• 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?

Interesting Ian said:
What does that mean improbable events happen all the time?? Cold reading can't produce the miraculous. It can't consistently give a huge amount of accurate information about somebody -- information which would only apply to very few individuals. It's the nature of cold reading that it can apply to almost anyone

e.g you're a really kind person at heart but sometimes some people don't really appreciate that.

It certainly doesn't include a ****load of accurate detail.
Click to expand...

I didn't say it did, but if you make enough guesses eventually you are going to get something right that was not very probable. Those hits will be remembered, and all of the misses will be forgotten (by the believer). I still have never seen a transcript from a psychic reading that contained 'bucketloads' of hits - or anything even close to miraculous.
 
John Jackson said:
Ian,

You have let your desire for psychic ability to be true hamper your rational processes.
Click to expand...

Oh for God's sake.

It is constantly being claimed on here that rational thought processes will lead one to suppose that a materialist based metaphysic is true and any phenomena that contravenes such a metaphysic should therefore be rejected regardless of the evidence for it.

But these rational processes are never spelt out. No-one on here has ever presented any compelling reasons to suppose that ESP doesn't exist.

In short kindly desist from talking out of your backside.

This was a TV programme that was inherently biased, the tests were deeply flawed, the programmes were clearly edited down, there was going to be a "winner" by design, and 1 in 5 tests or not - none of the "psychics" scored consistently anyway.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't have watched it if it were as bad as you're making out. It seems to me, if anything, that it is your wishes that are influencing your rational thought processes.

If you consider yourself a deep thinker who's looking for the truth of reality, well I'm afraid you've a long way to go.
Click to expand...

When I want an opinion from a clueless concrete block I'll let you know.

I explained confirmation bias in my commentary - perhaps you should start with that. ;)
Click to expand...
No one has ever said anything on here that I didn't already understand. That is after about 15,000 posts (they detracted 6500 posts from my account because they didn't want a non-skeptic to be the most prolific poster). You really imagine that you are any different? You've given zero reasons for me to suppose so.

I alluded to 1 decent result. A psychic named Diane Lazarus did 2 find the body tests where she did remarkably well. Of course we can't rule out collusion of some sort because the tests and conditions were flawed,
Click to expand...

No we can't rule it out. I've never claimed that any of these tests are watertight. Clearly they are much worse than any proper parapsychological research. It's a TV programme and that's what you would expect. And some of the tests I thought were daft.

But one things for certain, she didn't find those 2 people by chance. I agree that these were the most impressive results, but with many of the other tests it would be highly unreasonable to suppose they hit upon the correct things to say/choose by chance. Indeed it would be insane and only a skeptic would venture to suggest such mindnumbing stupidity.

If she passes proper testing then I will accept it - I have no emotional need not to.
Click to expand...

I'd like to express what I think about that, but I've already been reprimanded by some individual called . .umm . . ."Lisa Simpson" for saying ****load of accurate detail.

Youy know it's funny isn't it. Some retard is allowed to suggest I commit sucide on here, yet I'm not allowed to say ****load. Perish the thought it has anything to do with me not being a skeptic though :rolleyes:

It rhymes with clucking bell.

I can't be bothered to contribute on here if I am to be prohibited from expressing myself properly.
 
Starrman said:
I didn't say it did, but if you make enough guesses eventually you are going to get something right that was not very probable. Those hits will be remembered, and all of the misses will be forgotten (by the believer). I still have never seen a transcript from a psychic reading that contained 'bucketloads' of hits - or anything even close to miraculous.
Click to expand...

The misses will all be forgotten? Well there's a psychological propensity to remember hits and forget about misses certainly.

What this has to do with my post that you're responding to I cannot imagine. (the post that Lisa Simpson reprimanded for).
 
Beth said:
Originally Posted by Azrael 5 :
Originally posted by Interesting Ian


A 1 in 5 chance is just that! Repeated a million times its still 1 in 5(not the same test obviously)chance.Isn't it?


Repeat a 1 in 5 chance twice, the probability of two successes (assuming the trials are independent) is 0.04 (.2 * .2). Repeat it 3 times, the probability of 3 consecutive successes is .008 (.2 * .2 *.2).
Click to expand...

Yes I know. Or are you responding to Azrael 5?
 
Last edited:
thaiboxerken said:
John Jackson, you fail to understand this fact. If Ian saw it on TV, then it MUST be true.
Click to expand...

Now we have another joker.

I am very suspicious indeed about what I see on TV. With TV programmes on the paranormal I don't know if cheating is going on, to what extent it has been edited and so on.

However this programme was worth watching. It had skeptics overseeing the tests (although not designing them), it was straightforward in telling us that it was missing out those psychics in particular tests where they were an unqualified failure. So it seemed better than your run of the mill programme on the paranormal.

But I am not ruling out any possible cheating. I feel this is unlikely but I certainly don't know.

All I'm arguing is that the results cannot be put down to chance.
 
Azrael 5 said:
Diane Lazarus did well at hide and seek,if we rule out collusion etc. for the sake of example,so people will say(Ian)she is psychic.But why then couldnt she "see" a pair of clogs in a box? Why does psychic power fail every participant on that occasion,and on the occasion of naming John Mcririck(sp?) whilst blindfold? Hmm?
.
Click to expand...

If I can run a mile under 5 minutes then I must be able to run one under 3 minutes. If I cannot, this proves I cannot run at all.

That is the type of argument you are presenting.
 
Paul C. Anagnostopoulos said:
Oh please. If there was any reality to the phenomena, the world would be a different place.
Click to expand...

Absolute nonsense. Where's your argument demonstrating this??

Most people realize this, which is why they move on, yawning all the way.
Click to expand...

Most people are very stupid.

They may mutter something about believing in psychics talking to dead people, but it makes no practical difference to them at all.

Anyone who draws any conclusions from an edited TV show should take a tour of a TV studio sometime.

~~ Paul
Click to expand...

Well it's a channel 5 programme -- not a programme produced by an American TV station. I find it implausible they would engage in cheating. I think this is a bit desperate to maintain this quite frankly.
 
kittynh said:
oopsy cold medicine!

Though it's sad how something as sacred as an afterlife to so many people can be twisted and manipulated by these psychics. I loved Sylvia Browne saying that there are no skunks in heaven. What did skunks do? I could at least see some sort of biblical tie in for no snakes in heaven.
Click to expand...

Sylvia Brown also said that we don't reincarnate. Should we believe that too?

Er . .I think not!
 
Interesting Ian said:
...

No one has ever said anything on here that I didn't already understand. That is after about 15,000 posts (they detracted 6500 posts from my account because they didn't want a non-skeptic to be the most prolific poster). You really imagine that you are any different? You've given zero reasons for me to suppose so.
...
Click to expand...

(Claus mode on)
Evidence that that many posts were "detracted", and for that reason?
(\Claus mode)

Your true post count is probably 1/3 that anyway, considering your predilection for making multiple posts in a row.

So, you are a non-skeptic, by admission.
 
Admiral said:
Actually, quite a few. The majority of the JREF tests have a chance of something like one in a million of being right by chance. (Statistics buffs, correct me if I'm wrong.) The reason for this is simple- many psychics claim "Psychic power works sometimes but not others," to cover up failed trials. However, using that same logic, I could say "I can predict the outcome of a coin flip, but my powers only work about half the time."

Now, if an ability actually exists, it should be able to test positively consistently.
Click to expand...

Absolute rubbish. There's many many things I can't do consistently. Singing for example. I need to be in a certain emotional mood. It's quite clear that ones psychological state influences to a high measure ones abilities in many tasks.


I also have to note that your reliance on TV shows is misled
Click to expand...

Eh yeah . .right. How many TV programmes on the paranormal have I seen in my life? I suspect I could count them on 2 hands. Such programmes are simply never shown. Even then I think that most of the ones tended to be skeptical. It was just a huge relief to see a programme without Susan Blackmore or Richard Wiseman on!

- while the psychics do often rely on guesswork, they also do "hot" readings- they have researched the audience members before they do the show or have even talked to a few of them in between tapings. Also, consider that each episode of "Crossing Over" takes two hours to film, but is shown as only one half hour- which means that an hour and a half of wrong guesses is cut out.
Click to expand...

Crossing over??? What the hell is crossing over???

Jeez.
 
Jeff Corey said:
What a stupid twat you are. And it's "these phenomena" or "this phenomenon"" you illiterate twit.
Click to expand...

Yeah yeah, I know it's these phenomena. I'm not writing a bleeding phd on here though!

If you've got nowt to contribute than shut it. And don't whine about me using the word nowt. It's the way I speak. Deal with it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom