Alexis Didier French clairvoyant

[Craig B]

I quoted a former member of the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry who believed Didier had paranormal powers. I am not agreeing with what he wrote I wanted to see what users here think about Dingwall's conclusion. A user on this thread said no reliable sources discuss Didier. Would you agree Dingwall is a reliable source?

Have you read Dingwall's wiki biography?

ETA He had some unscientific predispositions which attracted cogent criticism. This is from the wiki biography of Mina Crandon^WP, a famous female medium.

Crandon performed many of her séances in the nude, and was reported to throw herself onto the laps of her male sitters. She was also described as an alcoholic.During séances, Eric Dingwall told Crandon to take off her clothes and sit in the nude. Crandon would also sometimes sprinkle luminous powder on her breasts and because of such activities William McDougall and other psychical researchers criticized Dingwall for having improper relations with Crandon.

Historian Ruth Brandon has noted that as Bird, Carrington and Dingwall were all personally involved with Crandon, they were biased and unreliable witnesses.​

 

[dropzone]

Oooh! She's the fun crowd! With ectoplasm! Gotta have ectoplasm; did Didier?

Not all of the photos are SFW, but here we have her late brother's ectoplasmic hand coming out of her vagina. Creepy, and not in a spooky way.

 

[Craig B]

Oooh! She's the fun crowd! With ectoplasm! Gotta have ectoplasm; did Didier?

Did Didier have ectoplasm? By the time the investigator was born, Didier was ectoplasm. He died in 1886, and Eric Dingwall^WP was born in 1890. Dingwall investigated many things.

Dingwall was nicknamed "Dirty Ding" due to his interests in erotica and sexual customs.​

 

[bluesjnr]

It is called Where Houdini Was Wong (1950) and the subtitle is A Reply to "The Unmasking of Robert-Houdin".

He disguised himself as a china-man?

 

[Hungry81]

I quoted a former member of the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry who believed Didier had paranormal powers. I am not agreeing with what he wrote I wanted to see what users here think about Dingwall's conclusion. A user on this thread said no reliable sources discuss Didier. Would you agree Dingwall is a reliable source?

'Ees not a wizard 'Ees a very naughty magician /monty python

 

[steenkh]

I quoted a former member of the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry who believed Didier had paranormal powers.

Yes, you did, and I wonder why.

I am not agreeing with what he wrote I wanted to see what users here think about Dingwall's conclusion. A user on this thread said no reliable sources discuss Didier. Would you agree Dingwall is a reliable source?

No, of course not; this is a skeptical forum. We need rather more than a hundred year old claim of an irreproducible event to conclude that our understanding of the laws of nature is all wrong.

But you knew that, and yet you keep asking us what we think, and you keep quoting people who claim that Didier had paranormal powers. Why?

 

[Crossbow]

Perhaps type into Google books his real name which brings up many books. Tip: His name is "Alexis Didier". Not "Alex Didier".

Would agree you do not get much information on an "Alex Didier" but then again that isn't his real name!

But sure great scientific research you are doing. You can't even get his name correct when researching the man



Already quoted from three books that mention him. But sure no data exists.

Well at least you are finally getting around to providing data that supports your position. While your data is not very convincing data, but at least you are providing it.

So good for you!

And by the way, ...

it is not my job to provide data to support various stupid, idiotic bits of fantasy that some people may have.

 

[BillSkeptic]

Yes, you did, and I wonder why.


No, of course not; this is a skeptical forum. We need rather more than a hundred year old claim of an irreproducible event to conclude that our understanding of the laws of nature is all wrong.

But you knew that, and yet you keep asking us what we think, and you keep quoting people who claim that Didier had paranormal powers. Why?

Actually I have only quoted one person who claimed Didier had paranormal powers. This was Eric Dingwall.

 

[BillSkeptic]

Have you read Dingwall's wiki biography?

ETA He had some unscientific predispositions which attracted cogent criticism. This is from the wiki biography of Mina Crandon^WP, a famous female medium.

Crandon performed many of her séances in the nude, and was reported to throw herself onto the laps of her male sitters. She was also described as an alcoholic.During séances, Eric Dingwall told Crandon to take off her clothes and sit in the nude. Crandon would also sometimes sprinkle luminous powder on her breasts and because of such activities William McDougall and other psychical researchers criticized Dingwall for having improper relations with Crandon.

Historian Ruth Brandon has noted that as Bird, Carrington and Dingwall were all personally involved with Crandon, they were biased and unreliable witnesses.​

Your argument seems to be that because Dingwall was sexually involved with Mina Crandon he was an unreliable source on Didier?

 

[Craig B]

Your argument seems to be that because Dingwall was sexually involved with Mina Crandon he was an unreliable source on Didier?

What is your argument? Dingwall was born four years after Didier died. He was less than reliable in the case of observation of Crandon. Why should I trust Dingwall's judgement to the extent of admitting that Didier had powers which I don't believe are physically available anywhere in the Universe.

