Princeton Nukes ESP Department

[Ersby]

It was a hit, or what believers do consider a hit.

If believers, or the general public believe the first rosebush is a hit, then they are wrong. Altea did not mention the rosebush first. The caller did: "He had just planted a rosebush for my mother"

It is a risk. The hit (in the believer´s mind) was already been established, so why risk it to become a miss?

I already explained why there's no risk.

Misses are forgotten, or explained away, or massaged into a different guess.

Again, the assumption about what do I believe. Where did I say that if Altea was a psychic , the info came from spirits? Oh come on.

I wasn't talking about you, but the general believer public of which you appear to be one.

Good points to persuade someone towards one natural explanation only, but still it does not suffice. Yours (and i presume the others too) is a clear claim: "this is cold reading". But why it does not require sci. ev.?

Well, LKL is not subject to scientific testing. That's why there's no "scientific evidence". There's scientific evidence that there's no difference between guessing and "mediumship", but I doubt that would sway you either.

We've explained the process. With pictures. If you chose not to understand, then there's really nothing we can do to help you.

 

[Moochie]

Any help on making my a-ha show up??

No. This is where you have to face the void.

This is where the child becomes an "adult."

M.

 

[omegablue]

No, omegablue, it is because I both know and admit that I can be fooled that I don't share your viewpoint.

You are still looking at it as even the two claims come from even starting points.

Basically they are. If we are to analyse it with no bias and letting not our personal hopes and opinions to take part on our judgement, they ought to be even.

There are two general weaknesses in your argument. You are ignoring both:

1. Absent any proof of psychic abilities, it has been amply demonstrated that effects which appear psychic can be replicated with non-psychic means. Your curt dismissal of Katie Coleman does nothing to lessen this; it merely demonstrates your unwillingness to accept a possibility you do not like.

Simply a lie. I dismissed her episode as being the proof of cold reading being behind Altea´s hits, as you might have suggested. I admitted to be familiar with peple who do this and you simply say i´m dismissing like I am not convinced that fooling in this case do exist?

2. Absent any proof of cold-reading abilities, the evidence provided in support of the psychic hypothesis crumbles under scrutiny. Altea did not have a hit about two rosebushes being planted. As Ersby and CFLarsen (among others) have repeatedly demonstrated, the claimed hits are only apparent hits and not actual hits.

No no no no , wait. We are not arguing whether the psi hypothesis did crumble or not. But if the cold-reading hypothesis has or not crumbled. And in fact it did not and not demonstrated also. Your points show how it can be possible. A hypothesis rather than a thesis. And Larsen, and Ersby did suggest a natural explanation rather than demonstrations of it. If you are trying to convince me they demosntrated, you are the one trying to fool me.

If you think the rosebushes aren't the best evidence, then by all means present better. But don't expect us to accept a claim as evidence by itself. The claim must actually demonstrate what it purports to demonstrate.

So do you think the rosebushes case is the best on Altea´s curriculum? I did not say if it is or if it not. I chose this one because it was one I looked recently, and just for exemplification in this discussion.

 

[CFLarsen]

omegablue,

If you want to claim that the example of the rosebushes was such a great hit that it can't be cold reading, then you have to explain why the example of the collapsing roof was cold reading.

If you are saying that the example of the collapsing roof wasn't cold reading, what was it then?

What kind of evidence would satisfy you?

 

[Garrette]

Basically they are [starting from equal starting points].

No, they are not, and this is central to why your argument falls apart.

We know that cold reading works. We know that other methods work. We know that people lie. We know that people misremember. We know that there is confirmation bias.

What we do not know is that psychic abilities exist because, unlike what I have previously mentioned, it has never been reliably demonstrated.

If we are to analyse it with no bias and letting not our personal hopes and opinions to take part on our judgement, they ought to be even.

Hopes and opinions have nothing to do with the skeptical analysis and (provisional) conclusion.

Altea makes the claim: I'm providing this information psychically.

I question the claim: How is what you have done different from non-psychic methods?

You respond on Altea's behalf: Prove it is a non-psychic method or else you're just a biased skeptic.

I respond to you: No. "Non-psychic means" is the default position and will remain the rational (provisional) conclusion until sufficient evidence demonstrating otherwise is presented.

Simply a lie. I dismissed her episode as being the proof of cold reading being behind Altea´s hits, as you might have suggested.

Don't twist things, OB; it doesn't become you.

No one here said that the Coleman episode proves cold reading by Altea. What we have said is that it demonstrates that cold reading is a plausible explanation and, given that psychic abilities have not been reliably demonstrated anywhere else and that psychic abilities need not be invoked as an explanation for this reading, then psychic abilities can rationally and legitimately be dismissed as the actual explanation.

I admitted to be familiar with peple who do this and you simply say i´m dismissing like I am not convinced that fooling in this case do exist?

Yes. It's the "but not me" syndrome.

I know other people have been fooled, but I haven't been.

No no no no , wait. We are not arguing whether the psi hypothesis did crumble or not.

Then there is absolutely no point in discussing it.

Here's an example of a psychic reading. Let's not discuss whether or not it's a valid example, but let's have a multi-page thread on all the tangential issues.

But if the cold-reading hypothesis has or not crumbled.

We are discussing that simultaneously with the psi hypothesis, not as a separate issue. But you continue to misrepresent. Cold reading is offered as one mundane alternative to the psi hypothesis. If you irrefutably proved with mathetmatical certainty that no cold reading occurred, you would still not have furthered the psi hypothesis one iota. Cold reading is not the only method for providing such readings.

And in fact it did not and not demonstrated also.

??

Your points show how it can be possible.

Thank you.

A hypothesis rather than a thesis.

In the sense I haven't attempted to prove cold reading happened, you are correct. But such proof is not my intent. The burden of proof here lies on Altea, and, if you are taking up her banner, you.

And Larsen, and Ersby did suggest a natural explanation rather than demonstrations of it. If you are trying to convince me they demosntrated, you are the one trying to fool me.

Afraid I don't follow.

So do you think the rosebushes case is the best on Altea´s curriculum?

No idea. I'm not the one attempting to prove she is psychic, and I will not do her work for her nor yours for you.

I did not say if it is or if it not. I chose this one because it was one I looked recently, and just for exemplification in this discussion.

Okay.

 

[thaiboxerken]

I think omega just does not understand the point that until we can factor out all the natural explanations there's no need to even entertain the paranormal. ensure we can't prove that Altea or Sylvia are fakes, but we don't need to we can assume it until they can actually prove that they're not. in short, the burden of proof is on the psychics not the skeptics.

 

[Kage]

in short, the burden of proof is on the psychics not the skeptics.

This is absolutely true with any paranormal phenomenon. This also applies to the PEAR lab, and is the source of my main angst toward their work. They make huge claims but FAIL to prove them to satisfaction.

 

[omegablue]

If believers, or the general public believe the first rosebush is a hit, then they are wrong. Altea did not mention the rosebush first. The caller did: "He had just planted a rosebush for my mother"

No, Ersby. There is no such a thing as the first "rosebush being a hit", this was told by the caller. The previous hit I mentioned was about describing the physical appearance of the dead man. Ok, the first one could be, just could be made by cold-reading, and you have to agree with me, a masterful work of cold-reading. Ok , old guys exhibits only a few physical types, and there´s the thing of making generalities like "chest" and etc. But, still a hit to the eyes of the believer. But the different thing is this 2 rosebushes gamble. I don´t know if she would gamble with a hit already been established. She could have gamble ok, but still it would be a risk for ruining her "hit". If she had told: "Wait wait, he´s telling me that is about 9 rosebushes" and the caller: "no, it was just two". Then, her apparent previous hit would be weakened if not crumbled to pieces. Still there are believers who would dismiss the miss and keep up the hit about his physical appearance.

I already explained why there's no risk.

Misses are forgotten, or explained away, or massaged into a different guess.

True true, misses are forgotten, but only by the most gullible believers. I guess a great part of the believers team are not so fool, they believe and etc, but a stupid miss like guessing the wrong number of rosebushes would have them to think that it was a miss. Anyways, to the mind of a more clever person which still wanted to moderately believe the psi, it would be a miss. What catches my attention are details like this. In the same LKL episode she misses one terribly, and it done a great decrease in my will to believe her, in other words, I was getting impressed and then it fizzled greatly. But instead of just assuming that she is a Fraud as I did not have any valid and why not scientific evidence, I tried to study the hits. Well, she could have guessed it right and etc. but what are the actual chances of her guessing the right numbers of rosebushes. Hell, the caller did tell he was planting a rosebush. Damn it, how could possibly Altea think: "hmmm stupid girl, now you revealed me this clue, and....hmmmmmmmm yes, he´s obviously planting another one....no wait....two more!! because it was one for the grandmother also, hmmmm no...my intuition says 5, but wait...hmmm JUST ANOTHER ONE! YESSSS... just another one". Just HOW, HOW could she fish for this? Oo

It still does not make sense for me. Man...if this cold reading stuff is true to these cases, I am more shocked by the subliminal things she can spot in a human than if she was paranormal. Truly a mutant power, this cold reading stuff.

For example, that blonde actress´s hits were none about messing up with numbers of objects and stuff, but rather things like: "there´s a man in your life, or two men", and bla bla bla. Way more general. So it cannot be used to compare with Altea´s because Altea´s hits are far superior in quality, even if its cold reading. In other words, the example of the actress is not suitable for adding much wait to the cold-reading defense.

I wasn't talking about you, but the general believer public of which you appear to be one.

So, still, you are implying that I believe in spirits...

Well, LKL is not subject to scientific testing. That's why there's no "scientific evidence". There's scientific evidence that there's no difference between guessing and "mediumship", but I doubt that would sway you either.

I did not mean Larry-King-type of scientific evidence, but lab ones. No psychologist (helloooo Dawkins and Blackmore) ever bothered to prove this as it seems to be so easy for them to prove as they have no doubts that the answer is cold-reading. Strangely the skeptic scenario did not present any evidence in this fashions and still the are absolutely right that this is cold reading and period.

We've explained the process. With pictures. If you chose not to understand, then there's really nothing we can do to help you.

You´ve explained very well your points of view Ersby, it is well understood. The points are nice, and describes very well how cold-reading might work. But as long as there´s no compelling scientific evidence, we cannot but wonder and speculate about it. Just because it makes sense (in the common-sense level) does not mean it has any scientific validity, as it has been demosntrated throughout history of sciences and psychology. Following this lines (making sense implies being true), it would be the same to say: "well, I had an OBE last night, I could see things from my bed that I could not if I was lying on my bed. And the sensation was of floating about and being fully aware as I am now or even more, I could critically and analytically observe the surroundings!". And as long it does make sense for me, because i´m a believer in new age crap and mystical things, it would suffice for me being SURE I was indeed outside my body, just because although there are other possible explanations, they are all less plausible than real OBE for me. See the parallel?

sidenote: the "me" is not me omegablue necessarily but any character for my example.

I thought you all could help me to spot the scientific evidence for cold-reading being behind psychic readings. Strangely it seems theres none, and I thought it would exist at least some. If there is, it seems at least a little difficult to spot. Why!?! hell... I want to make my mind about this once and for all but still I can´t. So we could move on to analyzing the possibility of psychic powers or setting up the calls. But its fine you can say that if you arte not presenting me with scientific ev. , there´s no much that can be done for now, as long as I already know and understand the general points of view.

 

[fls]

Linda said, "go for it", when I told her that I´m still to see any sci ev to this. But when one come here and say: "Hey JREF people, psychic powers does exist!", would you like if he/she came up with the same answer ("go for it!") when inquired for evidence on his/her claim?

Obviously I would be fine with it, since that's exactly what you did. All you have done in this thread is make vague reference to research in support of psi. All specific information and analysis has come from me and the other skeptics. And you know why? Because we are skeptics, we have already looked at the information that contradicts our beliefs. We are already familiar with it because we do not use ignorance as an excuse to dismiss evidence. We already know that it is our responsibility to "go for it" even before we are asked to defend our opinion to somebody else.

Linda

 

[fls]

just because although there are other possible explanations, they are all less plausible than real OBE for me. See the parallel?

You forgot about parsimony (aka Occam's Razor).

And Hume. (That no testimony is sufficient to establish [an event that cannot be explained by the known laws of nature], unless the testimony be of such a kind, that its falsehood would be more [inexplicable] than the fact which it endeavors to establish.)

Linda

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

You forgot about parsimony (aka Occam's Razor).

And Hume. (That no testimony is sufficient to establish [an event that cannot be explained by the known laws of nature], unless the testimony be of such a kind, that its falsehood would be more [inexplicable] than the fact which it endeavors to establish.)

Linda

Brother Occam reckoned the simplest explanation was 'goddidit'.

http://skepdic.com/occam.html

 

[omegablue]

All you have done in this thread is make vague reference to research in support of psi.

It is no wonder I presented "vague reference" as I´m not advocating in favor of psi in this thread. But rather, i´m doing this against the certainty of cold reading without sci. ev. to back up the CLAIM.

All specific information and analysis has come from me and the other skeptics. And you know why? Because we are skeptics, we have already looked at the information that contradicts our beliefs. We are already familiar with it because we do not use ignorance as an excuse to dismiss evidence. We already know that it is our responsibility to "go for it" even before we are asked to defend our opinion to somebody else.

Then, have you gone for it, regarding cold-reading over psi? It appears that you are spreading out you certainty about this w/o sci ev in first place. My ignorance is precisely this one. If you do possess this knowledge please do share with me then. I do not know any sci. ev. of this kind. Why there appears to be none, Linda?

 

[omegablue]

You forgot about parsimony (aka Occam's Razor).

And Hume. (That no testimony is sufficient to establish [an event that cannot be explained by the known laws of nature], unless the testimony be of such a kind, that its falsehood would be more [inexplicable] than the fact which it endeavors to establish.)

Linda

Fine but it is your call to claim that cold reading is the most plausible explanation. I told you before that I would agree that setting-up would be more suitable. I would rather expect it was a fraud (let alone the fact that indeed cold reading is also fraud) than psychic powers, as I did not check if the callers were not amongst the ones that previously made a set up with Altea. So you see i´m not advocating in favor of psi, rather against the CERTAINTY of cold-reading. So where you see fraud, see set-up.

I admit that I get a little frustrated because I am not able to place much synthesis power in my arguments because i´m not so proficient with English language. Sometimes I think you are all getting me wrong due to my poor skills, but perhaps not.

Not mentioning that invoking Occam´s Razor in the name of rationality is not like adding any weight to any argument. Why this philosophy has to be used like a final-blow to a discussion?

 

[thaiboxerken]

Invoking occam's razor is simply saying that the mundane explanations need to be factored out before going to the paranormal nonsense.

 

[Kage]

You can't scientifically say that a psychic it IS doing cold reading. You can say that what they are doing is indistinguishable from cold reading.

 

[fls]

Brother Occam reckoned the simplest explanation was 'goddidit'.

http://skepdic.com/occam.html

I know. It wasn't really the right time to consider that God was an unnecessary entity.

Linda

 

[fls]

It is no wonder I presented "vague reference" as I´m not advocating in favor of psi in this thread. But rather, i´m doing this against the certainty of cold reading without sci. ev. to back up the CLAIM.

That's not true. The cold reading issue came up late in the discussion.

What research is there on cold reading?

Then, have you gone for it, regarding cold-reading over psi? It appears that you are spreading out you certainty about this w/o sci ev in first place. My ignorance is precisely this one. If you do possess this knowledge please do share with me then. I do not know any sci. ev. of this kind. Why there appears to be none, Linda?

Ah, you don't know what research there is on cold reading. And on the basis of your ignorance, it means that psi should be considered a reasonable claim? What if there was no research on cold reading? I'm pretty sure there's no research on my claim that every atheist has an invisible dragon in their garage.

Linda

 

[omegablue]

omegablue,

If you want to claim that the example of the rosebushes was such a great hit that it can't be cold reading, then you have to explain why the example of the collapsing roof was cold reading.

I´m not claiming this, i´m claiming that perhaps it´s not tenable to be so sure about cold reading being behind this without some scientific evidence.

If you are saying that the example of the collapsing roof wasn't cold reading, what was it then?

A miss! A miss on cold reading or a miss on psychic powers, who knows. Like Larry Bird would miss a 3-point shoot, and not because of it we would have to dismiss that he was an outstading player on 3-point shoots.

It´s a shame King had not insisted on asking about the roof issue. The upgrading or fix they did in the house could have something about the roof, oooh hell, I want to contact this caller and ask her about it!!!


If it doesnt have anything to do with roofs, then perhaps it was a miss on cold reading.

What kind of evidence would satisfy you?

A successfully replicated double blind test that I mentioned before. About mixing up cold-readers+self-proclaimed-psychics as readers, and skeptics+believers as sitters. Then we could pretty much see it objectively and this discussion would not be necessary. We could even do the following. Mixing up all the readings written on paper and hand out them randomly to the targets and having them to rate the readings. It would be expected to have quite high rates overall if it would be due to generalizations that could fit for anyone. Of course is just a rough sketch of a design I´m presenting here, it has to be fine tuned greatly, but this is a start. Or even perhaps handig 5 to 10 papers with readings to a sitter in order to have them pointing out what he/she thinks is her/his reading. Hmm still much to tweak though.

 

[fls]

Fine but it is your call to claim that cold reading is the most plausible explanation. I told you before that I would agree that setting-up would be more suitable. I would rather expect it was a fraud (let alone the fact that indeed cold reading is also fraud) than psychic powers, as I did not check if the callers were not amongst the ones that previously made a set up with Altea. So you see i´m not advocating in favor of psi, rather against the CERTAINTY of cold-reading. So where you see fraud, see set-up.

Cold reading isn't necessarily a fraud. A psychic may be doing it subconsciously. I'm not saying we are certain about what Rosemary was doing. I'm saying that her statements cannot be used as plausible evidence for psi, as there are plausible, normal ways that she could have come up with those statements.

I admit that I get a little frustrated because I am not able to place much synthesis power in my arguments because i´m not so proficient with English language. Sometimes I think you are all getting me wrong due to my poor skills, but perhaps not.

Not mentioning that invoking Occam´s Razor in the name of rationality is not like adding any weight to any argument. Why this philosophy has to be used like a final-blow to a discussion?

Because it's been proven to be eminently useful? Making stuff up unnecessarily gets us into trouble.

Linda

 

[Kage]

I´m not claiming this, i´m claiming that perhaps it´s not tenable to be so sure about cold reading being behind this without some scientific evidence.





A miss! A miss on cold reading or a miss on psychic powers, who knows. Like Larry Bird would miss a 3-point shoot, and not because of it we would have to dismiss that he was an outstading player on 3-point shoots.

It´s a shame King had not insisted on asking about the roof issue. The upgrading or fix they did in the house could have something about the roof, oooh hell, I want to contact this caller and ask her about it!!!


If it doesnt have anything to do with roofs, then perhaps it was a miss on cold reading.




A successfully replicated double blind test that I mentioned before. About mixing up cold-readers+self-proclaimed-psychics as readers, and skeptics+believers as sitters. Then we could pretty much see it objectively and this discussion would not be necessary. We could even do the following. Mixing up all the readings written on paper and hand out them randomly to the targets and having them to rate the readings. It would be expected to have quite high rates overall if it would be due to generalizations that could fit for anyone. Of course is just a rough sketch of a design I´m presenting here, it has to be fine tuned greatly, but this is a start. Or even perhaps handig 5 to 10 papers with readings to a sitter in order to have them pointing out what he/she thinks is her/his reading. Hmm still much to tweak though.

I highly recommend Darren Brown's Messiah and the first episode of Penn & Teller: Bulls hit. These two programs do close to what you are asking for.