The Scole Experiment
Said to be the best evidence yet for the afterlife -- but how good is that evidence?
Filed under Paranormal
| Skeptoid #179 November 10, 2009 Podcast transcript | Listen | Subscribe |
|
Turn out the lights and link your hands, for today we're going to hold a seance and contact the dead, and have them perform parlor tricks for us in the dark. We're going to look at the Scole Experiment, a large, well-organized series of seances conducted by members of the Society for Psychical Research in the late 1990's in Scole, a small village in England. Reported phenomena included ghostly lights flitting about the room, images appearing on film inside secure containers, reports of touches from unseen hands, levitation of the table, and disembodied voices. Due to the large number of investigators and sitters involved, the number and consistency of paranormal episodes observed during the seances, and the lack of any finding of fraud, many believers often point to the Scole Experiment as the best scientific evidence that spirits do survive in the afterlife, and can and do come back and interact with the living, demonstrating an impressive array of conjuring powers.
There were a total of six mediums and fifteen investigators from the SPR. The Society for Psychical Research, or SPR, is based in London and is more than a century old. Its membership consists of enthusiasts of the paranormal. The authoritative source for what happened in the Scole Experiment is a report several hundred pages long, called The Scole Report, originally published in the journal Proceedings of the Society for Psychical Research, and written by three of the lead investigators who were present at the sittings, all current or former senior officers of the SPR: plant scientist Montague Keen, electrical engineer Arthur Ellison, and psychologist David Fontana. I have a copy here on my desk. It goes through the history of how the experiments came together, details each of the many seances, and presents analysis and criticism from a number of the SPR investigators who observed.
Unfortunately, the Scole Experiment was tainted by profound investigative failings. In short, the investigators imposed little or no controls or restrictions upon the mediums, and at the same time, agreed to all of the restrictions imposed by the mediums. The mediums were in control of the seances, not the investigators. What the Scole Report authors describe as a scientific investigation of the phenomena, was in fact (by any reasonable interpretation of the scientific method) hampered by a set of rules which explicitly prevented any scientific investigation of the phenomena.
The primary control offered by the mediums was their use of luminous wristbands, to show the sitters that their hands were not moving about during the seances. I consulted with Mark Edward, a friend in Los Angeles who gives mentalism and seance performances professionally. He knows all the tricks, and luminous wristbands are, apparently, one of the tricks. There are any number of ways that a medium can get into and out of luminous wristbands during a seance. The wristbands used at Scole were made and provided by the mediums themselves, and were never subjected to testing, which is a gross dereliction of control by the investigators. Without having been at the Scole Experiment in person, Mark couldn't speculate on what those mediums may have done or how they may have done it. Suffice it to say that professional seance performers are not in the least bit impressed by this so-called control. Tricks like this have been part of the game for more than a century. Since hand holding was not employed in the Scole seances, the mediums effectively had every opportunity to be completely hands free and do whatever they wanted to do.
Believers in the Scole Experiment are likely to point to specifics in the Scole Report and say something like "But according to the detailed notes, the medium never moved his hands," or something like that. But we have to remember that, assuming the Scole mediums were using trickery, the authors of the Scole Report were merely witnesses who were taken in by the tricks. Of course their report is likely to, and does, state that they could not have been fooled. This is a perfect example of confirmation bias. These Society for Psychical Research fellows firmly believed they were witnessing genuine spirit phenomena, and desired a positive outcome. They followed the mediums' instructions to the T and acted as an audience only and not as investigators. The Scole Report details the authors' perceptions of what happened in the room; no reader has cause to believe it describes what actually happened in the room.
Repeatedly, throughout the Scole Report, the authors state that no evidence of fraud or deception was found. For example:
There is a further complaint: that we made little mention of the views of people like West or Professor Robert Morris, "who expressed reservations on the basis of their experiences." That is partly because no such reservations were expressed to us at the time... We were looking for evidence of deception... We looked in vain.
If I go to Penn & Teller's magic show to look for evidence of deception, but I impose the rule that I have to stay in my seat and watch the show as presented, and I'm not allowed to go onstage and examine the performers or the equipment, or watch from behind, or observe the preparations, I guarantee you that I also will find no evidence of deception. Placing illuminated wrist cuffs on the seance mediums, and allowing no further controls, is perfectly analogous to having Teller show you his arms "Hey, look, nothing up my sleeves," then allowing him total control over everything that follows. It can reasonably be argued that the Scole Experiment investigators (whether deliberately or through near-total investigative incompetence) created the conditions of a stage show designed to fool an audience.
The phenomenon most commonly reported in the Scole Experiments were small points of light that flitted about the room, often striking crystals and illuminating them from within, or causing disconnected light bulbs or a small glass dome to light up. Since the mediums banned video gear, there's no way we can really evaluate these claims, other than by reading the Scole Report, which only tells us the perceptions experienced by a few true believers who were present. Mark Edward said these tricks have been commonly performed in seances with laser pointers since the 1970's when they first became available: Strike a light bulb or rock crystal with a laser pointer and it lights right up. An advantage of laser pointers is that the tip can be easily cloaked, obscuring the orifice from anyone whose eyeball is not the target of the beam. We have no evidence that the Scole mediums used such techniques, but their rules also prevented us from establishing that they didn't.
The next most impressive feat was the spontaneous appearance of images on film. During the seance, factory-sealed film cartridges were placed inside a padlocked box. The spirits were then asked to imprint images upon the film. The locked box was then taken and the film developed in the strict constant supervision of the investigators. This feat was repeated many times. One of the investigators, Alan Gauld, wrote critically of how he discovered this locked box could be quickly and easily opened in the dark, which allowed for easy substitution of film rolls. This box was provided by the mediums. Whenever any other sealed container was used, no images ever appeared on the film. Yet even while acknowledging these facts, the authors of the Scole Report still maintain that the film images are most likely evidence of the supernatural.
Perhaps the biggest red flag in the Scole Experiment is the venue in which the sittings took place: a room in the basement of the house in Scole where two of the mediums lived, Robin and Sandra Foy. Rather than controlling the environment, the investigators ceded total control over the room and conditions to the mediums. The seances were held about once a month, which gave the Foys ample time to make any desired alterations to the room. There's no evidence that they did so, but granting them unrestricted opportunity pretty much torpedoed any hope for credibility. The Scole Report states that the room was available for examination before and after every seance, but there's no reason to believe that any truly thorough examination was ever performed; and in any event it's a poor substitute for what the investigators should have done, which was to provide their own room over which the mediums had no control at all. (A few seances were held at other locations, but the Scole Report describes the results from those as "variable".)
The next biggest red flag was the mediums' insistence that the seances be held in complete darkness and their refusal to allow any night-mode video cameras or light enhancement equipment. The mediums' explanation was that they felt such equipment would distract the investigators! That's like telling a pilot that having instruments might distract him from flying. Astoundingly the investigators agreed to this, though they did express dismay, as if their desire and good intentions alone validate their conclusions. Audio recordings only were permitted, but since the claimed phenomena were primarily visual, the audio tapes are of essentially no value.
A third red flag is the fact that there's been no followup. If amazing phenomena truly did happen at the Scole Experiment, it would have changed the world. Mainstream psychologists and other academics would have gotten in on it, it would have made worldwide headlines, and it would be repeated in labs everywhere and become mainstream science. They did have the opportunity: skeptical psychologist and author Richard Wiseman sat in on one seance, taking charge of some photographic film, which failed to be imprinted while in his control. But rather than coming away impressed and spreading the word, he summed it up to me in six words: "It was a load of rubbish!"
This same principle explains why we don't see articles from the Proceedings of the SPR, like the Scole Report, republished in scientific journals. A scientific investigation of a strange phenomenon assumes the null hypothesis unless the phenomenon can be proven to exist. But the authors of the Scole Report, with complete credulity, did the exact opposite: Their stated position is that the lack of disproof means their seances were real supernatural events. But a primary feature of good research is the elimination of other possible explanations, at which the Scole investigators made no competent effort. Many of the investigators expressed that they were not very convinced by what they witnessed, and it is to the credit of the Scole Report authors that they fairly reported this. But this raises the question: Why then write such a lengthy and credulous report, making such obvious conclusions that these phenomena were real? The lesson to take away from the Scole Experiment is a simple one. Although we all have preconceived notions, we have to put them aside and follow the evidence when we investigate.
You should follow me on twitter here.
© 2009 Skeptoid Media, Inc. Copyright information
References & Further Reading
Keen, M., Ellison, A., Fontana, D. "The Scole Report." Proceedings of the Society for Psychical Research. 1 Nov. 1999, Volume 58, Part 220.
Mellenbergh, G.J. Advising on Research Methods: A consultant's companion. Rosmalen: Johannes van Kessel, 2008. 143-180.
The Seybert Commission. Preliminary Report of the Seybert Commission for Investigating Modern Spiritualism. Philadelphia: J.B. Lippincott Company, 1887.
Troy Taylor. "How to Have a Seance: Tricks of Fraudulent Mediums." The Haunted Museum. Dark Haven Entertainment, 1 Jan. 2003. Web. 5 Nov. 2009. <http://www.prairieghosts.com/seance2.html>
Wiseman, R., Morris, R. Guidelines for testing psychic claimants. Hatfield, UK: University of Hertfordshire Press, 1995.
Reference this article:
Dunning, Brian.
"The Scole Experiment." Skeptoid Podcast. Skeptoid Media, Inc.,
10 Nov 2009. Web.
10 Sep 2010. <http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4179>
Discuss!
Remember, you should always read with skepticism the comments of anyone too lame to put their real name & city.
I'm with Robert - I thought seances went out of style decades ago. Maybe I should start up a spirit photography company - it's gotta be much easier with PhotoShop!
H. Tiberius Miser, Secret Underground Lair, Earth
November 10, 2009 12:17pm
I sent Brian the idea to look into The Scole Experiment after two independent people mentioned it when I was debating with them about the existence of the afterlife and speaking to the dead. Brian mentioned he had never heard of it (and neither had I).
It's great that Brian was able to get a copy of the report! Now when someone brings up this nonsense again, I can refer them here.
Bruce Murphy, Bracebridge, Ontario
November 10, 2009 1:27pm
It is amazing that a century and a half after the Fox Sisters, there are still people willing to go into a dark room without cameras or LI goggles, and willing to be amazed by the "spirit manifestations" they see.
Cambias, Massachusetts
November 11, 2009 6:16am
Thanks for the episode!, but this didn't even deserve your attention.
Pablo Colombo, Buenos Aires
November 11, 2009 1:08pm
Professor Richard Wiseman a psychologist at the University of Hertfordshire and a fellow of the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry (CSI) believes that paranormal phenomena such as remote viewing, ganzfeld, and ESP are proven to the normal standards of science but that the claims of the paranormal require higher standards of proof.
Do you agree that those phenomena have been proved to the usual standards of science?
Thanks,
References below:
The wikipedia article on remote viewing:
http://tiny.cc/frVbQ
"Professor Richard Wiseman, a psychologist at the University of Hertfordshire and <b>a fellow of the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry (CSI) has said that he agrees remote viewing has been proven using the normal standards of science, but that the bar of evidence needs to be much higher for outlandish claims that will revolutionize the world, and thus he remains unconvinced:[26]
"I agree that by the standards of any other area of science that remote viewing is proven, but begs the question: do we need higher standards of evidence when we study the paranormal? I think we do. (...) if I said that a UFO had just landed, you'd probably want a lot more evidence. Because remote viewing is such an outlandish claim that will revolutionize [sic] the world, we need overwhelming evidence before we draw any conclusions. Right now we don't have that evidence." Richard Wiseman Daily Mail, January 28, 2008, pp 28–29 [26]"</i>
Clarification on the quote by Wiseman on podblack.com:
http://tiny.cc/KMCPS
“It is a slight misquote, because I was using the term in the more general sense of ESP – that is, I was not talking about remote viewing per se, but rather Ganzfeld, etc
pseudononymous,, ,bi-location
November 11, 2009 7:32pm
"Do you agree that those phenomena have been proved to the usual standards of science?"
No, Wiseman's standards of science may be low.
Max, Boston, MA
November 12, 2009 8:35pm
ESP and remote viewing have been proven to the usual standards of science FICTION.
H. Tiberius Miser, Secret Underground Lair, Earth
November 13, 2009 6:41am
The village of Scole isn't too far away from where I live. I didn't know anything about this-I'm going to see what I can find out about it.
Alyson, Norwich
November 13, 2009 11:58am
Hate to quibble, but if you go to Penn and Teller, they're totally open about the deception going on, so you wouldn't need to look for evidence at all. That's their gimmick.
Morgan, Tracy, CA
November 13, 2009 1:02pm
"Do you agree that those phenomena have been proved to the usual standards of science?"
Wow, how can I word this without stepping on too many toes. I would agree, to a point. If parapsychology did NOT make supernatural claims when valid natural claims were just as likely, their evidence would be valid.
We would accept both parapsychology and the natural methods(cold reading, chance, etc) as equally likely if they WERE both equally likely.
But one is completely natural and provable, and the other one uses unknown methods, so until we have proof that the supernatural is more likely than the natural method, the supernatural method is not accepted.
noname, lamesville
December 03, 2009 7:39am
I listened to this episode today. Very timely for me. I've been doing a ton of reading on psychics, etc. lately.
Thanks for another great episode.
Maria, Arizona
December 06, 2009 2:36pm
MOST OF THE THINGS U SAID WERE ASSUMPTIONS AND SPECULATIONS....YOUR LAME.
BLAKA, BLAKA CITY
December 13, 2009 8:34pm
Morgan from Tracy, CA is right; most of the time, Penn & Teller reveal their trick after performing it. One of the tricks they gave away on live television was one involving the boxes which supposedly took apart Teller's body while they played a stupid song on "America's Got Talent".
Afterwards, they re-did the entire trick, using transparent boxes and a transparent platform. The amazing trick was Teller's dexterity, in literally crawling about the platform and sticking his head or arms through the holes in the boxes to make himself seem as though he were cut apart or disappearing.
Andariel Halo, Miami, Florida
February 03, 2010 7:12am
I haven't read the official report, but there were quite a few reputable scientists that were firmly convinced that the results were evidence for the afterlife (including NASA scientists). We're not talking about dummies.
http://www.victorzammit.com/book/4thedition/chapter08.html
Michael F., Greater Cleveland Area, Ohio
February 09, 2010 8:07pm
I just lost my 12-year old son to cancer. I am looking for evidence of life after death everywhere and all the time. Unfortunately, as you describe it quite convincingly, the "Scole experiment" is an obvious mystification. No controlled experiment, no proof. Simple.
Philip Draye, Phoenix
February 23, 2010 12:55pm
Modern science - A blindman looking through a venetian blind that is closed.
Archangel, uk
March 01, 2010 9:26am
@Archangel
That's a lot better than not looking at all, ie, "alternative science"
Andariel Halo, Miami, Florida
March 03, 2010 5:36am
""Modern science - A blindman looking through a venetian blind that is closed.""
Come again?
""That's a lot better than not looking at all, ie, "alternative science""
Alternative industry: "Aw, we don't need to look, the Chinese did this stuff 4000 years ago and they were SMARTER than us!"
Safe-Keeper, Norway
March 16, 2010 10:46am
Having read what I could find on the 'Scole Experiment' I am very thankful that those people spent so much time and effort on the investigation and puplished their findings so folk like me and you could get a glimpce of the other side. I know that life never ends I have had my own proof. A closed mind will stop you from experiencing the wonders that await you. Open your mind and heart to receive all that the Universe has to offer. All you need is Love for your fellow man.
Babs, Scotland, UK
March 22, 2010 2:55am
Babs,
A closed mind? For whom?
The skeptic who researches in painstaking detail to find the truth or the "believer" who is prepared to be deceived without so much as a word?
Martin, Nottingham, UK
April 07, 2010 4:54am
I have to wonder at the astounding cynical nature of the mediums. They were most likely in the background performing these parlor tricks any magician could easily reproduce, and then claiming that the supernatural was real. Do they REALLY believe the supernatural is real when they stand in the dark flashing laser pointers or sneak processed film into boxes? And if they dont, what is their ultimate goal? I stand with many here: I will only believe in the claimed suprnatural abilities of some medium when they can produce their abilities under conditions controlled by sceptical experimenters. The Scole report is only good for people to read as an example of what researchers SHOULD NOT DO.
Cam, Thunder Bay
April 30, 2010 8:00am
A most intetresting podcast. Considering you have the Scole Report I think some of your observations are somewhat biased. I have been to Scole and to the cellar, which is of stone construction, underground, has one entrance and is painted all in black. Walls are solid. NOTHING after through searching can be hidden in this bare room. Light phenomena is of interest, but you failed to mention that the lights did not just appear in the room, but passed THROUGH living tissue (arms, legs, ) to appear on the other side. A Laser pointer cannot do this. Professor Fontana ( he has written over 100 books ) and the team are all highly trained observers and scientists. I personaly know two of them. By all means be sceptical, but don't just be selective of the information you broadcast. You have not presented the full facts of this major investigation, including the materialisation phenomena. These experiments were repeated time and time again, Scole was far from a one off event.
Dr Malcolm Lewis, Preston, UK
May 25, 2010 7:56am
@ Dr. Lewis
What happened during the experiments may or may not have been factual, but how can you possibly excuse the basic and PROFOUND lapses in proper research methodology? There were ZERO controls placed over the mediums. So how can we really know if it was real, or deception? We cant. Although the more mundane explanation of deception fits very well since there is nothing here to rule it out.
Brian himself says: "But a primary feature of good research is the elimination of other possible explanations, at which the Scole investigators made no competent effort" and this is evidenced throughout the podcast.
Also, Carl Sagan and James Randi stressed that scientists are not as well prepared to spot deliberate deception as they think, while magicians can easily reproduce any of the stated effects in the experiment. And no, you wouldnt be able to see how they did it after either if they didnt want you to. There is nothing done there that a half-competent magician also couldnt do given the same conditions. The lack of controls totally failed to rule deception out.
By all means if you have solid evidence showing otherwise, I am sure we ALL invite you to present it. I await the references to reputable sources.
Cam, Thunder Bay
June 30, 2010 12:55pm
I came across your site whilst researching Scole, hoping to see both sides, I read your article, and I also visited the Scole site, something it seems you have not bothered to do. The Scole experiment website does detail much that you question above, including a response to people such as you; this is from way back in 2004! Part of the paper mentions that Monty Keen, passed away some years ago, did you know this? Or is it simply easier to insult a dead man!
Your obvious bias and lack of research only shows that you do not practice what you preach, you did not put your preconceived notions aside, and you most certainly did not follow the evidence! Unfortunately, when looking for the TRULY unbiased on BOTH sides of the argument, the world seems to be sadly lacking!
You say one Red Flag is that the mediums have all the control, why then, do you think that Sceptics would be any more objective? Fraudulent mediums, etc, are out there in swathes, but so are single issue fanatics, such as you, professing, to be 'saving' the ignorant from the clutches of the paranormal believers. Please, tell me how you are any different to cold-readers? You also seek to make your name, maybe on the opposite side as a sceptic, but you too make money from people’s beliefs! What a subject to choose, you know that the afterlife is unverifiable by the 'scientific' standards you yourself set, and so it follows that you will inevitably be proved right!
Krista, London,UK
August 09, 2010 3:45pm
@ Krista
Show me how they conclusively ruled out deception. Show me where they conclusively demonstrated something that a magician/mentalist/illusionist could not do given the same conditions.
I notice you did not include that in your statement in any way whatsoever, so show me what I missed.
You are hoping to find a truth no matter what stands in the way. I am trying to find a truth that withstands all tests. The Scole expertimenters failed to meet that standard in myriad ways.
Are ghosts real? I havent a clue, but if so that'd be wonderful. But shoddy experiments like this do nothing to constructively forward the argument. You seem determined to say they are real no matter what. Might be true, might not. Show me your proof.
Cam, Thunder Bay
August 11, 2010 9:31am
You say that 2 of the main problems are that the experiments were done in the dark and that no further work has been done, so the results should be completely dismissed. You might want to follow up on the report at http://www.campionpublishing.com/the_norfolk_experiment.html.
"The two mediums involved in The Scole Experiement, Alan and Diana Bennett, have continued to conduct their experimental sessions since the five-year series of experiments at Scole.
They are seeking to answer some of the questions, objections, and issues raised by the scientific investigators during the original experiments; a central concern being that some of the experiments had to be conducted in the dark and were therefore difficult to scrutinise adequately.
Campion News can report that authors, Grant and Jane Solomon, have been invited to attend the new experimental sessions, and remarkable images have now been produced using the most up-to-date technology, in fully-lighted conditions.
If the collection of these images can be repeated in the presence of scientific investigators, it could be a very important step towards proving the existence of other dimensions of existence."
It seems you couldn't be bothered to look for new information, or you neglected to mention anything that didn't fit your biased viewed. Either way you can't claim to be an unbaised authority on scientific research when you can't even spend 10 minutes researching the topic on Google
Neal, Nottingham
August 11, 2010 10:39am
@ Neal
"If the collection of these images can be repeated in the presence of scientific investigators, it could be a very important step towards proving the existence of other dimensions of existence."
So.......where are the repeatable, testable results of these new studies? I dont see you posting the studies I was asking for, only that they shall be forthcoming at some point in the future. The statement also implies that it hasnt been done in front of scientific investigators yet.
And I was commenting on the Scole study itself with its inherent flaws. You make these comments based on something I had never touched upon about stuff after. Red Herring, anyone?
Oh and I looked at the site you showed. You must have something more, I imagine, other then a half-page non-descriptive, general, brief blurb to account for saying this:
"It seems you couldn't be bothered to look for new information, or you neglected to mention anything that didn't fit your biased viewed. Either way you can't claim to be an unbaised authority on scientific research when you can't even spend 10 minutes researching the topic on Google".
Seems you spent precisely 10 mins on google decided I am biased. You may be guilty of "It seems you couldn't be bothered to look for new information..." yourself.
Cam, Thunder Bay
August 11, 2010 10:58am
@ Cam, Thunder Bay
"Also, Carl Sagan and James Randi stressed that scientists are not as well prepared to spot deliberate deception as they think, while magicians can easily reproduce any of the stated effects in the experiment."
First,
Not only is James Randi NOT a scientist, he is not very good at his own craft(Magic). His 1 million paranormal challenge is a joke. It is NOT winnable in any way, shape or form.
http://www.dailygrail.com/features/the-myth-of-james-randis-million-dollar-challenge
Second,
James Webster, a Magician was present at Scole for 3 sittings. He has over 40 years of professional experience as a stage magician and as a psychical researcher, and On the strength of his experience and of his observations at Scole he is unequivocal that the phenomena witnessed there by him could not be duplicated by professional magicians.
http://www.thescoleexperiment.com/artcl_01.htm
Third, Any and ALL magicians were welcome to attend sittings at Scole, only James Webster availed himself of the opportunity. I wonder why the infamous Randi didn't jump on this chance.
Also referring to the original article,
"These Society for Psychical Research fellows firmly believed they were witnessing genuine spirit phenomena, and desired a positive outcome."
This can also be said for Non-Believers, who truly Dont WANT TO BELIEVE, and then get a negative outcome. (In other words Closed-minded).The SPR were open minded about Scole and RECIEVED a positive outcome. NotDesired
Sam, Los Angeles
August 12, 2010 12:56am
Guys, this is getting a tad ridiculous.
Let me sum this up again in one line: "The experimenters FAILED to rule out alternative explanations".
How is that so hard to understand? You say "you just dont want to believe" yet on one hand I am presented with one person who believe scpetics are fraudulent, another who presents a half page of stuff that may be shwon in the future but doesnt post anything definite, and yourself who says "a magician says it was real".
The room was not under the scientists control to rule out trickery. There was no equipment allowed to verify or refute the authenticity of the observations (these two strictures essentially removed almost all ability for objective observation), the experimenters were not allowed to move around and check stuff out (although when they checked the box with the film they found it was a sham right away).
Etc etc etc...
A proper experiment has the scientist in control of the environment to rule out other occurences or trickery. They also provide the materials for the same reason. They have equipment to make sure they are in fact seeing what they are seeing, and once again ruling out other effects or causes. The Scole people didnt do this and essentially were as Brian says "audience members".
Yet you attack us for mentioning this and say "This can also be said for Non-Believers, who truly Dont WANT TO BELIEVE". You are ready to accept anything at face value it seems.
Cam, Thunder Bay
August 12, 2010 7:10am
@ Cam, Thunder Bay
I was not claiming to post anything definite or conclusive. I was pointing out that you while you talk about putting aside preconceived notions and being unbiased you include no mention any new relevant information.
You seem to think that anyone who does not agree with you completely and dismiss the investigation as incompetent is a gullible fool who obviously believes every word. This straw man argument is insulting because you characterise anyone who puts forward a different opinion as attacking you
I myself am from a science background and do have reservations about the experiments and the conclusions, that doesn't mean I think something should be mocked and rejected out of hand simply because you can spot flaws in the scientific method. Many theories in the normal scientific world when first put forward have been treated with respect and investigated further by the scientific community on far less evidence.
In your reply to me you complain that you were only commenting on the original study and that I shouldn't mention anything else, if even related. You then take issue with me deciding that your article was biased because I had not spent enough time researching everything else about you. This double standard merely proves my point about your lack of objectivity.
Neal, Nottingham
August 12, 2010 11:04am
@ Neal
So how does a vague link which says "we will present information that may show something in the future and might be shown to scientists" count as new evidence towards validating the Scole experiment?
I notice for all the rhetoric that you havent once answered that question. You want to say the Scole Experiment was valid because of your weblink then you're falling quite short.
I am not the kind of person to dismiss compelling evidence, I am the kind of person to dismiss evidence for which I can easily find alternative explanations, or which is grossly insufficient. I have been there doing presentations on papers where I learned this lesson in the hardest way before distinguished academics at my University. But calling a vague half page of writing "information" can only be used in the loosest of terms, so in the strictest sense you had not called it evidence and I can be taken to account for that. But I can look for "information" on any site I want including the crackpot conspiracy theorist sites and call that "information" too under the same guise. Thats know by man things, splitting hairs being one of them. So how does that fall under the straw man argument?
This would be evident if you had taken your science background to heart.
Thing is, many notable researchers have tried, but have never yet come up with compelling evidence of the supernatural. Thats why most in the scientific community give it far less shrift. Its been tried.
Cam, Thunder Bay
August 12, 2010 12:07pm
@ Cam, Thunder Bay
When I said "Non-Believers, who dont ....etc", I was not referring to skeptics, I was pointing out a flaw in Brian Dunning's Logic. If Skeptics can be skeptical about the Scole Experiment, then I may also be skeptical about anyone who works under the James Randi Educational Foundation.
..
Richard Wiseman went on record at Study Day on Scole with the judgement that the Scole Report is `very impressive', and offered no suggestions as to how the phenomena could be replicated by normal means.
There is no record of him saying "It was Rubbish", we only have Brian's account. Maybe Mr.Dunning took it out of context or he is flat out lying?
Also without going into much detail, there will be a followup. The Norfolk Experiment.
http://www.thescoleexperiment.com/ref_02.htm
This article also fails to mention that some sittings occurred outside Scole. For example, one sitting took place at Dr Hans Schaer's Holiday home in Ibiza. Medium's had zero control at those locations.
This article makes it seem as if SPR enforced no controls or a small amount. This is not so. The SPR enforced strict protocols on many different areas while investigating at Scole. For example, in their Photographic Films experiment(s), Richard Wiseman provided a fraud-proof security bag made of opaque triple layered polythene. The investigators placed a unopened tub of 35mm film in this bag, in hope of receiving transmissions in form of images. The results were impressive to say the least.
Sam, Los Angeles
August 13, 2010 2:49pm
Show me the links where Richard Wiseman has specificaly said this, and where he produced the evidence of the photography, and methodology involved. Like I said i wont dismiss it out of hand if you can provide this kind of evidence for me. If it is in fact real and Wiseman has documented it, you will have scored a real point worth looking at. These allegations were made earlier too, but after looking at Wisemans site i cant find where he said it or documented his findings. So up to you to provide them.
The Scole people failed in many profound ways to provide anything resembling a control froma researchers point of view though, which is why i am so hard on them. They sould have known better. What seems adequate to the layman is entirely insufficient at a scientists level. Wiseman has real standing though, so I would like to see the evidence.
As for Wisemans statment, he said it to Dunning, didnt report it in some journal someplace.
And no the link you did provide is a half page of actual vague rubbish saying someting will come along at some point and will be eventually shown to scientists. I wont buy that.
Cam, Thunder Bay, ON
August 14, 2010 11:42am
Make a comment about this episode of Skeptoid (please try to keep it brief & to the point). Anyone can post:
You can also discuss this episode in the Skeptoid Forum, hosted by the James Randi Educational Foundation.
Join the Skeptalk email discussion list.
What's the most important thing about Skeptoid?
![[Valid RSS]](/images/valid-rss-rogers.png "Validate my RSS feed"){kind=small}
Brian, where do you hear about this flim-flam? Thought that seances went out a century ago to be replaced by ghost hunters etc.
Robert Mcbride, Columbia, MD
November 10, 2009 10:16am