You will recall that Didier attributed his powers to "magnetism". This principle was the subject of scientific study as early as the eighteenth century, when a French Royal Commission investigated alleged "cures" effected by Anton Mesmer. It was determined by that commission, as stated by Benjamin Franklin, that these effects are the result of human imagination, not magnetism or any supernatural force. That conclusion seems sound to me, and nothing in Dirty Ding's beliefs about Didier, who died before that investigator was even born, inclines me to change it.

Moreover if Didier had the powers attributed to him, of for example reading playing cards when they were face down, why did he not use these powers to become superlatively rich, as he could have done in any casino, of which many existed in his day, instead of eking out a modest living performing what amounts to conjuring tricks.

Are conjurers really defying the laws of nature by creating organisms (e.g. rabbits) inside their hats? If any of them are, why don't they become world famous by doing it under controlled conditions in a scientific institution? They are therefore merely creating an illusion, and I can be confident of that even if I don't know in every case how the illusion is achieved.

 

[steenkh]

Actually I have only quoted one person who claimed Didier had paranormal powers. This was Eric Dingwall.

Actually, you have also quoted Robert-Houdin. You keep hinting that Didier was a clairvoyant, right from your OP, and when people do not believe it, you claim they are anti-scientific and berate them for sticking to the laws of nature ("You didn't even bother looking up the subject of this thread, you just said you are "convinced that Mr. Didier is no more clairvoyant than anyone else in the world.")

You seem to have the agenda that we should accept clairvoyance as being real, on the basis of hundred-years-old testimonials, in part from people who never had a chance to meet Didier. And you try to conceal your agenda by claiming to be a skeptic, and pretending not to believe in clairvoyance yourself.

 

[BillSkeptic]

Actually, you have also quoted Robert-Houdin.

And where did Robert-Houdin ever say Didier had paranormal powers? He never did in those words, but I agree he seemed to be convinced it was not the result of conjuring.

You keep hinting that Didier was a clairvoyant.

Where? I have never said that. I am quoting historical matters.

You didn't even bother looking up the subject of this thread, you just said you are "convinced that Mr. Didier is no more clairvoyant than anyone else in the world.")

This was a valid point. You have to research someone before you can just shout 'fraud'. Are you disagreeing with this?

You seem to have the agenda that we should accept clairvoyance as being real, on the basis of hundred-years-old testimonials, in part from people who never had a chance to meet Didier. And you try to conceal your agenda by claiming to be a skeptic, and pretending not to believe in clairvoyance yourself.

I am not asking anyone to accept clairvoyance as real, that is not the purpose of this thread. Perhaps you should read my posts instead of seeing things you want to believe.

 

[BillSkeptic]

What is your argument? Dingwall was born four years after Didier died. He was less than reliable in the case of observation of Crandon. Why should I trust Dingwall's judgement to the extent of admitting that Didier had powers which I don't believe are physically available anywhere in the Universe.

You will recall that Didier attributed his powers to "magnetism". This principle was the subject of scientific study as early as the eighteenth century, when a French Royal Commission investigated alleged "cures" effected by Anton Mesmer. It was determined by that commission, as stated by Benjamin Franklin, that these effects are the result of human imagination, not magnetism or any supernatural force. That conclusion seems sound to me, and nothing in Dirty Ding's beliefs about Didier, who died before that investigator was even born, inclines me to change it.

Moreover if Didier had the powers attributed to him, of for example reading playing cards when they were face down, why did he not use these powers to become superlatively rich, as he could have done in any casino, of which many existed in his day, instead of eking out a modest living performing what amounts to conjuring tricks.

Are conjurers really defying the laws of nature by creating organisms (e.g. rabbits) inside their hats? If any of them are, why don't they become world famous by doing it under controlled conditions in a scientific institution? They are therefore merely creating an illusion, and I can be confident of that even if I don't know in every case how the illusion is achieved.

Relax I am not saying Didier had paranormal powers. The reason I mentioned Eric Dingwall was because he has been described as a notable practitioner of scientific skepticism.

At a meeting of the executive council of the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry (CSI) in Denver, Colorado in April 2011, Eric Dingwall was selected for inclusion in CSI's Pantheon of Skeptics. The Pantheon of Skeptics was created by CSI to remember the legacy of deceased fellows of CSI and their contributions to the cause of scientific skepticism.

http://www.csicop.org/specialarticles/show/in-memoriam_segment_from_csicon_2016

So you disagree with the skeptical inquirer article honouring Eric Dingwall as a practitioner of scientific skepticism? I am trying to figure out why a so called scientific skeptic would be on record for endorsing alleged paranormal powers of Didier.

 

[Craig B]

And where did Robert-Houdin ever say Didier had paranormal powers? He never did in those words, but I agree he seemed to be convinced it was not the result of conjuring.

What are you saying it was, then? Remember I have reprimanded you for talking out of both sides of your mouth. What is it you are claiming about Didier?

This was a valid point. You have to research someone before you can just shout 'fraud'. Are you disagreeing with this?

The burden of proof that a conjurer has some special powers beyond illusionism lies with the person who makes a claim to that effect. Are you making that claim? Remember I have reprimanded you for talking out of both sides of your mouth.

 

[BillSkeptic]

What are you saying it was, then? Remember I have reprimanded you for talking out of both sides of your mouth. What is it you are claiming about Didier? The burden of proof that a conjurer has some special powers beyond illusionism lies with the person who makes a claim to that effect. Are you making that claim? Remember I have reprimanded you for talking out of both sides of your mouth.

Here is what magician Robert-Houdin wrote:

I therefore returned, from this seance as astonished as one can be, and I am convinced that it is quite impossible that chance, or any superior skill, could produce such wonderful results.' (May 16.)

I am not making any absolute claims. It is entirely possible (and likely) that Didier cheated on these experiments, but I can't prove it and I do not know how he did it. If he cheated - I am genuinely interested in how he did it. Do you have any ideas how he cheated on the card experiments against an experienced magician?

 

[Craig B]

Here is what magician Robert-Houdin wrote:

I therefore returned, from this seance as astonished as one can be, and I am convinced that it is quite impossible that chance, or any superior skill, could produce such wonderful results.' (May 16.)

I am not making any absolute claims. It is entirely possible (and likely) that Didier cheated on these experiments, but I can't prove it and I do not know how he did it. If he cheated - I am genuinely interested in how he did it. Do you have any ideas how he cheated on the card experiments against an experienced magician?

He's most probably a cheat and you don't know how he did it, but you still accuse other people of having anti scientific attitudes when they cry "Fraud". That's not a sensible position to adopt. Do you know all the ways in which members of the Magic Circle pull rabbits out of their hats? No? So perhaps they can create rabbits inside hats by waving a wand and saying abracadabra. Who knows?

 

[BillSkeptic]

He's most probably a cheat and you don't know how he did it, but you still accuse other people of having anti scientific attitudes when they cry "Fraud". That's not a sensible position to adopt. Do you know all the ways in which members of the Magic Circle pull rabbits out of their hats? No? So perhaps they can create rabbits inside hats by waving a wand and saying abracadabra. Who knows?

It is not anti-scientific to call a fraud a fraud. It is anti-scientific to call someone a fraud without even looking into who they are or evaluating their claims, this is what several users did; they did not even research Didier, they just said he was a fraud without even looking him up. One user even said no data existed on him

Joe Nickell and others who spend their lives investigating historical claims from a skeptical viewpoint have complained about this sort of thing. It is not true skepticism. Investigate first, then if there is evidence suggestive of fraud - shout fraud, not the other way round. Do not just come into a thread, do no research and shout fraud !

 

[Crossbow]

It is not anti-scientific to call a fraud a fraud. It is anti-scientific to call someone a fraud without even looking into who they are or evaluating their claims, this is what several users did; they did not even research Didier, they just said he was a fraud without even looking him up. One user even said no data existed on him

Joe Nickell and others who spend their lives investigating historical claims from a skeptical viewpoint have complained about this sort of thing. It is not true skepticism. Investigate first, then if there is evidence suggestive of fraud - shout fraud, not the other way round. Do not just come into a thread, do no research and shout fraud !

You are wrong again.

You are the one who has been anti-scientific right from the start.

Since you were the one who knew so much about Dider and since you are the one who wants input on Dider, then you should be the one to provide data about Dider.

As I said earlier, it is not my job to fully research every stupid, idiotic, crack-pot idea that is going on. If I actually did do such a thing, then I would not have time to do anything else in my life.

As for me, I checked Wikipedia, and there was no mention of Dider. I checked Google, and I only found one old book that mentioned Dider.

That was enough for me to conclude that this Dider person does not have any sort of paranormal powers.

 

[Craig B]

It is not anti-scientific to call a fraud a fraud. It is anti-scientific to call someone a fraud without even looking into who they are or evaluating their claims, this is what several users did; they did not even research Didier, they just said he was a fraud without even looking him up. One user even said no data existed on him

Joe Nickell and others who spend their lives investigating historical claims from a skeptical viewpoint have complained about this sort of thing. It is not true skepticism. Investigate first, then if there is evidence suggestive of fraud - shout fraud, not the other way round. Do not just come into a thread, do no research and shout fraud !

One can say confidently, if one is scientific, that Didier had no supernatural because there is no evidence that anyone has ever possessed powers like that. He was therefore a madman or a fraud.

He was not evidently a madman, because it is not easy for mad people to pretend to be sane. Therefore he was a fraud, because it is very normal for frauds to pretend to be sincere.

If you think differently, it is for you to produce the evidence, but you have not done so.

 

[xjx388]

This was a valid point. You have to research someone before you can just shout 'fraud'. Are you disagreeing with this?

Then how about: There is no way for us to determine whether or not Didier was a fraud or genuine because he is long dead and there is no way to carry out a proper study.

I am not asking anyone to accept clairvoyance as real, that is not the purpose of this thread. Perhaps you should read my posts instead of seeing things you want to believe.

You want us to study Didier and give you an opinion. Conclusive study is impossible. Thus, you are going to be met with the default position: since no one has ever demonstrated actual powers, the most likely conclusion is that Didier did not have powers.