Response to Skeptical Enquirer

An Analysis of Unresearched Blithering

(The Dimwit-Haunted Article)
A Scientific Analysis of Byrne and Normand

By: Joseph Scanlon

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 opinions 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.)

• Continue listening and transcription practice 15 hours per week, or more. More = quicker.

• The above will go more smoothly under guidance in technical classes, but if one finds the idea of structured study offensive then – whatever. Plow your own trail.

• By the time one gets to 6 months, or even 2(two)!, they will be skilled enough to quite casually realize the reverse content is a real and useable phenomenon.

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:

1. Skilled, did the practice time.
2. Unskilled, opinions reserved for they are intellectually honest and realize that they don’t know.
3. 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, tat’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.

 

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 it, 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: Reverse Speech Testimonials

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 30 years.

• Oates, to a request, lectured the FBI and other agencies 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 over 40 years, dating to before reverse speech, is a certified youth pastor, counselor as well as a certified hypnotherapist.

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?