SCEPCOP Forum

Yeah, for me, mediumship research is very difficult to conduct when considering the hypothesis involved, as there are many possibilities for what might be occurring, as the subjectivity of the sitters and the unknown source of information obtained by the mediums is often an issue. I've never really been much into mediumship research for these reasons. I remember reading some of Schwartz's research back in the first half of this decade, but that's the extent of my knowledge about mediumship research in general. I have a bias towards believing that mediums are mostly likely either 1) guessing, 2) picking up cues, or 3) employing living psi, but I admit I have no evidence to backup that claim. That's simply my presumption.

Feel free to read this post from the JREF posted just a couple days ago and then send a copy of your post to Jeff to counter his claim. http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swi ... at-if.html I didn't see it until after my post, however, it is similar. Perhaps we are talking about two different things, however, any proof of psi would be signficant in my mind.

Your post made me think of another question for you. If psi results are largely unpredictable, then how can that be classified as positive psi effects when it could just as easily be considered "by chance."
What you are essentially saying in your post is that no one has displayed psi capabilities on a predictable basis. If that's the case, then no one who advertises themself as "psychic ..." is legitimate. To put your words to it, that's a pretty bold statement. How do you know this? (Actually, you don't have to answer that. Just trying to show how frustrating those kinds of comebacks are.)

I wanted to add that when I say "largely unpredictable" in this context, I do not mean to imply "untestable," but, rather, "largely unable to foretell when or if a specific, single outcome of an event will occur." Various psi phenomena are certainly testable.