PHIL102: Introduction to Critical Thinking and Logic

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.