May the Schwartz Be With You
It won’t stop. Dr. Gary Schwartz of the University of Arizona is the current darling of the media, who eagerly report his belief in mediums and stick him in front of cameras to allow him to bury himself in wild claims, though a recent observation on Larry King Live that he also believes in the Tooth Fairy may be somewhat hyperbolized. They adore him because he’s a real scientist, an actual “doctor” who embraces bump-in-the-night ideas without a trace of shame, and never tires of telling about his academic qualifications, numerous papers and other writings. It might be a warning sign to note that he was educated at Harvard, which also gave us Dr. John Mack, the man who has never met anyone who hasn’t been abducted by space aliens.
I’m getting increasingly alarmed calls from academics who are wondering about what they might do to counter all this wide-eyed acceptance of nonsense. For that reason, I’ll give you this bit of background. Some time ago, the JREF suggested a protocol to Gary Schwartz during his visit to the Foundation in Fort Lauderdale, for testing so-called “mediums.” He found this quite acceptable. In fact, he commented on its high quality and “ingenuity,” though it was a quite ordinary design and one with which he should have already been familiar.
This is a very definitive protocol, one that could be easily and economically implemented, one that would result in a clear picture, not only of whether the performer was able to produce as claimed, but whether the methods we at the JREF believe are being used to accomplish trickery are in fact the reason for apparent successes. Schwartz now seems to have abandoned any plans to use that excellent design. One can only wonder why. Since Schwartz has admitted that he’s never done a double-blind experiment, insisting that when he does get around to the mode he will improve it to “triple-blind”—whatever that means!—I will await his implementing proper controls before making further comment.
What he has done so far appears to be a series of games and amateur probes, quite without any scientific value—though the mediums are quick to quote him and claim academic validation of their powers from the University of Arizona and from Harvard. Agreed, he has employed masses of technical devices, and has applied statistics to the half-data obtained, but that is much like measuring chimneys to determine whether a fat man in a red suit can get down them, and to thereby explore the reality of Santa Claus.
And in what reliable, peer-reviewed, prestigious, scientific journal has this research been published? In the Journal of the Society for Psychical Research, which also recently featured a book review of Sex and the Paranormal and papers titled, “Telepathic Phone Calls” and “Further Evidence for a Statistical Balancing in Probabilistic Systems Influenced by the Anomalous Effect of Conscious Intention.” So there! We can only hope that the responsible parapsychological community will react appropriately to this poorly done “research.”
I should also make this clear: though Schwartz gleefully advertises my own refusal to be a participant in his games, he fails to mention the reason I made that decision. My refusal is based partly on his insistence that I declare, in writing, that I will never share any of my observations or conclusions with anyone, in any way. I cannot operate under such onerous limitations, nor will I ever contemplate doing so. This man, who preaches loudly about forthrightness, openness, sharing, honesty, and evidence, will have none of it when it might damage his cherished notions. This is not science, not in any degree. If Schwartz were less interested in bragging—endlessly!—about his academic background, and would become more involved in doing real science, I think he might begin to be taken seriously. He is the perfect example of the Ivory Tower resident.
[Schwartz’s methods are] like measuring chimneys to determine whether a fat man in a red suit can get down them …
Gary Schwartz also claims that his favorite “medium,” Laurie Campbell, is 100% accurate in performing some “highly anomalous” readings. By his definition, these are “binary-class” guesses about whether someone is thinking about, for example, a male or female, young or old, living or dead, relative or friend, and since these are unarguably yes-or-no matters, they should be absolutely ideal terms for testing.
NOTE: “100%” means no misses, not one. Hey, I’d settle for 80%, in a sufficiently large database. This is a perfect situation, and I await Schwartz’s application for the million-dollar prize, which surely will come in shortly after psychic Sylvia Browne submits hers (after her statement on Larry King Live that she would do so). Which is to say, never. Schwartz, challenged by a correspondent to apply for our prize, answered: “Three areas of our research would easily win the prize … But we do not apply for prizes …”
I respond to this by stating the only four reasons that I can imagine to explain this attitude: (1. Schwartz is already wealthy and doesn’t need the million dollars; (2. the University of Arizona will not accept gifts of money from Schwartz; (3. Schwartz has no charity in mind such as hungry children, AIDS research, or the homeless; (4. Laurie Campbell’s performance is far closer to the 50% expected by chance. But Professor, you said you could “easily” win the prize, with any of three examples from your research! Then come and take it!
Were I part of the Schwartz operation, the kind of information that I would look for may already be available, either through others who participated, or from video records that seem to come to hand by mysterious means. Please note the video frame shown below. It was made from one of Schwartz’s “scientific experiments” with psychic medium John Edward, star of the SciFi Network’s hit series Crossing Over. The “medium” has just taken his seat in the lab, adjacent to another chair to his left where the subject is located. This is what Schwartz considers to be “isolation” of the two persons?
Lo! Do we see Edward taking a test peek through an opening in the partition? Say it’s not so! This is science, tight controls, all that, and Schwartz himself told Edward, “There will be no eye contact, so a screen will separate you.” I’ll bet that Edward chuckled when he saw the set-up!
Now, I make no claim that Edward actually peeked through the opening during the “reading.” If we had the original material, we might not only make that observation, but many others, as well. But we’ll never see it. What I’m pointing out here is that the opportunity to peek was certainly there, and it should not have been, had Schwartz known how to—or cared to—implement proper security. It’s not too hard to do.
And how “definitive” was John Edward in this “reading”? Let me quote a short part of his guessing-game. This excerpt takes exactly 26 seconds; try reading it in that period, and you’ll see just how rapidly Edward throws out guesses.
Edward: Okay, what’s going to happen, is there’ll be a series of impressions, pictures, and words, and things that make no sense to me, come through in my mind. I’m going to tell you what I’m seeing, hearing, and feeling, and eventually ask you to confirm it and verify it, simply by yes’s and no’s.
Sitter: Okay.
Edward: Okay. Um, the first thing that’s coming through is that somebody’s talking about a male figure to your side. A male figure to your side would be a husband or a brother who has crossed over. Do you understand that?
Sitter: Yes.
Edward: Okay, actually there’s two … there’s three, there’s three. They’re showing me, one seems to be like a husband figure to you. Do you understand that?
Sitter: Yes.
Please note, that last “Do you understand that?” resulted in a “Yes” response, but that does not indicate that the sitter has identified with anyone who “seems to be like a husband figure to [her]”. It only means that the sitter understood the statement. It’s just the same old fare, exactly what Edward and the other “readers” do! If we had an entire transcript of this series of guesses, we’d be able to evaluate it. But we will never have that. Dr. Schwartz won’t share it with us. Why?