Are all mediums con artists then?

[ChristineR]

Yes, I do believe that most mediums (people who claim to contact the dead) are sincere. We tend to see two sorts of psychics: the person reading auras and tarot cards and making vague pronouncements about energy, and the professional fraud mediums (Browne, Van Praagh, Edwards). The do-it-yourself mediums are not very visible. Do an Internet search for "spritualist church" and you will find any number of mediums who aren't making any money at it.

 

[Luke T.]

I find that puzzling in the extreme. How can you be so certain it doesn't exist. What can someone experience which would convince them that psychic phenomena don't exist? It just doesn't make any sense. You might personally never have experienced any psychic phenomena. Your friends may not have ever experienced any psychic phenomena (although they might be mistaken in this). You may have experienced something which appeared to you to be psychic, but it subsequently turned out it wasn't. You may have heard of people faking it.

But none of this justifies even any reason to suppose this phenomena doesn't exist, never mind certainty!

Well, Ian, I think that if psychic phenonema was real, we would have indisbutable evidence by now. But all we have are personal anecdotes, which are of no use as evidence, and tv shows which are also unreliable.

Every time someone has pointed me to something that they saw as hard evidence of psychic ability, I have found the evidence to be seriously flawed or lacking. I even wrote an article about one of Schwartz' tests pointing out the flaws in his supposedly blind study.

And like I said, all you really need to know about psychics is that no one predicted 9/11 or the tsunami. Geez, Sylvia Browne was on Larry King Live about 8 days before 9/11! not a peep out of her. And so was John Edward on LKL, about 11 or 12 days before. Nothing from him, either.

 

[Luke T.]

Sylvia Browne's predictions for 2005. Notice the Hollywood stars' predictions. That's important stuff for humanity:

Kurt Russell and Goldie Hawn will split
* Ditto for Brad Pitt and Jennifer Anniston
* "Problems" in Michael Douglas and Catherine Zeta-Jones' marriage
* Demi Moore will have a bun in the oven
* Ditto for Britney Spears, though she'll be single again by this time
next year
* Robert Blake will be cleared in his wife's murder
* Another marriage for Donald Trump, but he'll be single again in
about two years
* Sylvia is "concerned about" Elizabeth Taylor "making it through 2005
-- she's given up; she said she's ready to go"
* Michael Jackson will spend time in jail

Sylvia's other predictions:
* Scandal at the FDA over the drug approval process
* A liquor-related scandal in the Bush Administration
* The US will be out of Iraq by mid-year, but we'll be at war with
North Korea within two years
* An economic downturn in the first half of the year, but recovery in
the second half, fueled by developments in medical technology
* Real estate is a better investment than stocks, though "medical
stocks" should do well in 2005
* No national ban on same-sex marriage -- rather, it'll gradually gain
approval in each state

Source.

 

[Luke T.]

Sylvia was a regular on Wednesdays on the Montel show in 2004. Not a peep on any of her appearances about the tsunami.

 

[Interesting Ian]

Both myself here: http://www.skeptics.org.uk/commentary_display.php?d=britains_psychic_challenge

And Tony Youens here: http://www.tonyyouens.com/BritainsPsychicChallenge.htm

have done full commentaries on BPC in the UK.

Ian,

I would not use that as an example of psychic power at work.

Then it's a good job I'm not you then since I am after the truth. I watched all the programmes in full. Unless the programme makers were in collusion with the psychics then the conclusion is pretty much inescapable.

There was only one result of any real interest in the entire series and even then the test was flawed.

Don't be so utterly ludicrous. Yes the testing was certainly less than ideal, but it wasn't proper parapsychological research after all. Each programme produced many instances of apparent psychic abilities. To say there was only 1 instance in the entire series is either a display of mindnumbing stupidity, or of downright dishonesty. People need to see the programmes for themselves rather than read anything a so-called skeptic might say on the issue.

OK, I wasn't going to look at your page. Just reading the first paragraph convinces me that it is entirely pointless to read any further.

You say:

Flawed testing produces results that are meaningless.

I suggest you purchase yourself a half decent dictionary and look up the word "meaningless". Either the testing produced evidence for anomalous acquisition of information, or it didn't. It would be absurd in the extreme to say that it didn't produce any evidence whatsoever. Apart from some sort of collusion or/and massive incompetence by the test makers which wasn't brought to our attention, I would say the evidence compels us to accept the existence of psi.

Anyway, all testing can be deemed to be flawed if you look hard enough. I have never encountered any research into the paranormal and which produced significantly positive results which skeptics didn't think was flawed.

If anything, the programme was a classic display of how people can think they are psychic yet have no real ability whatsoever.

And this is a classic demonstration that skeptics will never ever accept anything which challenges their beliefs. This is why I couldn't be bothered to contribute to the thread dedicated to this programme before. It was full of people like yourself who wouldn't be able to see a paranormal phenomenon even if it banged you in the face.

As I said I cannot absolutely rule out that the programme makers were in collusion with the psychics, but if they were not, and notwithstanding the fact that the testing was not watertight, for any rational person who is simply interested in finding out the truth I think the evidence was pretty compelling.

 

[Starrman]

I was absolutely astounded what people can lay at the door of coincidence. Skeptics seem to have a very poor understanding of how improbable some events are.

And some people seem to have a very poor understanding of just how many times a day, very improbable events occur all on their own. I am often astounded at the coincedences that many people lay at the door of magic...

 

[Interesting Ian]

Yes, I do believe that most mediums (people who claim to contact the dead) are sincere. We tend to see two sorts of psychics: the person reading auras and tarot cards and making vague pronouncements about energy, and the professional fraud mediums (Browne, Van Praagh, Edwards). The do-it-yourself mediums are not very visible. Do an Internet search for "spritualist church" and you will find any number of mediums who aren't making any money at it.

I know nothing about so-called professional fraud mediums. I'd never heard of Browne, Van Praagh, Edwards before I came on here. I have never seen them before never mind seen them perform, and I don't even know what they look like. (actually in my local library I saw a book by Edwards with a photo of a guy on the front which I imagine was he. I wasn't paying partciular attention though). I'm more interested in the good evidence even if skeptics are not.

 

[Interesting Ian]

And some people seem to have a very poor understanding of just how many times a day, very improbable events occur all on their own. I am often astounded at the coincedences that many people lay at the door of magic...

What does that mean improbable events happen all the time?? Cold reading can't produce the miraculous. It can't consistently give a huge amount of accurate information about somebody -- information which would only apply to very few individuals. It's the nature of cold reading that it can apply to almost anyone

e.g you're a really kind person at heart but sometimes some people don't really appreciate that.

It certainly doesn't include a ****load of accurate detail.

 

[CFLarsen]

What does that mean improbable events happen all the time?? Cold reading can't produce the miraculous. It can't consistently give a huge amount of accurate information about somebody -- information which would only apply to very few individuals. It's the nature of cold reading that it can apply to almost anyone

e.g you're a really kind person at heart but sometimes some people don't really appreciate that.

It certainly doesn't include a ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ of accurate detail.

Ian, you do force me to ask again. That's not nice.

Which psychic has produced "bucketloads of accurate information"? Be specific.

 

[Interesting Ian]

Well, Ian, I think that if psychic phenonema was real, we would have indisbutable evidence by now.

No. We would either need to be able to produce it at will. Or it would need to be able to fit into our existing ideas about reality.

If the phenomena is inherently caprcious (as it seems to be) and contradicts certain cherished notions about reality, it certainly couldn't be accepted from the scientific perspective. And I don't have any objections to that.

On the other hand we shouldn't restrict ourselves to believing what science deems to exist. That would be ridiculous. I ain't gonna start believing in lucid dreams (dreams where you realise you're dreaming) just because science now deems them to exist! You believe in them because you have had them, and people have been having lucid dreams throughout history.

But all we have are personal anecdotes, which are of no use as evidence,

By definition anecdotes are evidence. You can't say personal experiences are of zero evidence otherwise we wouldn't ever do anything. We would never get up in the morning and would just lay there and die.

Every time someone has pointed me to something that they saw as hard evidence of psychic ability, I have found the evidence to be seriously flawed or lacking. I even wrote an article about one of Schwartz' tests pointing out the flaws in his supposedly blind study.

I'm still waiting to hear the flaws regarding the research by Helmut Schmidt on retropsychokinesis.

And like I said, all you really need to know about psychics is that no one predicted 9/11 or the tsunami.

So what? And would we really get to know about someone who has had a premonition? I rather doubt it.

Geez, Sylvia Browne was on Larry King Live about 8 days before 9/11! not a peep out of her. And so was John Edward on LKL, about 11 or 12 days before. Nothing from him, either.

Well hey! Maybe they're frauds! Or even if they are genuine perhaps they're unable to read the future at will.

 

[logical muse]

(snip)

As I said I cannot absolutely rule out that the programme makers were in collusion with the psychics, but if they were not, and notwithstanding the fact that the testing was not watertight, for any rational person who is simply interested in finding out the truth I think the evidence was pretty compelling.

I haven't seen this BPC, but is it the program Randi refers to here? This one demonstrates that the director and production crew are in on it.

Ian, you are intelligent enough to understand that it's a TV program that is meant to appeal to the masses and be entertaining. You yourself have said that you cannot rule out collusion between the show's producers and the so-called psychics. How can you expect anyone to take claims of 'true psychic powers' seriously when such collusion can explain what you are being shown?

 

[John Jackson]

Thanks for criticising what I wrote Ian. I'm always appreciative of constructive criticism.

The fact that you didn't read it however, detracts slightly from your pompous position.

I don't give a fig whether you agree with what *I* say on the matter, it's my personal commentary, but the transcript I've put up is taken from the show exactly as it was broadcast.

Now, if you are convinced that psychic power is real based on a TV show where the odds of passing the "psychic challenge" were often as low as 1 in 4, then it's no wonder that you believe the things you do.

Perhaps you can share with us exactly what it was in the series that personally convinced you?

I'd really like to know what it was.

 

[kittynh]

I rather think psychics should be licesnsed. If nothing else set fees and such. The amount of fraud and what is almost outright blackmail that goes on is a shame. I have one friend that lost over $30,000 to a psychic. He's gone on to fame and glory. But there is a LOT of money in being a psychic.

Also, people that pray on people that have lost loved ones are pretty much pond scum.

 

[Mojo]

Or even if they are genuine perhaps they're unable to read the future at will.

You mean some of their predictions are correct and some of them are wrong? I can do that (well, I just about broke even at Walthamstow dogs the other week).

 

[Interesting Ian]

I haven't seen this BPC, but is it the program Randi refers to here? This one demonstrates that the director and production crew are in on it.

Ian, you are intelligent enough to understand that it's a TV program that is meant to appeal to the masses and be entertaining. You yourself have said that you cannot rule out collusion between the show's producers and the so-called psychics. How can you expect anyone to take claims of 'true psychic powers' seriously when such collusion can explain what you are being shown?

I think it's extremely implausible to suppose that they were in collusion. I would expect skeptics to claim there was, but let's deal with the real world shall we?

 

[thaiboxerken]

I think it's extremely implausible to suppose that they were in collusion.

Why? They all have motive.

 

[Ladewig]

Hi all

I'm curious, do you all believe all mediums are just con artists or what? I am part beliver and part sceptic and the sceptic side of me can't believe they're all just con artists.


Paul

Who, specifically, do you consider more likely to be real than fake?

 

[JohnboyMN]

Cold reading can't produce the miraculous.

We're still waiting for examples of the miraculous.

 

[CFLarsen]

Ian ignores the pertinent question.

Gee, I wonder why?

 

[Interesting Ian]

Thanks for criticising what I wrote Ian. I'm always appreciative of constructive criticism.

The fact that you didn't read it however, detracts slightly from your pompous position.

Now, if you are convinced that psychic power is real based on a TV show where the odds of passing the "psychic challenge" were often as low as 1 in 4, then it's no wonder that you believe the things you do.

Oh don't be so ludicrous. If you have anything sensible to say, then say it.

Perhaps you can share with us exactly what it was in the series that personally convinced you?

I'd really like to know what it was.

Well it was every programme. Certainly not every test, but for most tests at least one psychic provided information which it would be highly unreasonable to suppose could be obtained by cold reading. I haven't kept the programmes so am unable to provide details now.