Click here to support the Daily Grail for as little as $US1 per month on Patreon

Dubois vs Schwartz

By Gregon

A little while back I posted about the disclaimer which has appeared on the website of ‘super-psychic’ Allison Dubois, announcing that she does not endorse Dr Gary Schwartz (the announcement has since moved to its own editorial page). It seems that Dr Schwartz has since made his own reply of sorts to Allison Dubois’ claims, which now appears on the University of Arizona’s Veritas Research Program website. This public quarrel is certainly not going to help the image of psychics and mediums in the eyes of those seeking evidence.

Greg
Editor
Greg is the owner-editor of The Daily Grail, as well as the author of a number of books including Stop Worrying, There Probably is an Afterlife.
Related

4 Comments

  1. it may not……
    help the image of psychics, but on the other hand it my help by bringing a more unbiased audience.
    A public debate can offen arouse curiosty to look deeper into both sides of the argument.
    Mayhap it’ll help.

    DISCLAIMER: the opinions and veiws in this post are mine only and are not those of others or of TDG. Any similarities are by chance only.

  2. This is progress
    Things we knew:
    Researches in the past had shown that mediumship, if real, is not an issue as simple as what the mediums are claiming => the current mediumship/channelling craze is going out of hand => no researcher with some integrity will touch these things with a ten foot pole => Schwartz has been hailed as a spokeperson behind some such mediums => Schwartz must be either greedy or insane.

    Things we now know:
    Schwartz is likely not greedy, and probably still sane.

    Things I hope will happen:
    Mediums and TV producers to stop their greed fest => integrity becomes important again in such enquiries => skeptics and believers can finally agree on how to progress from here.

  3. same ol’ same
    I doubt this latest teapot tempest is going to change so much as one mind on either side of the debate. These same sort of “you’re a bad person so you must be wrong” catfights date back at least to the days of Mesmer, when the insults and inuendo were much worse.

    Rhine came to be caught up in similar mudslinging events too on occasion, and nothing changed as a result.

    Imo, those seeking honest evidence will be totally unmoved by the personality parade, and virtually all the rest will remain firmly in one of three camps: believers, disbelievers, couldn’t care less. The last group is by far the largest, the first two are minor numbers by comparison and distinguishable from each other only by the polarity of the individual faiths they are defending.

    Give it six months and I’ll wager no one other than the involved parties will even recall that this little broughaha ever happened, and nothing will be at all different than it was before it ever occurred.

    Each of the activist camps will still be taking their opinions and arguments for and against from the last best seller they read or the last documentary they saw. The vast majority will be too busy worrying about the next paycheck to even bother thinking about the subject at all. The very few who are after real understanding will still be the smallest fraction, and still toiling away quietly while ignoring the socio-political antics of the herd 😉

    Tiger

  4. DuBois’ statement that she
    DuBois’ statement that she does not endorse Schwartz was a fairly reserved way of distancing herself from Schwartz. It was the most minimum public statement she could make. In contrast, Schwartz is enumerating his complaints for the world to see. I am not sure how he could think this will be to his advantage in any context. Additional contexts – beyond the court of public opinion that he is catering to – will surely arise.

    In my opinion universities may need to look a bit closer at situations in which researchers get consent for research, and then later turn that research into popular books. This is a matter that affects all universities.

    For example, at Harvard, Susan Clancy got consent from subjects for her research into “alien encounters”. Later, she wrote a popular-press book (“Abducted”, Harvard University Press, 2005) that included many of these people’s accounts, the details these people had shared with her — but she never sought their permission to have them appear in her book. She evidently felt she did not need permission if she changed the people’s names and ages…and perhaps she was correct, since Harvard has not opened an investigation into her book — even when on page 50 she transcribes a private cellphone conversation that she overheard through a closed door (overheard after she’d left a meeting with one of her subjects).

    Some years ago different standards seem to have been in place at Harvard. When Dr John Mack was investigated by a committee, they sought (among other things) to determine whether he had formal permission from everyone who appeared in his popular press book – permission that referred directly to their accounts being presented in his book. He did. (Point in fact, they not only signed permission, they selected their own fake names and approved their chapters).

    Today, with researchers like Clancy and Schwartz, these matters need to be looked at again, or public – and legal – disputes will continue to arise at universities, to be settled in the most damaging of ways.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Mobile menu - fractal