Discussion: Causation

The experiment described in the passage has several potential flaws when it comes to evaluating the validity of claims regarding communication with the dead. Here's a summary of the flaws:

Selection bias: The mediums were handpicked by Gary Schwartz, potentially introducing bias towards those who already have a reputation or those Schwartz may be personally acquainted with. This could influence the results if certain mediums are more adept at cold reading or making general statements that could be interpreted as accurate.

Confirmation bias: The researchers and participants may have been inclined to interpret vague or general statements made by the mediums as accurate, due to a desire to believe in the existence of an afterlife or in the abilities of the mediums. This could lead to an overestimation of the mediums' performance.

Lack of controls: The experiment lacks adequate controls to rule out alternative explanations for the observed phenomena. For example, the mediums may have been able to pick up cues from the researchers or sitters inadvertently, or the sitters may have given subtle cues unconsciously. Without controls in place to prevent these possibilities, it's difficult to attribute any observed effects solely to communication with the dead.

Subjective interpretation: The evaluation of the mediums' performance seems to rely heavily on subjective impressions rather than objective criteria. Schwartz mentions being "impressed" with the mediums' performance without providing specific metrics or criteria for what constitutes success or failure. This lack of objectivity makes it challenging to draw meaningful conclusions from the study.

Sample size and composition: The study involved a relatively small sample size of 10 sitters and four mediums. Additionally, the composition of the sample is not described in detail, raising questions about its representativeness. For example, if the sitters were predominantly believers in psychic abilities, this could introduce bias into the results.

Overall, while the experiment described in the passage is an intriguing attempt to investigate claims of communication with the dead, it suffers from several methodological flaws that undermine the reliability and validity of its findings.

1 Confirmation Bias: One significant flaw in the study is the presence of confirmation bias. This cognitive bias occurs when individuals interpret or recall information in a way that confirms their preexisting beliefs or hypotheses. In this experiment, the mediums may unconsciously interpret vague or ambiguous cues from the sitters as confirming evidence of communication with the deceased. The restricted format of the question and answer session, limited to "yes" or "no" responses, may inadvertently reinforce this bias, as the sitters may provide affirmative responses in hopes of validating the mediums' statements. This dynamic can lead to a feedback loop where the mediums' statements align with the sitters' expectations, creating an illusion of successful communication with the deceased.
2. Lack of Control: Another flaw in the experiment is the lack of control over potential sources of influence on the mediums' performance. The presence of acquaintances among the sitters introduces a confounding variable that may bias the results. If the mediums are familiar with some of the sitters, they may subconsciously draw upon prior knowledge or cues from these individuals to tailor their responses. Additionally, the absence of strict protocols to prevent unintentional cues or prompting during the experimental sessions increases the risk of contamination from extraneous factors.
3. Ambiguity in Mediums' Performance Evaluation: The criteria used to assess the mediums' performance lack objectivity and rigor. The subjective nature of psychic impressions makes it challenging to establish clear metrics for evaluating the accuracy of the mediums' communications with the deceased. Without standardized measures or independent verification of the information provided by the mediums, the reliability and validity of the findings are called into question.
In summary, the experiment described in the report is susceptible to several methodological flaws that compromise the integrity and validity of its results. Confirmation bias, lack of control, and ambiguity in performance evaluation undermine the scientific rigor of the study and raise doubts about the purported evidence for communication with the dead. A more rigorous experimental design incorporating rigorous controls and objective measures is essential to address these shortcomings and advance our understanding of paranormal phenomena.

The experiment described in the passage has several potential flaws related to causation, correlation, and causal fallacies:

1. Lack of control group: The experiment lacks a control group to compare the mediums' performance against individuals who do not claim to communicate with the dead. Without a control group, it is challenging to determine whether the mediums' abilities are genuinely exceptional or merely the result of chance or other factors.

2. Confirmation bias: The researchers' involvement in the experiment, including inviting mediums and overseeing the sessions, introduces the risk of confirmation bias. They may unconsciously influence the mediums or sitters, leading to the perception of successful communication with the deceased where none exists.

3. Acquaintances among sitters: The presence of acquaintances of the mediums among the sitters introduces a potential source of bias. These sitters may consciously or subconsciously provide cues or information that could influence the mediums' responses, confounding the results.

4. Limited response options: Restricting the sitters' responses to "yes" or "no" during the question and answer session may limit the information provided, potentially leading to ambiguous or misleading interpretations by the mediums.

5. Lack of blinding: The mediums were aware of the nature of the experiment, which could have influenced their behavior or responses. A double-blind setup, where neither the mediums nor the researchers know the identities of the sitters or the deceased individuals, would help mitigate potential biases.

Overall, while the experiment attempts to rigorously investigate the possibility of communication with the dead, its design and implementation contain several flaws that undermine the reliability and validity of the results. Engaging in discussions about such experiments allows for critical evaluation of the methods used and encourages a deeper understanding of scientific reasoning and skepticism.

The experiment described in the passage has several potential flaws when it comes to evaluating the validity of claims regarding communication with the dead. Here's a summary of the flaws:

Selection bias: The mediums were handpicked by Gary Schwartz, potentially introducing bias towards those who already have a reputation or those Schwartz may be personally acquainted with. This could influence the results if certain mediums are more adept at cold reading or making general statements that could be interpreted as accurate.

Confirmation bias: The researchers and participants may have been inclined to interpret vague or general statements made by the mediums as accurate, due to a desire to believe in the existence of an afterlife or in the abilities of the mediums. This could lead to an overestimation of the mediums' performance.

Lack of controls: The experiment lacks adequate controls to rule out alternative explanations for the observed phenomena. For example, the mediums may have been able to pick up cues from the researchers or sitters inadvertently, or the sitters may have given subtle cues unconsciously. Without controls in place to prevent these possibilities, it's difficult to attribute any observed effects solely to communication with the dead.

Subjective interpretation: The evaluation of the mediums' performance seems to rely heavily on subjective impressions rather than objective criteria. Schwartz mentions being "impressed" with the mediums' performance without providing specific metrics or criteria for what constitutes success or failure. This lack of objectivity makes it challenging to draw meaningful conclusions from the study.

Sample size and composition: The study involved a relatively small sample size of 10 sitters and four mediums. Additionally, the composition of the sample is not described in detail, raising questions about its representativeness. For example, if the sitters were predominantly believers in psychic abilities, this could introduce bias into the results.

The experiment described in the excerpt from the report by the Arizona Daily Wildcat raises several potential flaws related to causation, correlation, and causal fallacies:

Causation vs. Correlation: The experiment aims to study whether mediums can communicate with the dead by observing their interactions with sitters who have recently lost loved ones. However, the mere correlation between the mediums' statements and the deceased individuals' personal information does not establish causation. Just because the mediums provide accurate information does not necessarily mean they are communicating with the dead. There could be alternative explanations, such as cold reading techniques or lucky guesses.
Selection Bias: The mediums invited to participate in the study include both famous "superstars" and unknowns. This selection process may introduce bias if the famous mediums are more skilled or experienced than the unknowns. Additionally, acknowledging that some sitters were acquaintances of the mediums raises concerns about potential biases or pre-existing beliefs that could influence the outcomes of the experiment.
Confirmation Bias: The experiment relies on a question and answer session where sitters are only allowed to respond with "yes" or "no." This setup may inadvertently encourage confirmation bias, where sitters unconsciously provide positive feedback to affirm the accuracy of the mediums' statements. This could inflate the perceived success rate of the mediums' performances.
Lack of Controls: The experiment lacks adequate controls to rule out alternative explanations for the mediums' apparent success. For example, there is no control group of sitters who interact with individuals pretending to be mediums but have no psychic abilities. Without proper controls, it is challenging to isolate the effects of mediumship from other factors that could influence the outcomes.
Subjective Evaluation: The assessment of the mediums' performance is based on Schwartz's subjective impression rather than objective criteria or rigorous statistical analysis. This subjective evaluation introduces the potential for bias and makes it difficult to draw reliable conclusions about the validity of mediumship.
In summary, while the experiment described in the report may appear well-intentioned, it is susceptible to several potential flaws related to causation, correlation, and causal fallacies. These flaws raise concerns about the validity and reliability of the findings, highlighting the need for more rigorous experimental design and analysis in studies of paranormal phenomena.

This pass contains several flaws. Reading the passage, it will have user thinking the mediums are communicating with the dead, but we cannot for sure know the mediums were connecting with the dead because the information provided in the passage was not creditable. This is when we must look at scientific reasoning and not that things are not adding up and can be found as bias.
Confirmation basis: There were mediums incited to speak with 10 people whose loved one had recently passed. Being that some of the medium may know the people they were observing it can cause this to be a bias situation.
Lack of control/Control: Being that some of the mediums lack experience we then must wonder are the really reconnecting with the dead. Then that make use wonder are they basing their response of person response of “yes” or “no”. This would lead us to think that there will be some misleading result at the end of the reading by the mediums.

Confirmation Bias: There's no concrete evidence to back up the claim more so than him looking for instances to prove his theory. For example, it could just be probable guesses.
Cluttering Illusion: There were no specific patterns mentioned that were out of the blue or noted recognition.
Lack of a Control group for alternate explanations
Personal/Accquaintanceship Biases.

The experiment described in the report on mediums communicating with the dead appears to have several potential flaws related to causation, correlation, and causal fallacies. Here's an evaluation based on the information provided:

Confirmation Bias: There is a risk of confirmation bias, where researchers and participants may unconsciously favor or interpret information that supports their belief in psychic abilities. If the researchers are already inclined to believe in the afterlife or psychic phenomena, they might interpret ambiguous results in a way that supports their preconceived notions.

Lack of Control Group: The experiment lacks a control group against which to compare the mediums' results. A control group is essential in scientific experiments to rule out alternative explanations and to establish a baseline for what would happen without the experimental intervention. Without a control group of non-mediums or sham mediums, it's challenging to determine if the information provided by the mediums is genuinely beyond what could be explained by chance or general knowledge.

Possible Cold Reading Techniques: Even if the mediums were genuinely trying to communicate with the deceased, there's a risk of cold reading — a technique where practitioners use subtle cues, body language, and general statements to elicit responses from sitters. While the setup tried to minimize direct interaction, the fact that some sitters were acquaintances of the mediums could still influence the results through unintentional cues or prior knowledge.

Ambiguous Results and Criteria: The report mentions that mediums were able to pick out names and personal information of the deceased. However, the criteria for judging the accuracy of this information are unclear. What counts as a correct "hit" by the mediums? Without predefined and objective criteria, there's a risk of subjective interpretation of the results.

Psychological Factors: The psychological state of the sitters and the mediums could also influence the outcomes. For example, sitters who are grieving may be more susceptible to interpretations that seem to provide comfort or closure, even if the information conveyed by the mediums is general or inaccurate.

In summary, while the experiment may have been conducted with genuine scientific intent, it appears to have several methodological weaknesses that could undermine the reliability and validity of its findings. These include issues with control groups, potential biases, and the lack of clear criteria for evaluating the mediums' performance. To improve the experiment's rigor and credibility, future studies would need to address these flaws by incorporating better controls, blind testing procedures, and rigorous criteria for evaluating the results.

The first issue I see is the very low sample size. 10 people is not sufficient enough. We also do not know how the 10 people were picked. This could also lead to confirmation bias. There is also not a hypothesis stated to be tested. How can the hypothesis be correct or incorrect? There is not any signs of rigorous testing. I do not see any correlation or causation in this experiment.

I saw quite a few issues with this study.
No control group, small sample size, Bias to famous "psychics" , some of the psychics having prior knowledge of the sitters. No formal evaluation. Which ocassions were they able to pick out the names and personal information? The cases they already knew?

The experiment by Gary Schwartz and his team has a few notable flaws. First off, they didn't have a control group to compare the sitters who used mediums with those who didn't. This makes it hard to say if the mediums were actually doing something special or if it was just coincidence. Plus, some sitters were acquaintances of the mediums, which could lead to unintentional cues. The study also aimed to limit communication, but it's tough to eliminate all non verbal signals completely. With such a small sample size, it’s tricky to generalize the results to a wider audience. Overall, while it's an interesting idea, the methodology raises a lot of questions about the findings.

The experiment has several flaws that could impact its validity. Some sitters were acquaintances of the mediums, which introduces potential bias and subconscious communication. The lack of a double-blind design, where both mediums and researchers are unaware of the details, weakens the study's credibility. The response options being limited to "yes" or "no" might restrict the assessment of the mediums' accuracy. These factors suggest that the experiment's results may not reliably demonstrate the ability to communicate with the dead.

While the study attempts to probe the intriguing concept of communication with the dead, numerous methodological flaws could undermine the validity of its findings. The presence of confounding variables, biases, and a lack of statistical rigor indicate that the results, if reported accurately, should be interpreted with skepticism. More robust methodologies and experimental designs would be needed to draw any substantive conclusions about the capabilities of mediums.

In a discussion forum, I would share this evaluation and encourage others to consider the importance of rigorous scientific methods when exploring claims of extraordinary phenomena, especially those that tread into the realm of the unprovable or subjective. I would also invite them to analyze the interplay between psychological influences and perceived psychic phenomena, promoting a more nuanced discussion around the topic.

1 Confirmation Bias: One significant flaw in the study is the presence of confirmation bias. This cognitive bias occurs when individuals interpret or recall information in a way that confirms their preexisting beliefs or hypotheses. In this experiment, the mediums may unconsciously interpret vague or ambiguous cues from the sitters as confirming evidence of communication with the deceased. The restricted format of the question and answer session, limited to "yes" or "no" responses, may inadvertently reinforce this bias, as the sitters may provide affirmative responses in hopes of validating the mediums' statements. This dynamic can lead to a feedback loop where the mediums' statements align with the sitters' expectations, creating an illusion of successful communication with the deceased
2. Lack of Control: Another flaw in the experiment is the lack of control over potential sources of influence on the mediums' performance. The presence of acquaintances among the sitters introduces a confounding variable that may bias the results. If the mediums are familiar with some of the sitters, they may subconsciously draw upon prior knowledge or cues from these individuals to tailor their responses. Additionally, the absence of strict protocols to prevent unintentional cues or prompting during the experimental sessions increases the risk of contamination from extraneous factors.
3. Ambiguity in Mediums' Performance Evaluation: The criteria used to assess the mediums' performance lack objectivity and rigor. The subjective nature of psychic impressions makes it challenging to establish clear metrics for evaluating the accuracy of the mediums' communications with the deceased. Without standardized measures or independent verification of the information provided by the mediums, the reliability and validity of the findings are called into question.

In summary, the experiment described in the report is susceptible to several methodological flaws that compromise the integrity and validity of its results. Confirmation bias, lack of control, and ambiguity in performance evaluation undermine the scientific rigor of the study and raise doubts about the purported evidence for communication with the dead. A more rigorous experimental design incorporating rigorous controls and objective measures is essential to address these shortcomings and advance our understanding of paranormal phenomena.

The expiriment is worth another try with some improvements on these flaws:
- Too small size
The study involved only a limited number of mediums and sitters, making it difficult to generalize the results. Without a larger sample, it is challenging to determine whether the results are meaningful or due to chance.
- Confirmation Bias
There is a risk of confirmation bias in both the mediums and the sitters. If the sitter already believes in the medium's abilities or has an emotional connection to the deceased, they may be more likely to confirm ambiguous or general information as accurate. This can result in overestimating the medium's success.
- Lack of Controlled Conditions
The experiment appears to lack a thrid party control group. Without a control condition—where acquaintance sitters are matched with
mediums or randomly guessed information—it's difficult to determine whether the mediums' success was due to genuine communication with the dead or to chance, educated guessing, or other factors. A proper control is essential

While the study aims to explore the possibility of communication with the deceased, there are several potential flaws and limitations in its design and execution:

1. Selection bias: The study only included mediums who were already known for their alleged abilities. This creates a potential bias in the sample, as it does not account for individuals who claim to have no psychic abilities or those who may have different levels of experience or skills.
2. Uncontrolled environment: Although the study attempted to minimize communication between the medium and the sitter, it is unclear if the researchers adequately controlled for other forms of information leakage, such as auditory cues or non-verbal communication.
3. Lack of blinding: The study did not employ double-blind procedures, meaning that the mediums and sitters were aware of the study's purpose and could have been influenced by their expectations or desires.
4. Inadequate control group: The study did not include a control group of non-mediums to compare the results, making it difficult to determine whether the mediums' performance was significantly different from what could be expected by chance or through other non-psychic means.
5. Small sample size: With only four mediums and ten sitters, the study has a relatively small sample size, which limits the generalizability of the findings and increases the likelihood of chance outcomes.
6. **Potential for prior knowledge**: Although the researchers attempted to limit the mediums' prior knowledge about the deceased individuals, the presence of acquaintances among the sitters could have allowed for the possibility of mediums obtaining information through other channels.

Overall, while the study might provide some interesting preliminary findings, the limitations in its design and execution make it difficult to draw definitive conclusions about the possibility of communicating with the dead. Future studies should address these issues by including a more diverse sample of participants, employing more rigorous experimental controls, and incorporating appropriate control groups.

The experiment, led by Professor Gary Schwartz, aims to investigate communication with the dead through mediums. But this study has several flaws:

1. Lack of control group: There's no comparison group to test the mediums' abilities against chance or cold reading.
2. Potential for cold reading: The mediums might be using psychological manipulation to extract information from the sitters.
3. Acquaintances among sitters and mediums: This could lead to prior knowledge or subtle cues that influence the mediums' responses.
4. Limited data collection: The study relies on a short question-and-answer session with only "yes" or "no" answers.
5. Confirmation bias: Schwartz's enthusiasm for the results might lead to selective interpretation or exaggeration of the findings.

These flaws undermine the study's credibility and make it difficult to conclude that the mediums genuinely communicated with the dead.

To strengthen the experiment, the researchers should implement a more rigorous design with a control group, blind procedures, and statistical analysis. Additionally, addressing confounding variables and ensuring the medium's performance is not influenced by prior knowledge of the sitters is crucial.

C'est très bien écrit

Evaluation of the Experiment Flaws:

Based on what we know about causation, correlation, and causal fallacies, there are several potential flaws with the experiment described in the passage.

Lack of Control and Bias: The fact that some of the sitters were acquaintances of the mediums raises the possibility of subtle cues or prior knowledge influencing the results. Even if the researcher tried to avoid communication, the mediums could still unconsciously pick up on visual or behavioral cues from the sitter. This could lead to a confirmation bias where the medium interprets vague or generalized statements in ways that seem to match the sitter’s experiences, which would make the results unreliable.

Failure to Account for Coincidence: The experiment might fall into a causal fallacy by interpreting coincidences as evidence of psychic ability. For example, mediums may have guessed correctly on occasion by chance, but such outcomes are often misinterpreted as evidence of communication with the deceased, even though a more plausible explanation could be statistical chance or the use of cold reading techniques (where a medium makes general statements that could apply to many people, but the sitter interprets them as accurate).

No Control Group or Randomization: The report does not mention a control group—someone who was not a medium attempting to make similar claims. Without a comparison group, it is difficult to assess whether the mediums' performance is significantly different from random chance or if non-psychic individuals could provide similar results. This makes it hard to differentiate between the mediums' abilities and the possibility of randomness or simple guessing.

Correlation vs. Causation: The fact that the mediums could pick out names and personal information doesn't necessarily indicate that they were communicating with the deceased. It could be a result of correlation rather than causation. For example, if the mediums were able to guess some information correctly, it could be because the sitters provided unconscious hints, or the mediums were familiar with the general backgrounds of people who recently lost loved ones.

In summary, while the results may seem promising on the surface, the experiment lacks key controls, suffers from potential biases, and may be prone to the misinterpretation of coincidence as causation. A more robust experimental design would be necessary to rule out alternative explanations and confirm the validity of the results.

The experiment described in the passage his flawed.

Selection bias - The mediums were handpicked by Gary Schwartz, potentially introducing bias towards those who already have a reputation or those Schwartz may be personally acquainted with.

Confirmation bias - The researchers and participants may have been inclined to interpret vague or general statements made by the mediums as accurate, due to a desire to believe in the existence of an afterlife or in the abilities of the mediums.

Lack of controls - The experiment lacks adequate controls to rule out alternative explanations for the observed phenomena.

Subjective interpretation - The evaluation of the mediums' performance seems to rely heavily on subjective impressions rather than objective criteria.

Sample size and composition - The study involved a relatively small sample size of 10 sitters and four mediums.

The study delves into the fascinating topic of communication with the deceased; however, numerous methodological flaws raise serious concerns about the reliability of its findings. The existence of confounding variables, biases, and inadequate statistical rigor means that, even if the results are accurate, they should be approached with skepticism. To arrive at credible conclusions regarding the abilities of mediums, it is crucial to employ stronger methodologies and more rigorous experimental designs.

In a discussion forum, I would emphasize this assessment and urge others to appreciate the significance of thorough scientific methods when investigating extraordinary claims, especially those that touch on the unprovable or highly subjective. Additionally, I would invite everyone to explore the complex interplay between psychological factors and perceived psychic phenomena, fostering a richer and more thoughtful dialogue on this intriguing subject.

Evaluation of the Experiment
The experiment aimed to test if mediums could communicate with the dead. However, there are several potential flaws:

Causation vs. Correlation: The experiment assumes that accurate information from mediums implies communication with the dead, but it could be due to other factors like cold reading or coincidence.

Acquaintances: Schwartz acknowledged that some sitters were acquaintances of the mediums, which could lead to biased results or prior knowledge influencing the readings.

Yes/No Questions: The question and answer session allowed only "yes" or "no" responses, which can be leading and may not provide conclusive evidence of communication with the dead.

Observer Effect: The presence of researchers and the setup might influence the behavior of both the mediums and the sitters, affecting the results.

In summary, while the experiment was set up to minimize communication between the medium and the sitter, there are several potential flaws that could affect the validity of the results. These include issues with causation vs. correlation, the influence of acquaintances, the limitations of yes/no questions, and the observer effect.

Hello,

This passage from the Arizona Daily Wildcat is a nonconclusive study because Schwartz does not specifically state whether there was any communication with the dead.

There was no sign of causation which states that there is a true cause-and-effect relationship where one event produces another, the mediums just spoke with the test people but did not actually indicate whether they contacted the recently deceased.

There was also no correlation which states that two variables change together, if someone recently died then the medium would have a better chance of speaking with the dead which was not stated in the excerpt.

Lastly, casual fallacy which is the logical error of assuming a casual relationships exists between two correlated variables, Schwartz was hoping for a relationship to exist and assumed there would be one but did not write about the final results. This is not a well written excerpt and is lacking a lot of data.

this was all an experiment

There are a lot of situations that could have explained why they knew these things and it could also be confirmation bias too.

While the experiment is interesting, it contains several potential flaws related to causation and bias:

Correlation vs. Causation: Even if mediums accurately provided names or details, this doesn’t prove they communicated with the deceased. Other explanations, such as coincidence or subconscious cues, could account for the results.

Confirmation Bias: Sitters answering “yes” or “no” may subconsciously guide the mediums. The study attempts to limit prompting, but sitters' reactions (verbal tone, body language) could still influence outcomes.

Selection Bias: Inviting “superstar” mediums could skew results. These participants may be highly skilled in cold reading or have prior knowledge about their sitters, as Schwartz acknowledged some sitters were acquaintances of the mediums.

