.

The story reported below is grossly inaccurate. I offer a few corrections:

1. Laurie did not do a demonstration at the Thursday evening "debate." She did a demonstration at the Friday afternoon session at the Conference (which was not a debate).
2. I gave examples, at the Thursday debate, of materials taken from actual transcripts, presented accurately, that illustrate the replicated fact that conditional probabilities for names and relationships establish that some sort of anomalous information retrieval in Laurie Campbell and other mediums.
3. Laurie did some informal readings at her Friday demonstration, and we asked the audience informally to raise their hands about certain names and relationships. This was NOT research. It was NOT based upon transcripts taken from audio tapes. If there were errors made, I do not know whether the errors reflect (1) the memory of the person who spoke with Randi (who likely was not taking detailed notes of every utterance made by Laurie, the audience, or me), (2) Randi’s recount of what this person relayed to him, and / or (3) an error I made in hearing what a given audience member said to Laurie. We do have tapes of the entire conference, and this could be checked.

Because I care about sharing all the data, I include the "story" told by Randi below. The reader should note that this story is told on Randi’s website. Comments continue at the end of Randi’s story.

RANDI - Let me tell you, by a striking example, just why I believe that perhaps Gary Schwartz is not quite properly conducting this research. The following event was related to me by one who attended his "debate" recently. The "medium" Laurie Campbell did a demonstration for the audience. She asked, "Is there a John, or a Jonathan?" and she received a reply from an audience member who told her that "John" was the name of his deceased father. She followed up with, "And is there a 'b’?" To this, the man answered that his mother’s name was Elizabeth, but that she was known as, "Beth."

In summing up Laurie’s performance later, Dr. Schwartz dealt with the "anomalous" aspect of such readings to which he gives great attention, and thereby gave us an excellent idea of just how he derives his startling statistics. He asked for a show of hands from the audience. "How many of you have a father named John?" he asked. Several hands shot up. "And how many of you with a father named John, also have a mother named Elizabeth?" No takers, showing how unique and against-odds this double-hit of Laurie’s had been....

Do I have to draw you a picture? Laurie didn’t tell that man his father’s name was John. The man told her! She just threw out two names, and required someone to pick up on either one of them. He identified with the name, and volunteered that it was his father’s name. (In this game, the man is said to have "accepted" the name John.) And she never even said the name, "Elizabeth." The man volunteered that, too. Nor did she identify the "b" she guessed, with that man’s mother! He filled her in on that, just as expected by the "cold readers."

Reconstruction of the event by Schwartz was faulty. Better questions directed at the whole audience would have been, "How many here can identify with the names John or Jonathan?" That would have produced a sea of raised hands. Remember, "John" or "Jonathan" is acceptable as a guess if it fits anyone! The chauffeur, a stock broker, son, father, uncle, grandfather, brother, friend, enemy, former classmate, lawyer, traffic cop, boss, poker partner, member of the car pool, just anyone! An appropriate second question would have been, "How many of those persons can also identify with a 'b’?" That "b" Laurie offered could begin a person’s name — or nickname — first or last, or middle name, the name of a city, a street, — or a pet. Or of a company, a profession, anything! I think we’d have had a pretty healthy correlation there. But then, I’m prone to think rationally.

VERITAS – Randi, please read our papers. See how we score our data. I once sent you a draft of a "white crow" research reading (William James’ phrase), and you are acknowledged in a footnote. This paper is in press in the JSPR. You may recall that our analysis is far more sophisticated that your misinformed story above. You may recall that we have conducted research to determine actual base rates of names, we also drew from the US Census to get actual frequencies of names in the general population, and are extraordinary carefully to separate initials, names, relationships, etc. when we calculate conditional probabilities.

So this is science, Dr. Schwartz? You really need more experience of the world, sir.

(Should the wording shown here be inaccurate, or should Dr. Schwartz not recall this event, I suggest that we might all be well served if we were to be given a copy of the official audio tape of this session. Though I have been dismissed as a person not qualified to receive such data, I'm sure that others are not so burdened. In any case, will anyone be offered an audio tape of the event? It exists, and it would bring a better understanding of the nature of Dr. Schwartz's handling and approach, I believe.)

CONCLUSION – This is the last time I will try to correct Randi’s errors. We will create a fair MSAT. If Randi wants to comment on our research, we will invite him to take the test and see if he can pass it. If he can not, we will try to educate him on the facts, so he can be brought up to speed. If he can, great. If not, we will stop spending time and energy attempting to educate a person who, for whatever reasons, can not be educated in this arena.

As for others who wish to comment on the evolution of mediumship science, the MSAT will serve as an educational tool. It will help raise the bar for serious discussion of this work. And hopefully, in the process, it will serve to help reveal the truth, whatever it finally is.

Life is learning process. So is science. Randi has helped educate me about how super-skeptics think and behave. I am learning what are the tactics of professional skeptics. I have come to learn that the purported watchdogs need watchdogs. And I am learning that the history of science has yet to sink in….the key is humility and self-awareness.

Science is a self-correcting process. It lives or dies based upon its ability to respond to honest feedback.

Should Randi get his facts straight someday, I will be happy to continue the conversation.

The invitation still stands for Randi to come to the laboratory, be video taped watching the raw tapes, be video taped commenting on the raw data in his role as a skilled magician. We are not interested in his praise or propaganda (and certainly not his prize). But if he has some useful suggestions to make about the research, we always appreciate honest feedback.

Warmly, Gary

PS – If this response is somewhat lengthy, it is because it takes space to correct so many errors and also attempt to educate in the process.