No. I do not understand how you can look at a statement that has a 50% probability of being true, and then call it amazing when it turns out to be true.
Where did you get the idea that the statement had 50% of being true? And by all means, which statement are you talking about? It is about the rosebush issue? If so, how did you arrive at this conclusion?
The claim is not that cold-reading is the cause of the hits.
You have to say: "My claim is not that cold-reading is the cause of hits." Because for example Larsen´s claim is this one you dismissed above.
The claim is that Rosemary Altea makes amazing statements, and these amazing statements may be evidence for psi. The point being made with cold-reading is that it is possible to make statements that superficially appear to be amazing without the use of any magical powers. And, when analyzed, Rosemary's amazing statements were simply statements that had a good chance of being true.
So again, the rosebush issue (sorry), still it has a good chance of being true? If so, how , and how did you came to this conclusion? Statistics? Where?
Regardless of whether or not Rosemary consciously uses the technique of cold-reading, I cannot agree that it is merely a matter of opinion as to whether it is "amazing" when a statement that has a 42 percent chance of being true turns out to be true.
Again , where did this percentage came from?
So, I am close-minded, materialistic, and mocking when I state that if something has a 50 percent chance of being true, I am not surprised when it turns out to be true?
Same answer as the previous... where did this percentage came from?
I already told you that I have these experiences myself, many of them since childhood. I know exactly how it feels to be within one of these experiences, and it allows me to understand what others describe. And I think applying my skepticism to these experiences has given me valuable insight in the workings of my mind.
Which were the experiences you had, and which is the general level of awareness involved? What do you think about it? Do you feel so aware that you could question where is the "real reality"?
I told you this earlier. The difference between skeptics and believers is not that one group simply has had these experiences and the other hasn't. People in both groups have had these experiences. The difference is in what alternate constructions are placed upon them.
I bet that just a few here had or have these experiences, or at least have a minimum interest on them , as to try to induce them themselves. And I risk saying that the ones who have had, are not presenting as completely dismissive to psi and paranormal.
And which are the alternate constructions you place upon them in general Linda?
I am not stating that cold-reading is the TRUTH behind the psychic claims.
Perhaps you dont , but they are (people here on this forum).
I am stating that you have not produced any evidence to support the claim that psychics are doing something unusual, or that the only way to produce unusual results would be through the use of psi. That some of the techniques they use have been studied and reproduced and labelled cold-reading is just icing on the cake, really.
Its not about producing evidence in favor of my impression, but rather ask for evidence about cold reading being behind Altea´s hits. Which would be the alternate construct for the rosebush issue? I´m really interested in this one. Perhaps Larsen should produce a special graph just on this little issue.
We are just going around in circles as I am now repeating what I said about 7 pages ago. The reason psychic claims are considered "debunked" is because they have not demonstrated that there is anything that is inexplicable going on.
I know that the reason is that, but the problem is what you define as being explainable by cold reading. Can you spot another , even if anecdotal or just references to a study or show, or anything that the cold readers produced something like this rosebush issue. I mean , in a way that I can put the two together for a closer perspective in the context of each of them was made a hit, and be able to compare them??
That's just silly. No one is suggesting that Occam's Razor is to be used to decide which areas of study to pursue. We wouldn't make any scientific discoveries that way.
Science is walking side by side with the materialistic framework, so if parsimony is used to decide whether between the two competing theories is the most suitable, most likely the one that is outside or contradicting the current paradigm will be cut off, and this specifically generally dictates the trends in researching. Talk about funding priorities. Of course it does not imply that no one will be able to research what is against the paradigm. But you know how science in general treats tre "fringe" group of researchers.
How do you know it is outside our materialistic framework?
I did not state that it IS outside. But,If psi does exist, possibly yes, it is outside our current framework in my opinion. No one has a vague idea about quantifying mind and its activities, and perhaps it will never be possible. But again, I might be mistaken. There are no known physical forces that could be behind psi, other than the claimed and highly rejected bio-energies, qi, and those the skeptics consider woo stuff.
No it hasn't. It has been shown to be quite compatible with the naturalistic approach. I'm not going to agree to the use of the terms "materialistic" and "reductionist" unless you define them, as I suspect you are using them in a way that degrades them.
Oh it has been shown to be compatible with the naturalistic approach? How?! This is interesting stuff. For materialistic I mean from the contrary of Idealistic. Those two are the extremes. Reductionism has been kind of a paradigm, specially in physics and biology. The more you reduce a thing the more you are understanding it in its most basic levels. The opposite would be "Wholism" or Holism, which is the principle that everything as to be taken as one great thing, that understanding is achieved when you take everything as a whole. So as far as I know, reductionism copes with materialism and Holism with idealism. What do you think about it?
By science´s perspective. They do not even know from where to start understanding and measuring mind. Let alone formulating a theory for psi and paranormal using the current scientific framework. So , a naming a big failure is being kind.
Are you talking about the idea that these experiences make one a believer, again?
Ah but they make the person believe the experience! Or not? And please define a believer.
Let's forget about cold-reading. I'm going to completely drop the term "cold-reading" from now on and say this a different way.
When psychic readings are studied and analyzed, one discovers several consistent patterns. These patterns of asking questions and making statements have a high probability of leading to statements that are perceived as correct by the sitter.
Fine, I myself spotted many, but what is about the rosebushes issue again? which are the chances and how can someone risk such a thing, if there has been already a hit for this sitter? Forget about what was mentioned, I want to know your opinion. Any case you know that went like that from declared cold readers?
Would you agree or disagree that Claus demonstrated that the pattern of asking questions and making statements by Rosemary Altea would likely lead to statements that would be perceived as correct by the sitter, in the readings that he analyzed? If you disagree, referring to his detailed analyses, what part of his analysis would you change and in what way?
I agree with everything, but the percentages that you might be thinking that is behind the analysis. By the way, which are the chances for each possible event? Claus presented the possibilities but did not make any applied statistics to it. And as I said , I would like to concentrate more on the rosebush issue which was the one that still concerns me.
)