Lack of Control Group: There’s no mention of a control group to compare results with random guesses or other non-medium participants. Without a baseline, it’s difficult to evaluate the mediums' performance objectively.

Overall, while the setup attempts to limit external influences, these flaws make it hard to establish a direct causal link between the mediums’ performance and communication with the deceased. What do you think? Could more rigorous controls make this study more credible?

The experiment has several flaws. First, the presence of prior acquaintances between mediums and sitters introduces bias, as the mediums could use prior knowledge. Second, the "yes" or "no" responses allow for subconscious prompting, potentially guiding the medium. Third, the lack of a clear control group or replicable methodology undermines scientific rigor. Finally, confirmation bias may affect the interpretation of results, as successes are emphasized without accounting for random chance or misses.

i believe this has several flaws. there was definitely a lack of control

Evaluation of the Flaws in the Experiment
This experiment, while attempting to investigate communication with the dead, contains several methodological flaws and logical fallacies related to causation, correlation, and bias. Here are the key issues:

1. Correlation vs. Causation
The fact that mediums correctly guessed some names and personal details does not prove that they communicated with the dead.
A correlation between a medium’s statement and real-life details does not establish a causal connection between mediumship and the afterlife.
2. The Possibility of Cold Reading
The question-and-answer format (even with “yes” or “no” responses) allows for cold reading—a technique in which a medium makes general statements and adjusts based on reactions.
For example, if the medium says, “I sense an ‘M’ name,” and the sitter responds positively, the medium can refine their guesses.
3. Prior Acquaintance & Information Leakage
Schwartz admitted that some sitters were acquaintances of the mediums, creating the possibility that mediums had prior knowledge of the deceased.
Even if not direct acquaintances, mediums could have obtained information through social media, public records, or subconscious cues.
4. Lack of Proper Controls & Blinding
A truly controlled study would prevent the sitter and medium from having any knowledge of each other.
A double-blind method (where neither the medium nor the researcher knows the deceased’s identity) would have been a stronger test.
5. Subjective Interpretation & Confirmation Bias
Schwartz was already “impressed” with the results before a formal analysis, which suggests potential confirmation bias—interpreting results in a way that supports his belief.
The sitters may have also engaged in selective memory, remembering hits and ignoring misses.

Here’s an evaluation of the potential flaws in the experiment based on principles of causation, correlation, and causal fallacies:

Lack of Proper Controls – The study does not seem to include a control group of non-mediums attempting the same task. Without this, it's impossible to determine whether the results are due to genuine psychic abilities or simply chance.

Acquaintances Among Participants – Schwartz admits that some of the sitters were acquaintances of the mediums. This opens the possibility that the mediums had prior knowledge about the deceased individuals, which would invalidate the claim that they were receiving information supernaturally.

Cold Reading Techniques – The experiment allowed for a question-and-answer session where the sitter could respond "yes" or "no." This format is commonly used in cold reading, where vague statements are refined based on feedback from the participant.

Confirmation Bias – Schwartz was already impressed with the results before they were fully analyzed. This suggests a possible bias in interpreting the findings, where positive hits are emphasized while misses are downplayed.

Correlation vs. Causation – Even if mediums correctly identified names and details, this does not prove a causal link between their abilities and actual communication with the dead. Other explanations, such as chance, subconscious cues, or prior knowledge, must be ruled out first.

Small Sample Size and Selection Bias – The study involved only four mediums and ten sitters, which is too small a sample to draw strong conclusions. Additionally, the use of "superstar" psychics may introduce bias, as they are already known for their claimed abilities and may have methods for obtaining information beforehand.

Summary:
The experiment lacks rigorous controls, is susceptible to bias, and does not eliminate alternative explanations such as cold reading or prior knowledge. While the results may be intriguing, they do not establish a causal relationship between mediumship and communication with the dead.

Lack of Control Group: The study does not mention any control group that could be compared to the mediums’ results. Without a control group, it’s difficult to determine whether the mediums’ "hits" were anything more than random chance. A valid experiment should ideally include a group of participants who are not mediums to compare their responses to those of the mediums to see if there’s a significant difference. Without this, it's hard to establish any causal link between the mediums' actions and the alleged communications with the dead.

Confirmation Bias: In the described experiment, the mediums are asked to give "yes" or "no" answers, but there is a possibility that the sitters might interpret vague or ambiguous statements in a way that confirms their beliefs or desires. This is a form of confirmation bias, where people favor information that confirms their preexisting beliefs. If a medium makes a statement that could be true in multiple ways, the sitter might pick the interpretation that fits their situation. The experiment doesn't seem to account for this potential bias in both the mediums and the sitters.

Observer Effect: Schwartz acknowledges that some of the sitters might have been acquaintances of the mediums, which could affect the outcome. The observer effect occurs when the presence of a researcher or familiar individuals influences the behavior or responses of the participants. This could lead to unintentional cues or prompting that could influence the mediums' responses. This breaks the assumption that there was no communication or subconscious prompting.

Causal Fallacy: Schwartz seems to infer that the mediums were able to communicate with the deceased based on their ability to "pick out the names and personal information of the deceased." This is a form of causal fallacy, where the correlation between the mediums’ "hits" and the details provided by the sitters is mistaken for causation. Just because a medium correctly guesses certain facts doesn’t mean that this can be attributed to psychic abilities. It could just as easily be due to the mediums using generalizations, chance, or other non-supernatural factors.

Flawed Experimental Design: The method of asking sitters to only give "yes" or "no" answers restricts the ability to provide detailed feedback, which limits the depth of the analysis. Additionally, the lack of blinding (i.e., where the researcher does not know which sitter or medium is being tested) introduces potential biases. The absence of a more thorough analysis of the data, such as examining the accuracy of predictions versus chance, weakens the study’s claims.

In summary, while the study might seem impressive at first glance, it contains several flaws that make it difficult to draw reliable conclusions. The experiment lacks a control group, could be influenced by biases such as confirmation bias, and could be impacted by the observer effect. Additionally, the correlation between medium statements and the correct details doesn't imply causation. These issues need to be addressed to ensure that any conclusions drawn are scientifically valid and not based on causal fallacies or misinterpretations.

In evaluating the flaws in this experiment, it’s important to consider potential issues related to causation, correlation, and causal fallacies. Below are some key points to consider regarding the methodology and possible flaws in the study.

1. Lack of Control Over Confounding Variables
Potential Flaw: One key issue in this experiment is the lack of control over confounding variables. Schwartz acknowledges that a few of the sitters were acquaintances of the mediums. This could significantly affect the results. If a medium recognizes the sitter or has prior knowledge of them, this could introduce bias or allow the medium to make educated guesses based on subtle cues.
Analysis: This could introduce a causal fallacy known as "the fallacy of insufficient evidence." If the mediums were indeed picking up on subtle cues or had prior knowledge of the sitters, any apparent "hits" could be due to ordinary psychological processes, such as cold reading, rather than actual communication with the deceased. The study did not sufficiently control for this factor, making it difficult to conclude that the medium's impressions were caused by supernatural forces.
2. Correlation vs. Causation
Potential Flaw: The fact that the mediums were able to provide names and personal information of the deceased doesn’t necessarily imply that they were truly communicating with the dead. A correlation between a medium’s statements and the information about the deceased does not establish causation. The mediums could have arrived at the correct answers through psychological techniques, random chance, or vague statements that could apply to many people.
Analysis: The experiment doesn’t clearly rule out these alternative explanations. The correlation between what the mediums said and the information the sitters provided could simply be a result of psychological strategies such as cold reading or guessing. In these cases, the mediums could seem accurate, but no true causal relationship with the afterlife has been established. Without a way to separate coincidental success from true psychic ability, the experiment’s findings do not necessarily support the claim of supernatural communication.
3. Questionable Methodology (Yes/No Format)
Potential Flaw: The experiment required the sitter to answer only "yes" or "no" to the medium’s statements. This limited format can introduce bias into the results. If a medium makes a broad, vague statement ("I sense a male figure with the letter J"), the sitter might answer "yes" if they think it fits their situation, even if it’s a common name. This can lead to confirmation bias, where the sitter’s own expectations influence the results.
Analysis: This binary answer format can skew the results and may cause both the medium and the sitter to focus on the few instances where the medium's impression happens to be correct, while ignoring failures. This could be an example of confirmation bias, where the sitter and the researcher emphasize the instances that fit the hypothesis while downplaying those that don't. It makes it hard to evaluate whether the medium’s performance is actually extraordinary or simply based on chance.
4. Lack of Blinding or Double-Blinding
Potential Flaw: While the medium couldn’t see the sitter, there’s no mention of whether the researchers (who were observing the experiment) were blinded to the identity or circumstances of the sitters. If the researchers knew details about the deceased (even if they didn’t share this information with the medium), this could inadvertently influence the way they recorded or interpreted the results.
Analysis: This introduces a potential experimenter bias or observer effect, where the researchers' expectations influence the outcome. For example, if a researcher is convinced that mediums are truly communicating with the dead, they may be more likely to interpret vague or non-specific information as "accurate."
5. No Clear Criteria for Success
Potential Flaw: The report does not mention clear criteria for how the success of the mediums was measured. While Schwartz claims he was impressed with the mediums’ performance, it’s unclear what specific metrics were used to assess the mediums' accuracy.
Analysis: Without clear criteria, there’s no way to objectively determine whether the medium's claims were accurate or just coincidental. Without clearly defined standards, it’s easy for the experiment to fall victim to subjective interpretation and confirmation bias, where what appears to be success is just random chance.
6. Sample Size and Statistical Significance
Potential Flaw: The study only involved a small number of sitters (10) and mediums (4). This limited sample size makes it difficult to draw reliable conclusions. Even if the mediums had some correct "hits," it could simply be due to chance or the limitations of a small sample.
Analysis: The small sample size raises concerns about the statistical significance of the results. Without a larger sample or a control group, the results could easily be due to random chance rather than evidence of paranormal phenomena.
Conclusion:
The experiment has several potential flaws that weaken its ability to establish causation between the mediums' performance and actual communication with the deceased. These include issues with confounding variables, lack of control over biases, the correlation vs. causation problem, and methodological issues like limited answer formats and small sample sizes. While the study might show some correlation between the mediums' statements and the information from the sitters, the conclusions about afterlife communication are not well-supported based on the provided methodology.

While I do think that this experiment is neat, I was able to identify a few flaws. First of all, the people involved in the experiment were not randomized, but instead intentionally chose. This, however, could have been to ensure that the mediums were not fakes and have actually had previous successes communicating with the deceased. Additionally, though, it was stated that some of the mediums were acquainted with the sitters. This could jeopardize the authenticity of the results, considering that the medium could have already known information about the recently deceased. Another thing that could be considered a flaw is the fact that the sitters could only answer yes or no to the mediums' questions. The questions asked are not documented, and for all we know, they could be very generic questions. After all, if they were able to communicate with the deceased, they should not have to ask the sitter any questions. It is also odd that none of the results were written and that the only results are purely hearsay. There is no actual evidence that the communication was successful as claimed by Schwartz.

Although mediums' work is known through popular culture, it is rarely witnessed by the general population. The fact that the research jumped straight into investigating the matter as a plausible phenomenon gave it from the start a degree of legitimacy and, therefore, some confirmation bias.

Let's suppose that mediums benefit from the same professional tools used by illusionists. To some extent, the setting mimicked a typical scenario where professional communication with the dead takes place. That gave the mediums the advantage if they came with the intent of using misdirection.

Prestidigitation, illusionism, and mentalism are rooted in more ancient arts that require rigorous practice. The personnel at the institute were probably not trained to detect nor impede misdirection from happening.

By not having a variety of settings, they were unable to have a range of events diverse enough to rule out potential necessary or sufficient conditions. Therefore, they probably led themself into the Fallacy of False Cause.

By not being trained mentalists, the researchers may also have suffered from the Fallacy of False Dichotomy but were unable to articulate other possible explanations.

They could have defeated False Dichotomy had they brought a mentalist as a member of the team. They could have brought Penn & Teller. In not doing so, they were setting themselves up for Ad Ignorantiam too.

Confirmation Bias: One significant flaw in the study is the presence of confirmation bias. This cognitive bias occurs when individuals interpret or recall information in a way that confirms their preexisting beliefs or hypotheses. In this experiment, the mediums may unconsciously interpret vague or ambiguous cues from the sitters as confirming evidence of communication with the deceased. The restricted format of the question and answer session, limited to "yes" or "no" responses, may inadvertently reinforce this bias, as the sitters may provide affirmative responses in hopes of validating the mediums' statements. This dynamic can lead to a feedback loop where the mediums' statements align with the sitters' expectations, creating an illusion of successful communication with the deceased.

yes

From a critical standpoint, the study has several features that raise methodological red flags. First, the experiment was not fully “blind” since some sitters were acquaintances of the mediums. Even if they didn’t socialize often, their prior relationship might allow for prior knowledge of names and personal information. Second, the medium faced a wall, which sounds promising at first, but the sitter was still in the same room, just six feet behind. Subtle clues—like coughs, intakes of breath, or body language out of direct sight—could still communicate important hints, especially if the medium is trained in “cold reading” techniques. Third, the sitter answered yes/no questions, effectively confirming or rejecting each guess. Although the sitters’ verbal responses were limited, “yes” and “no” are enough to steer a cold reader toward correct information by process of elimination.

There’s also an overall lack of clarity on how successes were measured or how many total “hits” the mediums got in proportion to their attempts. For instance, if a medium makes dozens of guesses, it only takes a few correct ones to appear impressive. Finally, the acquaintance problem and the possibility of background research—either by the mediums themselves or simply by picking up on preexisting local knowledge—both undermine the claim that the mediums relied purely on “psychic” impressions. Without tighter controls, randomization, and blinding procedures, a host of alternative explanations become far more plausible than actual afterlife communication.

This experiment on mediums communicating with the dead raises several concerns about its design and the conclusions we can draw from it. First, there's a risk of false causation—just because a medium provides accurate information doesn't necessarily mean it came from the deceased. There are other possible explanations, like cold reading techniques, where mediums make educated guesses based on subtle cues from the sitter, even if the sitter is only saying "yes" or "no."

One major flaw is the lack of proper controls. Schwartz admits that some of the sitters were acquaintances of the mediums, which means the mediums could have already had prior knowledge of the deceased. That seriously undermines the claim that the mediums were getting information psychically, rather than from memory or research.

There’s also a selection bias in inviting well-known psychic "superstars." These individuals are highly skilled performers who may unconsciously (or consciously) use tricks to create the illusion of accuracy, which complicates the interpretation of the results. Additionally, the fact that Schwartz himself said he was "impressed" suggests there may be confirmation bias at play—he may be looking for evidence to support his belief in the afterlife rather than objectively analyzing the results.

Lastly, the fact that the final results hadn't been formally written up at the time of the report means we don't know how statistically significant these findings are. Were the mediums' correct statements more than what would be expected by chance? Without solid data, impressive anecdotes aren't enough to establish causation.

The study conducted by Gary Schwartz raises several issues regarding causation, correlation, and potential fallacies in reasoning. One major flaw is the possibility of confirmation bias—Schwartz was already inclined to believe in the ability of mediums to communicate with the dead, which may have influenced how he interpreted the results.

Another issue is the lack of proper controls. Although the study attempted to minimize direct communication between the medium and the sitter, it did not eliminate subconscious cues. The mediums may have relied on cold reading techniques, picking up on subtle behavioral cues or common human experiences to make seemingly accurate statements.

Additionally, the fact that some sitters were acquaintances of the mediums introduces a major confounding variable. Even if the medium did not consciously recognize the sitter, prior knowledge about them could have influenced their responses.

The binary "yes" or "no" response format is also problematic. This setup allows for the Forer effect, where vague or general statements seem personally meaningful. The lack of detailed responses from the sitter means the experiment could easily create an illusion of accuracy.

Lastly, Schwartz’s subjective impression of the mediums' performance is not equivalent to scientific validation. Without quantitative analysis, statistical significance, or replication of results, the study does not provide strong evidence for the claim that mediums can communicate with the dead.

Yes

While the experiment appears to show some interesting results, it lacks sufficient controls, clear mechanisms, and safeguards against biases that could undermine the validity of the conclusions. The results may reflect correlation or cognitive biases rather than proof of supernatural communication.

The fact that the mediums were handpicked by Schwartz introduces an important concern. It's possible that Schwartz chose those who were already known to be more successful or influential in the psychic community, which could skew the results in favor of psychic abilities. The experiment was focused on testing the possibility of an afterlife, both the researchers and the sitters may have been more likely to accept vague statements as accurate due to their pre-existing beliefs or hopes. The experiment lacks proper controls to account for alternative explanations, such as non-verbal cues from the researchers or sitters. The reliance on subjective impressions without clear metrics is a critical flaw. Schwartz's own feeling of being "impressed" is subjective and doesn't provide objective evidence for the success of the mediums. The small sample size and lack of detailed description of the sitters’ backgrounds limit the generalizability of the results. Overall, while the experiment does attempt to explore an interesting topic, the methodological flaws make it hard to draw any reliable conclusions from the study. A more rigorous experimental design would be needed to assess the legitimacy of the claims regarding communication with the dead.

The experiment conducted by Gary Schwartz and his team raises several potential flaws related to causation, correlation, and causal fallacies that could impact the credibility of the findings regarding mediums and their ability to communicate with the dead.

1. Lack of Control Groups: The study did not mention the presence of a control group, which is critical for establishing causation. Without a comparison group, it is difficult to determine whether the observed phenomena were due to the mediums' abilities, chance, or other factors.

2. Subjectivity of Responses: The sitters were limited to "yes" or "no" responses. This binary format may not fully capture the nuances of the communication and could lead to confirmation bias, where the mediums might interpret vague statements or generalized information as accurate when, in reality, the answers could be influenced by the sitters' subjective interpretations.

3. Acquaintanceship Issues: The presence of sitters who were acquaintances of the mediums introduces a significant bias. It is plausible that these sitters could unintentionally convey cues through body language or facial expressions, thus compromising the integrity of the experiment by allowing for subconscious prompting of the mediums.

4. Confirmation Bias: Schwartz’s impression of the mediums’ performance being "impressive" could stem from confirmation bias, where he selectively acknowledges instances that align with his expectations while ignoring data that contradicts them. If he anticipates that the mediums will succeed, he may overlook any inconsistent results.

5. Ambiguity of Results: The report states that the mediums were able to "pick out the names and personal information" but does not specify how many instances this occurred or provide concrete examples. Without detailed statistical data or specific instances showcasing accurate predictions versus failures, the evidence remains anecdotal.

6. No Blinding Mechanism: The experiment design lacked blinding, meaning the researchers may have unintentionally influenced the outcomes. Ideally, both the mediums and the researchers should be unaware of the sitters' identities to reduce biases in interpretation and expectations.

7. Small Sample Size: The small number of sitters (10) limits the generalizability of the results. Larger sample sizes are necessary to draw more reliable conclusions about the ability of mediums to communicate with the dead.

While Schwartz’s study attempts to investigate an intriguing question, several methodological flaws raise concerns about the validity of the findings. To substantiate claims about mediums communicating with the deceased, the study would require more robust experimental controls, blinding, and a thorough examination of data that goes beyond anecdotal evidence.

This passage is an excerpt from a report by the Arizona Daily Wildcat (June 16, 1999) concerning a study to show that certain people can communicate with the dead. Using what you have learned about causation, correlation, and causal fallacies, consider the potential flaws with the experiment. Assume that the report is mostly correct. Summarize your evaluation of the flaws in the experiment. Share your thoughts on the discussion forum. Make sure to review and respond to other students' posts, as well.

"Gary Schwartz, psychology professor and co-founder of the University of Arizona Human Energy Systems Lab, speaks about his work at the University of Arizona. A team of scientists and students conducted a unique experiment this weekend, probing the possibility of an afterlife by studying how mediums commune with the dead.

Researchers invited a panel of mediums to meet with 10 people whose loved ones had recently died. While under observation, the mediums tried to receive information from the deceased without prior knowledge about the deceased. Schwartz invited four mediums to participate in the study, including famous "superstars" of the psychic world, such as author John Edwards, and unknowns, such as California housewife Laurie Campbell. The medium sat facing a wall while a researcher looked on. A "sitter," who had recently lost a relative or friend, would then enter the room and sit six feet behind the medium. Schwartz acknowledged that a few of the sitters were acquaintances of the mediums.

For up to 10 minutes, the medium and the sitter would sit in silence. The medium, who could not see the sitter, would concentrate on receiving psychic impressions. A question and answer session followed, in which the sitter was allowed only to answer "yes" or "no." Schwartz said the study was set up to minimize communication between the medium and the sitter, avoiding conscious or subconscious prompting between the two. While the final results have not been written up, Schwartz said he was impressed with the mediums' performance. He said that on several occasions the mediums were able to pick out the names and personal information of the deceased."

Lack of blinding: The mediums were aware of the nature of the experiment.
If mediums are aware the participants are people whose loved ones had recently died, they might try to guess what the participant/Schwartz expects or wants to hear and answer accordingly, rather than providing their unique ability to communicate with spirits or the deceased, serving as an intermediary between the living and the spirit world.

Limited sample size: “Researchers invited a panel of mediums to meet with 10 people whose loved ones had recently died.”
With only four mediums and 10 sitters, the study has a limited sample size, making it difficult to generalize the results.

Confirmation bias: “A question-and-answer session followed, in which the sitter was allowed only to answer "yes" or "no".“
Even with attempts to minimize communication, there is a risk of unintentional prompting. This allows for conscious or subconscious cues to be given during the interaction, potentially influencing the results. For example, a researcher/participant might subtly react to the medium's responses, giving away information about the deceased.

Selection bias: “Schwartz acknowledged that a few of the sitters were acquaintances of the mediums.”
To encourage honest results, Schwartz should have maintained complete anonymity and confidentiality between the participants and acquaintances of the mediums. It’s not helpful if the participants know the medium or know they are communicating with a medium.

These flaws highlight the importance of rigorous experimental design in paranormal research, particularly when investigating phenomena that are highly subjective and prone to bias. To overcome these issues, future studies should include blinding, standardized procedures, a control condition, and transparent reporting of the results.

### **Evaluation of Flaws in the Experiment:**

1. **Correlation vs. Causation Fallacy:**
- Even if the mediums correctly guessed details about the deceased, it does not prove they are communicating with the dead. Other explanations, such as lucky guesses or subconscious cues, could account for the results.

2. **Potential for Prior Knowledge (Selection Bias):**
- Schwartz admitted that some sitters were **acquaintances of the mediums**, which could mean the mediums had prior knowledge about them. This weakens the claim of supernatural communication.

3. **Cold Reading Possibility:**
- Mediums often use **cold reading** techniques—making vague or general statements and adjusting based on the sitter’s reactions. Since sitters could respond with "yes" or "no," mediums might have refined their guesses based on subtle cues.

4. **Experimenter Bias:**
- Schwartz’s **expectation of success** could influence how the results are interpreted. If he was already inclined to believe in mediumship, he might unintentionally emphasize hits and overlook misses.

5. **Lack of Control Group (Flawed Methodology):**
- A valid scientific study should have included a **control group** where sitters were paired with random people pretending to be mediums. Without this, there is no way to determine if the mediums' performance was better than chance.

### **Conclusion:**
The study lacks proper controls and is susceptible to biases, making its conclusions unreliable. The findings could be due to **guesswork, subconscious cues, or prior knowledge**, rather than actual communication with the dead.