| Response
to Skeptical Enquirer
An Analysis of Unresearched Blithering
(The Dimwit-Haunted
Article)
A Scientific Analysis of Byrne and Normand
By: Joseph Scanlon CRSI
Re: Skeptical Inquirer Volume 24, No.2 (indeed)
March/April 2000
An Analysis of Reverse Speech, The Demon-Haunted Article by Tom Byrne And Matthew Normand
_________________________________________________________
For the sake of finishing this analysis during the calendar year, I will spare the
noting of every single pejorative and prejudiced statement of opinion by the authors Byrne
and Normand. If they think what follows is harsh, … they have no idea.
To be fair, the article does state of itself that it is a "skeptical"
analysis - rather than a scientific analysis. Perhaps that is enough squirm room in and of
itself to excuse the authors for being blithering idiots. Indeed in modernity there is a
vast and ever-widening gulf between science and ‘skepticism’. But matters are
not discussed, much less dismissed, upon the opinions of persons unarmed to intelligently
debate, nor so slothful as to forego any actual research into a matter before
pontificating over it.
Whatever one may think of Skeptical Inquirer (that ‘gravis’ being far
greater within its walls than without) Byrne and Normand have managed to embarrass the
magazine. And that’s quite a statement. One might take a cheap shot at its Fellows as
being (three picked) a magician, a pianist/comedian, and Nickleodean’s Bill Nye the
science guy. But this bears not upon the authors Byrne and Normand, for they are not even
csicop fellows – and indeed published authors are specifically disavowed by
csicop/Skeptical Inquirer on the inside coverpage. Perhaps after Byrne and Normand’s
cloacan-dagger work, an editorial staff might consider review for evidentiary rules and
investigative authority (if any) regarding S.I.’s ensuing content.
No breath being held.
Byrne and Normand’s (hereafter B&N’s) article makes its first
prepossession over Reverse Speech Enterprises existing as a for-profit organization. Being
students and assistant professors, it’s conceivable B&N find the idea of
operational income a damning feature. Let me enlighten them that there is a real world out
there, which –someday- they will see. They might even grow up (a lot) to be
scientists in it. Crazier things have happened. In the meanwhile, I’d invite them to
alleviate this ‘damning’ condition through efforts to secure operational Grants
for RSE if they’re so worried about it. Also I’d direct them to the inside cover
of Skeptical Inquirer, the very same spot that disavows itself of their tripe, wherein
address and terms of subscription to S.I. are outlined. $35 dollars per 6 issues. Visa and
MasterCard accepted. +$10 for shipping.
(Seems csicop sells magazines. At their website too. -Internet price is $18)
Continuing point-by-point. Next, B&N note how RSE has a "large and detailed
web page". Too large it seems for them to have reviewed it. Most of their article
would not exist if they had taken even the most perfunctory glance at the mentioned web
pages. As we’ll see again and again.
B&N state "The burden of proof for any phenomenon lies upon the shoulders of
those claiming its existence."
The mark of true ignorance.
Certainly B&N are not scientist, nor really do they claim to be. But in
investigative matters there must be some degree of experience with the subject at
hand, experiments, models to prove or disprove the subject in its own terms. That is to
say – one does not proceed from ignorance of the subject matter. Here’s a
comparative statement for what a scientist does: ‘The burden of proof is on me
to investigate the matter in its own terms and to model out experiments to see whether it
fails in those terms. I do this because I am not a slack-ass student expecting everything
to be handed to me. I refrain from running my mouth until I know what the hell I’m
talking about. If I need help in modeling the experiments, I’ll pause to obtain
it.’
Likely anyone not laughing right now is a sour grape slack-ass non-scientist.
Did B&N critique methodologies? Did they discuss possibly superior experimental
models? Did they investigate Reverse Speech in its own terms and then find it failing? -
D.) None of the above.
