Best Cold Reading demo?
- Thread starter T'ai Chi
- Start date
-
- Tags
- cold reading
Ummm........Cynical?
You might want to re-read the postings before yours.
Claus is referring to what T'ai Chi requested. TC asked for demos of cold readings which are, by definition, fake.
Claus responded by chiding TC for moving onto the subject of fakes (the cold reading demos) while--at least to Claus--TC has not finished one of the discussions about those who claim to be legitimate.
--
Besides that, I suppose I should dust off this old canard and trot out that little thing about "burden of proof" which still lies in the court of those who claim that mediumship is real.
You might want to re-read the postings before yours.
Claus is referring to what T'ai Chi requested. TC asked for demos of cold readings which are, by definition, fake.
Claus responded by chiding TC for moving onto the subject of fakes (the cold reading demos) while--at least to Claus--TC has not finished one of the discussions about those who claim to be legitimate.
--
Besides that, I suppose I should dust off this old canard and trot out that little thing about "burden of proof" which still lies in the court of those who claim that mediumship is real.
Garrette said:
First, Cynical might want to learn how to read, period.
Garrette said:
Hey, I am just waiting for that good demo of mediumship. If TC thinks the discussion is over, and we haven't seen one, does he admit that no such demo exist? Only then would it be fair for TC to leave that discussion.
If his admission does not emerge, one might suspect TC was running away from the discussion....
Garrette said:
Yup.
Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Nap, interrupted.
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2001
- Messages
- 19,141
No statistical analysis of transcripts is ever going to convince me, unless it includes a reasonable calculation of the probability of each hit occurring by chance. I doubt very much that's ever going to happen.
So, those psychics should take another tack. How about finding the next ten missing kids?
~~ Paul
So, those psychics should take another tack. How about finding the next ten missing kids?
~~ Paul
I suppose I'm guilty of fence-sitting. I do have an opinion on this subject, but didn't think it appropriate or necessary to bring it up in my response to Cynical, and I was trying to avoid giving ammunition for a derail which purpose you have now completely defeated. Sheesh.
Ah, well. I wasn't trying to give the impression that I think you're wrong. I don't.
P.S. I had a brief comment to pm you, but apparently you don't allow that, so I was going to e-mail it, but you don't allow that, either. How in the ever-lovin'-blue-eyed-world are you going to learn that you've won the Publisher's Clearing House Sweepstakes?
I did a cold reading once in college. I had 10 students and gave them each a private reading with tarot cards. They each said I was very accurate about their past loves, lifes, difficulties, ambitions, beliefs... it was later revealed I had given everyone the exact same reading. Oh, but the cards were different. I'm not good enough to manipulate cards.
Poor, poor SueZ.
Now you've lost all credibility. Don't you realize that you can, like Randi, be labeled as one who intentionally deceives and who undermines experiments.
Gary Schwartz will never trust you now.
You may as well turn in your skeptic t-shirt and coffee mug. And teddy bear--yes, you have to turn in your skeptic teddy bear, too.
And pen (but you're allowed to keep the homeopathic gold).
It's a sad, sad, day, folks.
Now you've lost all credibility. Don't you realize that you can, like Randi, be labeled as one who intentionally deceives and who undermines experiments.
Gary Schwartz will never trust you now.
You may as well turn in your skeptic t-shirt and coffee mug. And teddy bear--yes, you have to turn in your skeptic teddy bear, too.
And pen (but you're allowed to keep the homeopathic gold).
It's a sad, sad, day, folks.
Garrette said:
webmaster@skepticreport.com
I simply got tired of cleaning out the PM box.
(How much did I win...??)
It will do no good, Sue. The entire Forum has you on ignore now.
Me especially. Yep. Especially me.
You'll notice I how very coldly and ruthlessly ignored you. I am now continuing to do so. So there. Look at me ignore you. See?
Still ignoring you.
Ha ha.
Ignore ignore ignore.
Me especially. Yep. Especially me.
You'll notice I how very coldly and ruthlessly ignored you. I am now continuing to do so. So there. Look at me ignore you. See?
Still ignoring you.
Ha ha.
Ignore ignore ignore.
Thanz
Fuzzy Thinker
- Joined
- Jul 24, 2002
- Messages
- 3,895
Setting the bar a bit high, aren't you? Do any self proclaimed "psychics" say that they could do this? I know that many claim to work with police, and that they get "impressions" or whatever, but I am not aware of any that would be so bold (or stupid) to say that they could find the next ten missing kids, and that demand is kind of silly.Paul C. Anagnostopoulos said:
How about I say that no amount of stats are going to convince me that a man can hit a 100 mph fastball out of a baseball park. Am I wrong? Just have someone hit the next 10 consecutive pitches out of the park.
Yes, thanks for bringing this up again! It seems skeptics don't want to give specifics (except ersby), and yet how many times have we heard or read, "Any good cold reader could do what that "medium" does?" Or, "That's obviously just cold reading."
I think that since these statements are made, that people who feel this way should have some knowledge that cold readers have -actually- done this, gotten mediumistic-types of validations by cold reading, and been convincing.
Its fine to criticize mediumship and its explainable as cold reading. But people who believe that mediumship is "just what a cold reader could do" should have some reason for believing that, shouldn't they?
Why can't anyone here answer your question, T'ai?
Clancie said:
Yes, thanks for bringing this up again! It seems skeptics don't want to give specifics (except ersby), and yet how many times have we heard or read, "Any good cold reader could do what that "medium" does?" Or, "That's obviously just cold reading."
I think that since these statements are made, that people who feel this way should have some knowledge that cold readers have -actually- done this, gotten mediumistic-types of validations by cold reading, and been convincing.
Its fine to criticize mediumship and its explainable as cold reading. But people who believe that mediumship is "just what a cold reader could do" should have some reason for believing that, shouldn't they?
Why can't anyone here answer your question, T'ai?
Er the very first post after Tai'Chi's was a response that seems to answer his question.