RESPONSE TO CRITICSCR

INTRODUCTION - THREE TYPES OF CRITICISM

Their are basically three kinds of critics of this kind of research.  It helps to classify critics in the context of evaluating and responding to their criticisms.

TYPE D:  DOGMATIC-CRITICISM

As discussed on the TRUE SKEPTICISM page, pseudo-skeptics are individuals who are convinced that their current beliefs - for example, that a greater spirituality can not and /or does not exist - is the definitive truth.  Though they may claim they are open to scientific evidence, their behavior does not support their claims. Their criticism can be labeled dogmatic criticism because it typically reflects some combination of:

(1) faulty logic, often driven by emotion

(2) verifiable ignorance of the set of evidence,

(3) selective cherry picking of the evidence, typically taking certain observations out of context and misrepresenting them for the purpose of supporting their biases, and

(4) categorical dismal of certain observations as being impossible or necessarily rejected by their preferred explanation.

A extreme statement attributed to a Type D critic is "These are the kinds of data I wouldn't believe, even if they were true."

TYPE P:   PREFERRED-THEORY CRITICISM

This kind of criticism is prevalent in science in general and parapsychology in particular.  Unlike Type D criticism which is almost always misleading if not mistaken, Type P (Preferred-theory) criticism is typically genuine criticism and deserves serious scientific scrutiny. 

The stronger the preference for a given theory, the more intense (and sometimes hostile) the criticism may be offered. Extreme Type P critics are often overly attached to their respective theories and they will resist or reject compelling evidence which supports another theory.

Probably the most well educated and thoughtful criticism of the greater spirituality reality hypothesis comes from parapsychologists who vigorously offer Type P criticism of each other's theories as well as greater spiritual reality hypothesis.  Sometimes their zeal for their preferred parapsychological hypotheses interferes with their personal ability to accept evidence consistent with a greater spiritual reality hypothesis.

TYPE U:   UNATTACHED CRITICISM

This kind of criticism reflects a genuine open-minded questioning of observations and interpretations without a strong attachment to a particular theory or world view.  It reflects the deepest expression of unbiased research and interpretation in science (and life).  Type U criticisms are typically offered in the form of questions or suggestions, and the criticisms are expressed in a friendly and open fashion. 

       The prototypic approach of Type U criticism is "I wonder if" and "what if."    Often questions are couched in terms of "thought experiments" and the Type U's critic's motivation comes from a sense of genuine curiosity and wondering. 

For the record, any type of criticism - be it Type D, P or U - could in a given instance turn out to be a valid criticism of a given observation or interpretation.   Hence, all criticism deserves careful consideration regardless of it's source of motivation.

 

Criticism: "Single-blinded mediumship readings, even conducted by skilled experimenters or observers, are worthless scientifically because of possible subtle cueing of the medium, selective scoring of the information, or rater bias" (Type D or P).

This is a common criticism typically offered by Type U as well as Type P critics. 

In single-blinded readings, the medium is kept blind to the identity of the "sitter" (the person wish to hear from his deceased loved ones) and her or his deceased loved ones.  However, both the sitter and the experimenter know that the information pertains to the sitter.  Hence, it is possible that the sitter and / or experimenter could unknowingly give the medium cues about potentially accurate information as well as potentially score the information selectively if not in a biased fashion.

For more than 100 years, mediumship researchers have known that double-blinded procedures,(where the sitter is not present when the reading takes place and therefore be required to score both her or his reading as well as control readings), and ideally triple-blinded procedures (where the specific experimenter working with the medium is kept blind to the identity of the sitter and her or his deceased loved ones), are preferred experimental protocols.  Multi-blinded procedures are regularly employed in the Laboratory for Advances in Consciousness and Health as well as other leading university and private laboratories worldwide.

However, there are unique instances when highly skilled experimenters are employed, and especially when the experimenter also serves in the role of sitter, that useful exploratory and / or confirmatory information can sometimes be obtained.   To categorically dismiss all single-blinded observations as being worthless is neither scientifically or socially wise.

As amply documented in The Sacred Promise, not only can exquisitely detailed and novel (as well has highly improbable) information sometimes occur in single-blinded readings, but unique phenomena can be witnessed which are potentially evidential and suggest new directions and methods for future research.

Type D critics not only regularly reject single-blinded information, but they do so in a derogatory fashion. 

Type P critics may be less derogatory, but they typically refuse to examine the details of such readings because of their fear that the information might be (as opposed to must be) tainted.   

Type U critics, on the other hand, will be quick to point out the limitations of single-blinded data, but still consider those unique instances where the information may be compelling and important enough to deserve further exploration.