Profile for ersby > Reviews

Personal Profile

Content by ersby
Top Reviewer Ranking: 343,595
Helpful Votes: 24

Learn more about Your Profile.

Reviews Written by

Page: 1
Fisherman's Box: The Complete Fisherman's Blues Sessions 1986-88 [6 Disc Box Set]
Fisherman's Box: The Complete Fisherman's Blues Sessions 1986-88 [6 Disc Box Set]
Price: 19.67

11 of 12 people found the following review helpful
4.0 out of 5 stars Fisherman's Frenzy, 18 Nov 2013
Verified Purchase(What is this?)
It is tempting, as one gets older, to mythologise albums that were important to you when you were young. However, in the case of Fisherman's Blues it may be justified, as this box set demonstrates. For an album to begin with Mike Scott booking a recording studio in secret and grew into something approaching a lifestyle choice, Fisherman's Blues remains a remarkable achievement and is the high water mark (pardon the pun) of Mike Scott's career so far.

The box set expands on this, offering up a series of songs and surprises from the Fisherman's Blues sessions. At its best, it's incredible, jaw-dropping stuff and you wonder why some of this didn't make the album, or even the "Too Close To Heaven" release some years ago. At its worse, it's pretty grim, but then, there's no way you're going to like everything on a 6 CD box set.

Listing favourites would make this review far too long and boring. Suffice to say that, as I neared the end of the sixth CD and having spent so much time in the company of these fine gentlemen, I felt a genuine sorrow that I wouldn't hear these songs for the first time ever again.

Perhaps the oddest thing is that there's no Big Music version of Higherbound. I could've sworn I heard it once, but now I can't find it. Maybe I heard it in a dream. (A sentence which pretty much sums up how I feel about The Waterboys.)

Science and Psychic Phenomena: The Fall of the House of Skeptics
Science and Psychic Phenomena: The Fall of the House of Skeptics
Price: 8.65

13 of 18 people found the following review helpful
1.0 out of 5 stars Inaccurate, hyperbolic and incomplete, 19 Sep 2012
Verified Purchase(What is this?)
Amazon reviews are not the best place in the world to discuss controversial science. Unfortunately, neither is this book. Having finally bought and read it, I couldn't let the otherwise glowing reviews remain without some kind of counter-balance.

Chris Carter is clearly an educated, intelligent man but he makes one big mistake in this book. He approaches the subject of parapsychology with the view that if he can prove the skeptics wrong then that will automatically prove the opposite viewpoint right. And this is the theme that runs throughout the book: What is the claim? What is the skeptics' argument against? What is the rebuttal to that argument? And then stop. He does not seem to take his research any further than that, and he very rarely offers any original research of his own. I cannot help but notice that the sections of the psi debate that he focuses on are the same ones that have been discussed in depth on the internet.

This means that this book misses out a lot of the controversy regarding psi, since most of the strongest criticisms about psi come from within parapsychology itself. For example, Chris writes about the Slade trial in which Henry Slade, a medium who used slate-writing to get messages from the dead, was prosecuted. Chris Carter shows how the prosecutor was unable to successfully explain how Henry Slade achieved his results. And this is true: reading the reports in the Times, the case against Slade does not seem strong. However, Carter does not mention that, barely ten years later, the Society of Psychical Research published work by a conjurer Davey who was able to replicate all the slate-writing feats that psychics could achieve, and the phenomena was greatly diminshed as a serious source of investigation.

His chapter on the ganzfeld is also poor. He simply repeats what other people have written about the debate, rather than going back to the source material, such that mistakes they made are present in Carter's work, too. For example, he criticises Milton and Wiseman's negative meta-analysis for using the wrong statistical measure, but does not mention that Charles Honorton used the same measure in his positive meta-analysis. Why didn't he know? Because the second-hand source he was using didn't tell him.

He writes that in the debate in 1986 "none of the ten contributors" agreed with Hyman over the issue of his flaw analysis. The claim comes from a talk given by Radin, I believe, and it gives the impression that everyone agreed with Honorton. In truth, most of the ten commentators do not mention Hyman's flaw analysis and while it is true that none explicitly say "I agree with Ray Hyman," their response are a little more nuanced than Chris Carter implies.

Carter also writes that the critic Christopher Scott was convinced by Honorton's work. In truth, Scott was impressed by Honorton's debate but that didn't stop his conversion from believer to skeptic (largely caused by his role in uncovering the Soal fraud) which lead to him leaving the discipline a few years later, calling it "an empty field."

In trying to paint skeptics as cherry-pickers of the worst data, he does some serious cherry-picking of his own. In the section about Susan Blackmore, he references Berger's re-analysis of her work quite extensively but does not mention the numerous mistakes that Berger apparently made as listed in Blackmore's reply at all. Carter even attempts to show that Berger's paper was somehow responsible for a change in Blackmore's attitude. However, a careful reading of the quotes from Blackmore - putting Carter's misleading introduction out of one's mind - shows that both before and after Berger's paper her attitude is the same: "I don't know."

Not everything in the book is wrong. Wiseman's investigation into Jay-tee (the dog who knew when his owner was coming home) is hardly a shining example of scientific investigation. Nevertheless, the book is littered with little mistakes. Carter repeats the myth of museums in the eighteenth century throwing out their meteorite collections because the science establishment was so dead set against it. He also mentions the novella "Futility" by Morgan Robertson as evidence of a premonition of the sinking of the Titanic but even in that short section he gets the numbers wrong. The list of errors goes on, and this review is already long enough.

The lengthy second half of the book, where Chris Carter asks if parapsychology is really incompatible with modern science is a little outside my area of expertise, so I will not pass judgement on it. However, given his treatment of the history of parapsychology, I don't have a great deal of confidence.

Unless the reader has access to an extensive library of parapsychological sources so they can check on Carter's statements, I can't recommend this book. And if you do have such a library, then there's no need for you to buy this book at all. For a better book of the controversy between skeptics and parapsychology, I'd point people in the direction of Randi's Prize: What sceptics say about the paranormal, why they are wrong and why it matters or for a more academic overview of the evidence itself, Parapsychology: A Concise History (Studies in Psychical Research) is an excellent place to start.
Comment Comments (6) | Permalink | Most recent comment: Dec 30, 2013 11:30 PM GMT

Bright Lights
Bright Lights
Price: 24.04

4.0 out of 5 stars Bright Lights shining from Korea, 16 Nov 2011
This review is from: Bright Lights (Audio CD)
I'll be honest, I don't know much about this band, but when I stumbled upon them on YouTube, I fell a little bit in love. "Bright Lights" is their second album, I believe, and it is certainly worth a look for those in the Coldplay/Snow Patrol market, but with a female vocalist.

The title is definitely apt. The production is crystal clear, and the musicianship is accomplished, but it is the vocals that give the songs the sense of scale they clearly deserve. Aching harmonies build up into life-affirming choruses, and the music rises to match it.

Perhaps it's weakest point is that, after opening with the two fastest songs, the rest of the album settles down into mid-tempo same-ness. This means the songs of last half of the album blur into one another which is a shame. The album is remarkable for the high standard of song writing, and to see such great melodies lost in a fog of other great but, frankly, similar songs is a real pity. It's one of those albums that sounds better on 'random' than when you play it normally.

Page: 1