JREF on ABC - does this end well?

[Foolmewunz]

Yeah, I love the subtle art of a great magic trick and felt a little cheated by the TV producers. I don't expect a whole lot from TV though.

I thought the highlight of the skeptical segment was when the incorrect biographies were dropped to the floor. Everyone in the room chuckled at that.

Van Praugh not my favorite guy, but he said something "on target" I've heard before that I don't like to go unanswered. The idea that somehow believers are more open or broadminded, that they "think out of the box" and therefore enjoy an advantage in creative thinking (I'm probably paraphrasing Van Praugh here).

This is just not so. I'd almost class it as a "big lie".

Yes, that's specifically, in terms of Madison Avenue, and flim flam men everywhere, the "pitch". Every scam artist from Richard Gage to Benny Hinn does that gambit. You, faithful reader(or listener or watcher) are special. You go beyond the mundane and can see further afield than many of your acquaintances, can't you? You're sensitive to things that others don't notice, am I right? You've noticed this yourself many times but may have been reluctant to talk about it openly. blah blah blah

After that sort of set-up, convincing them that they are actually not just the everyman or everywoman they appear to be, but a member of the special elite, they then throw out the hook with a tiny tidbit on it like your mom liking roses or that dad was "sometimes difficult*", and the sucker bites and is just reeled in. "Yes, that's right! That's me!"

*I saw one of them do that on some show. The guy in the audience gasped! Jeez Louise! What dad isn't sometimes difficult? And he didn't even finish the sentence before the mark gasped. Difficult... to find? to understand? to get along with? No, just "difficult"... "Gasp!"

 

[JSFolk]

Outside of the US, so I can't watch the actual episode. I understand that in the normal MDC, the subject agrees that the test is a fair test of their ability prior to taking it. Well, we've already got one "psychic" complaining that the test wasn't fair. Anyone know more about the prep work prior to the tests?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jVnYu4qFK7U

 

[steve s]

Even on their nightly news show, ABC has been hyping woo lately.

I just saw an ad on ABC for a show called The Sixth Sense.

When nothing adds up and a gut feeling’s all you have, forget about your five senses... what you really need is the sixth sense. “20/20: The Sixth Sense,” which features stories of extraordinary instinct that uncovers the truth

http://blogs.abcnews.com/pressroom/2011/08/2020-the-sixth-sense.html


Sounds like a bunch of confirmation bias and cherry picking.

Steve S

 

[Brown]

Sounds like a bunch of confirmation bias and cherry picking.

The Sixth Sense was one of the ABC shows promoted during the Primetime show. You know, if you could get some actual, reliable knowledge just from "gut feelings" and other forms of lazy wild-ass guessing--as opposed to engaging in education, research, testing, scientific method, mathematics, forensic investigation, you know, HARD WORK--then that would be legitimate news. Good grief, why work for knowledge when you can basically get it with almost no effort at all??!

Of course, if I had the ability to pull actual, verifable facts out of the air without doing any of the actual work to get them, the first thing I'd do is win the Million Dollar Prize, which would cement my reputation, underscore my credibility and give me a wee bit of financial security. But that's just me. Many others seem to prefer to skip this step.

 

[fls]

I finally watched this (yay ABC app).

One thing popped out at me with the last segment (psychic moms (of note, my kids also think I'm psychic (or rather, they think I give the appearance of being psychic))). The producer said that the information the psychics gave him wasn't available through google. I thought that was odd...parents, children, marriage seemed like the sort of biographical information which would be available. So I googled David Wright Producer ABC and got this (first page):

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/t/story?id=127805

From that I googled David Wright Victoria and got this (first page):

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/30/fashion/weddings/30bran.html

These pages contain all the information the psychics supposedly came up with on their own and were easy to find.

Linda

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

The producer said that the information the psychics gave him wasn't available through google.

So what we have learned from this is that one shouldn't be so damn confident about what's available about one online. Or he lied.

~~ Paul

 

[Brown]

So what we have learned from this is that one shouldn't be so damn confident about what's available about one online. Or he lied.

It's the same story we've seen time and again: someone reporting a miracle also reports that all non-miraculous ways for the effect to be performed have been ruled out.

This sort of reporting raises immediately the matter of credibility of the reporter. The reporter may honestly feel that trickery or deception has been eliminated as a possibility, but what basis does the reporter have for such a report? Is the reporter trained in techniques of conjuring or misdirection? Did the reporter implement any controls? Did the reporter consult with a specialist who might be able to spot or prevent the use of non-miraculous techniques?

Also, there is the matter of miracle by proxy. The fact that the reporter was convinced of the existence of a miracle, and so reports, in no way obligates me to accept the report at face value. If I did not witness the purported miracle myself, I have no basis for determining whether it really was valid or not. As Thomas Paine wrote, discussing the use of miracles as proof of divine existence or purpose,

It is also the most equivocal sort of evidence that can be set up; for the belief is not to depend upon the thing called a miracle, but upon the credit of the reporter, who says that he saw it; and, therefore, the thing, were it true, would have no better chance of being believed than if it were a lie.