Mediumship
Information Analysis A series of experiments by Tricia Robertson and Archie .E
We are pleased to announce that our third paper has
been published in the January edition of the JSPR
The authors have, over the past five years, set out
to statistically test the sceptical hypothesis that
“All mediums’ statements are so general that they could apply to anyone”
In paper 1, a series of experiments was carried out
using 440 participants and 10 mediums. The reduced data showed that the odds
against chance that the sceptical hypothesis was
correct were millions to one. This experimentation was carried out in a face to
face manner, which meant that the mediums could see the audiences. Quite
correctly, a sceptical view would be that the mediums
gathered “clues” from body language and verbal response as they gave the
readings. Also that the audience knew who the recipients were
and may not subsequently fill out the data sheets with any real interest.
Paper 2 describes a strict protocol that would
eliminate body language and verbal responses from future experimentation. A randomised seat numbering system is also described which
also means that the experimenter who actually numbers the seats cannot possibly
know who will sit on any particular seat. Along with this, the experimenter who
reduces the initial data does not know which seat numbers have been
pre-selected or therefore who are the intended recipients that sat on these
seats.
Papers 1 and 2 are published in the JSPR April 2001
and July 2001 and can be found on the SPR web site www.spr.ac.uk in the on line
library
Paper 3 describes the results achieved when the
strict protocol is applied to a carefully designed set of experiments. The set
of experiments is also designed to isolate factors, such as “Will a person
accept more statements if they think or know that they are actually the
recipient?” “ Will a person accept fewer statements as
relevant in their life if they think or know that they are not the intended
recipient?” All statements are singular and the response tick is either yes or
no.
This third paper covers 13 different experimental
sessions carried out throughout the U K, with participants always gathered by a
third party. The average number of participants at a session was proximately
25. Usually six experiments were carried out at each session. The authors
identified 15 categories of participant. Let the capital letter be the reality,
and the lower case letter be the belief e.g. Recipient is R; Non recipient N. A
recipient who believes that he/she is the recipient and who is actually the
recipient would be designated by the symbols Rr An
actual recipient who believes that they are not the recipient is Rn A recipient who does not know whether or not they are a
recipient would be Rq
There is also a category P, which is used in the
experimental sessions where no actual medium has been used (although the audience think that there is a medium). This allows
responses to be analysed where no psychic factor from
a medium is at work.
Using statistical analysis the authors were able to
evaluate the responses of every category and examine the effects, if any, of
psychological factors.
As this is a brief overview, I will just say that
even in triple (arguably quadruple) blind conditions the intended recipients’
acceptance levels continued to be higher than non- recipients, the odds against
chance being a million to one. We maintain that we have a repeatable
experiment, providing the protocol is adhered to and GOOD mediums are used.
Note: Our results incorporate all of the mediums who
were used; if we had only given the results from the “superstars” the odds
against chance would have been even greater. No amendments were made to any
data sheets after the experimental sessions ended, even if someone “remembered”
something as being correct after they had given a NO response – it remained as
a NO.