Well, actually French was pretty impressed and didn't have any "skeptic final words", really... he just babble something about intuition which is basically irrelevant :DThere is no amount of tests that would convince this man, it's "cues all the way down". The programme format has no time for further tests of course, so the skeptic has the final word and reality remains safe from weird.
9:27 to 9:45 French says if "she is picking up on something (normal, by his tone) it's still very interesting". My normal may be his supernatural.Well, actually French was pretty impressed and didn't have any "skeptic final words", really... he just babble something about intuition which is basically irrelevant :D
http://www.skepticreport.com/sr/?p=292Check out this article:
www.express.co.uk/life-style/life/603402/Psychic-detectives-solve-police-cases/amp?client=ms-android-att-us
Acording to Diane, she has been contacted previously by police agencies to help solve crimes. She seems to be an individual who may have special skills, as we've seen with the deomstrations above. I can at least conclude that "something is going on".
Him, a film crew, sound crew, director etc..I agree. At least he admitted he was impressed. But on the second go around he was actually the one accompanying her, so he would have to be the one providing any possible cues. From what I see from the video, he seemed to have trailed behind her a majority of his test.
Since we do not have any way to know what really happened, this video does not demonstrate anything.However, the video was interesting and demonstrated the unique ability of this individual (regardless of the explanation for the ability), which suprised a hardened skeptic.
Well I suppose we have to rely on the sceptics - who would have loved to expose the truth, if this was what was going on! For example, if they tested the participants over and over to get a positive result, the sceptics who were with Diane would surely have exposed this fact!Him, a film crew, sound crew, director etc..
This was a "reality" show (i assume) for comercial TV. Having a show about psychics, and having nothing psychic happening must be a problem for such a show.
The temptation and motivation to help the psychic does exist, not saying that is what happened, but to me that is a far more plausible explanation than Diane having real powers.
Since she was told nothing, but shown the picture, the video certainly shows that she was able to find all the relevant places where the crime was committed! By the sounds of it, she also fingered one of the men suspected of the crime! Obviously they will need other evidence to secure a conviction, but I'd say all 3 tests were pretty remarkable!Since we do not have any way to know what really happened, this video does not demonstrate anything.
Maybe they felt that the test would not be administered fairly! Whatever your profession is, would you like to be tested on your competence by a self appointed magician?I cannot help but notice that the test with the hidden people would be an ideal sort of test for taking part in the James Randi's million dollar challenge , yet in the whole history of that test nobody demonstrated the same sort of ability in a similar test.
The test has ended now, mainly because the people for whom the test was intended (well known media psychics), simply did no apply.
The main criticism for the MDC was that it was not a scientific test, which is fair, but irrelevant since the test did not pretend to be anything else than a challenge.
It really is amazing that you prefer the judgement of a stage magician to people like Chris French!Another critique was, that the MDC was not suited for testing paranormal abilities because they were small effects, only detectable through statistics over periods of time not practical for a one day test.This also does not apply to the test portrayed in the video.
It seems strange to me that proponents are very critical about the MDC (talking about it was even restricted to a certain thread on this forum for a while), but on the other hand are completely uncritical to a TV show that has ratings as only purpose.
Nice. Thanks for that obfuscation malf. A "report" by chillzero who in his own words had a "hissy fit" when he heard of this. His "sketpticreport" says:
Yeah and let's completely overlook the other two straight forward tests in which she "guessed" correctly while the odds were 1/720 against it. And of course viewers don't have enough information so we should listen to his biased babbling rather than looking at the source material that was witnessed by Chris French, an illusionist, a retired police chief inspector or the efforts of the trained military personnel who acted as controls...Diane’s main contribution to her winning status came from 2 particular challenges, both of which concerned locating “missing” people hidden within an area they were brought to. In both cases Diane thought for a few moments, and then walked off directly to the “bodies” by the most direct route. She found them both within minutes where even professional searchers had floundered a bit. It was admittedly quite surprising, but I didn’t feel that enough information was availble to us as viewers to fully consider the validity of the test.
