Edgar Cayce - for real, or a lucky guesser?

[Rick S.]

I recently saw a cable TV program on Edgar Cayce. Apparently in his trance states he gave some pretty amazing readings that were confirmed irl. I haven't studied it much and have a completely open mind on the subject. Has anyone here done any research into Cayce?
Rick S.

 

[Tricky]

Randi did a chapter on him in one of his books. He used all the same tricks that cold/hot readers do today. The sleeping thing was his gimmick.

 

[Ozymandias]

I recently saw a cable TV program on Edgar Cayce....

On what channel? Cable TV Programs are often horrendously wrong on topics like Cayce.

pparently in his trance states he gave some pretty amazing readings that were confirmed irl.

Or the TV program (and Cayce himself) just left out the misses. I seem to remember the reason Cayce was seemingly right was that only those who felt they Cayce was right ever replied to him. I could be wrong about that...

 

[Odin]

Some of Kilik's threads were on Cayce, there might be some useful discussion in there somewhere amongst the spam.

 

[Metullus]

Some of Kilik's threads were on Cayce, there might be some useful discussion in there somewhere amongst the spam.

You're sending folks to a Kilik thread on purpose? I think you can be reported for that...

 

[JLam]

In Michael Shermer's Why People Believe Weird Things, he dedicated a whole chapter to Cayce. Pick up the book. It's a good read.

 

[LTC8K6]

Not for real, and a bad guesser?

 

[Garrette]

Definitely a bad guesser and not a particularly good cold reader.

Classic case of ex post facto fitting to make his readings work, though, iirc, there are a few more accurate cases but which (surprise surprise) correlated to those sitters about whom Cayce definitely or possibly knew something beforehand.

Aside from the medical stuff, check out his Atlantis predictions if you want to know how ridiculous this man was and how ridiculous belief in his powers is.

 

[RichardR]

Didn't he also make a load of predictions about another civilization that supposedly built the pyramids in Egypt? Hasn't evidence for this also been spectacularly absent to date?

 

[Ducky]

Some of Kilik's threads were on Cayce, there might be some useful discussion in there somewhere amongst the spam.

I have reported this post to the mods for breach of civility and unnecessarily sending someone into kilik posts.

Honestly Odin, I thought better of you. How mean do you have to be? Learn some compassion, will you?

 

[casebro]

Damn, I KNEW I was going to misspell my name, before I filled in my registration....

 

[Rodney]

Randi did a chapter on him in one of his books. He used all the same tricks that cold/hot readers do today. The sleeping thing was his gimmick.

If Cayce was a fraud, as Randi believes, does it seem logical that the New York Times would have written a lengthy, favorable article about Cayce? It did -- on Sunday, October 9, 1910. That article noted: "In all, young Cayce has given more than 1,000 readings, but has never turned his wonderful powers to his pecuniary advantage, although many people have been restored to health by following out the course of treatment prescribed in his readings while in a state of hypnosis."
For more information about Cayce, see:
http://www.edgarcayce.org/about_edgarcayce/about_edgarcayce.asp

 

[Spektator]

Let me see...the same New York Times that employed Jayson Blair, who made up stories and passed them off as news? At a guess, I'd say--yes, it does seem logical.

 

[Rodney]

Let me see...the same New York Times that employed Jayson Blair, who made up stories and passed them off as news? At a guess, I'd say--yes, it does seem logical.

Are you saying that the Times' story about Cayce was invented by the reporter?

 

[RandFan]

Are you saying that the Times' story about Cayce was invented by the reporter?

I don't mean to speak for Spektator but it seems to me that he is saying that the Blair incident proves that Times is capable of error.

James Randi has demonstrated that many institutions and even objective scientists can be taken in by the likes of Cayce.

Do you simply accept everything you read in the Times?

 

[jimtron]

I don't mean to speak for Spektator but it seems to me that he is saying that the Blair incident proves that Times is capable of error.

James Randi has demonstrated that many institutions and even objective scientists can be taken in by the likes of Cayce.

Do you simply accept everything you read in the Times?

Even if the Blair incident never happened, as you say, no institution, media outlet, or individual is infallible. Reporters, like scientists, can't be experts in all fields (I'm reminded of the scientists who were fooled by Banachek).

What other sources have verified Cayce's paranormal claim?

 

[svengali]

What on earth has the Blair incident got to do with Edgar Cayce? Another superb example of a lack of critical thinking.

No doubt if a favourable article about Randi was published in the New York Times sceptics would be huffing and puffing in great abandon if someone dared to suggest that the article lacked credibility simply because the newspaper once hired Jayson Blair.

I don't believe in psychics either. I know too many of them personally to give any of them any credibility. However what is good for the goose is good for the gander.

I rather think that sceptics need to sharpen up their arguments a trifle.

 

[Spektator]

I don't mean to speak for Spektator but it seems to me that he is saying that the Blair incident proves that Times is capable of error.

James Randi has demonstrated that many institutions and even objective scientists can be taken in by the likes of Cayce.

Do you simply accept everything you read in the Times?

Correct. The newspaper is not only capable of error, but has even in the recent past demonstrably committed error. That was my only point.

 

[Rodney]

I don't mean to speak for Spektator but it seems to me that he is saying that the Blair incident proves that Times is capable of error.

James Randi has demonstrated that many institutions and even objective scientists can be taken in by the likes of Cayce.

So is Randi the supreme authority who decides when "objective scientists" have been "taken in"? If you read Randi's chapter on Cayce, you will find it is very superficial -- far more so than Martin Gardner's treatment of Cayce, which at least recognized that Cayce was not a charlatan.

Do you simply accept everything you read in the Times?

No, but the Times is not exactly the Weekly World News. Do you simply dismiss out of hand what is in the Times when it doesn't fit your worldview?

 

[RandFan]

What on earth has the Blair incident got to do with Edgar Cayce? Another superb example of a lack of critical thinking.

The Blair incident is simply a warning that perhaps we shouldn't believe everything we read in the papers.

No doubt if a favourable article about Randi was published in the New York Times sceptics would be huffing and puffing in great abandon if someone dared to suggest that the article lacked credibility simply because the newspaper once hired Jayson Blair.

On the contrary. I would absolutely welcome any suggestion that we shouldn't accept Randi's word as doctrine just because he had a mention in the papers. Furthermore, Randi doesn't want you to simply accept his words. He wants you to think. He wants you to reason things out for yourself. Make informed choices. He would be the last person on earth to say "look, I'm in the Times so accept what I say."

I don't believe in psychics either. I know too many of them personally to give any of them any credibility. However what is good for the goose is good for the gander.

I would happily jump on any Randi supporter who suggested that he is infallible or that his words should be accepted simply because he is in the Times. I don't know a single skeptic worth is salt that would. So we accept the sauce for this gander. Please be critical of James Randi. Please don't accept what he says at face value. Please don't let any of his press releases or public relations sway you as to what he says. Any skeptic who suggests otherwise is an ass. Please let me know when anyone here does it and we will all give that person a drubbing I assure you.

I rather think that sceptics need to sharpen up their arguments a trifle.

???? A Times article, propaganda, public relations proves nothing. That is a logical valid argument.