John Edward - psychic or what?

[Robin1]

Here's what I think makes all the difference. And I'm going to string a lot of words together now : ) I believe I have all the knowledge required to spot a fake medium, and experience, and intelligence, and critical thinking skills, common sense etc. I approach all experiences with a very healthy dose of skepticism. I go out of my way to look for other explanations. I really do not think that I am being tricked because of my bias only because I've gone to so many mediums and psychics and was able to conclude they were all fakes except John Edward. Yes memory can play a role but I factor that in (and I think the memory explanation is also used as a fail-safe sometimes ...for instance i do think Batvette can remember & retell the most important points of that story accurately forever barring old age, sickness...) Again, I am able to recognize that I have a personal stake and so could be biased and the proof that I am able to successfully apply that recognition is that I was able to discount all the other psychics and mediums I've been to. I account for all possible other explanations first including cold reading, hot reading, spies, bugs,lucky guesses, mind reading( yes even that) background research on the Internet a friend giving him information, etc. etc. I consider all of it and weigh their likelihood because yes I have researched all of it and am aware of it. And I am skeptical. I leave open all those possibilities including coincidence before I make my judgement whether it be regarding mediums or my own personal psychic experiences. And I am willing to reexamine conclusions later on. I accept coincidence as a possibility and consider the details and likelihood etc. So in essence I accept and consider all possibilities and yes supernatural is a possibility to me. But I think most here will never accept the possibility of the supernatural. Even if you say you are open to the possibility you truly can't be, if anything, even the hugest of meaningful, unusual coincidences, and how often they happen, can always always be...just a coincidence.Or memory fail. Or someone is lying... Consider it all but weigh the likelihood in that instance. In short, I consider all of it. But I don't think you truly do. And that makes all the difference.

 

[meg]

Meg, just because you use a lot of words and string them all together does not make you correct. I'm stealing that one from Garrette cause I liked it. But really, what you wrote proves to me that you are not really hearing at all most of what I say. For instance, I said I did a lot of research. And I did. But you say you still believe I haven't done any research at all. And I know anyone just winning a free pina colada, or big mac, or getting a mistaken card in the mail is no big deal. What makes it unique are all the circumstances surrounding it ( and combining with that then the chances of it happening) which I described in great detail to support my claim. But you are choosing not to pay attention to those details. I really think it is you who are not using your critical thinking skills.

Could you please spell out what that research was that you did?

And what makes you think that a dream 1 week prior to a free big mac, or 2+ months prior to a free pina colada somehow makes them more than coincidence?

 

[Robin1]

Could you please spell out what that research was that you did?

And what makes you think that a dream 1 week prior to a free big mac, or 2+ months prior to a free pina colada somehow makes them more than coincidence?

Meg, your description is exactly NOT how it happened, Really , are you kidding?! That is so NOT what happened and so NOT what I described. And exactly proves my point about you.

 

[Stray Cat]

Here's what I think makes all the difference. And I'm going to string a lot of words together now : ) I believe I have all the knowledge required to spot a fake medium,

Even this statement is faulty logic. By your wording, you are implying that it can be demonstrated that some mediums are genuine.

This to date has not been shown ever, by any medium or research into mediums.

The surest way to tell if a medium is fake is that if they are calling themselves a medium, they are fake.

That JE managed to hoodwink you into believing his BS has no bearing on your amount of knowledge, common sense or critical thinking skills.... it's what he does for a job, he ought to be good at it... The reason mediums abound and thrive is that they are better at doing it, than their audiences are at spotting how it's done.

 

[dafydd]

Here's what I think makes all the difference. And I'm going to string a lot of words together now : ) I believe I have all the knowledge required to spot a fake medium, and experience, and intelligence, and critical thinking skills, common sense etc. I approach all experiences with a very healthy dose of skepticism. I go out of my way to look for other explanations. I really do not think that I am being tricked because of my bias only because I've gone to so many mediums and psychics and was able to conclude they were all fakes except John Edward. Yes memory can play a role but I factor that in (and I think the memory explanation is also used as a fail-safe sometimes ...for instance i do think Batvette can remember & retell the most important points of that story accurately forever barring old age, sickness...) Again, I am able to recognize that I have a personal stake and so could be biased and the proof that I am able to successfully apply that recognition is that I was able to discount all the other psychics and mediums I've been to. I account for all possible other explanations first including cold reading, hot reading, spies, bugs,lucky guesses, mind reading( yes even that) background research on the Internet a friend giving him information, etc. etc. I consider all of it and weigh their likelihood because yes I have researched all of it and am aware of it. And I am skeptical. I leave open all those possibilities including coincidence before I make my judgement whether it be regarding mediums or my own personal psychic experiences. And I am willing to reexamine conclusions later on. I accept coincidence as a possibility and consider the details and likelihood etc. So in essence I accept and consider all possibilities and yes supernatural is a possibility to me. But I think most here will never accept the possibility of the supernatural. Even if you say you are open to the possibility you truly can't be, if anything, even the hugest of meaningful, unusual coincidences, and how often they happen, can always always be...just a coincidence.Or memory fail. Or someone is lying... Consider it all but weigh the likelihood in that instance. In short, I consider all of it. But I don't think you truly do. And that makes all the difference.

If somebody from beyond the grave told me next week's winning lottery numbers then I would be impressed. Campfire stories, not so much. All mediums are fakes, by the way. Or more accurately, no medium has ever proved that they are in touch with the dead.

 

[carlitos]

And I'm going to string a lot of words together now : )

Robin,

Folks who advocate non-traditional beliefs on the JREF are notorious for posting stream-of-consciousness thoughts like this. It's almost a cliché.

Do yourself a favor - if you wish to be persuasive, or even just to be clear, write these thoughts down and just leave them there for a while. Review them. Add some formatting. There is no rush. The forum will still be here. Think quality over quantity.

ETA - An Ellipsis doesn't mean "typing some dots while I gather my next thought." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ellipsis#In_writing

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

I approach all experiences with a very healthy dose of skepticism. I go out of my way to look for other explanations.

And yet, still, you refuse to believe that Remie's pizza story is just a coincidence. Furthermore, you refuse to explain what it is about this story that makes you think that.

 

[meg]

Meg, your description is exactly NOT how it happened, Really , are you kidding?! That is so NOT what happened and so NOT what I described. And exactly proves my point about you.

Here is exactly what you wrote:

Batvette, you took a chance and should be treated with respect by others even if they disagree. That being said, I am going to follow your brave lead...and I know that means goin' down with the ship! But here goes nothin ( and I know that will be repeated in the responses). I had a dream which showed me some unimportant but unique event in a friend's life which turned out to be true. My friend couldn't believe I knew it (even though it was insignificant). I asked my dad how it is possible I knew that information and in another dream he told me that spirits can "impress" ideas upon people( but free will remains). So about a week later I am in a McDonalds's drive thru alone about to order dinner for me , my kids, and 2 friends who are visiting. As I am waiting in line I am having a conversation within myself about how I would love to have a big mac. Weight always being a problem with me I am having an internal debate as to whether I should just order the big mac and enjoy it and start my diet tomorrow. I decide to forget it and just order a cheeseburger for myself cause that diet should really be started ASAP ! I order food for 6 people...no big mac in the list. I get home open up the bag and everything I ordered is exactly what I ordered and the receipt matches it ( I saved the receipt) BUT there is one extra in the bag that I never ordered and was never charged for...a Big Mac.
And here's another one:
A few months later I am on a cruise with family...I had lost a lot of weight in anticipation of the cruise and was going to try not to gain it all back on the cruise. And so when I had a drink I tried to minimize the calories and would only drink vodka and seltzer with a splash of cranberry. On about the 5th day of the cruise we were in a big room waiting for a bingo game to start . I went up to the bar and for the first time on the cruise thought to myself I really want a pina coloda! But that is way too many calories. The bartender was helping someone else and I had another internal tug of war.. just get the pina coloda..then i thought no you worked so hard to lose weight get a drink with lesser calories. The bartender arrived and I ordered my usual vodka and seltzer with a splash of cranberry juice. After that, bingo is about to start but they make an announcement that they are going to use all the names (over 150) that purchased bingo cards and have a drawing to give away..of all things... a pina coloda...so who do you think won that pina coloda! At what point do coincidences become more than coincidences...and I know for some the answer is never. I have so many other "anecdotes" some too special to share ( and yes True That there was a Sixth Sense moment at that John Edward event..too personal and meaningful to share and have people attempt to discredit it) I do truly believe the only thing that matters in the end is being as kind as you can be. Whether you believe in God or not.

So how is, "you had a dream, then a week later got a free big mac, and two months later got a free pina colada" somehow NOT what happened?

ETA, though I see I should have said "a few months" instead of "two months"

 

[Garrette]

Here's what I think makes all the difference. And I'm going to string a lot of words together now : ) I believe I have all the knowledge required to spot a fake medium, and experience, and intelligence, and critical thinking skills, common sense etc. I approach all experiences with a very healthy dose of skepticism. I go out of my way to look for other explanations. I really do not think that I am being tricked because of my bias only because I've gone to so many mediums and psychics and was able to conclude they were all fakes except John Edward. Yes memory can play a role but I factor that in (and I think the memory explanation is also used as a fail-safe sometimes ...for instance i do think Batvette can remember & retell the most important points of that story accurately forever barring old age, sickness...) Again, I am able to recognize that I have a personal stake and so could be biased and the proof that I am able to successfully apply that recognition is that I was able to discount all the other psychics and mediums I've been to. I account for all possible other explanations first including cold reading, hot reading, spies, bugs,lucky guesses, mind reading( yes even that) background research on the Internet a friend giving him information, etc. etc. I consider all of it and weigh their likelihood because yes I have researched all of it and am aware of it. And I am skeptical. I leave open all those possibilities including coincidence before I make my judgement whether it be regarding mediums or my own personal psychic experiences. And I am willing to reexamine conclusions later on. I accept coincidence as a possibility and consider the details and likelihood etc. So in essence I accept and consider all possibilities and yes supernatural is a possibility to me. But I think most here will never accept the possibility of the supernatural. Even if you say you are open to the possibility you truly can't be, if anything, even the hugest of meaningful, unusual coincidences, and how often they happen, can always always be...just a coincidence.Or memory fail. Or someone is lying... Consider it all but weigh the likelihood in that instance. In short, I consider all of it. But I don't think you truly do. And that makes all the difference.

And there we are again, the same place we so often arrive at when discussing the paranormal with "skeptical" believers.

Your entire argument, and I mean this literally, rests on the astoundingly arrogant assumption that you cannot be fooled.

That's it. The rest is folderol to distract attention from this point.

You, Robin Stettnisch, believe that you cannot be fooled. Others can, of course, even skeptics, but not you.

Forgive me if I find this argument to be completely without merit.

 

[meg]

Meg,

I understand your point, but the above is demonstrably not true.

I have about 4,500 hours as a flight instructor instructing other pilots, including instruction towards the instrument rating.

Without some outside reference - either the real horizon or instruments indicating it or the plane's rate-of-turn, no pilot can "can actually discern what the attitude of the plane is, and can, in an emergency "fly by the seat of their pants"."

Pilots who appear to do so are using some clues, but they're not coming fom their butt area - more common is picking up peripheral cues, such as the angle of whatever light there is, to keep the plane from turning. Without those cues, the human body has no "sensors" to differentiate 1g straight-and-level from a banked, descending turn with 1g. The fluid in the semicircular canals in the inner ear settle down once a turn is started, so it feels exactly as if the plane is still straight-and-level. The end result is often a "graveyard spiral".

Not really relevant to your analogy, which holds. Just don't want any student or prospective pilot laboring under the misconception you put forth - the consequences can be fatal.

Thank you, Fast Eddie, for your correction. I cede to your greater knowledge of piloting. I was basing my knowledge of that term entirely on stories remembered from 20 some years ago, when I was in ATC training, and some of our instructors would regale us with stories about being pilots in WWII.

It does not surprise me in the least to learn that either I have not remembered the story accurately, or that an old instructor might have embellished a bit to make his tale a bit more exciting, or to make himself appear more skilled. Perhaps he just threw that "by the seat of the pants" bit in to make it look like he was actually teaching us something about aviation, rather than just telling old war stories

.

 

[Stray Cat]

Here is exactly what you wrote:



So how is, "you had a dream, then a week later got a free big mac, and two months later got a free pina colada" somehow NOT what happened?

I guess that's the difference between someone actually reading what was written down and someone else relying on memory of what they wrote down.

 

[Resume]

Meg, your description is exactly NOT how it happened, Really , are you kidding?! That is so NOT what happened and so NOT what I described. And exactly proves my point about you.

Given the fact that's exactly what you described, what is your point?

 

[P.J. Denyer]

The message was obviously for me not you as I was discussing 'Once upon a time in America' with my wife the other day as it is a major omission from my viewing history as I'm a big FFOD trilogy fan and I also spotted it by chance on Netflix AND have been meaning to watch 'Once Upon a Time' (infact I recorded the first season then deleted it purely because it was on Netflix, how much more obvious need it be that the subtle forces of the universe are talking to me through you?) AND I am (genuinely) awaiting delivery of a copy of Dire Straits first album which should arrive today, the last of their albums that I hadn't got around to replacing vinyl with CD. I'm hoping the message is that it will be waiting for me when I get home....


Actually, I call shenanigans.. No-one could mistake those two tracks for one another....

And sure enough the CD was waiting for me when I got home! I am in fact listening to it as I type this.

Since I made the correct prediction I am clearly the king of psychics and everone should mail me cheques immediately upon encountering any kind of coincidence!

 

[Garrette]

And sure enough the CD was waiting for me when I got home! I am in fact listening to it as I type this.

Since I made the correct prediction I am clearly the king of psychics and everone should mail me cheques immediately upon encountering any kind of coincidence!

I mailed my check* yesterday in anticipation of just such a development.

*This is, of course, the only correct spelling because if it weren't for us Yanks YOU'D BE SPEAKING GERMAN plus we beat everybody in the world twice except for the times we didn't but those don't count.

 

[meg]

Here's what I think makes all the difference. And I'm going to string a lot of words together now : ) I believe I have all the knowledge required to spot a fake medium, and experience, and intelligence, and critical thinking skills, common sense etc. I approach all experiences with a very healthy dose of skepticism. I go out of my way to look for other explanations. I really do not think that I am being tricked because of my bias only because I've gone to so many mediums and psychics and was able to conclude they were all fakes except John Edward. Yes memory can play a role but I factor that in (and I think the memory explanation is also used as a fail-safe sometimes ...for instance i do think Batvette can remember & retell the most important points of that story accurately forever barring old age, sickness...) Again, I am able to recognize that I have a personal stake and so could be biased and the proof that I am able to successfully apply that recognition is that I was able to discount all the other psychics and mediums I've been to. I account for all possible other explanations first including cold reading, hot reading, spies, bugs,lucky guesses, mind reading( yes even that) background research on the Internet a friend giving him information, etc. etc. I consider all of it and weigh their likelihood because yes I have researched all of it and am aware of it. And I am skeptical. I leave open all those possibilities including coincidence before I make my judgement whether it be regarding mediums or my own personal psychic experiences. And I am willing to reexamine conclusions later on. I accept coincidence as a possibility and consider the details and likelihood etc. So in essence I accept and consider all possibilities and yes supernatural is a possibility to me. But I think most here will never accept the possibility of the supernatural. Even if you say you are open to the possibility you truly can't be, if anything, even the hugest of meaningful, unusual coincidences, and how often they happen, can always always be...just a coincidence.Or memory fail. Or someone is lying... Consider it all but weigh the likelihood in that instance. In short, I consider all of it. But I don't think you truly do. And that makes all the difference.

It's not that no one here accepts the possibility of the supernatural. It is that, when faced with attempting to explain an event that has a number of possible mundane explanations one has to use Occam's Razor. You remember Occam's Razor, right? That the simplest explanation is often the best?

Your examples have a number of mundane ho-hum SIMPLE possible explanations, and I listed some in that previous post. Lying, computer error, food service worker error, etc.

Why should any critically thinking person reject these simple and mundane possible answers, all of which are real possibilities, all of which multiple examples exist, all of which happen all the time, all of which are proven, in order to prefer a possible explanation which is not proven, which as far as is known does not exist, and which never has been shown to exist?


And here is another quite simple explanation that I hope you will seriously consider.

You are not educated nor skilled in magic tricks and, even though you think you have such skills, you are really unable to tell when you have been tricked, nor can you explain how you have been tricked. There are however, a great many skilled magicians who are able to do so. Having performed these tricks themselves, many times, and having great experience in mentalism, they recognize exactly what these "mediums" do, and can explain how "mediums" do their tricks. And many of them have have written books, produced tv shows, done demonstrations, and basically exposed these mediums for what they are. Charlatans.

Some of these magicians, just off the top of my head, are Penn & Teller, James Randi, Julian Proskauer, Harry Houdini, Joseph Dunninger, and Mark Edward. I know there are many, many more.

So here's the Occam's Razor question.

Who should I believe is better able to detect mentalist trickery? You, who has no skill or education in these matters? Or these highly skilled and successful magicians?

 

[IXP]

Could you please spell out what that research was that you did?

And what makes you think that a dream 1 week prior to a free big mac, or 2+ months prior to a free pina colada somehow makes them more than coincidence?

Wow, this free diet-busting food must be a global pheonmenon! Yesterday day I went to Taco Bell and ordered 3 tacos (not taco supremes, which include sour cream and hence more calories), and when I opened the bag, imagine this, there were 3 taco supremes and I had only been charged for 3 tacos!

Not kidding, this really happened. Now was it a coincidence that the next day I read about two similar incidents, or is there an evil, fat loving spirit at work?

IXP

 

[ExMinister]

So here's the Occam's Razor question.

Who should I believe is better able to detect mentalist trickery? You, who has no skill or education in these matters? Or these highly skilled and successful magicians?

This is such a critical point. I hope Robin will seriously reflect on it.

 

[Garrette]

--Snip--
You are not educated nor skilled in magic tricks and, even though you think you have such skills, you are really unable to tell when you have been tricked, nor can you explain how you have been tricked. There are however, a great many skilled magicians who are able to do so. Having performed these tricks themselves, many times, and having great experience in mentalism, they recognize exactly what these "mediums" do, and can explain how "mediums" do their tricks. And many of them have have written books, produced tv shows, done demonstrations, and basically exposed these mediums for what they are. Charlatans.

Some of these magicians, just off the top of my head, are Penn & Teller, James Randi, Julian Proskauer, Harry Houdini, Joseph Dunninger, and Mark Edward. I know there are many, many more.

So here's the Occam's Razor question.

Who should I believe is better able to detect mentalist trickery? You, who has no skill or education in these matters? Or these highly skilled and successful magicians?

Sniff...

I seem always to be the ignored stepchild..... Double Sniff and Quiet Sobs

I have made the same point, albeit from a different tack, multiple times. Robin has chosen to ignore my status as a non-performing expert, probably because I dare to admit that I can still be fooled.

And that's the key point about your list of performing experts. It is important to know that they can fool even the most skilled observer; it is more important to know that they can still be fooled themselves. Penn & Teller even had (have?) a show called something like Fool Penn & Teller. Lo and behold, they had more than one performer who fooled them. As I recall, at least one of them was really not well known.

Randi can be fooled, P&T can be fooled, the magical effect industry is awash in sales of tricks that are "Magician foolers" (and some of them actually are; some, in fact, fool magicians more than they do lay people).

Yet Robin cannot be fooled. Why? She is a librarian and has read some things.

 

[BowlOfRed]

I have heard the same story Meg relayed, but I heard it specifically in reference to early flyers, particularly the barnstormers. Single prop planes, perhaps a biplane, who literally did feel the performance of the plane through the flimsy seat and framework. I've never verified this and so could be wrong, but it rings true, though I recognize there is no way it can apply to modern aircraft.

No, it doesn't matter. You can feel accelerations and you can sense airspeed (either through instruments or the noise of the wind and the prop). You can still do that in a "modern" plane as well.

Those senses are insufficient to help you turn right-side-up if you have absolutely no horizon reference and start rolling.

What could be true is that a very experienced pilot may be able to integrate more subtle horizon clues that are not obvious and that he or she may not even recognize are present consciously. This ability could be interpreted as "seat of the pants" flying even though it was relying on some external information.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Penn & Teller even had (have?) a show called something like Fool Penn & Teller. Lo and behold, they had more than one performer who fooled them. As I recall, at least one of them was really not well known.

Penn & Teller: Fool Us. And yes, unfortunately, it is no more. It was a brilliant series.

One of the best things about it was how giving everybody was. Not only did Penn & Teller love being fooled (with one notable exception, the details of which are boring and I won't go in to here), but there are plenty of examples of where they would, for example, draw a diagram of how they thought a trick was done and the magician would say something along the lines of "not really, but close enough". In other words, they could probably have argued the point and tried to "win", but they were honest enough to recognise that Penn & Teller may not have got their technique quite right but were close enough to the methodology that they knew what they were getting at.

For an example of them loving getting fooled, watch their reaction at being told he's wrong at the end of this clip:



That's genuine admiration and respect, right there. They're genuinely glad to have been fooled. And quite right, too, as it's a great trick.

More OT, but there are loads of clips of the show on YouTube, and it's really worth checking out.