• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Are all mediums con artists then?

Ashles said:
Yes.

It's called hot reading.
Click to expand...

Certainly that's one hypothesis yes. But there have been readings which were manifestly obvious were not merely cold reading, but where every single skeptic on here emphatically disagreed with me. The one or two other non-skeptics agreed with me though.

I was absolutely astounded what people can lay at the door of coincidence. Skeptics seem to have a very poor understanding of how improbable some events are.
 
ChristineR said:
I'm of the opinion that most mediums are deluded. I think you'd be surprised how many of them are out there. The frauds are few and far between, but of course they are the most impresssive.
Click to expand...
They're all frauds.

Nobody said that money must change hands in order to be fraudulent; the simple of trying to impress firends atec makes that act fraud.

Nobody suggested that others must be fooled, either. Fooling oneself is also a con-job.

Finally, it is a damaging act to persuade others to ditch their ability to think critically,

They're all frauds.
 
Interesting Ian said:
Well that certainly is not true. For those mediums who appeared to be genuine, there are very few of them who were subsequently proven to be frauds. And there are a fair few where the conclusion that they are obtaining information by anomalous means is the only reasonable conclusion.
Click to expand...
Who? Which are these mediums that obtain information by anomalous means?
 
gypsynuke said:
If you have a TV program with psychics doing cool stuff, then there's a good chance it's been edited and rigged. That's the reason people believe in John Edward so much. His 4 1/2 hours of taping is compressed to about 45 minutes.
Click to expand...

To be scrupulously fair, this is true of most programs, including scientific ones.
TV companies are entertainers, not educators, which is a great pity.
 
Interesting Ian said:
Certainly that's one hypothesis yes. But there have been readings which were manifestly obvious were not merely cold reading, but where every single skeptic on here emphatically disagreed with me. The one or two other non-skeptics agreed with me though.

I was absolutely astounded what people can lay at the door of coincidence. Skeptics seem to have a very poor understanding of how improbable some events are.
Click to expand...
Find one who will read me, and you can share the million with him/her.
 
Interesting Ian said:
Well that certainly is not true. For those mediums who appeared to be genuine, there are very few of them who were subsequently proven to be frauds. And there are a fair few where the conclusion that they are obtaining information by anomalous means is the only reasonable conclusion.
Click to expand...

Are you sure there isn't a bridge somewhere that's missing you?

Seriously, why do you even post? You could easily set up a simple program to look for key words on the forum, and make your posts for you.

For years now, you've posted the same tired old drivel, each time had it thrown in your face, and each time you have been the only one who hasn't seen the trouncing your argument has recieved.

Really, haven't we discussed your theories enough? Can't someone else get a topic in without getting the same spoiel of nonsense that you post whenever a thread starts with the word "psychic" in it? Will you ever pull your head out of your fourth point of contact for long enough to realize that you have nothing useful to say anymore?

I doubt it.
 
Certainly there are some psychics who are knowingly conning folks out of there money. But I think there are many who do tarot, palm reading, psychic readings and the like who sincerely believe in what they are doing.

I was quite surprised to find many who apparently really believe in this stuff on a mentalism forum of all places. Some of these folks know all about mentalist tricks and cold reading, but also believe in ESP. One problem I've found, is in defining "psychic reader." It means different things to different people. To me it implies supernatural power, but if a reader isn't making explicit claims as such, is it fraud? I think that there are many who do readings who sincerely think they are helping the readees.

Anyway, I've been involved in many discussions, often maddening, at the Magic Cafe:
Is there a valid moral objection to psychic readings?
Any suggestion on a cold reading book for a laymen
Psychics on the Cafe
When one is introduced to a psychic.
Can Science Ever Prove the existence of the Sixth sense?
What special powers have you got?
Palm Reading-How Much To Charge?
(edited to add link. and another.)
 
