Mike Lee wrote:
> Admittedly, it is difficult to evaluate without more information, but
> nonetheless, interesting.
>
> Scientists Becoming Believers In
> Spiritualists' Paranormal Powers
> By Robert Matthews - Science Correspondent
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk
> 3-4-1
>
> When analysed for factual accuracy, the
> mediums achieved a success rate of 83 per cent, with one
> achieving an accuracy of 93 per cent.
Without knowing what "success" means, the numbers aren't very
meaningful. The fact that the untrained panel (below) scored an average of
36% with one guesser reaching 54% suggests that "success" was not exactly
difficult.
> Sceptics have long argued that the success of mediums is
> due to so-called "cold reading", in which mediums make educated
> guesses about deceased people
(snip)
> The team claims to have dealt with this objection
> after a panel of more than 60 people was asked to
> supply the same information as the mediums about the sitter. The
> average score was only 36 per cent, with the most
> successful guesser achieving just 54 per cent.
Either something very important has been left out of this article,
or "the team" doesn't know much about "cold reading". Why would the fact
that the "mediums" outscored a panel of presumably untrained people
eliminate the "cold reading" alternative hypothesis? I'm pretty certain that
most skeptics who observe cold reading scams would predict that an untrained
panel would not be able to perform the same way. Does "the team" believe
that cold reading is nothing more than untrained guessing? That's incredibly
naive.
The entire article sounds like just another example of people fooled
by standard cold reading.
Paul Smith
Alverno College
Milwaukee
