Don't these "psychic" vultures just make you sick?

[mr blur]

Sylvia Browne is famous for telling distraught parents where their missing children are - but she gets it wrong. A lot. So why does she still have such a massive following? Jon Ronson took a cruise with America's most controversial psychic to find out.

<snip>

Sylvia Browne doesn't solicit. Such is her fame, distraught parents go to her. Most famously, Shawn Hornbeck's parents went to her. On October 6 2002, 11-year-old Shawn disappeared while riding his bike to a friend's house in Missouri. Four months of frantic and heartbreaking searching later, his parents went on Montel.

"Is he still with us?" asked Pam, Shawn's mother.

"No," said Sylvia.

Pam broke down. Sylvia said Shawn was buried beneath two jagged boulders.

Four years later, in January this year, Shawn was found alive and well and living with his alleged abductor, Michael Devlin, in Kirkwood, Missouri. This miraculous happy ending became headline news across the US. Shawn's parents told journalists that one of their lowest points was when Sylvia Browne told them their boy was dead. "Hearing that," his father, Craig, told CNN, "was one of the hardest things we ever had to hear."

Sylvia Browne doesn't give interviews, especially not since the Shawn Hornbeck incident. She's turned down CNN's Anderson Cooper, Larry King, ABC and so on. A few months ago I logged on to her website. "Why won't you give interviews?" I thought, staring mournfully at her photograph. She looks and sounds like a worldly dame you'd meet in a bar in a Dashiell Hammett novel. Then I noticed an announcement on her news page: Sylvia was to be a guest lecturer on a cruise around the Mediterranean in late September. Fans could sign up for four lectures and a cocktail party.

"She must talk to me if we're stuck on a ship together," I thought. And so, impulsively, I booked myself on to the cruise.

<snip>

http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,,2198928,00.html?gusrc=rss&feed=networkfront

[Ian David]

1. Sylvia Brown is an evil, nasty waste of skin.

She's like a cross between John Edward and Dr. Laura.


See:


The new Sylvia Browne Clock is placed here so that interested readers can follow an ongoing situation. The original clock started March 6th 2001, and ran 181 days. Then Sylvia agreed, on September 3rd 2001, to the suggested protocol for a definitive test of her claimed powers, for the JREF million-dollar prize.

We still have a variety of very well-qualified savants, here and abroad, who are willing to participate. We have major centers of learning and a prominent parapsychologist on tap, ready and willing to design, supervise, and conduct proper tests of her ability.

http://www.randi.org/sylvia/

[Hissyspit]

2. Yes. n/t

[YDogg]

3. she sells lots of books

and makes lots of money, I'd guess.

[Fed_Up_Grammy]

4. The "sucker born every minute" rule applies here.

Ignore them all !!!!!!

[greyl]

5. Yes. Stopsylviabrowne.com

"Is she a well-intentioned spiritual leader, with actual psychic powers? Is she a fraud, making money by callously manipulating and using the bereaved? Or is she something else entirely?"
stopsylviabrowne.com

[wildbilln864]

73. ah greyl...

finally something we agree on. :hi:

[TZ]

6. For this post

I will give you, a fellow "fundamentalist scientist" a rec, because us narrow minded folk have to stick together!!;-)

[NMMNG]

7. Utterly

Shysters, the lot of them.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

8. Yes, and so do the 'power of positive thinking' ones

This thing called The Secret is all the rage right now. Basically it's the same old snake oil where you pay hundreds of dollars to have some goofball tell you that you can "will" success and good health into existence. And it's your fault if you get cancer or go bankrupt. You caused it through your 'negative energy'. Several months ago, I got roped into a personal growth seminar that drew heavily on The Secret's principles. I really lost it when the facilitator was telling us that the Katrina victims needed to take more 'personal ownership' of their situation. But others in the room were nodding their heads in agreement. This relentless promotion of magical thinking is really insidious because it makes people less empathetic and more focused on themselves instead of the community. Which is pretty much how the people in charge want us to be.

[DesertFlower]

10. OMG. i attended many of those

"self help" seminars back in the 80s. no matter how positive i thought and how much i visualized having "perfect health" it never happened. then, of course, you tend to blame yourself.

[TZ]

13. Much to my total annoyance

My sister LOVES "The Secret" and tried to push it on me. But after I made certain skeptical comments she said that "obviously you don't have the right attitude to take advantage of this...":eyes:

[rucky]

28. it's a cult. n/t

[lildreamer316]

36. I

am not in a cult.

No one controls me but myself. I can choose what to believe and what not to believe.

[mondo joe]

37. Could you answer one question for me please?

If, hypothetically, you were going to brainwash one or more people, what is one of the VERY first things you would make them think?

I have my own idea, but I'd like to know yours.

[lildreamer316]

39. I don't know.

Because I don't think like that. I don't ever try to figure out how I, hypothetically or in 'real life'; would control other people.

I just take offense to the fact that you seem to think that because I have read a book and watched a movie, and believed some, if not most of the things in both were a truth, that I am 'brainwashed'.

I'm really not that stupid.

Religion attempts to brainwash.
Politics and politicians attempt to brainwash.
Advertisers attempt to brainwash.

Boy, I must be in a whole LOT of cults, since I buy Bounty paper towels and drive a Honda!!!
Whoohoo! I'm a sheep!! Not capable of rational thinking at all!:sarcasm:

Nobody is forcing anyone to do anything here against their will. The concept of personal responsibility begins when one realizes one has a responsibility to one's self; to make one's own decisions. No one can control or dominate you without your consent.

I knew these things before I saw/read the Secret. Now, I just have a clearer explanation of them.

“Learning is finding out what you already know, Doing is demonstrating that you know it, Teaching is reminding others that they know it as well as you do. We are all learners, doers, and teachers.” - Richard Bach

If it's never our fault, we can't take responsibility for it.
If we can't take responsibility for it, we'll always be its victim.

-Richard Bach from "Running From Safety"

Whoops! Guess he brainwashed me too. All in one little tiny book.
What a weak will I have. Oh well.
:sarcasm:

[mondo joe]

40. I haven't said you are brainwashed or in a cult. Since you couldn't answer my first

question, could I ask a second?

Do you think most - or even almost any - people who truly are brainwashed or in cults think they are brainwashed or in a cult?

[KittyWampus]

66. Using that logic, are YOU in a cult? You probably don't think you are. So you must be.

[mondo joe]

68. Are you asking me?

If you are, here's my answer: I haven't had any reason to think I am, but if you have evidence or cause to think I am, please share it with me so I can consider it.

[LanternWaste]

99. That's the big secret...

"people who truly are brainwashed or in cults think they are brainwashed or in a cult?"

Oh, heck no. That's the big secret, you see-- everyone who says they're not in a cult, really are!

[mondo joe]

102. Hm, that certainly wasn't where I was going. NT

[rucky]

71. my apologies

but I've been approached by an ad-hoc group (in the business world) who have bastardized and commercialized the concept. They cornered me under false pretenses and gave me the full-on Amway treatment, then a steady barrage of emails and follow-ups. i don't know why they're recruiting members so aggressively.

If it works for you, that's great, though.

[nam78_two]

20. Yup-the last thing this cold society needs

More reinforcement of the idea that people who don't "make it" just didn't try or didn't "believe in themselves" enough or some other old bromide like that. Very real problems wil just melt away if they think happy thoughts blah blah.
Magical thinking about sums it up.
Only you can fix what is wrong with you etc. etc. Load of crock imo....

[lildreamer316]

33. A person

cannot be any good to the community if they are supremely unhappy with themselves.

I have taken what I can use from The Secret and left other parts behind. It, like anyting else, contains truth. Love yourself, and love others. Accept yourself, accept others.

Money is not evil. It is the perception of lack that causes greed.
Being a victim all the time leads to a miserable existance and a self-fufilling prophecy.

These are things I personally have learned. I choose to focus on the good and the positive. I am pro-peace; not anti-war.

Another part of the Secret asks you to ask yourself "How can I SERVE?".

If you ever feel like listening with a purely open mind:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3952068998875994036&q=oprah+the+secret+the+reaction&total=45&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=2


There are plenty of people who are trying to make money off of this concept. Not all of them are on the up-and-up. The thing about this is, one has to be aware enough to be able to see through this, but open-minded enough to be able to take the truth that it contains and use it.

Silvia Brown may have/have had a gift. I believe she crossed a line a while back, and has lost the gift due to abuse of it. The thing that turned me off of her was when, in one of her books, she specifically said that a known athiest had not been allowed into the 'heaven' part of afterlife; and had instead been 'punished' by being immediately reincanated (what she says is 'punishment').
How would she know? And if the God that she and others profess to believe in is unconditional love (I believe in the existance of unconditonal love as an all-powerful energy); how could the athiest NOT be allowed into heaven? And HOW THE HELL would she know?
It's too bad.
People with real psychic ability are usually very quiet about it, and if they use their ability at all,they help police find criminals and victims. Often with no credit or acknowledgement at all.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

77. Sorry, I'm with Michael Shermer

The (Other) Secret
The inverse square law trumps the law of attraction
By Michael Shermer

An old yarn about a classic marketing con game on the secret of wealth instructs you to write a book about how to make a lot of money and sell it through the mail. When your marks receive the book, they discover the secret--write a book about how to make a lot of money and sell it through the mail.

A confidence scheme similar to this can be found in The Secret (Simon & Schuster, 2006), a book and DVD by Rhonda Byrne and a cadre of self-help gurus that, thanks to Oprah Winfrey's endorsement, have now sold more than three million copies combined. The secret is the so-called law of attraction. Like attracts like. Positive thoughts sally forth from your body as magnetic energy, then return in the form of whatever it was you were thinking about. Such as money. "The only reason any person does not have enough money is because they are blocking money from coming to them with their thoughts," we are told. Damn those poor Kenyans. If only they weren't such pessimistic sourpusses. The film's promotional trailer is filled with such vainglorious money mantras as "Everything I touch turns to gold," "I am a money magnet," and, my favorite, "There is more money being printed for me right now." Where? Kinko's?

more...

[rockymountaindem]

191. So if everybody thought positive money-generating thoughts

we'd all get wiped out by inflation. Kind of self-defeating, isn't it?

[mrreowwr_kittty]

211. LOL!

[Lorien]

245. I think the truth lies somewhere in between

"The Secret" claims that there are no coincidences; that our lives are something that we orchestrated entirely on our own, and that we are personally responsible for everything that happens or that does not happen to us. That discounts entirely the fact that, well, shit happens. You can be born into a lousy family and develop brain cancer along the way, but magical thinking won't cure your cancer or stop your dad from drinking himself to death. A positive attitude WILL give you a better chance at beating the cancer, though. People who expect that things will work out for the best and that they will be successful in all their endeavors do have a better shot at success and happiness than someone who is negative and pessimistic. It's not that the "universe" is rewarding those that are more positive. It's more basic than that. Confidence allows people to take on greater challenges. A positive attitude is more enjoyable to be around, so they tend to succeed more socially which almost always leads to success in both business and private life. People tend to live up or down to their own expectations. It's a combination of both attitude and action that ultimately allow us to attain our goals...and even then unforeseen tragedies can strike. Ultimately we are neither Gods nor victims.

[SheWhoMustBeObeyed]

85. Even moreso, they say you can be infected by others' negative energy

so you must shun the poor and the sick or risk catching their poor, sick cooties.

I believe that positive thinking can be beneficial in moderation. The Secret is a perfect example of how much harm can be done by too much of a good thing.

[GoneOffShore]

108. And the implication is to stay away from anyone

who doesn't measure up.

So if you want to be thin and fit . . .

:hide:

Must be tough for some of the folks I've seen on the bus reading "The Secret".

[DesertFlower]

9. i heard her say

when you die, everything is good. i guess it's "heaven". well i beg to differ, but i would think that on the other side things are not so pleasant for hitler, jeffrey dahmer, timothy McVey, etc.

some say that when you pass over, you create your own reality, i.e., if you believe in heaven -- you go there. so i asked my friend who's a buddhist priest. i asked "do you think the suicide bombers who expect paradise and 72 virgins" really get that because they believe it?" he said "i don't think it works that way".

[Sparkly]

11. Interesting reading - thanks for the link.

How can people knowingly do things like this?

[karlrschneider]

12. Well, James Randi's Million dollars is still safe

http://www.randi.org/sylvia/

edit: oops sorry IanDB1 beat me to that one!
:D

[Milo_Bloom]

14. Unfortunately, James Randi is as much a fraud as the rest of them. (nt)

[karlrschneider]

15. I see.

:eyes:

[Milo_Bloom]

16. The $1,000,000 challenge isn't real.

Or offered in a real capacity.

It is as much of a scam as those on the other side.

[mr blur]

18. Do you have any evidence for this?

Documented evidence?

[Milo_Bloom]

21. Yes, read the FAQ of the "challenge"

and look at the process of applying.

Also look at the automatic disqualifications and the fact that some claims (including remote viewing, "psychic" healing, etc..) won't even be considered. Let's look at the fact that you need 3 notarized witnesses, who are going to have to essentially submit to full background checks to make sure you didn't meet them in the wrong place..

Here, read this blog entry, as it pretty much sums up some of the many problems with the application process and how it is stacked against anyone being able to apply.

http://michaelprescott.typepad.com/michael_prescotts_blog/2006/12/the_challenge.html

A few years ago I was asked to look through the application procedure for someone and was ultimately led to the conclusion that even if what they claimed to me they could do were true there was no point in even bothering, b/c proof is too easily dismissed by the process, which is the same problem as the other scammers (Sylvia Browne).

[mondo joe]

23. If you could prove those things, you don't need Randi's million. If you could prove

remote viewing, psychic healing, astral projection, telepathy, ghosts...if you are in possession of this revolutionary secret of science, why not prove it and be hailed as the new Newton?

Of course, we know the answer. You can't do it. You are a fake.

[Milo_Bloom]

27. Some have.

You should look up some of the actual double blind scientific studies on ESP and remotve viewing.

Unfortunatley the "challenge" works like this, "If we ever proved a remote viewer fake before, you cannot apply, because by proving that individual remote viewer fake, ALL remote viewers are, by default, fake."

For the record, I do not claim to have any "magic" powers.

[mondo joe]

29. If the can prove those things were are the articles in peer reviewed journals?

Why aren't they making bundle with their scientific discoveries?

[Milo_Bloom]

44. Do some research... I am not here to PROVE anything to anyone, nor am I interested in doing so. (nt)

[mondo joe]

51. Your claim, not mine. But for what it's worth, I didn't expect any peer reviewed

journals.

Thanks!

[Milo_Bloom]

53. I didn't make the "claim" you seem to think I did.

[mondo joe]

56. Let's review:

I wrote "If you could prove remote viewing, psychic healing, astral projection, telepathy, ghosts...if you are in possession of this revolutionary secret of science, why not prove it and be hailed as the new Newton?"

You responded "Some have".

So I'm asking you to support your claim that some have done that.

[Milo_Bloom]

59. Like I said, google is your friend.

[TZ]

31. Please post those studies

AFAIK, none of these studies have shown any SIGNIFICANT statistical difference from random chance...
And are they in respectable peer reviewed journals?

[Milo_Bloom]

48. Google is your friend.

Remember, I am not trying to PROVE anything to you, except that this particular challenge is a scam.

[mr blur]

35. Look, if people can actually DO those things,

remote viewing, psychic healing (it's difficult to even type that without laughing) and the rest, then why aren't they just doing them? They could surely make millions. If someone claims super-natural powers, then the burdon of proof is on them. Likewise, if someone claims the existence of a divine supernatural being then it's not for we atheists to disprove it. We aren't making any irrational claims and so have nothing to prove.

[Milo_Bloom]

45. they already ARE.

There are several WORKING remote viewers and psychic healers.

There are police departments with remote viewers ON RETAINER and call them quite often.

One of my friends is a captain in a police force and uses a psychic quite often, which is why I looked into the whole Randi thing a few years ago, because he was interested in having his remote viewer take the challenge to legitimize the work so he wouldn't have so much trouble paying the bills of a non-certified expert and trying to come up with different reasons to employe this guy.

[TZ]

52. Umm do you understand that anecdotal evidence

doesn't fly on this. What makes you think that this is "proof"? BTW.
When people say YOU do the research, as you did, that sounds an awful lot like "um I really don't have solid evidence to back up my claims so I put the burden of proof on you".
And yes, if you are going to make claims that there is SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE for these abilities you should damn well have SOMETHING to back up those claims or you are going to look, well..foolish.

[Milo_Bloom]

54. Nice strawman you created...

Did you have fun knocking it down?

There are scientific studies done, you can find them on google if you so choose; however, that isn't the original point.

[TZ]

87. if googling is so easy

why can't you find these studies
BTW- as a drug researcher if my company put a drug on the market based on a placebo effect or based on anadoctal evidence that it makes people feel better, you wouldn't think that was a good thing would you? No, you would wonder where was the evidence.
Why should these people who makes these claims (and some do claim to heal sick people, remember) be subject to less rigourous standards of proof? The answer is that SO FAR none of these claims can pass these rigorous standards of proof. And thats why personal observation doesn't count for much in my book. It is too easy to misinterpret data based on observation alone...It needs to be combined with more rigorous testing...

[Milo_Bloom]

93. Which evidence? The stuff that was proven wrong later or the other stuff?

At the end of the day, I don't actually care what you believe or don't believe or what you research or don't.

I gave someone a link to one of the many studies available, so feel free to look it up and figure it out for yourself.

At the end of the day, you all proved to me exactly what I have said many times before... there is little difference between a skeptic and a religious nut. Both stricly adhere to a particular set of rules despite the fact that those rules have been proven wrong many times in the past.

In short, the world was proven flat, until it wasn't. The earth was at the center of the universe until it wasn't. A gorilla didn't really exist until it did. Cigarette smoking wasn't harmful until it was. Hypo-Glycemia and fibromialga still aren't considered REAL by many "experts", until they are one day accepted as real, then the people who claim they aren't will be the crazy ones.

Heck, when I was growing up Pluto was a planet LARGER than Mercury (and I got suspended from class in 6th grade for arguing with my teacher about the size of Pluto, when she SWORE Mercury was the smallest) and Dinosaurs were stupid, slow moving cold-blooded reptiles. Between then and now, Pluto became the smallest planet and then wasn't a planet at all... the Dinosaurs are now semi-intelligent, pack minded, potentially warm blooded cousins to BIRDS with feathers.

Science proves itself wrong as often as it does right and that which was KNOWN is found to be unknown again.

Now, onto your question... no one is suggesting that anyone or anything should be subject to less rigorous standards of proof. However, the fact is they should be TESTED and "the challenge" such as it is dismisses many claims out of hand, without any testing or willingness to test. It dismisses claims that have been "tested" in others. So if two "psychic healers" with the same "power" come along and psychic 1's power is proven to be false, psychic 2 isn't allowed to be tested. To use your drug analogy, that is like saying 2 difference companies develope a cure for cancer, and the first drug fails the trial so the second drug isn't allowed to be tested.


You want to find the studies, LOOK THEM UP. Try the names Dr. Gary Scwartz, look up the Princeton Egg project, read the statistical analysis study by Professor Jessica Utts.

[TZ]

118. and there are still flat earthers and people

who think evolution doesn't exist and think that cancer is caused by fungus. You will always have people willing to believe anything and there is a reason the term "snake-oil merchant" is still around.
Shockingly I couldn't find any respectable scientific journals with good article (I can't take the journal of parapsychology seriously..they definitely are not unbiased) but here is a good dubunking of most of this research with some good links (yes I know its from narrow minded skeptics, whoopie-do) and why most scientists don't take ESP seriously.
http://skepdic.com/esp.html

[mondo joe]

121. Except the earth wasn't proven flat. It was said to be flat because that's what it looked like.

There was no scientific scrutiny to support the claim.

You make a significant error by conflating what people SAY with what they PROVE.

[Milo_Bloom]

142. Which was considered PROOF at the time.

What is considered PROOF changes with advances in science.

What is considered impossible becomes possible and what was considered wrong is proven true, because the ability and/or method of measurement changes.

When the only instruments one has is their eyes, seeing is the only measuremeant.

There remains little difference between flat eathers, hard core skeptiks and people of intense faith. They all believe in something that has been proven unreliable time and time again.

[mondo joe]

That's why the scientific method is valuable. That wouldn't hold up to science.

And it didn't.

With only eyes, seeing is the only way to look at measurements - but it's not the only measurement.

[Milo_Bloom]

148. Science doesn't hold up to science

which is what you keep wanting to ignore.

The abilities of measurement change over time and each time they do, thousands of beliefs held by science are forced to change with them.

Just like a deeply religious person, skeptics want to desperately cling to a single belief, despite the fact that the belief they hold onto has been proven unreliable.

The Pope is infallible, except for the times in history he has apologized for his mistakes.

Science is absolutely correct, except for the times that it has made mistakes and been proven wrong.

[mondo joe]

153. You continue to be in error, I'm afraid.

"The abilities of measurement change over time and each time they do, thousands of beliefs held by science are forced to change with them."

Science evolves with new data. This is one of its greates vitrues.

"Just like a deeply religious person, skeptics want to desperately cling to a single belief, despite the fact that the belief they hold onto has been proven unreliable."

That's where you go off the deep end again. Science provides a screen, to winnow out real data from crap. It's not supposed to bow down and accept each new fancy - the fancy has to prove itself.

It wasn't science that said the earth was flat - that was a fancy that did not endure the rigors or scrutiny of the scientific method.

[Milo_Bloom]

165. You continue to be in error, I'm afraid.

And what you fail to understand that so much of what is real was considered to be crap. The skeptics, just like the religious zealots, take science as it exists today and cling to its current state. And whenever there is a potential discovery, or proof of something that "science" can't immediately explain, the scientific community (or at least the nutty minded skeptic side of it) of the time leaps up and scream fraud.

This is probably why education INCREASES belief in paranormal.

One only has to look at history to realize that hard-core skepticism is a religion.

[roguevalley]

64. I suppose that my experience with a psychic doesn't count, nor

my own observations of things around my house now. I know that the good ones work and the rest are so much fuss and bother. Sylvia has been a quack for years. There are genuine people out there who can find out things they shouldn't know. I have talked to two and I can tell you, it would be wrong headed to lump them all together.

[immoderate]

201. Could it be...

That said psychics were so good that they fooled even you, who cannot be fooled? :)

--IMM

[ArbustoBuster]

90. Your police captain friend is wasting public funds.

Quoting the OP article:

Famous anti-psychics, such as Richard Dawkins, are often criticised for using a sledgehammer to crack a nut. Dawkins' last television series, The Enemies Of Reason, was roundly condemned for making silly, harmless psychics seem too villainous. This criticism might be true were it not for the fact that, when the likes of Sylvia Browne make pronouncements, the police and desperate parents sometimes spend serious time and money investigating their claims.

In 2002, for instance, the parents of missing Holly Krewson turned their lives upside down in response to one of Sylvia's visions. Holly vanished in April 1995. Seven years later her mother, Gwen, went on Montel, where Sylvia told her Holly was alive and well and working as a stripper in a lap-dancing club on Hollywood and Vine. Gwen immediately flew to Los Angeles and frantically scoured the strip clubs, interviewing dancers and club owners and punters, and handing out flyers, and all the while Holly was lying dead and unidentified in San Diego...

I once asked Dr Ray Hyman, a CIA-contracted psychologist, why the agency employed a team of psychics. "People are basically nutty," he shrugged. "Which means there are just as many nutty people within our government and our law enforcement agencies as there are outside them."

Please let us know where your police captain friend works so that he can be fired. Yes, I'm serious. "He's coming up with different reasons to employ the guy" is a very polite way of saying "he's hiding his malfeasance from the auditors".

[Milo_Bloom]

91. Which is why he wanted him to take "the challenge"

Because at the end of the day, it is working for him and I am glad to see people employing methods that work, instead of listening to idiots who don't have a clue... Yes, I'm serious.

[ArbustoBuster]

267. Continue to believe in foolishness if you like.

That's your absolute right as a human being. But don't expect me to pay for it. I don't believe a word you're saying, and nothing you say will convince me.

[ArbustoBuster]

268. And allow me to add...

If you and your friend believe in this so much, you should be happy to make it public. Names, cases, places, all of that. Evidence in your favor. Keeping it secret will be read as outsiders as proof that it doesn't work because, to them, you're hiding something.

[karlrschneider]

119. All that proves is that some police departments are run by idiots.

...
As if we didn't know that anyway. :eyes:

[alarimer]

24. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof

But no one will actually do those things because ALL psychics, UFOlogists, spoon benders are frauds. Every last one of them. They complain about the strict rules because they know they are frauds.

[Milo_Bloom]

26. Read the article, it isn't about the rules... it is about the automatic dismissal ...

in the application process, so you can apply all you want, but you won't even be considered.


.

[mondo joe]

30. Again, if anyone could prove those things they wouldn't need Randi's million. They would

revolutionize science. But curiously, they can't seem to do that.

[Milo_Bloom]

42. Some have.

[mondo joe]

43. Evidence, please.

[Milo_Bloom]

47. Evidence of what? I already gave you evidence the challenge is a scam, what else do you want?

[mondo joe]

50. Evidence that, as you say, some have proved these things.

Is it ESP? Astral projection?

I look forward to the proof. Thank you.

[Milo_Bloom]

55. You are welcome to surf google if you are interested...

... the truth is out there.

[mondo joe]

57. Sorry but I'd rather not spend time searching for things that don't exist.

Thanks! :-)

[Milo_Bloom]

58. Like I said, just like Randi's challenge, lots of scams exist.

[mondo joe]

60. Whe you can back up your claims let me know.

:-)

Nighty night.

[Milo_Bloom]

61. Already did. Not surprised you ignored them.

[mondo joe]

62. No, you didn't. You instead responded "google is your friend".

Saying there are studies doesn't backup your claims, nor do anecdotes about police departments.

Thanks!

[Milo_Bloom]

65. Yes, I did.

The point I was proving is that Randi's "challenge" is BS and that is proven.

The fact that scientific studies have been done on many of these subjects is easily found via google.

If you really need me to do some of the work for you, You can begin here: http://anson.ucdavis.edu/~utts/air2.html

And then spread out from there...

[SidDithers]

129. LOL... Puthoff and Targ!

You're going to use the Stanford Research Institute as evidence in support of your position?

You negelected to post the other half of the evaluation of SRI and SAIC. The one done by Ray Hyman.
http://www.mceagle.com/remote-viewing/refs/science/air/hyman.html

I know you won't be interested in it, but for interested observers, here's a link with info about remote viewing from a skeptical perspective.
http://skepdic.com/remotevw.html

Sid

Edit: fixed typo

[Milo_Bloom]

138. Yes.

As I said, studies have been done.

[SidDithers]

69. Translation...

I posted crap. I got called on it. And now I'm trying to turn the tables in the hopes that nobody will notice that I've got nuthin' to support the crap I posted ...

Sid

[Milo_Bloom]

74. Nope.

I posted fact, proved it and then people tried to create a strawman to knock down.

Nice try, however.

[TZ]

110. Ding! We have a winnah!

unless of course you beleive "proof" is go google it! Or I know someone who knows someone yarn.
FYI "strawman argument"=I don't have any good logic to back up my POV so I am accusing others of my behavior! Classic projection...

[Beelzebud]

159. Yes because everything you read on the internet is true!

Give me a break.

[alarimer]

76. There is nothing onerous about those standards and rules

In order to prove something, whatever it might be, there must be conclusive proof, including appropriate statistical tests and experimental design. That is how science is done. And if psychic powers cannot be proven using traditional scientific methods and experimental design, then it is fraud or it simply doesn't exist. People balk at those conditions because they know they will fail; that is all. You are being willfully obtuse on this issue.

Anecdotal evidence does not constitute proof. In no way, shape or form is it adequate to state that, because you have allegedly seen something, it MUST be true.

[Milo_Bloom]

94. Wrong... Read the article.

The problem is that they dismiss most claims before actually allow any form of testing.

The problems are all laid out.

http://michaelprescott.typepad.com/michael_prescotts_blog/2006/12/the_challenge.html

[BadgerLaw2010]

114. Dismissal is not "automatic", it's for good reason.

If you can't agree on what your power actually does and how it might be tested, or find people who agree that you have the power, or demonstrate the power to others under circumstances you choose, why should Randi construct a hostile circumstances test?

And people who make claims that are dangerous to themselves or others if science works as expected shouldn't be allowed to test either. Basic moral considerations.

The reason people get "automatically dismissed" is that they either can't understand the rules in the first place because they're borderline nuts, or because they can't seem to provide any real objective evidence that they can do it, such as affidavits or media.

[Milo_Bloom]

144. OR

Because the test is, in essence, fraudulent and set up to carefully screen those who may actually prove something.

[Beelzebud]

164. So then where are all these psychics proving him wrong?

Or do they just keep their powers to themselves waiting for the fair 1 million dollar challenge?

[Milo_Bloom]

167. Many are working today...

You have no idea how many police departments actually employ psychics. (Usually remote viewers).

[Beelzebud]

168. Idiot cops wasting tax money isn't proof of anything but ignorance.

[Milo_Bloom]

172. Cept that it works for them.

Which is what usually bothers people the most.

Esepcially religious nuts like the skeptics around here.

[Beelzebud]

176. Nice assumption. I'm an atheist.

Being an atheist, I demand scientific evidence.

To the point. Works for who? Show me a law enforcement agency that has a paid psychic on staff that solves crimes. I'll be waiting for an example.

[Milo_Bloom]

181. Didn't say you weren't.

You'all just think exactly the same.

[Beelzebud]

183. So I take it you don't have an example of one law enforcement agency that uses psychics?

I didn't think so.

[Milo_Bloom]

184. Yes, I do.

Talked about it in this thread earlier.

[Beelzebud]

185. Then surely you can provide me with a link?

This thread is getting pretty long. Cut me a break and post me this link to the law enforcement agency that has a psychic on staff to solve crimes.

[Milo_Bloom]

194. LOL.

Okay, let's review.

The reason I looked into "the challenge" is because my friend, who is a captain at a police department, wanted his psychic to take it so what he did could be more accepted. I thought the process was easy, until I read and analyzed the application and came to the conclusion that the "challenge" was BS and advised it not be done. The main problem with the challenge is that the screening and testing should be conducted by an completely independent 3rd party. However, when the person holding the money and claiming independence is the one screening the applicants, you do not have a truly independent test.

So, if you think I am going to post the information of the specific department, you've got to be insane.

Now, my friend did inform me that he knows "several" departments who employ similar people; however, I cannot verify that since I don't know those people personally, so I can only offer that as an aside.

[Beelzebud]

199. So then the answer is no you can not provide any evidence of police departments who employ psychics.

Thats what I thought.

[Milo_Bloom]

206. Yes, I did.

[Beelzebud]

212. Where?

Your story about the town cop simply isn't convincing. If psychics worked, police forces wouldn't be afraid of demonstrating it.

[Milo_Bloom]

214. Do you know what evidence is?

Let's see if you can figure it out for youself.

Employ that powerful "S"cientific mind.

[Beelzebud]

216. See there you go again. You haven't presented a shred of evidence.

The only one that needs to figure out what evidence is, is you.

Your story about the town cop employing a psychic, under the table, isn't evidence of anything.

This is what I love about pseudo-scientists. You know nothing, present nothing to back it up, and then act smug and arrogant when people call you on your bullshit.

Show me where a police forces employs psychics. You haven't done it yet, and I'll be waiting.

[Milo_Bloom]

218. Wrong.

You obviously don't know what evidence is.

I'll start here... this is a lie on several levels.

"Your story about the town cop employing a psychic, under the table, isn't evidence of anything. "

First, the person is a captain of a police department.

Second, your definition of evidence is incorrect and proven in your statement.


"Show me where a police forces employs psychics. You haven't done it yet, and I'll be waiting. "

Yes, I have. Please learn the definition of evidence and try again.

[Beelzebud]

219. LOL So where is this police department that employs psychics?

Wow, you are a real piece of work. It's like arguing with the moon hoax people ore fundamentalist christians.

[Milo_Bloom]

220. Your question has been asked and answered.

Care to ask one that hasn't already been answered?

[Beelzebud]

225. Where is the answer. You can't proclaim you answered, when you haven't...

If the answer is so simple, then where is it?

[Milo_Bloom]

226. See above.

You asked for evidence and I supplied evidence.

The fact that you don't understand the definition of evidence is your problem, not mine.

[Evoman]

242. Lol...your being so schooled that it's ridiculous.

Your "evidence" i.e. an anecdotal story, is bullshit.

[Milo_Bloom]

257. Nope, try again.

[riverdeep]

63. To be fair,

some of them believe it. So they're not technically a fraud.

[New Earth]

171. absolute bullshit

the proof is in experience. Any who hasn't experienced it yet, I hope do. Well, referring to ESP at least, for me.

[edhopper]

32. I've worked with Randi

and you sir, are full of shit. So go back to your dowsers and psychic healers and telepathic communicators and any other para-normal hoo-doo you grasp and sink in to ignorant bliss.

[Milo_Bloom]

49. So you can't actually dispute what I posted or Randi's own words, that's what I thought.

[Garbo 2004]

80. Well some people have been accepted for testing. This one is a doozy: paranormal urination.

A person who says she can make people urinate on themselves with only the power of her mind is to be tested on Nov 12. The claimant apparently says this ability is "a gift from God." Not exactly your garden variety paranormal talent, I must say.

And no, I'm not making this up. http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=89877

[mondo joe]

82. If Randi says no, she should apply for membership in the Legion of Super Heroes.

[BadgerLaw2010]

116. "Psychic healing" will be considered if it can actually be verified you have healed someone.

Real medical records, real doctors, real documentation of what you did.

How is asking for that unfair?

[SDuderstadt]

34. What a crock....

how is the challenge not real??

[Milo_Bloom]

46. Read the previous post on exactly this.

[BadgerLaw2010]

109. It's quite real. It's just safe because no one actually has demonstrable powers.

If someone could actually demonstrate a supernatural ability on command, that would be very easy money. It would be about as hard to get as me picking up my coffee mug and taking a sip.

You wouldn't be borderline pass/fail, you would absolutely blow it away. Rounding up three affidavits from people who don't know you would likewise not be a problem.

The catch is that no one seems to actually have abilities that can be demonstrated on command in front of a skeptical, scientific audience. Or if they do, they don't want to come forward because they don't trust society not to waste them.

[New Earth]

174. you are right...

that actually is the problem in most cases. It is hard to control and do whenever the hell you feel like it. It comes when it comes and is hard to do on purpose.

[Milo_Bloom]

187. There are lots of examples in history.

Things that "appear" magical at one time are often found to be real, once the method of measurement is found.

Think about something as simple as ice. If you don't have a thermometer, it would seem that water can magically turn into ice. A human won't likely be able to tell the immediately difference between 33 and 31 degrees, but something "magical" happens, that appears unpredictable.

[Beelzebud]

157. Aww was Randi mean to the pseudo-scientists and psychic frauds? /me cries.

James Randi is hated by pseudo-scientists and scam artists, because for 30 years he's been exposing this dreck for what it is: A bunch of bullshit.

[Milo_Bloom]

196. No, he is just the Pope of that religious movement.

[Beelzebud]

200. What's the religion? "The Church of People Who Don't Want to be Conned by Psychic Scam Artists?"

Sign me up.

[Milo_Bloom]

208. The Church of Science (big S).

It is as foolish as any other religion.

You don't have to sign up, you have proven yourself a card carrying member.

[Beelzebud]

213. Science produces results. The Church of sciene provides you with the internet to spew your nonsense

This computer you're using, and the internet you're on, were brought to you by the church of Science. The internet doesn't work on psychic energy.

I'll go with what has results. Pseudo-science, and mysticism offer nothing but nonsense.

[Milo_Bloom]

215. Big difference.

The church of Science you refer to has given me nothing. It is a religion based on stagnation and strict adherence to status quo. The church of Science to which you belong doesn't evolve, despite believing in evolution. Its kinda ironic and interesting, but sad, nonetheless.

[Beelzebud]

217. Actually the "church of science" was something you were referring to.

I'm laughing my ass off right now. I'm sure you have no idea how ridiculous you're sounding right now. It's sad, but amusing at the same time.

Seen any ghosts lately. It is close to halloween, and I love good ghost story.

[Milo_Bloom]

221. I'm sure you are.

And I feel very sorry for you and thank god that there aren't more people like you.

Society would have nothing if there were.

[Random_Australian]

256. Oooooh yeah, look at them setting and following consistent standards of evidence!

It's sooooo religious to ask for evidence. Which is why all the other major religions were founded not on divine revelation, but by knocking out incorrect hypotheses.

Oh wait - it's "big S" so you can say it's not "real" science. I'll admit I don't know what definition you are using, but I can guess its effects - science that you can't deny, like aeroplanes, is little 's' science, and science you don't want to believe, like the fact that there has never been any evidence for psychics, is evil "big S" science. Of course, maybe I am wrong. But after seeing this crap enough times, one tends to see a pattern.

[immoderate]

204. There is this guy who can bend spoons...

With just the power of his mind. Have you seen it? I can't think of any reason why he would try to fool people. And GOD knows there are many spoons out there in NEED of bending.

Thousands of people have seen him do it.

There was a time when people didn't believe that you could bend spoons with just the power of your mind, and now there is PROOF. I found it with GOOGLE, so it's absolute fact. Anybody who disagrees with me is an idiot -- I TOLD you to look it up!

--IMM

[Beelzebud]

205. Just don't google Johnny Carson spoon bending.

:D LOL

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3736927265274693722&q=Johnny+Carson+spoon+bending&total=2&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=1

[Milo_Bloom]

209. Yes, there is.

But that is a trick easily duplicated.

[StarryNite]

269. You're right about that!

[johnnie]

17. Way down at the bottom of my list

If consenting adults want to pay them then let them, no skin off my nose. Why do they make you sick?

[nam78_two]

19. K&R-a total scam artist/fraud.nt

[MonkeyFunk]

22. She should be convicted of fraud

oh wait... she was.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sylvia_Browne#Legal_issues_and_criminal_conviction

[alarimer]

25. So does Kevin Trudeau

Another convicted fraudulent piece of shit.

[Basileus Basileon]

75. God, every time I pass his books in the medical section of Borders

I just want to burn them. They're the only books I feel that way towards. I know it's anti-Democratic, but the man is a piece of shit.

[alarimer]

78. He was convicted of fraud in selling some of his products

He put them in a book because he knew that those were protected by the first amendment. And I guess his infomercials must be protected too because they are still on all the damn time.

[SidDithers]

38. Yes...

but it's not surprising that she's able to do what she does. Just look at the ignorance displayed here at DU over the last few days in the various ghost threads.

Sid

[Blue-Jay]

41. Charlatans have always preyed upon the simple-minded.

And I suppose they always will.

[Cameron27]

67. They're shameless...

yep, they make me sick.

[BlueJazz]

70. I have Proof that Psychics are a pack of Bull-Shitters.

If there were people that could truly know the future, the powerball would never roll over.
I mean, if there were thousands and thousands of so-call Psychics, at least ONE of them could "Get" the right numbers.

And this Positive Healing stuff...sorry..doesn't work...been proven time and time again....Just another Con job.

[HughMoran]

72. Trust me, people who actually do see things are cursed

I had several recurring visions of future events (well, I didn't know they were future events until they happened :( .) They were all tragic events that I would rather not have known about anyway :( . So I do anything I can to "not" allow myself to tune into the "stream". How one could somehow "get" lottery numbers this way I don't know. Anybody who says this "curse" is controllable is full of crap - I agree. They are all shysters.

[New Earth]

175. yay

another person here like me :hug:

[HughMoran]

237. You have the "curse" too?

I hate it. I do anything I can to keep my mind distracted so I don't have to know which one of my parents are going to die first. ARRGGH!! I hate it! Scares the living crap out of me.

[New Earth]

244. I don't hate 'it'

I hate not being able to control it (yet). I hate not being able to say something to someone before it happens. Who knows what we could do some day? Save people from making some tragic mistake that could have been avoided? That's what I hate. Feeling helpless over it.

[HughMoran]

247. Yeah, you do get it. "I hate not being able to say something " - so true, so true

Wow! I can so relate to the helpless feeling of not being able to say anything to anyone. It's like an unspoken rule that can't be broken - weird! I sometimes think that I'm the only person in the world who sees the "echos". Funny, I tend to be a HUGE doubter when it comes to claimed "psychics". I'm certain the "bet" can never be won. Those reading this will never understand why. I've read "Beyond Einstein" by Michio Kaku and I think that "universal" theories that allow for space-time distortions offer the most logical explanation for these "streams" that I (and apparently you) can tune into if I choose. I choose NOT to because I cannot control it and the loudest "sounds" are the ones easiest to see. What are the loudest events? Yep, personal tragedy for me and the world too (I once saw a major worldly event - you know the one). Anyway, a big :hug: back at ya!

[New Earth]

264. If it's the 'wordly event' that I'm thinking of

so did I... :(

[HughMoran]

265. I saw it in Jan 2001 just after the inauguration

Buildings broken to their bases, sun blocked out by dust, red sky, people running in every direction screaming. It was clear in the vision that it was because of Bush that this would happen. I knew he would be world-changing in a purely evil way right from the beginning - way before it became clear to the masses. :(

[New Earth]

266. mine was the night before it happened

:/

[mondo joe]

203. You're a nice person and all, but I'd rather trust the data than you.

[HughMoran]

236. Data?

What are we talking about - robots?

[mondo joe]

249. By "data" I mean a collection of empirical facts.

:-)

[HughMoran]

261. On what topic?

What are you talking about?

You can read my other conversation in this thread if you are talking about what I think you are. Imagine trying to measure something we just barely conceive of - it's not gonna happen for a hundred lifetimes.

[mondo joe]

262. On any topic. In this case, claims of the paranormal.

If it exists, it should be measurable.

[HughMoran]

263. Right, it "should" be measurable, so I have already conceded the argument to you

I am not even going to attempt to "prove" what I have experienced. I cannot go into my brain and tell you why, when I looked up at my house burning, I thought "Wow, this is just like that dream I kept having" then "OMG! it's exactly the picture I saw a hundred times that kept giving me nightmares!" Then, even weirder, "I'm gonna say "xxxxxxxxx x xxxxxx" - ah, but I can NOT say it if I want" - just as the words start flowing out of my mouth. I feel like I am outside of my body watching the scene play out. You don't tell anyone because they will think you are crazy. The so-called "psychics" have no qualms about claiming they can see things on demand because they are liars, sanctimonious blow-hards if you will. I have conceded you the argument, I will make no attempt to prove the unprovable. Just hoping you might concede that there are space-time distortions (worm-holes & black-holes for instance) that we are pretty sure exist, but we don't fully comprehend. Don't be so quick to default to the "empirical" world. I do "empirical" for a living, yet I cannot dismiss what I have experienced on 5-6 occasions over my lifetime.

[Evoman]

79. Sylvia Brown is a piece of fucking shit and I hope she chokes on her own lies.

[mvd]

81. Most of the true psychics are probably not in the news

Really. And there are limits to anyone's ability.

[Evoman]

83. Meh...there are no such things as psychics.

[TZ]

84. How do you know that...

Can you read everyone's mind, huh, huh, huh?:rofl:
Childish retort..isn't that how this game goes? I know its true but I can't google it myself.....;-)

[mvd]

86. I believe there is some psychic ability

You can choose not to believe it, but some people really do seem to be more adept at such stuff.

[Evoman]

88. Cold readers....not impressed.

[mvd]

89. I disagree - too much is against the norm with some people

I guess this is an area where we won't change each other's mind.

[Quantess]

92. what is a cold reader?

[Milo_Bloom]

95. Cold reading...

... is the way skeptics try to explain some things that are unexplainable. They take something that is real and apply it EVERYTHING, whether it makes sense or not. Ultimately skepticism is not any different than religion. Both rely on things that have been disproven to make their point.

Cold reading is playing odds and then taking unconcious clues from the person you are reading and applying them to your 'reading' to make everything more believable.

So for example, in a cold reading, I might say, "you knew someone who's name began with a S". The ODDS are that this is true, so I watch your reaction and proceed accordingly. If you didn't, I spread out, "oh this might be a friend of your father, does your father know someone whose name began with S", now I have cast a WIDE NET.

There have been studies where the possibility of cold reading was taken out (see the work of Dr. Gary Scwartz if you are interested and the statistical analysis of Jessica Utts). A "skeptic" will tell you it MUST be fraud in the same way a religious person will tell you evil MUST be the work of the Devil.

[Evoman]

111. What is unexplainable?

Psychics who undergo any test of their ability in a scientific study with controls INVARIABLY FAIL. Who are these psychics running around with these "mysterious abiliities"? It's bullshit. #1 - there is no evidence of psychics. #2 - there is no plausible mechanism for psychic powers.

I'm sorry that you can't see that. Psychics are like ghost believers...WRONG. There is a reason that despite the presence of millions of cameras all around, having caught MANY pictures that are completely unlikely (like a guy who nochalantly throws a basketball over his shoulder and its a swoosh), there aren't any clear pictures of ghosts or aliens or fairies or angels.

It's all bullshit.

[mondo joe]

112. Kind of like those ex-gay conversion people.

They make claims, and even say they have studies. They never seem to hold up though.

[Milo_Bloom]

152. Sorry, but no.

The studies are out there to read if you want. I have cited some, there are dozens more.

[Evoman]

202. Your "studies" are bullshit.

The journals you cite are un-peer-reviewed bullshit.

There are no such things as psychics. Maybe if you get swindled enough, you'll come to the same realizations.

[Milo_Bloom]

222. Not they're not.

They are actual scientific studies.

[TZ]

229. correction

they are flawed psuedoscientific studies. The term psuedoscience is used for a reason..crapola masquerading as legitimate science.
BTW -I find it freaking hilarious that someone with a Darwin fish refers to the "Religion of Science". Something I have never heard a legitimate scientist talk about. I have however, heard that terminology from other folks with fishes of different sorts on their car bumpers......

[Milo_Bloom]

234. No, they aren't.

They are valid scientific studies.

Luckily, those who follow the "Church of Science" are few and far between and do not make up the majority of even scientist. it is just a few crack pot fringe people, like Randi, who fail to learn from the past.

The darwin fish is actually a statement against the strict adherence to any ideology, whether it be Religion or Science.

[Evoman]

243. In what fucking universe are those bullshit studies and bullshit journals

"scientific".

My god, man. Have you ever heard of the word "psuedoscientific".

[Milo_Bloom]

258. Yes, I have.

These don't qualify.

[tkmorris]

96. Here

Cold reading refers to a set of techniques used by professional manipulators to get a subject to behave in a certain way or to think that the cold reader has some sort of special ability that allows him to "mysteriously" know things about the subject. Cold reading goes beyond the usual tools of manipulation: suggestion and flattery. In cold reading, salespersons, hypnotists, advertising pros, faith healers, con men, and some therapists bank on their subject's inclination to find more meaning in a situation than there actually is.

http://skepdic.com/coldread.html

[haele]

248. Cold reading is "use of intuition"

It's not really parapsychology, based on two viewpoints
- 1)from the viewpoint of the reader - it's more psychology that is linked to the way humans observe patterns and make logical leaps - sort of a Sherlock Holmes effect.
2)from the viewpoint of the receptor - people are more likely to remember the conclusions that turn out "right" than the ones that turn out "wrong".

Good analysts, detectives and/or diagnosticians are usually very good cold readers. Many behaviorists and anthropologists think that the cold reading talent can linked to early hunting and survival senses homo sapiens developed, much like migratory patterns in other species.

Cold reading has been studied time and time again; most people who think they are psychic have actually been found to be very good cold readers; they don't really "see" or "predict" anything, they can see or predict patterns of behavior and can quickly figure out what questions to ask to get enough information to make a good guess that can impress the listener as to their supposedly extra-sensory knowledge. There really is nothing new under the sun when it comes to human behavior or movements; someone who observes human behavior or can "put themselves into someone else's shoes" can with two or three clues, figure out what might happen down the road or where something is.

Nothing at all wrong with that; a good cold reader can be a great help to someone who is overwhelmed with situations and needs to figure out what to do to overcome many problems over a short period of time.

However, there are plenty of frauds out there that don't either realize or care to admit that it's the psyche, rather than the psychic, and promote themselves to be something way beyond what they really are.

Haele

[New Earth]

170. you aren't impressed with much are you?

[mondo joe]

182. I'm impressed by how gullible people are. The Republican shortchanging of education

has its effect.

[New Earth]

107. yes there is

:hi:

However, they do not know *everything* at all times. And most who genuinely have the ability have a hard time getting control of it and using it intentionally.

[Evoman]

113. Confirmation bias...not impressed.

[New Earth]

139. huh?

wtf does that mean?

[mondo joe]

147. here

In psychology and cognitive science, confirmation bias is a tendency to search for or interpret new information in a way that confirms one's preconceptions and avoid information and interpretations which contradict prior beliefs. It is a type of cognitive bias and represents an error of inductive inference, or as a form of selection bias toward confirmation of the hypothesis under study or disconfirmation of an alternative hypothesis.

Confirmation bias is an area of interest in the teaching of critical thinking as the skill is misused if rigorous critical scrutiny is applied only to evidence challenging a preconceived idea but not to evidence supporting the same preconception.<1>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias

[mondo joe]

120. Please answer a question for me. If a pharmaceutical company came up with a capsule

that contained water - nothing harmful, just water - that they had chanted over, and said "Our Chant-water capsules heal cure the common cold, but it doesn't work all the time and we can't really prove it in a controlled laboratory setting" would you say the FDA should approve it for sale?

[New Earth]

140. um

I have no idea how that relates to ESP.

[mondo joe]

141. It does. Can you answer the question?

[New Earth]

145. no

because I don't understand it...

And I really don't care to be honest with you.

[mondo joe]

146. I expected as much. Thanks.

I always like wehen people volunteer to not stand up to scrutiny.

[New Earth]

150. If you would make some f*cking sense

I might answer the question.

[mondo joe]

154. I asked you the question. It made sense. Can you answer it?

[New Earth]

162. No sorry

I really don't understand it. If you don't even want to explain to me what you mean or what it has to do with ESP, then I really don't care to answer it. Have a nice day now :)

[LeftishBrit]

97. Sickening

Sounds like vicious exploitation of people's worst nightmares. Maybe she believes some of her own lies; maybe she's just making money out of them.

[GoneOffShore]

98. If the interview is anything to go by

She doesn't believe her own lies.

The way she backtracked, and obfuscated would seem to indicate that she knows she's a shyster. It's why she doesn't give interviews.

And the people who went on the cruise? What did they think?

"How did the audience respond?" I ask.

"People didn't know where the hell this was coming from," Cassie says. "A few of them said to me afterwards, 'I didn't pay 4,000 euros to listen to someone go on like that.' "

All this proves one thing to me. Now I know for sure that Sylvia isn't psychic, because I don't have a dark soul at all. I have a very light soul.

[New Earth]

156. people like this really piss me off

(I think it is part of reason some people do not believe) There have been many times in my life where I saw someone was going to die and knew how, even 'when' sometimes, even telling someone before it happened, so they were in shock too...but having no control over it, you doubt yourself and think it is your imagination, until it actually happens. Then there is a lot of guilt that comes with it because you doubted yourself. It can happen so many times until you realize it's not just a coincidence. It's a personal topic for me so I think I am going to step away from this thread now...

[Mad_Dem_X]

100. I've always had a bad feeling about her

I like to keep an open mind about things, and I do believe there are people with extrasensory abilities, but she has never struck me as being one of them.

[Le Taz Hot]

101. Taking one obvious quack and

extending that to the conclusion that all people who claim to be psychic are quacks is scientific quackery within itself.

Probably 80% of the claims of paranormal activity are honest misinterpretations as the activity can be rationally explained.

It's the 20% that is fascinating study and, unless you've done exhaustive research within the field, relying on an op-ed article written by one with no scientific credentials does not meet the criteria of evidence. But all peer-reviewed scientific evidence aside, all it takes is for one of you guys to be present when a chair comes, literally, flying across a room, with no apparent propellant, to become believers. And that is all people are saying to you. People have had experiences that are literally unexplainable and you have absolutely NO basis upon which to label them delusional.

[mondo joe]

104. I must disagree with at least one point.

"But all peer-reviewed scientific evidence aside, all it takes is for one of you guys to be present when a chair comes, literally, flying across a room, with no apparent propellant, to become believers."

I-don't-know-why-that-happened-therefore-it's-god-or-ghosts-or-TK isn't, to my thinking, a very rational approach.

If a chair flew by means I could not understand, it wouldn't make me believe anything - it would make me wonder what happened.

[Le Taz Hot]

105. Never did the words

"ghost, ghosts or tk" appear in my post. You misinterpreted my OP and, based upon that misinterpretation, inserted your own biased conclusion. Not very scientific of you.

[mondo joe]

106. I offered a range of possible causes, but my intent was to speak generally to what

is often called the god-of-the-gaps argument.

Edit to add: was there specific cause of chair movement that you thought people would become believers in that you'd like to share?

[Le Taz Hot]

115. Nope. We have no idea

what caused a chair to fly across the room all by itself. It went from point A to point B laterally. No one was near it. It just "flew." Now, if anyone can offer up a logical explanation on how that can happen, I'm ready to listen. There were skeptics present who left the experience not quite so skeptical.

[mondo joe]

117. Point of clarificaion please:

When you wrote "all it takes is for one of you guys to be present when a chair comes, literally, flying across a room, with no apparent propellant, to become believers" what precisely do you think we'd become believers in or of?

[Le Taz Hot]

125. That everything has a scientific

explanation and that anyone who believes otherwise is delusional (or, as one of your comrades called them, "woo woos"), which, if you recall, was my original point.

[mondo joe]

127. I see. Well, I think that in the moving chair scenario you suggest I'd maintain

a healthy skepticism and want to look into it.

I'd also hearken to Harry Houdini who was reviled for debunking a whole lot of woo-woo in his day, including a lot of manifestations that people claimed could not possibly happen through other than paranormal means.

I don't think everyone who believes in the paranormal is delusional though. There's also a lot of gullibility and lack of skepticism out there.

[helderheid]

103. I happen to believe in psychic phenomenon but have NEVER believed this woman.

[Zodiak]

122. Oh look, another thread here people talk right past one another.

Strawmen...check

Canards and accusations....check

Not reading posted evidence.....check

Ad hoc conclusions.....check

Appeals to authority....all over the place

Knee-jerk responses....they abound.



Boy, these kinds of threads make me sad that so many people would rather use logical fallacy to confirm what they already know rather than engage in real discussion.

How about read a few scientific articles on the subject....they do exist.

Australian Journal of Parapsychology
European Journal of Parapsychology
International Journal of Parapsychology
Journal of Near-Death Studies
Journal of Parapsychology
Journal of Scientific Exploration
Journal of the American Society for Psychical Research
Journal of the Society for Psychical Research
Zeitschrift für Parapsychologie und Grenzgebiete der
Psychologie

The following journals have published papers on parapsychological topics, including the psychology of anomalous experience and paranormal belief:

Anthropology of Consciousness
British Journal of Psychology
Consciousness and Cognition
Cortex
Imagination, Cognition and Personality
International Journal of Neuroscience
Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease
Journal for Transpersonal Psychology
Journal of Abnormal Psychology
Journal of Consciousness Studies
Perceptual and Motor Skills
Personality and Individual Differences
Psychological Bulletin
Psychological Reports


Have fun reading.....at least after that, you can say you know something about the subject. Until then, you are all groping around in the dark looking for a hand to hold you...whether its Sylvia's or Randi's.

[Basileus Basileon]

123. I'm sorry, but no.

Parapsychology is not a science. It is a pseudoscience, and pseudoscientific "journals" abound.

[Zodiak]

128. So you are not going to read anything?

Color me surprised.

Ad hoc dismissal.

[Basileus Basileon]

130. GIGO nt

[mondo joe]

124. Your suggested journals are like the Journal of Ex-Gay Conversion Therapy

confirming claims of conversion therapy.

Why no physics journals?

[TZ]

126. So inform us...I like to read scientific articles

post some of them you know the ones that ABSOLUTELY PROVE IT EXISTS. Just because somehting is published doesn't mean it's valid. Statistical misintrepretation, small sample size, poor experimental design all abound in many of these studies which lead to flawed conclusions.
If you can find something in say, Scientific American, Nature, Neurolgy,New Scientist or any other of the mainstream reputable journals (because I recognize few of those--and shocker a journal of parapsychology isn't exactly an unbiased source)
Funny how the mainstream journals read by most scientists don't have too many of these studies in them. But thats because their all ignorant, right?:sarcasm:
Citing pseudoscientific sources to support pseudoscience doesn't convince anyone except theose who "believe".

[Zodiak]

131. Proof is a dodgy thing, too

Scientific proof has not been achieved with evolution yet.

Just read a few articles to see how good or bad they are...that's all I ask.

If you are waiting for such proof, you will be waiting for some time.

And your sarcastic statement is a strawman. I never said such a thing.

Can any of you just read some of what you are given without the insults?


The bullying behavior and the accusations bespeak of someone who has already made up their mind. Try not using loaded language and you will get a more civilized discussion.

Just read and make up your mind.

[Basileus Basileon]

132. "Scientific proof has not been achieved with evolution yet."

It is now completely obvious that you do not know what the fuck you are talking about.

Evolution has been entirely, completely, 100% beyond-a-doubt proven. Natural selection is a theory, and thus "proof" has nothing to do with it--however, it is perhaps the most secure theory in any of the sciences. It is the foundation of modern biology, medicine, biochemistry, and many other fields. Claiming "scientific proof has not yet been achieved" is nothing more than a display of grand ignorance.

On the other hand, the existence of ESP could quite easily be proved in a lab. No peer-reviewed study in a legitimate journal has ever demonstrated ESP abilities statistically greater than chance.

[Zodiak]

133. No it has not

It is greatly supported...but that is it. Proof lies in reproducibility and falsification...we have no other planet to compare our results with, but we are pretty certain we are correct. 100% proof does not exist in the sciences......only stastically-rejected null hyportheses that make it mathematically unlikely that the rejection of such a null hypothesis is incorect. The summation of thousands of such findings move a hyportheses to the level of "theory". But nothing is 100%....nothing.

And I find it humerous that you think I have no idea of what I am talking about. I have a Ph.D. in Biology and I publish regularly....and I am a reviewer in mainstream scientific journals (more than one). I am just not bunged up with dogmatic thinking and like to read papers in other fields. I work with evolutionary principles, by the way.

It is not skin off of my teeth that you can call me names and ignore what I have to say. What does irritate me is the complete rejection of material that is put in front of you without reviewing it yourself.

That is what I think is ignorant and dogmatic.

And here....a nice article on whether or not Parapsychology is a valid science. You might not like the article, though, because it doesn't lean 100% one way or another....as EVERY scientist should think before pursuing a line of inquiry.

But it will put you far more in the know on this subject than your bully tactics make you out to be.

http://www.scientificexploration.org/jse/articles/pdf/17.2_mousseau.pdf

[Basileus Basileon]

134. Please do not lie about your background on the Internet. It's very transparent

to those who actually have a background in the sciences.

Generally, Ph.D. candidates are capable of proper grammar and punctuation. They are also aware that the word is "hypotheses" and not "hyportheses," as you put it twice. They are also aware that a theory and a hypothesis are not at all the same thing, and that hypotheses are never "elevated" to the level of theory.

Moreover, Ph.Ds in Biology also would never, never say that "evolution" is unproven. Nobody but Young Earth whackjobs doubt that evolution has occurred. Natural selection is what is in "doubt." There is an enormous difference between the two, and nobody with so much as a Bachelor's would confuse the two for even a second.

Evolution is what happened. Things used to look like one thing, and now they look like something else. They changed. They evolved. Evolution occurred. And the evidence that it occurred via natural selection is so absolutely overwhelming that suggesting it's in doubt at all demonstrates an extreme ignorance of biology. Claiming we don't "yet" have proof is ridiculous--and it's that word "yet" that really exposes you.

Finally, Ph.Ds understand the difference between a scientific journal and a pseudoscientific one. The article you linked to comes from the "Journal of Scientific Exploration," which is a self-admitted "fringe" rag that "publishes claimed observations and proffered explanations that will seem more speculative or less plausible than in some mainstream disciplinary journals," and which only engages in peer review "at the discretion of the Editor-in-Chief."

Seriously. You could have maybe gotten away with it if you claimed you had a B.S. and were working with a Ph.D. who believed in pseudoscience.

[mondo joe]

135. There's another "Ph.D." running around these threads with a pretty

funny take on this as well.

[Basileus Basileon]

136. It's like they think claiming "I'm a Ph.D." suddenly legitimizes anti-scientific opinions,

instead of simply making them out to be complete (and scientifically-illiterate) frauds.

[immoderate]

207. Sadly, I know a PhD in "health science" who said to me once...

On the subject of homeopathy, "Don't give me that double-blind, peer reviewed bullshit!"

As it turns out, she is a popular teacher at a university, and they mapped out a PhD plan for her so she could be called "doctor."

She has no notion of critical thinking, as many of our conversations have revealed.

I have many times recognized, in dealing with "doctors," that they are idiots. I chalk it up to the "Wizard of Oz Syndrome:" The Wizard tells the Scarecrow, "We can't give you a brain, but we CAN give you a diploma!"

Stupid people really need that diploma.

--IMM

[TZ]

227. To quote an NIH researcher..."A phD just proves you can work hard..."

...it says nothing about native intelligence.And the degree is useful if you want to be a desk jockey.." and yes she is a PhD herself.
I can personally attest that NIH is a good source of finding both brilliant PhD's and truly STUPID PhD's.....

[immoderate]

239. My mentor in college -- who was a PhD...

Never tired of ridiculing the PhD. I'm sure you've heard it, I heard him mutter many times:

Bull Shit, More Shit, Piled Higher and Deeper.

[Zodiak]

240. I personally like "partially head damaged" myself.

The process sure took a toll from me. Not to mention a student debt alone that would drive many crazy.

But this further underscors my point about uncertanty of "proof". If many Ph.D's are kooks (which I agree with), then why treat their findings as universal fact just because they are scientists? Even they do not treat their own findings in such a way (unless they are going for funding).

There is a continuum of support, from "guess" to "hypothesis" to "theory" to "dogma". Nowhere in there is "fact" because true facts do not exist in empirical science, just well-supported models.

[immoderate]

246. Proof is a word I don't use in conjunction with science.

I save it for numismatics, publishing, courts and whiskey. Until we understand the GUT, all theories are working documents and subject to constant scrutiny. Nevertheless, the notion of disembodied beings goes against what we would understand as the mechanism of evolution.

I see the evolution of consciousness as adjunct to survival. The supposition that a consciousness can survive without a corporeal entity kind of negates it's necessity in the first place. Why not just shed these bodies and the concomitant misery?

--IMM

[Zodiak]

250. I like this line of discussion

I do not have any answers one way or another for life after death, etc....like anyone else. I also make no assumptions that documented experiences are necessarily what they are thought to be by the observer (dead aunt Patsy, or the ghost of Maybelle Ann killed in 1836 in a knife fight), but there are documented experiences. They could just be mental constructs from the observer, etc., but the experience is what I find interesting because it is anecdotally so universal (including my own experiences). You will find that a lot of scientific inquiry into these areas make very few assumptions, as well, and are really trying to find out what this human experience is. Well, many of them.

Reading the literature is a great way of finding out who is doing this kind of research and how it is done. It is definitely not a way to make a real living, unless you go on TV (most colleagues of mine are not publicity-hounds). The science is really bourne of interest more than anything else, but then again, all science is driven by interest (why study plants if you aren;t interested in them?).

But you bring up a valid point....to be honest, I've never heard it put that way before. It does fly in the face of fighting for survival. I suppose that a theist would say that we aren't to know about the "other side" because that knowledge would lead to the breakdown in survival instinct among humans as you describe. However, that makes a lot of assumptions, as well, and is outside of the realm of science (gods, religion, etc.). But it's a good point.

[immoderate]

259. Glad to hear it.

The ideas of sentience, self awareness, identity make sense in the light of survival.

I have speculated for a long time on what the psychology of a being would be who didn't need to maintain corporality. And I always come around to there being no necessity to maintain identity if there is no need to maintain life. The best I could come up with, if there is any spiritual side to existence is something that would melt back into the cosmic conciousness, a kind of zen notion.

--IMM

[mondo joe]

251. Their findings aren't treated like facts because they are scientists.

Findings that survive peer review are treated as the best answers to date, because they survived scrutiny.

[Name removed]

137. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Basileus Basileon]

143. Too funny, man.

You claim you're a Ph.D. and wrote those articles, but you don't know the difference between evolution and natural selection, you post a study from a non-peer-reviewed rag (and then whine that I'm not "reviewing evidence" in a fit of beautiful irony), and you don't even know what a theory is--not to mention the fact that you can't tell a semicolon from an ellipsis, or even how many dots are in an ellipsis. You write like someone with no more than a high-school education in the sciences, and you have the opinions of someone with no more than a high-school education in the sciences.

Lemme guess: he's a friend, or your big brother or something.

[VenusRising]

149. LMAO!!!!

You don't know shit from shinola about ZI!

Considering I was at his graduation, I would say you're talking out of your ass.

[Basileus Basileon]

151. Here I would have thought that at Ohio State,

they taught their Ph.Ds what "theories" were, and that "evolution" and "natural selection" were not the same things. I also would have thought that they would understand the difference between a peer-reviewed and a non-peer-reviewed journal. You're asking me to believe that a Ph.D. is misusing terms they teach you in freshman biology.

[VenusRising]

155. Like I said, buddy...talking out your ass.

And a little bit too new to be so hateful. :eyes:

[Basileus Basileon]

158. And again,

I would have thought that an actual Ph.D. would have been able to use basic terminology without tripping over himself. He doesn't know what the relationship between a theory and a hypothesis is, he doesn't know what the difference is between evolution and natural selection, and he doesn't know the difference between a peer-reviewed and a non-peer-reviewed journal. I wasn't aware that demanding people exhibit a degree of competence equal to their claims regarding themselves was "hateful."

Quite frankly, if he's a Ph.D., he's an embarrassment to his professors. High-school biology kids have a better grasp on the basics than he does.

[mondo joe]

161. Don't forget, there are asshats with PhDs and other degrees. Look at Bush's cretinous

appointments.

[Basileus Basileon]

163. Of course. But most of them can at least fake competency reasonably well. nt

[VenusRising]

169. No, but tearing someone down is hateful.

You haven't offered up any evidence of your own either. You just claim that his own body of research is someone else's which is completely insulting regardless of what you think of his internet writing. If you have such a high standard of communication maybe a message board full of opinion and typos is not the right place for you.

And just maybe asking someone to clarify their post rather than declaring they are a fraud would go a long way in expanding those communication skills you prize so highly.

[Basileus Basileon]

178. What evidence are you looking for?

The only claim I made that would require evidence would be that the article he offered was from a non-peer-reviewed--and thus non-scientific--journal. I posted quotes from their own web page demonstrating that they do not engage in peer review.

What else do you want? He confused evolution and natural selection twice. When I pointed out that he was mistaken the first time, he simply dug in his heels. He posted a bit of nonsense about how theories are hypotheses with more evidence. That's also untrue; theories are frameworks in which hypotheses exist.

I suppose there's a possibility that he is a Ph.D. who:
1. Does not actually believe in the scientific method.
2. In informal conversation, writes like a scientific illiterate.
3. Does not quite understand the words "evolution" and "theory."

I also suppose that there's a much greater possibility that he's simply exaggerating a bit. The Internet is full of people pretending to be people they're not. If you say you're a certain person, and at the same time do not act in a manner consistent with that person, you are not going to look very convincing. I still do not believe he is a Ph.D. in biology, simply because he doesn't act like one.

Again, I grant there's the possibility that he's a Ph.D. with terrible communication skills and a casual disregard for peer review, but I find it unlikely.

[VenusRising]

186. Nevermind.

You're wrong about him not being a PhD. Period. End of Story.

[TZ]

230. If he's a pHD...

How come he knows less about biology/evolution than I did after my freshman year in college?
And yes I do have a biology degree but not a pHD. Ohio's states standards must have come down quite a bit in the last few yearthan. An entomologist not understanding genetics, phylogenetics and evolution? Thats like another idiot who claimed to be an Med school doctor to me yet thought that people spontaneously rid themselves of viruses (they don't). Sorry, people who claim having a degree and then post stuff thats obviously inaccurate to anyone in the field is going to have their "credibility" seriously questioned.

[VenusRising]

231. Why don't you ask him?

"obviously inaccurate to anyone in the field..."....:rofl:

Well, if you don't believe he's a PhD, then I don't have to believe you have a degree in Biology. Where are your credentials?
:eyes:

[Zodiak]

232. Nobody asked me anything

They jumped to conclusions about my personal beliefs on evolution based on one sentence, and did not ask for clarification. Such thinking the the hallmark of someone not interested in intelligent discourse, so I decided not to play their game of sophistry.

However, if one were to ask me what my opinion on evolution, I would say this:

Evolution as a unified theory that has many, many parts, and some areas do need further study. The ideas of evolution as "gene pools that change over time" has been shown over and over in a century of hypothesis testing and cannot be refuted. The idea of common ancestry is extremely well-supported, but there are some discrepencies that may one day be resolved through further hypothesis testing or new evidence. Evolution is the best and most parsimonious model that we have today for all of our observations, and for all intents and purposes it is treated as a "fact" in the scientific community (because the model "works"). But remember, all "facts" in empirical science is really just a mathematical probability that said fact is true. For evolution, because it is so well-supported, it is infinitesimal, but it is not 100%. One can never be sure when one only has an n of 1.

Notice I never said "proof"? Empirical science doesn't deal with proof..proof is too high of a standard.

Now why do I read literature outside of my field? Because it is fun, and I like to know how things are done rather than rely on others to tell me how it is done.

That is all I wanted...a little reading on the part of those who are so sure of everything they know.

Part of getting a Ph.D. is understanding what you realy know and what you do not (the candidacy examination is brutal, and tends to weed out the overconfident and dogmatic). For those that actually do pursue scientific endeavors, you know that all you get in the end is a p-value that tells you of your mathematical certainty. Nothing is perfect, just "a good idea that this works". Get a lot of those, and you have a good model that may be accepted as "theory".

Even the central dogma of molecular biology has been stood on its head.

Now to get back to what I said in the begnning. Proof is a dodgy subject, so a demand of "proof" is a little excessive. Read some literature, and see if you agree with the methodologies. Do not let people with an agenda dictate to you what to think when the literature is out there for you to read.

For the one I put on ignore...sorry...policy. I ignore people with bullying behavior because they are not here for intelligent discussion and stress me out.

[Zodiak]

235. Read more about what I said before jumping to so many conclusions

I never said anything at all about phylogenetics itself, or genetics for that matter. Only evolution not being "proven".

In order to fit me into your worldview, Ohio must have low standards, and evolution only means one thing. Evolution has many parts...it is a unified theory, and genetics and phylogenetics are definitely different parts of it.

I am not arguing from a fundie point of view, but from one that knows never to use the word "prove" when it comes to science. The best you can get is "theory", which is just a fancy way of saying "well-supported over and over".

Is evolution a fact? Only if you consider the best and most parsimonious model to be "fact". We treat it as a fact because it works...not because we know with 100% certainty. For phylogenetics...there is only one tree of life because we only have this planet to observe...so we effectively have an n of 1. For genetics, evolution provides a great workable model to describe change over time, but many types of speciation events have yet to be observed empirically, only inferred from evidence after the fact. They are great models, and they are well-supported, but not "proven".

Are you getting it now? Good, because I would like an apology for all of the conclusions you have been jumping to based on one sentence. You are pretty insulting. And if not, well I do not care to take this conversation further.

[mondo joe]

160. I think the error is in assuming having a PhD is a meaningful substitute

for accuracy or knowledge.

Hey lookee here - Benny Hinn has PhD supporters too:

http://www.bennyhinn.org/yourlife/Financial-Freedom-Featured-Articles/The-Heart-of-a-Tither.html

[Beelzebud]

166. Kent Hovind PhD.

'nuff said.

[Zodiak]

173. Faulty parallelism

'nuff said.

He got his Ph.D. through correspondence from a non-accredited university.

"In 1971 he graduated from East Peoria Community High School in East Peoria, Illinois. From 1972 until 1974, Hovind attended the non-accredited Midwestern Baptist College and received a Bachelor of Religious Education (B.R.E.).<6> In 1988 and 1991 respectively, Hovind was awarded a master's degree and doctorate in Christian Education through correspondence from the unaccredited Patriot University in Colorado Springs, Colorado (now Patriot Bible University in Del Norte, Colorado which no longer offers this program).<11>"

I got mine from an accredited university with a National Academy of Science member as my major advisor.

And I am no fundamentalist Christian. I'm not even religious.

But keep attacking the messenger if that is all you have.

Notice I never even mentioned whether or not I believe in these things....only that there is scientific inquiry in these areas....and the cynics come out in droves because cannot allow even that.

Do some reading, folks....get informed. Don't let others think for you. And don't let others bully you into silence.

[mondo joe]

179. Then there's James W. Holsinger, Bush's nominee for surgeon general

The point being: pointing to your PhD is the argument from authority - a very sad fallacy indeed.

[TZ]

228. Evolution is not proven? Do GENETICS mean anything to you?

I have read stuff. I love the 20-30% accuracy rate being considered proof. That is freaking hilarious. That means that psychics are WRONG 70-80% of the time! I do assays that have built in ERROR of 20%.
Boy if I tried recommending a drug that had a 30% efficacy rate I wouldn't have a job anymore, and deservedly so.
Sorry, psuedoscience IS laughable especially when held up to the standards of the scientific method

[Zodiak]

233. If 20% is significantly different than control, then yes.

We take drugs that reduce risk of disease by 20%. We eat fruits and vegetables that give us 20% less risk for other diseases. Psychics being right 100% of the time has not been established, so if it is being used as a standard of proof, you might be aiming a little high there.

Remember, I am not talking from a position of belief, just interest. But it surprises me how so many are so sure of something without even looking as to how the research is done. That is not how one pursues knowledge or defends it.

And no....evolution has not been "proven". Like I said upthread...."proof" is a dodgy thing in empirical sciences. The best you can say is that is mathematically improbable that a competing hypothesis is true. You do understand p-values, statistical certainty, and such...right? That's what scientists deal with at the ground level. For all intents and purposes, evolution is treated as a fact because it provides the best model we have for explaining our obsrvations.

If you would like to get into my knowledge of genetics, then fine. Ever heard of Hardy-Weinberg? That is another workable model that we have. In order to use the model, you have to make assumptions that never exist in the real world. Things like unlimited population size and panmixia. So tell me, since you assume characteristics that do not exist, can the model be, in truth, used? The answer is yes because it gives us the most consistent results with our observations and no competing hypothesis has ever been shown correct more often.

Science is a lot more squishy than many here are presenting it. That is my objection..that and everyone's entrenchment, dogmatism, and lack of decorum over something that can never be certain.

[TZ]

241. As I said before

20% success rate is not acceptable in any scientific study I have EVER seen with drug therapy except as a last ditch effort. Please dig up a clinical trial that went to end stage with 20% SUCCESS rate. You won't find it. And if psychics are WRONG MOST OF THE TIME what the hell is their usefullness, anyway..so its a pointless ability to have because you can't obviously distinguish bullshit guesses from reality. Really, what a total waste and a scam doubly so, knowingly going to someone who is going to give you an incorrect answer the majority of time.
And I am very familiar with hardy-weinberg, its a pretty good model for actually predicting genetic drift in population genetics, one of the key forces in evolution. Or perhaps population genetics is unproven as well? (be wary, I have a friend who does have a PhD in population genetics).
What the hell is phylogeny except the evidence of genetic evolution? What about drug resistant bacteria whose DNA can EVOLVE in several generations (its even been seen in individuals infected with bacteria)
How do you explain anomalies like Kiwi's having eggs that are 2/3 of their body weight except as an evolutionary advantage? (Go on and try to argue thats RANDOM, I could have written a thesis on this in college if I chose).
Mitochondrial DNA? That's how we have traced man's ancestor back to specific individuals like LUCY. I don't know why you think evolution is UNPROVEN. Ask any biologist (and Nature had a great article about this awhile back) that today's forensic DNA testing is all based on evolutionary genetics. How about the relationship of malarial resistance and sickle cell anemia in tropical populatons?
There is plenty of both genotypic and phenotypic evidence for evolution as anyone in biology would tell you.

[Zodiak]

252. Sadly, you are not interested in discussion.

You had your chance to act like a rational human being, but you are interestd in browbeating and sophistry to serve your agenda, as highlighted in your signature line.

Welcome to ignore.

End of conversation.

[LibDemAlways]

177. How about the "Talk to the Dead" charletons like

John Edward, whose face keeps popping up on tv.

I love how he keeps his patter so general it could apply to anybody....

Edward: "Someone is coming through whose name starts with J or G or D. It's an older man who passed."

Audience member: "I have an uncle named Jerry who passed."

Edward: "It's him. He's telling me he's with an older woman who passed."

Audience Member (tearing up): "Grandma. They passed around the same time."

Edward: "He's telling me they're together......"

What a load of crap......

[mondo joe]

180. These "paranormal" scammers are just like Benny Hinn and Ex-gays. It's sad to see

DUers with so little regard for consumer protection.

[LibDemAlways]

188. People are so gullible. If you watch Edward closely you

realize that he's just sending out general feelers, and everybody in the audience is grasping at straws hoping their departed loved ones are the ones "coming through." Once he makes a "connection" he'll say something like "He's telling me to tell you he's not in pain anymore." Well, duh.

If people used their heads and refused to buy into the nonsense, these scam artists would be selling used cars for a living instead of polluting the airwaves.

[mondo joe]

189. There's a reason Harry Houdini is one of my few heroes.

Despite his own desire to WANT there to be something to the paranormal, he never let that get in the way of his debunking frauds.

[Beelzebud]

192. Yep, they tried to take advantage of him after losing his mother.

They fucked with the wrong person there. He went on a sunshine mission in his final years to debunk these frauds.

[Beelzebud]

190. He is preying on peoples grief, loss, and suffering from losing loved ones.

He's an asshole of the highest magnitude, and it amazes me that the fucker gets so much TV time. No wonder America seems stupid. For the most part, it is.

[mondo joe]

195. So are all the psychic healers and telepaths and tarot card readers.

I have nothing against these, or other activities, as pure entertainment.

But by and large they are scammers.

[LibDemAlways]

197. Yep, preying on vulnerable people for the purpose of

making big $$ on tv. He's as much of a bottom feeder as any of them.

[Baby Snooks]

193. "There's a sucker born every minute..."

There are some who seem to have some ability to know something that is very specific and very accurate. That doesn't mean they are always accurate. But sometimes, they are. The things that go bump in the night. But the ones who are sometimes accurate, inexplicably so, are rarely on Montel. Or on "psychic cruises" in the Mediterranean.

As for the inexplicable, when ABC News did a profile on John of God in Brazil, there were people who were indeed healed which ABC News verified through their doctors. But was it the power of John of God or merely the power of suggestion in which case the person healed themselves? Who really can say?

The question of whether there are people who can see things and feel things and know things the rest of us don't, a question to be asked not about psychics in general so much as about the Sylvia Brownes, the answer was provided a long time ago by the greatest psychic who ever lived. PT Barnum.

"There's a sucker born every minute."

[enki23]

198. psychic vultures, "self-help" gurus, half the people pushed by oprah...

pyramid scammers, chain-letter writers, email spammers, war profiteers, hyper religious bastards, and anyone who makes their living writing books and holding seminars to tell other people how to get rich/get happy/get laid/get fabulous mental powers by imagining themselves all the way to the fucking top whether here on earth or in some imaginary afterlife.

in other words, all the asshole con artists in the world, from the high priests down to the judas goats.

[Cleita]

210. Sylvia Browne is not liked by her peers because it's known she's

a scam artist. She does have some abilities but not the all the ones she puts on the market. Skeptics also don't distinguish between the types of special abilities. Some people can talk to deceased souls and some are psychic but don't talk to the deceased. I have known two psychics in my life, one of them being my mother, who could predict trends or knew of an event happening far away before that event became known, like my uncle drowning before his body was found or anyone even knew he had gone swimming in the ocean early in the morning. Neither took money for their abilities. Their psychic episodes were random and couldn't be summoned at will, but I believe it's because they hadn't developed them. Neither disclosed their abilities except to close friends and family because of the prejudice against people like them.

[MLFerrell]

223. There is a special place in hell for this woman.

[JFN1]

224. Peddlers of false hope

In the same class as preachers...

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

238. Meh.

There's got to be at some point in a con when the mark is responsible for his or her own stupidity.

[2008]

253. I think that's what drives the con artists

that anyone who could be so wantonly gullible, despite having so much information at their disposal, deserves to be fleeced

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

260. I agree.

Which raises the question.

At which point should it be illegal?

Should Ponzi schemes be illegal? I think so.

Should Catholicism? No.

How about scientology? Sylvia Brown? I say no. I'll draw the line at anything spiritual/paranormal.

[SDuderstadt]

254. I almost had a pyschic girlfriend once....

but she dumped me before we ever met.

[SDuderstadt]

255. I once played a game of poker with Tarot cards...

I got a full house and three people died.