A skeptical look at the mediumship claims of Julie Beischel

[Whitedude]

Hi folks,

Has anyone heard of Julie Beischel? Well she appears to be a spiritualist who has claimed "evidence" that mediums can contact the dead. She is the co-owner of a psychic organisation called The Windbridge Institute that can be found here:

http://www.windbridge.org/index.htm

You can read an interview with Bieschel here:

http://www.evidencefortheafterlife.com/ ... e-beischel

A video of her here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zbwa4EVfVjw

See her publications here:

http://www.windbridge.org/publications.htm

They are all published parapsychology or new age journals.

Any thoughts?

[Daedalus]

This seems like pretty typical woo... the more you dig the more you {!#%@} you uncover.

[octopus1]

If you go digging in the sewer, don't feign surprise at what you find there...

[kennyc]

Well given the charter statement:

The Windbridge Institute investigates the capabilities of our bodies, minds, and spirits and attempts to determine how the resulting information can best serve all living things.

I can't help but think of the Damon Knight story To Serve Man:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/To_Serve_M ... light_Zone)

[Shen1986]

Really great work. Thanks..

[Exploding Borealis]

I see nothing substantive in this thread regarding criticisms of Beischel. I see only broadbrush references to thing such as RationalWiki and "woo meisters" such as Tsakiris and "sloppy" research "ignoring any evidence of fraud" and the Weybridge Institute being an "utter fraud." I see no specific detailed examples.

You all need to provide details about this. I read Beischel's book, and I saw nothing suggestive of what you are alleging.

Provide some actual, specific examples. Are you a knee-jerk, lazy-thinking pseudoskeptics, or are you a sincere investigators? Do you all follow the party line of pseudoskepticism like a bleating sheep, or do you seek the truth with an unbiased eye? Which is it going to be? Your call.

Skepticism runs both ways. "Skeptic" can just be a word for a closed-minded knee-jerk thinker. We must be skeptical about skeptical assertions.

Details, please. Providing Google links is not providing details.

Get cracking.

[Pyrrho]

I think I can safely predict the course of the ensuing discussion.

[Kaepora Gaebora]

Details, please. Providing Google links is not providing details.

Get cracking.

Oh wow a newbie demanding us to do things! We should drop everything and investigate these claims just for this guy.

[scrmbldggs]

Details, please. Providing Google links is not providing details.

Get cracking.

Oh wow a newbie demanding us to do things! We should drop everything and investigate these claims just for this guy.

I wish I could, I really do. But am blinded... some burst of exploding borealis

[Gord]

I am a knee-jerk, lazy, sincere investigator who follows the party line of seeking the truth with an unbiased bleat.

[Whitedude]

Provide some actual, specific examples. Are you a knee-jerk, lazy-thinking pseudoskeptics, or are you a sincere investigators? Do you all follow the party line of pseudoskepticism like a bleating sheep, or do you seek the truth with an unbiased eye? Which is it going to be? Your call.

Now that you have raised the subject I will spend some time listing the evidence. I have read her book. Expect a reply in the next few days.

[busterggi]

I see nothing substantive in this thread regarding criticisms of Beischel. I see only broadbrush references to thing such as RationalWiki and "woo meisters" such as Tsakiris and "sloppy" research "ignoring any evidence of fraud" and the Weybridge Institute being an "utter fraud." I see no specific detailed examples.

You all need to provide details about this. I read Beischel's book, and I saw nothing suggestive of what you are alleging.

Provide some actual, specific examples. Are you a knee-jerk, lazy-thinking pseudoskeptics, or are you a sincere investigators? Do you all follow the party line of pseudoskepticism like a bleating sheep, or do you seek the truth with an unbiased eye? Which is it going to be? Your call.

Skepticism runs both ways. "Skeptic" can just be a word for a closed-minded knee-jerk thinker. We must be skeptical about skeptical assertions.

Details, please. Providing Google links is not providing details.

Get cracking.

Evidence for reincarnation? That you landrew?

[openmindedscientist]

Provide some actual, specific examples. Are you a knee-jerk, lazy-thinking pseudoskeptics, or are you a sincere investigators? Do you all follow the party line of pseudoskepticism like a bleating sheep, or do you seek the truth with an unbiased eye? Which is it going to be? Your call.

Now that you have raised the subject I will spend some time listing the evidence. I have read her book. Expect a reply in the next few days.

Interesting, never got a follow up on this. Did you have trouble finding good argument points during the past couple years?