Last edited:
Interesting Ian said:
I was absolutely astounded what people can lay at the door of coincidence. Skeptics seem to have a very poor understanding of how improbable some events are.
Click to expand...
I know - they are so stupid. They think that when improbable things happen as part of anecdote and unverified stories, yet fail to be replicated under even the vaguest controls, that this is some way indicates something.

What are they like?
 
Huntsman said:
Are you sure there isn't a bridge somewhere that's missing you?
Click to expand...

I don't understand what you mean.

Seriously, why do you even post? You could easily set up a simple program to look for key words on the forum, and make your posts for you.

For years now, you've posted the same tired old drivel, each time had it thrown in your face, and each time you have been the only one who hasn't seen the trouncing your argument has recieved.
Click to expand...

I have little evidence that people even understand any of my arguments, therefore they can scarcely have been trounced.

In this case I'm not making any arguments though. I'm simply stating facts.

If you do not like my posts I don't understand why you just don't ignore them.
 
Interesting Ian said:
Indeed.

But it's also worth noting that cold reading is highly unlikely to produce bucketloads of accurate information. Some other hypothesis is required.
Click to expand...

Most of us have never seen "bucketloads of accurate information" come from a psychic.

We have seen bucketloads of vague statements, half-truths, obvious facts, re-hashing of information that was supplied by the subject, clever interpretations, Post Hoc "predictions", and an occasional and rare lucky guess.
 
Interesting Ian said:
In this case I'm not making any arguments though. I'm simply stating facts.
Click to expand...
Where?

What facts?

That you believe that psychic ability exists but have no actual evidence towards its existence?

It's a 'fact' only in that you definitely have an opinion on the subject.
 
Ashles said:
Where?

What facts?

That you believe that psychic ability exists but have no actual evidence towards its existence?

It's a 'fact' only in that you definitely have an opinion on the subject.
Click to expand...

Well facts like all the evidence is extremely difficult indeed to explain away by normal means.
 
Interesting Ian said:
Well facts like all the evidence is extremely difficult indeed to explain away by normal means.
Click to expand...
I think we are getting confused here.

If you know of any evidence that indicates that anyone can talk to the dead or predict the future could you share it with us?

(Incidentally I predict an imminent discussion involving the definition of the word 'evidence' and the word 'anecdotal')
 
Britain's Psychic Challenge.

Both myself here: http://www.skeptics.org.uk/commentary_display.php?d=britains_psychic_challenge

And Tony Youens here: http://www.tonyyouens.com/BritainsPsychicChallenge.htm

have done full commentaries on BPC in the UK.

Ian,

I would not use that as an example of psychic power at work.

There was only one result of any real interest in the entire series and even then the test was flawed.

If anything, the programme was a classic display of how people can think they are psychic yet have no real ability whatsoever.
 
I had some wonderful PM conversations with Freda, who used to post here. She was part of a spiritualist circle, trying to contact the dead and make a real scientific discovery to be able to demonstrate to skeptics that what they were doing was real. What impressed me about her was that she very willingly shared the experiences that led her to believe (at least in PM--she got very defensive in threads), and when I offered alternative explanations, she actually listened, and tried to be open to those possibilities.

I am convinced that she was not "deluded" so much as "ignorant"--not actively deceived, so much as not having all the information. The explanation she had for her experiences fit, but she was not opposed to hearing a more mundane explanation. She thought that she was doing important work on an important topic; I do not think she was trying to trick anybody.

Was what she claimed, the truth? No. If the adjective "ignorant" was not available, "deluded" would come close. (And in truth, if I only had access to her public posts, "deluded" would come even closer.)
 
gypsynuke said:
If you have a TV program with psychics doing cool stuff, then there's a good chance it's been edited and rigged. That's the reason people believe in John Edward so much. His 4 1/2 hours of taping is compressed to about 45 minutes.
Click to expand...

According to folks on tvtalkshows.com who attended recordings of "Crossing Over", the 4 to 5 hours of taping is actually chopped up into several shows. Not one. I didn't have any reason to doubt them.

However, I do think many producers of such programs do their best to make the psychics look good. It's their bread and butter, after all.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom