• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Alexis Didier French clairvoyant

BillSkeptic

Scholar
B
Joined
Jul 21, 2016
Messages
53
Has anyone got any skeptical information on Alexis Didier?

He was alleged to have been one of the greatest clairvoyant's from France.
 
Since clairvoyance probably isn't real, he probably was a conman.

ETA: That's usually as committed as I get, like "As the sun apparently came up every day for billions of years, it probably will tomorrow. It might not, but that's how I would bet."
 
Last edited:
...and he was active 150 years ago, plenty of time for his accomplishments to be properly "embellished".
 
BillSkeptic said:
Has anyone got any skeptical information on Alexis Didier?

He was alleged to have been one of the greatest clairvoyant's from France.
Click to expand...

I have never heard of this person before.

However, by using my quite normal powers and abilities I am convinced that Mr. Didier is no more clairvoyant than anyone else in the world.

I hope this helps.
 
Crossbow said:
I have never heard of this person before.

However, by using my quite normal powers and abilities I am convinced that Mr. Didier is no more clairvoyant than anyone else in the world.

I hope this helps.
Click to expand...

This is not skepticism, what you are doing is anti-science.
 
dropzone said:
Since clairvoyance probably isn't real, he probably was a conman.

ETA: That's usually as committed as I get, like "As the sun apparently came up every day for billions of years, it probably will tomorrow. It might not, but that's how I would bet."
Click to expand...

This is the sort of pseudo-skepticism that gives skepticism a bad name. None of you are interested in doing any real research. You just shout "conman".

You don't even know who he is, you didn't even bother to look.
 
Argumemnon said:
How about we do it the other way around: do you have any reason for us to accept his claims?
Click to expand...

I have no idea. That is why I am asking. I am asking for help. Help with knowledge, not baseless accusations without even looking into the matter. I guess I will have to do my own research which I was planning on doing and am doing today. I was merely asking if anyone knew anything about Didier. All I know currently is that he was tested by several scientists in a number of experiments.
 
Last edited:
BillSkeptic said:
This is the sort of pseudo-skepticism that gives skepticism a bad name. None of you are interested in doing any real research. You just shout "conman".
Click to expand...

Well, every person who has claimed to do these things in history has been a conman, and the claim violates the laws of physics. After a few hundreds of those claims, you wouldn't be interested in doing any more research, either.
 
Argumemnon said:
Well, every person who has claimed to do these things in history has been a conman, and the claim violates the laws of physics. After a few hundreds of those claims, you wouldn't be interested in doing any more research, either.
Click to expand...

I am afraid not. Not every person in history who has claimed paranormal ability has proven to be a conman. This does not mean they had genuine paranormal abilities, many claimants for example were not tested.

Yes there have been a lot of demonstrated frauds. But we cannot say every single one was a conman by default. We should investigate, not shout fraud before investigating.
 
BillSkeptic said:
I am afraid not. Not every person in history who has claimed paranormal ability has proven to be a conman. This does not mean they had genuine paranormal abilities, many claimants for example were not tested.
Click to expand...

No but it's their burden to prove that they have those abilities. It's not my burden to prove the laws of physics all over again every time a new claimant comes around.
 
BillSkeptic said:
This is the sort of pseudo-skepticism that gives skepticism a bad name. None of you are interested in doing any real research. You just shout "conman".

You don't even know who he is, you didn't even bother to look.
Click to expand...

I'm a little confused by this. What "research" would you suggest on a claimed clairvoyant dead for generations? It almost sounds like you are looking for proof of a negative - a bit of a thorny issue.

But, that aside, here is something I've wondered about lately: magicians over the centuries are known to commonly claim what they do is "real"; its magic. Or to at least coyly demur when asked. But, everyone knows its all tricks and illusion and rarely do shouts of conman follow the act.

Clairvoyants are the same. Its all tricks and illusion that they pretend or delude themselves is real. But, emotions run high among the audience, some truly believing and some yelling "conman!"

I wonder why? I wonder where the bright lines are that separate the two and our reactions to them?
 
Didier evidently wrote a book, which can be downloaded, published in 1867 as Le sommeil magnétique expliqué par le somnambule Alexis en état de lucidité by Alexis Didier. That is, "Magnetic Sleep, Explained by the Sleepwalker Alexis While in a State of Lucidity."

Charles Dickens once went to see a show staged by a clairvoyant of that name, presumably the same person, although Dickens describes him as "Belgian" and as a "Magnetic Boy". Dickens was impressed by his seeming clairvoyant powers.

The alleged supernatural healing powers of magnetism, as claimed by another practitioner, Mesmer, were investigated by a Royal Commission in France not long before the Revolution. Benjamin Franklin was a member. THe Skeptics' Dictionary states that:
A committee of scientific investigators, including Benjamin Franklin (1706-1790), found that the energy healer did have successes, but they were due to self-delusion or illnesses running their natural course. The committee found no reason to postulate magnétisme animal or any life-force manipulation to explain the satisfied customers.​
Franklin observed that "magnetism without imagination produces nothing".

I suspect that Didier the "magnetic boy" was likewise devoid of supernatural powers, but it is open to anyone who thinks otherwise to produce the appropriate evidence and impart it to us.
 
Last edited:
BillSkeptic said:
This is not skepticism, what you are doing is anti-science.
Click to expand...

Then you are wrong.

Using natural powers is hardly anti-science. In fact, actual scientists use natural powers all of the time.

For example, you would not be able use the Forum if it were not for the work of many scientists over the years using their natural powers.
 
Crossbow said:
Then you are wrong.

Using natural powers is hardly anti-science. In fact, actual scientists use natural powers all of the time.

For example, you would not be able use the Forum if it were not for the work of many scientists over the years using their natural powers.
Click to expand...

I wasn't referring to that. It is an anti-scientific outlook to dismiss something totally out of hand without investigating it first, that is what I was referring to.

That is what you did. You didn't even bother looking up the subject of this thread, you just said you are "convinced that Mr. Didier is no more clairvoyant than anyone else in the world."

Sorry for nitpicking but this forum is quite frankly useless when it comes to researching historical cases. It was a mistake asking here. You should do research first before offering an opinion.
 
Last edited:
madurobob said:
I'm a little confused by this. What "research" would you suggest on a claimed clairvoyant dead for generations? It almost sounds like you are looking for proof of a negative - a bit of a thorny issue.

But, that aside, here is something I've wondered about lately: magicians over the centuries are known to commonly claim what they do is "real"; its magic. Or to at least coyly demur when asked. But, everyone knows its all tricks and illusion and rarely do shouts of conman follow the act.

Clairvoyants are the same. Its all tricks and illusion that they pretend or delude themselves is real. But, emotions run high among the audience, some truly believing and some yelling "conman!"

I wonder why? I wonder where the bright lines are that separate the two and our reactions to them?
Click to expand...

Well it is interesting you mention magicians.

Robert-Houdin, sometimes called the "father of modern magic", endorsed the clairvoyance of Alexis Didier after he tested him. I am just looking into sources that discuss this (Harry Houdini mentions it in A Magician Among the Spirits, 1924).

You would have to agree that if Didier duped Houdin which he probably did that this itself was quite spectacular. Robert-Houdin was no gullible idiot or unreliable witness.
 
Last edited:
BillSkeptic said:
Well it is interesting you mention magicians.

Robert-Houdin, sometimes called the "father of modern magic", endorsed the clairvoyance of Alexis Didier after he tested him. I am just looking into sources that discuss this (Harry Houdini mentions it in A Magician Among the Spirits, 1924).

You would have to agree that if Didier duped Houdin which he probably did that this itself was quite spectacular. Robert-Houdin was no gullible idiot or unreliable witness.
Click to expand...
I would agree that if Didier succeeded in duping Houdini he was a spectacular swindler; but if he was obliged to resort to duping, then he was no clairvoyant and possessed no supernatural powers.
 
BillSkeptic said:
This is the sort of pseudo-skepticism that gives skepticism a bad name. None of you are interested in doing any real research. You just shout "conman".

You don't even know who he is, you didn't even bother to look.
Click to expand...
You're the one who's doing the research. So go and do it, and if you find anything convincing, come back and tell us. Meanwhile nobody needs to believe anything improbable about somebody they'd never heard of until you started on about him.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom