Merged The One - Australian TV

Now, it is up to you all to judge for yourself if I have aided or harmed our common goal of science and reason.
Click to expand...

Hmmm, the answer to that is complex. I would say (and have) that you presented yourself admirably and with great diplomacy. I feel you behaved better than your counterpart and explained your thoughts clearly and I absolutely believe you did it the best way it could have been done - on THAT show.

However, as to the "common goal", my gut feeling is the show was so incredibly biased that even if you'd machine-gunned them all down, the editing would have ensured your action had little audience impact. They'd probably have the SFX guys whip up a few apparitions to chase you off the set.

That said, you may have swayed a few fence-sitters who were leaning toward skepticism - though I think the numbers who fell toward the woo would be much, much greater. Of course, had you not been there the show still would have happened and perhaps the scales would be tipped further away from reason.

I have to disagree that it was intended as entertainment. It was a five-episode commercial for the psychic industry. Take a look at the comments section on the Seven website and count how many times Simon Turnbull himself directs people to the APA. If they'd intended it as "entertainment" they'd have done as I suggested in my first blog article on "The One" and had an Ian 'Dicko' Dickson style judge tearing shreds off everyone in the studio.

What I'd like to see now, is a show with a skeptical bias. If you've gained any foothold at Seven that could see that possibility eventuate, then your participation in The One will be well and truly vindicated.

As for partying with the contestants, well, I've shook hands with politicians and used car salesmen and I've worked in advertising so I'm not in a position to comment on that.


In respect of the three recorded endings, did they all guess Charmaine to win just once or did they have three goes at guessing the winner too?
 
Last edited:
In general, from a sceptic view the show was pretty fun to watch (a bit like reading Where's Wally).
The off site segments were much better than the cold reading (much harder to edit the fact that no one found the right container).
I didn't like the editing, especially the judges comments, Richard was hardly ever given a rebuttal, with Daddo agreeing with Demarco.

Richard, now that the series has aired will you be giving a more detailed analysis of the show?
After seeing the editing, etc, would you come back for a series 2?
 
Beeep... this is Richard's computer. He seems to be out of his skull right now... He thinks he is THE ONE. He may do another series but needs to lie down for a week to recover from this one.
 
I see that Scott Russell Hill is running right away from these Psychics. I can see why. They were dreadful. Scott Russell Hill allegedly said that he does not know any of the psychics on the show and they were asked to do party tricks which he does not agree with. The believers on the N.Z. Sensing Murder forum are also running away from these psychics.
I wonder how those fantastic :boggled: psychics on sensing murder in N.Z. would go with that format on the One. My guess the same as the Aussie psychics.
 
wombatwal said:
I see that Scott Russell Hill is running right away from these Psychics. I can see why. They were dreadful. Scott Russell Hill allegedly said that he does not know any of the psychics on the show and they were asked to do party tricks which he does not agree with.
Click to expand...

Miaow! This is called Attention Deprivation Syndrome. Poor Scott is worried he won't get any gigs on Channel Seven anymore to hawk his stupid books because they will go to their annointed One Charmaine for future woo purposes. If they irritate SRH, I suddenly feel a lot warmer towards Charmaine, Ezio et al. :p

Never mind Scott, there's always ... well, every other channel.
 
Anyone willing to email the NT Police and ask their views on the information they were given and if they intend to act on it? I would but, well, you know how it is.... :rolleyes:
 
I listened to that interview, Richard. Once again, you really do handle everything so damn well. If I was ever interviewed I want to come across the same way that you do.

If I was getting interviewed and she got all rude with me like she did towards the end to you, I would've gone crazy at her. With the whole, "then you wouldn't have such a smile on your face, Richard". What a cow bad person.

Cheers,
Alex.
 
Last edited:
The poll at Yahoo 7 is interesting. I swear that when I looked on Tuesday night it was leaning the beliver way. But now it is around 60 40 to the sceptic side.

I wonder if we have any sceptical robots voting. Because I confirm that the vote early vote often adage works for this poll.

I also want to plug my youtube vids of Episode 2 of The One. These vids are re-edited versions of the show that where I stick the knife in to the guessers. It is the show a lot of use here would have liked to make.

I have gone to some trouble to find out exactly what the pobabilities are of getting some of the guesses right. For example I found a great web site in the US that lists the popularity of names given to children for the last 120 years. And Mary has been number 1 or 2 on the list for girls since 1890 to around 1960. Australia would not be much different on this stat I would think. So - yes Mary is a great guess for a psychic to make.

Look at the "thettguy" channel on Youtube www(dot)youtube(dot)com/thettguy

What is good about The One is that it provides footage of the guessers at work. And you can see how banal it all is without having to pay them money.
 
The poll at Yahoo 7 is interesting. I swear that when I looked on Tuesday night it was leaning the beliver way. But now it is around 60 40 to the sceptic side.
Click to expand...

Holy cow! You're right!!! I checked this poll a good few times after the show started and watched it drift from about 55:45 in favour of believers to (I think) almost 70:30 in favour of believers.

Richard, you are a god (in the skeptical sense of course), that's the only sensible explanation unless it got Pharyngulated.

(Thanks to Podblack for the heads up)
 
Last edited:
The poll allows you to vote multiple times, so could be easy to set up a bot to do it.
This is not a suggest just an observation I made yesterday.
 
Last edited:
I don't think any skeptics would launch a bot or vote multiple times. I just think there's a lot more skeptics than there are believers. Anyway, can't talk now, I'm waiting for an important phone call from a nice, church-going man in Nigeria who says he has some money for me.
 
Richard said:
You can hear an interview with me about the show here:

http://www.ghostradiox.com/theone_insiderscoop.asp

I do give clues about some of the behind-the-scenes goings on.
Click to expand...

I listened to this and you were gifted at handling Lia Ramses who was a woo and was probing for you to be impolite or to misspeak in any way. You were brilliant. You realized that you were on a woo show and you held your ground yet were respectful. The woman interviewing you could only say she believed in people who stated on a website they had double blind (and triple blinded, whatever that means) studies who proved woo and you just said lots of people say that but each needs to be researched.

I listened to part of the Stacy Demarco interview and she made statements (as well as the host making statements) that seemed to ask to be tested. They casually speak about the paranormal as being a natural part of life, something that they developed and can now teach others. They speak of it as something that they, and others, can do in everyday life. Stacy states she can teach paranormal ability to others through books, in person or through the web. She steals money from others by offering unsound advice. Could you challenge Stacy Demarco to perform anything under a controlled condition.

During Stacy's interview with Lia they mocked you and Randi and all skeptics. Randi doesn't know how to measure something? Accupuncture has been clinically proven to work? I listened to Stacy's interview and it was hostile to what the JREF stands for. It was hard for me to hear a fairly pretty woman who wrote a book called 'A Witch in the Bedroom" and have no interest in reading it because I have no respect for what she has to say because it offends me. Rhythm of coffee? A change in the air toward a connection to earth's energy?

Can you at least write an essay that is a rebuttal to what she believes in? She is a woo who makes money on selling wooish things. Aren't we against stating unsound information as fact?
 
Despite the station being pro-woo, I think the interview was very fair. Sure Ramses made some pretty dumb statements and laughed off Richard's simple logic, but all-in-all, she gave Richard a good hearing and I think a few listeners would pause to reconsider their own "doubts" about what a skeptic is.

I've discussed the interview, put Randi in a toon and raised a question about Stargate here.
 
Last edited:
more excuses from the sceptics book of poo poo

I wasn't aware (until Stacey Demarco just informed me on the ghost radio interview), that the Australian Medical Association had endorsed acupuncture as an effective therapy. Apparently, according to Demarco it works, they just don't know how AND this is also true for homeopathy. Oh Stacey! And you call yourself a "scientific witch"! The only evidence for acupuncture having any effect is in some types of pain, but the effect is no greater than placebo. Don't even get me started on homeopathy, please.

But then again, I guess I am drawing my information from the elusive "sceptics book of poo poo" that Stacey keeps referring to. Anyone up for helping me write one? Excuse no. 1 from the book. You are too stupid to interpret scientific data, so please keep your witchy gob shut.
 
Richard,

Congratulations on that interview.

I think it should be listened to by all sceptics who work in the media as a model of how to conduct themselves. Especially in an interview on the paranormal by an interviewer who is a believer.
You handled yourself perfectly throughout the entire 26 minutes.
Not a cross or angry word, just calm reasonable and rational explanations about all the topics raised and a calm acknowledgement that we don't and can't know everything and should remain open minded unless the evidence says otherwise.
I don't think I've ever seen any sceptic handle themselves any way near as well as you did in that interview. It seems to me that's certainly the way to go if you are going to have any influence in reducing the natural gullibility of believers - and not only believers for that matter!
I have read Athon's post on page 6 and I cannot agree more with what he has to say about your approach.

Congratulations again.

BillyJoe
 
friendofandymilman said:
I wasn't aware that the Australian Medical Association had endorsed acupuncture as an effective therapy.
Click to expand...


This doesn't sound like a ringing endorsement of complementary medicine:
http://www.ama.com.au/web.nsf/doc/WEEN-6L74GC

Or in more detail:
http://www.ama.com.au/web.nsf/doc/WEEN-6L74NK/$file/healths_gd_ps_compl_medicine.doc

The text is liberally laced with the reassuring phrase "evidence based"
For example:
The AMA considers it essential that scientific research is carried out in such a way as to permit complementary medicines and therapies to be assessed on an evidence basis.
Click to expand...


Unfortunately nothing specific about acupuncture.
However, here is a disturbing quote:

Acupuncture appears the most popular, with at least 15% of Australian GPs practising this treatment.
Such a consultation attracts a Medicare rebate.
Click to expand...
 
The AMA statement might not say anything specific about acupuncture but it does point to the Cochrane Collaboration and they do have a number of reviews of the treatment for a variety of conditions and, in general, the results are un-amazing.

Lots of "no evidence of efficacy - more trials needed" but I haven't seen anything that says "it works but we don't know why."

The only way we'll get Medicare to spend our money more wisely is to get a prime minister who bases decisions on evidence...

Richard Saunders for PM! :)
 
AndyD,

The quote "it works but we don't know why" came from the gob of Stacey. I was being facetious when I said "I wasn't aware..." Actually I was very cranky to hear this nonsense. It simply is not true, and to follow up with the homeopathy thing, well you can imagine my ire.

Thank you for doing a search on this. I have read much literature re: the efficacy of acupuncture, including the new Simon Singh as well as many other scientific papers and I know the very small effects are nothing more than placebo at best. I also had a discussion recently with a woman responsible for the $4m USyd and UWS (Sydney Universities) are getting from China to set up a CAM research facility in New South Wales. This is a double edged sword in my opinion, since if the funding is coming from CAM sympathisers, it does muddy the water. Or, well let's see.

It does my head in that such a huge amount of money is being spent on something for which there has been no evidence to date, despite extensive research. But China have $250m which they want to distribute amongst research facilities worldwide to try to get some credibility placed on this woo.

As for Medicare, well consider they also pay for chiro.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom