Michael Shermer Debunks James Van Praagh & Psychics

The tests are designed to be 100% foolproof. The claims aren´t. That´s the difference with science. See, it has to be exact.

"it is too easy and comfortable to stick to what is known and accepted in general."

Of course you are mistaken. The object of science is to discover new things. Things that one may have believed were real or not. So the past statement is just not true. If it was true, then science would be stagnant

Most peers would stick to the established methods and protocols of the scientific method. They don´t have to change it since it works, and it is how any claim is tested. Why change it since it works? This is science not art.

He claims to be doing "scientific research". Obviously he uses the term very loosely. Yes, his tests MUST be 100% foolproof. If not, it´s not science and it´s worthless.

The tests may not be 100% foolproof, but, on that basis one could say that the claims are not 100 % correct. Suppose that the test are 80% foolproof, then there is still a good chance that the claims are correct, so should be taken seriously.rahter  than dismissed outright as outrageous.

Obviously in his book, he would never accept that his controls and protocols were biased. If they were true and correct, why has never any scientific peer agreed with him? Of course he would blast skeptics because they don`t endorse his woo woo.

I would have to check just where the skeptics have criticized Gary Schwartz's research and conclusions, but I suspect it may be in the statistics. In general, though his tests may not have been 100 percent foolproof, they should be worthy of serious consideration. Likewise, most peers would stick to the established orthodox science and be reluctant to accept new ideas, not because they are wrong, but it is too easy and comfortable to stick to what is known and accepted in general.

Gary Scwartz is a well known fellow in this field. He is well known because his "experiments" are always very loose in the controls. They are as biased as they come. They have never been accepted by peer reviewed publications because of their faulty protocols. He has been discredited over and over because he just finds what he wants in these "studies" He is hardly what Dr should stand for.

I read the book and Gary explains exactly what his experiments were as well as the outcome. Has anyone proven that he did otherwise? I am not sure whether I believe everything Gary says, but neither am I sure that his critics are right. I believe there is criticism on his work by skeptics on the web, but I also seem to recall what his replies were to the criticism. I will have to check them out.

The only genuine thing going on is that they keep scamming gullible people out of their money and hopes. Specific hits? They just make them seem like it. If you realluy look close you´ll see how the are just fishing for answers instead of giving the, It is the "readee" that actually provides the answer.

Many of the hits are quite specific. I can give you examples, if you want. I've been watching quite carefully. Actually Gary Schwartz has done scientific research and documented some of these hits, using various mediums for the same people, to find out whether they would say similar things (specific things). You can check his book, "The Afterlife Experiments"