Why would you give that as an example? that is almost certain not what happened.Well I suppose we have to rely on the sceptics - who would have loved to expose the truth, if this was what was going on! For example, if they tested the participants over and over to get a positive result, the sceptics who were with Diane would surely have exposed this fact!
But all that information must have been in the hands of the program makers, how else could they have judged her accuracy?.Since she was told nothing, but shown the picture, the video certainly shows that she was able to find all the relevant places where the crime was committed! By the sounds of it, she also fingered one of the men suspected of the crime! Obviously they will need other evidence to secure a conviction, but I'd say all 3 tests were pretty remarkable!
Or maybe they did not feel for performing in situations where they did not have control over the circumstances.Maybe they felt that the test would not be administered fairly!
If what i did in my profession, looked like what magicians do, that would be appropriate.Whatever your profession is, would you like to be tested on your competence by a self appointed magician?
I prefer the judgement of a test that is performed under far better controls, a test performed without any change of information leakage.It really is amazing that you prefer the judgement of a stage magician to people like Chris French!
That is one interpretation of that sorry episode.The only reason that discussion of the MDC was restricted to one thread, was that certain people wanted to derail as many threads as possible into the same discussion!
David
Nice. Thanks for that obfuscation malf. A "report" by chillzero who in his own words had a "hissy fit" when he heard of this. His "sketpticreport" says:
Yeah and let's completely overlook the other two straight forward tests in which she "guessed" correctly while the odds were 1/720 against it. And of course viewers don't have enough information so we should listen to his biased babbling rather than looking at the source material that was witnessed by Chris French, an illusionist, a retired police chief inspector or the efforts of the trained military personnel who acted as controls...
Cheers,
Bill
Of course, this does assume that Diane was utterly dishonest! It also ignores the fact that she did well on all three tests. I would imagine Chris French and the other sceptics would have been particularly keen to thwart any attempt at cheating on the second test. It was only the third test in which prior knowledge could have been useful.Why would you give that as an example? that is almost certain not what happened.
I was suggesting that it was clearly possible for Diane to get information from someone of the crew, either on their own initiative, or in cooperation with the program makers.
If that would happen, they surely could have done that without anyone noticing. Do really you think this is impossible?
Remember the primary goal of making a show on commercial TV, is not to scientifically investigate psychics, it is to get as much viewers as possible for their advertisers.
I think Randy would have made sure he won one way or another.But all that information must have been in the hands of the program makers, how else could they have judged her accuracy?.
So for the second video they also could have passed on information, again i am not saying that is what happened, but we also can not say id did not happen.
Or maybe they did not feel for performing in situations where they did not have control over the circumstances.
Whatever the reason, it stays remarkable that none of the big name psychics ever wanted to earn an easy million, while humilliating the skeptics at the same time.
Do you mean that you would have taken such an expose seriously!And even if the test was not administered fairly, they could have taken the challenge, and subsequently exposed the JREF, by reporting how exactly they were not fair.
But again none did.
You have mountains of such tests, but the effect size goes down in very artificial conditions so it is necessary to rely on statistics! Better controls tend to be at the expense of real emotion - that seems to drive ψ. If you want to use a real murder, there is obviously some danger of information leakage, but with an artificial situation the emotional content is trivial by comparison.If what i did in my profession, looked like what magicians do, that would be appropriate.
Was Randi "a self appointed" magician? I do not really know what you mean by that, but i know he was highly regarded as a magician by his colleagues.
I prefer the judgement of a test that is performed under far better controls, a test performed without any change of information leakage.
Well he had plenty of opportunity to voice any doubts that he had. People like Chris French have made their reputation out of scepticism, and the most you will ever get out of them is bafflement if things don't go their way. I don't suppose he enjoyed being stumped, but to give him some credit he only made a very half hearted attempt to waffle out of his predicament!I prefer that far above a test organized by an entity that has it as its primray mission to get eyeballs at screens.
Dr French was invited as a sceptic on this show, we do not know to what degree he had control over the protocol of these tests.
Maybe he should have thought twice to connect his name to this, i would really like to have his thoughts on that.
Yup, critical discussions. Which means you probably want to at give some thought to the value of the information in links that you post, right?Well. This is in CD forum