In prepossession, they –thought- the matter was absurd (or as the article’s
cartoon caption puts it "nonsense"). They did a net search to see if anyone else
had done the experiments, which they are too lightweight or lazy to do. (As if all things
are published to the web.. perhaps they next can lookup the FBI and CIA research
publications on Body Language Analysis – calling that crap as well after no search
results pop up.) And finding nothing handed to them, they set off on a spoiled rant.
‘Either RS is garbage’ (which how would we know since we didn’t investigate
it?) ‘Or else it’s too unimportant to have published web pages on it.’ (the
way Germany would have, say, surely published web pages upon their enigma machine between
1925 and 1940.)
Yeah right.
‘It’s the information age. Everything that's anything is published for our
armchair perusal. Else it’s "nonsense"!’
And again… of the major information source that is available to their half-assed
‘analysis’, did they read it? – No.
B&N – "However, there are no good data to support the existence of
reverse speech or Oates’ theories about its implications."
Note terminology there not used in scientific investigation – the subjective nth
matter of ‘good’. In their bias, B&N subconsciously realize there is
supporting data, but dissemble it as being, although indeed supporting data, not
‘good’ enough to sway them from their unresearched prejudice. They’re in
good company…
B&N - " To our knowledge there is not one empirical investigation of reverse
speech in any peer-reviewed journal."
And in a new field, ‘peers’ are whom?
Linguists perhaps? Without training - No, but let’s proceed. B&N’s
armchair netsearch ‘investigation’ did turn up one reviewed source:
Newbrook/Curtain 1998.
B&N - "In their critique of Oates’s theories, Newman (sic) and Curtain
(1998) conducted a simple experiment in which subjects under various conditions tried to
detect examples or reverse speech from Oates’s audiotapes. As expected (Ed note:
negative bias ‘as expected’), they found that subjects who were told what to
listen for were much more successful in hearing the phrases than those not expecting what
they would hear."
B&N then continue to combine categories, being more error, and equate reverse
speech to seeing ‘Elvis in a cloud’. And was that ever scathing. The field has
never heard that ‘zinger’ before …. (eyes roll).
But what NewBROOK and Curtain actually found was quite the contrary, which privately
they have admitted. After conferring with Oates on the experimental model, they proceeded
to ignore those protocols – (one could only imagine why - having gone to the trouble
to confer and gather them), monitored with negative bias, and still –despite- found
and noted positive results.
It was amusing of see B&N offer this as evidence for their view. ‘Linguists
studied reverse speech without using the proper protocols, had operational negative bias
throughout, and still found positive results. Ergo – reverse speech is either a hoax
or a cult of delusionals.’? (see next)
B&N continue ‘debunking’ reverse speech with the conclusions of one Susan
Brombacher who’d noted that the RS website sells books upon the matter, tools to
investigate the matter, and classes for structured study of the matter.
It has books, tools, and technical classes.. so surely it is hoaxsterism. Right?
Really? Well, not necessarily...
B&N – "We are not claiming that reverse speech is a simple hoax. In fact
it is quite possible that Oates and his followers are convinced of its existence."
Nice of the authors to condescend a hobson’s choice…
‘ reverse speech might not be an intended hoax, it might actually just be an odd cult
of delusionals.’
Thanks again to Skeptical Inquirer, as ever, for its balanced, erudite, and scientific
investigations.
(The hand-washing clause from the inside cover wears a little thin.)
B&N in self-absurdity continue – "The ability to communicate through
language is an incredibly complex marvel of evolution."
Just not so incredibly complex apparently as to have extra content. It’s, we
guess, only a slightly "incredibly complex marvel."
Moe and Curly continue – "If reverse speech existed (Ed note: authors’ a
priori bias showing) it would not be comprehensible and would have no practical value.
Therefore there would be no selection mechanism by which it would evolve."
Clearly it is comprehensible in its natural state – several EEG tests have shown
this, and shown comparison of the contrary. This stuff is all over the RS site. One
wonders how our heroes managed to miss it. It is From subconscious To subconscious. It
seems in these early tests to be responsible for the subconscious phenomenon referred to
as "intuition". There is then a ‘practical’ value for it. (Again I
find such to be a subjective nth qualifier… our blithering authors debating opinings
of merit when they have yet to study existence.) As for its worth in breed supplanting,
the authors atrociously presume that it was not Always a hand-in-hand component of human
speech, of which the evidence they have is what? I had to laugh over this one for a couple
of minutes.
This is what passes for Skepticism?
Should we go on? … Please, Let’s.
They closed the last thought by proclaiming RS to the realm of "miracles".
Again, aspersions with no evidence backing their position. Indeed continually they
demonstrate the inability to understand the implications of points they do present, and
fail further to consider counterpoint to the arguments they proffer.
-
Does the "incredibly complex marvel" of "human speech" not allow for
extra subconscious content?
-
Do Moe and Curly have evidence that subconscious content would have, or would have
had to have, developed in any regard separately from normal speech?
-
Do they not see how positive evidence is supportive data?
-
Do they realize tests they’ve missed by being slackasses show conscious reaction to
subconscious stimulus?
Seems not. Moe and Curly respond to the above with this barrage:
-
It’s "miracle"
-
It’s "nonsense"
-
It has "no value"
-
It’s "insidious"
-
It’s "pseudoscience"
-
It’s a "potential disaster"
-
It’s a "hoax"
-
It’s a ‘cult’
-
‘They sell Books and Machines.’
-
‘Negatively biased peer review found positive evidence’ (?)
-
‘Our netsearch didn’t turn up anything’ (though see the above
Newbrook/Curtain example – it did - didn’t it.)
Truly there is weight to their argument. It crashes down upon its own self in result.
A moment here to compile with brevity the RS preconditions of study. Perhaps, with
fingers crossed and some ritalin, M&C can muddle through for the first time what they
missed during their ‘investigation’.
-
Use common –free- PC software or a ReversingMachine to acclimate to the reverse
tonalities. This can take 3 to 6 months. (note: anyone who has not done this first step
needs to stop, shut up, and do this first step. Refusing to study a matter in its own
terms leaves one unable to discuss it intelligently. As we see.)
And in a nutshell that’s it. What Oates should do, IMHO, is gather together the
ever-growing supply of former skeptic testimony to his website. Anyone who puts in the
practice time will acclimate. That skill gained, they all see that the condition exists.
Which makes for three broad classifications in any debate:
-
Skilled, did the practice time.
-
Unskilled, opinions reserved for they are intellectually honest and realize that they
don’t know.
-
Unskilled, egoist blithering idiot.
Mostly the world is the second option, but option three gets the most press.
Continually this very simple first step regarding acclimation is completely ignored. In
this, Moe and Curly are being no different from their predecessors. At least three times
their article resorts to the non-issue of unskilled persons being rather bad at discerning
content. Should we be stunned? ‘Look, these untrained, non-practiced test
subjects –mostly- couldn’t discern a common finding for a test reversal.’
M&C , though really completely in character for them, had the gall to include this
part – "We encourage Oates or anyone interested in the possibility of reverse
speech to conduct empirical investigations."
We conclude that Byrne and Normand were then wholly not
"interested" for they certainly did no empirical investigation, nor even cursory
investigation , before the publishing of their ‘analysis’.
(In another sense they absolutely Did do an empirical investigation as we’ll see
next)
B&N paint reverse speech as a "sound salad" where one puts meaning to
nonsense. They state it is invalid since one often needs prompting to hear the content.
(but then again, often not always – even untrained) Precisely the way one is prompted
by text over various 911 tapes played on television night in and night out. Does
anyone want to guess how the dispatchers and officers can comprehend that in real-time
without prompting? If you just thought ‘it’s because they’re exposed to it
all the time, they are acclimated – they're fluent of the strained phonemes, that
they have Skill at the matter’ – go to the head of the class. In the reversal
content, one is dealing with phonemic anastrophy. One is missing the plosive and fricative
elements. It’s a –simple- matter of skill from practice. And no matter how
many unskilled listeners are trotted out, that’s still as inane as it is non
sequitur. Persons unskilled at a matter have no bearing upon it in any capacity.
Let me tell you that you do Not want me doing hemangioblastoma resectioning on you.
(I’m not a brain surgeon.) I have to hate it for all the reverse speech debunkers in
the world, but it is a skill matter. Put in your six months, or less, and pontificate afterwards.
What's so hard about that? Who reading this right now doesn't understand that point?
Yet back to hearing the reversal content correctly… negatively biased researchers
find positive data even among unskilled, unacclimated listeners. (Researchers who
didn’t do what they were told and subjects who had no training in the field -- find
positive evidence.)
And just to take a quick shot at empirical data and empiricism generally in this vein
for Byrne and Normand –
-
Pertaining to, or founded upon, experiment or experience
-
What belongs to or is the product of experience or observation
-
Depending upon experience or observation alone, without due regard to science and
theory; -- said especially of medical practice, remedies, etc.; left wanting in science
and deep insight
-
The method or practice of an empiric; pursuit of knowledge by observation and experiment
Specifically, a practice of medicine founded on mere experience, without the aid of
science or a knowledge of principles; ignorant and unscientific practice; charlatanry;
quackery
-
The philosophical theory which attributes the origin of all our knowledge to experience.
Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996,
1998 MICRA, Inc.
What Byrne and Normand call for amounts to only direct experience, which is this:
-What one can comprehend of what they can observe.-
Being aurally ‘blind’ is no way to observe this phenomenon. One will not
‘see’ very much.
So, do the practice. Gain the skill. If one pretends that they are indeed researching
the matter, then they must do so in its own terms – and that first step is
acclimation through practice.
Byrne and Normand mention a reverse speech URL (and misspelled it) deriding it for
claiming courses in the therapeutic use of reverse speech. In their bias and laziness,
B&N posit such use as 'unethical practice'. If they’d have visited either of the
client or professional testimonial pages they’d have found them buried in praise from
all manner of MD.’s, multiple Ph.D.s, including what they are not - full professors
and doctors of psychology. As for reverse speech being invalid or unethical as a
therapeutic tool – RS has hundreds of thrilled clients. (Of all the ignoramus methods
of attacking RS, this is the worst) I have no doubt that Oates could contact literally
dozens of them to shove down B&N’s throats. If B&N will not challenge him to
do so, I hearby do. Perhaps the next batch of idiot ‘analysts’ to examine
reverse speech will somehow manage to review the website and see the results of
application.
As seen more than somewhat in these:
http://www.reversespeech.com/clients.htm
http://www.reversespeech.com/profess.htm
http://www.reversespeech.com/media.htm
Some other things they might find at the RS website:
-
This research field dates back to the sixties.
-
Oates has done this full time for 20 years.
-
Oates, to a request, lectured the FBI on reverse speech in D.C. circa 1991, whereupon
they took his files and notes and showed him the door.
-
Contact information for Oates, since all other articles (for example Discover Magazine)
have contacted him during their own ‘analysis of reverse speech’.
-
Oates, far from being a therapeutic quack wannabe, has been in the therapy field for 25
years, dating to before reverse speech, is a certified counselor, certified
hypnotherapist, and certified instructor/therapist of speech and language pathology.
By contrast, our heroes who did in effect zero research for their 'analysis',
Moe and Curly are - who?...
That’s what I thought.
And with such work as "The Demon-Haunted Sentence" they are on-course to
remain that way.
BTW to B&N, I’m not affiliated with RS in any capacity, have never been a
student, and I’m not even the webmaster.
So grab your knees - they were likely jerking.
Such are the debunkings of reverse speech.
Next?
| ^top
of page |
David
John Oates
Founder and Developer of Reverse Speech
Technologies
PO Box 678, Noarlunga Centre, SA 5168.
Australia
phone: 08 83824372 - international: 61 8
83824372
|
Reverse
Speech TM is a trademark owned
by David John Oates.
All contents of the web site is Copyright
© 2001 by David John Oates |
|
