Sylvia Browne: Linda Rossi interview

I think the standard applies to woo because the claim is so intangible. In art, in science, even in law you are dealing with tangibles: paintings, reproducible experiements, documents and eye witnesses. With those who give psychics a pass, you're dealing with people who accept the premise of psychic claims before dealing with the reality of the claim itself. I.e. they're predispositioned, imo, to believe and thus they are able to compartmentailze or forgive lies because of that predisposition...sort of: "sure, she fibbed all of those other times, but how did she know my Uncle Jack was a scorpio?" -- or whatever. And, SB plays into it...saying such dribble as she is only correct 86% of the time...thus giving her fudge room for whatever she gets wrong but laying a foundation for the claim that she gets most things right...and it is "most things" that really are never kept track of. Most of the statements she has made at her apperances are never recorded or followed-up on, so she can easilly claim she is right.
 
I can see where some people might be delusional enough to believe that they possess psychic powers and be sincere enough in that belief that they could convince others they have such abilities. With Browne or Edwards though I don't see it. Their acts are too polished to be anything other than deliberate deception (as opposed to simple delusion). It would be like saying Siegfried and Roy actually believe they can make large feline predators appear out of thin air. So no, I don't give people like Browne the benefit of the doubt on this one.
 
Hope I wasn't giving Browne the benefit of the doubt...just trying to understand how followers continue to believe in the face of mounting (and long existing) evidence that she is not even a sincere fake, just an outright fraud and con artist.
 
Hope I wasn't giving Browne the benefit of the doubt
Click to expand...

I didn't think you were either. I was just commenting on the general idea of harmless kooks versus deliberate frauds.
 
What is inexplicable is why the people who believe in her give her so much of the benefit of the doubt.
Click to expand...

They give her the benefit because they want to believe. That is the secret of every con. The person being conned wants to believe the con is true, and in some cases needs the con to be true. Even when the evidence starts to pile up, the person being conned is too wedded to his/her world view to accept it. Accepting the evidence of Browne's fraud means that belief in such people and powers might just be misplaced. That is beyond the ability of the true believer.
 
They give her the benefit because they want to believe. That is the secret of every con. The person being conned wants to believe the con is true, and in some cases needs the con to be true. Even when the evidence starts to pile up, the person being conned is too wedded to his/her world view to accept it. Accepting the evidence of Browne's fraud means that belief in such people and powers might just be misplaced. That is beyond the ability of the true believer.
Click to expand...

You are exactly right. Admitting you were wrong after you have invested money/time/friendships in something like this would take a lot of guts. Apparently more than most people have. But they do see the light of reason (at least some do, in time, when they are ready).

See the book "Mistakes were Made: But not by me" the author will be at TAM8
 
RSLancastr said:
As in "sure, my husband has beaten me and cheated on me before, but he has changed!"
Click to expand...

Or, in Browne's case, as in, "Sure, we know she faked the trances and pretended to be Francine, but that doesn't mean she faked ALL the trances!

And just because we know a lot of times Sylvia was just PRETENDING to be Francine doesn't mean Francine MIGHT not still be real!

And even though we've heard her lie about how many churches she has and supporting the ministers and other stuff, that doesn't mean she ALWAYS tells lies!

What else? Oh, and just because for years she made a big deal out of the fact that California was going to drop off in 1998 or 2004 and it didn't doesn't mean she really isn't psychic!

And just because she actually WAS WRONG in all 112-some missing persons/murder cases that COULD be researched, and right in ZERO of them, well that doesn't mean she might not have gotten SOME case right that we just don't know about...

And just because she says she doesn't charge people to help in missing persons cases but then it turns out she charges them the going rate of $850 an hour doesn't mean she's insincere!

And anyway, even if she isn't honest or psychic or sincere and she made up the whole thing about Francine, her totally imaginary, made-up philosophy still helps people!"

Oh never mind. The husband beating thing is much more rational.
 
Last edited:
ExMinister said:
And anyway, even if she isn't honest or psychic or sincere and she made up the whole thing about Francine, her totally imaginary, made-up philosophy still helps people!"

Oh never mind. The husband beating thing is much more rational.
Click to expand...

I actually agree that the husband beating is actually more rational.

A few days ago I was watching some old stuff that people uploaded to youtube and gotten to Randi VS Peter Poppof.

I couldn't believe some of the comments people had written there.
Someone wrote: [not an exact quote]
"Okay, he's a fraud but at least he brought faith to people".

Do people really think it's better off believing the "right" thing for the wrong reasons?
 
Chris L said:
OK, exactly how did this "lady" get a following in the first place? I've seen her "act" on TV and it doesn't look like anything special, so could someone tell me how the hag did it?
Click to expand...

Part of it is because her act is terrible, believe it or not. For example, Uri Geller is a 1-trick pony (literally)...part of the reason people believe he can actually bend spoons with his mind, rather than doing magic tricks (and I have literally heard this) "If he was a magician he would have a better repertoire". "If she was actually cold reading, and not psychic, she would be better at it".

EeneyMinnieMoe said:
Isn't it so strange how people will think that way?

Some Christians say things like "I don't believe in silly stories like Jonah and the whale or Adam and Eve or the Red Sea- but I believe in Jesus. I have faith in the central story."

Two other examples I can think of:

In his Stop Kaz days, Robert met a minister who said he did not believe "the celebrity part" of Kaz's story but believed all the rest.

When I met someone who believed in John of God's claims, I explained how he is able to fake running a knife over someone's eyes, pretend to remove tumors and the forceps-in-the-nose trick. In great detail, with video clips and diagrams.

The individual shrugged and said "That's how he does it? I'll believe that. Well, allright, I believe he is doing a trick there. Still, I think he has psychic abilities and really does help those people".

:covereyes :confused:
Click to expand...

Again on Geller...the times Geller has been exposed as a fake, I've heard believers claim "Yes, I admit he faked it that time, but I think he did it for real on time x".
 
EvilSmurf said:
Uri Geller is a 1-trick pony (literally)...
Click to expand...
That's not true.

Geller performed several tricks: moving a compass, bending spoons, drawing images that another man drew, guessing what's inside envelopes etc.

Bending spoons was his most infamous tricks, but he has perfromed many others.
 
GrandMasterFox said:
I actually agree that the husband beating is actually more rational.

A few days ago I was watching some old stuff that people uploaded to youtube and gotten to Randi VS Peter Poppof.

I couldn't believe some of the comments people had written there.
Someone wrote: [not an exact quote]
"Okay, he's a fraud but at least he brought faith to people".

Do people really think it's better off believing the "right" thing for the wrong reasons?
Click to expand...

I know what you mean!

At least in Popoff's case, they're talking about the Christian faith, which obviously has history way beyond Popoff himself.

In Sylvia's case there isn't even that. It's ALL stuff she either made up or she didn't. If she faked the trances, then she made it all up. Most of her religion and philosophy came out in trance classes, when she was pretending to be Francine.

So, if you believe Sylvia then you are going to worship a Father God named Om and a Mother God named Azna, who has red hair and a temper and sounds suspiciously like Sylvia Browne herself, who is naturally a red-head.

She made it all up, and you are praying to figments of her imagination.

Or you are going to walk around spouting Sylvia's beliefs about the historical Jesus not dying on the cross, about the world being populated by Andromedans, and maybe thinking you are a mission life entity, which only exists in Sylvia's mind. Maybe you're going to be praying to the angels she MADE UP out of whole cloth in the angel book? Maybe, sadly, you're going to believe Sylvia Browne when she tells you someone in your life is a dark entity and there's no hope for them - all make-believe.

Aagh.

How does that help anyone?

I don't get it either. Is it better to feel good because you believe in Sylvia Browne's deliberately made-up fantasy world? Or is better to find some belief to make you feel better that at least stands a chance of being true?

How can people honestly think that if she faked SOME trances she might not have faked all of them - and by some miracle the trances about the stuff they like were the real ones?

:confused:

I really need to do myself a favor and stop trying to make sense out of this.
 
How can people honestly think that if she faked SOME trances she might not have faked all of them - and by some miracle the trances about the stuff they like were the real ones?
Click to expand...

I think this is just what the religious call "faith". You have to believe just because you have to believe. Because to lose faith means that there is no hope. I'm not trying to be contrary here, seriously asking if this is faith?
 
sgf8 said:
I think this is just what the religious call "faith". You have to believe just because you have to believe. Because to lose faith means that there is no hope. I'm not trying to be contrary here, seriously asking if this is faith?
Click to expand...

Maybe so. It's OK, I don't see you as being contrary.

I looked up the definition of faith, out of curiosity:

faith / feɪθ / Show Spelled [ feyth ] Show IPA –noun 1. confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another's ability. 2. belief that is not based on proof
Click to expand...

So you are right. Belief that is not based on proof.

But can't faith still be lost? I mean, you might have faith in your husband or wife, trusting them to be loyal. Initially you take this on faith, believing without proof - but then when you discover evidence proving you wrong, you stop trusting them to be loyal - you lose faith in this aspect of their character, I guess you could say.

So, isn't it right to lose faith in someone like Browne when she proves herself and her philosophy untrustworthy?

I just don't see it as losing all hope. Good grief, there are thousands of religions and belief systems out there, you know? If one is intent on finding a place to put their faith, they could do so much better than this.

If your spouse cheats repeatedly and you have evidence of it and no evidence that they have changed, is it still called faith to believe they won't do it again? Or is that something else?
 
Okay, he's a fraud but at least he brought faith to people
Click to expand...

What the people saying that don't understand is that the "faith" Poppof gave some people included the faith to stop taking their medicine and stop seeing their doctor. That's a kind of faith that can kill.
 
Chris L said:
What the people saying that don't understand is that the "faith" Poppof gave some people included the faith to stop taking their medicine and stop seeing their doctor. That's a kind of faith that can kill.
Click to expand...

But you're forgetting - He may take you of your meds but he brings you faith in god. So god would save the person before he dies (prove that he wouldn't...)

Not to mention that even if a person died, he died with faith and thefore is eligible to get into heaven.

The mind of these naive fools is beyond human comprehention.
Well, at least beyond my comprehention.
 
GrandMasterFox said:
That's not true.

Geller performed several tricks: moving a compass, bending spoons, drawing images that another man drew, guessing what's inside envelopes etc.

Bending spoons was his most infamous tricks, but he has perfromed many others.
Click to expand...
e

Not "many," no.

As far as I know, he is, at most, a four or five trick pony

  1. Bending spoons/keys
  2. Restarting "stopped" watches.
  3. Moving compass needles
  4. Replicating "sealed" drawings
  5. Identifying full film cannisters

I guess "making spectacularly wrong predictions" could be added to the list, but it's not really part of his "stage show."

So, while not a "one-trick pony", he still has a pitifully small repertoire that he has milked for decades.
 
RSLancastr said:
e

Not "many," no.

As far as I know, he is, at most, a four or five trick pony
<snipped>
Click to expand...

Okay, those were the ones I could recall.
Somehow I thought there were more.

I guess you're right - "many" was probably not the right word to use.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom