• 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.

Hello from a non-skeptic

wareagle said:
Twisting my words isn't what one would all intellectual honest either. A psychic working in integrity will not attempt to impose their belief system on you. They don't have one. A psychic who is working from ego base will to convince you they are a psychic.

Would your intellectual honesty prefer ego base psychism rather than non ego based psychism.
Click to expand...

Are you talking about fake psychic versus a deluded one?

One that says he's a psychic when he knows he isn't, as opposed to one who says he's a psychic and doesn't know he isn't?
 
What happened to the commonality of thought that someone insisted on?

But what you say has some substance to it. Many psychics walk around their whole life not being psychic and many psychics walk around never knowing they are psychic because a bizarre fable has been created as a standard for psychism.

Why does the scientific community run around hounding fake psychics and then wonder why no one is impressed that they uncovered a fake psychic. The scientific community bases its standards of what psychic is based on the fables and premises of fake psychics ... I find that equally peculiar.
 
wareagle said:
What happened to the commonality of thought that someone insisted on?

But what you say has some substance to it. Many psychics walk around their whole life not being psychic and many psychics walk around never knowing they are psychic because a bizarre fable has been created as a standard for psychism.

Why does the scientific community run around hounding fake psychics and then wonder why no one is impressed that they uncovered a fake psychic. The scientific community bases its standards of what psychic is based on the fables and premises of fake psychics ... I find that equally peculiar.
Click to expand...

How do you know this?
 
wareagle said:
What happened to the commonality of thought that someone insisted on?

But what you say has some substance to it. Many psychics walk around their whole life not being psychic and many psychics walk around never knowing they are psychic because a bizarre fable has been created as a standard for psychism.

Why does the scientific community run around hounding fake psychics and then wonder why no one is impressed that they uncovered a fake psychic. The scientific community bases its standards of what psychic is based on the fables and premises of fake psychics ... I find that equally peculiar.
Click to expand...

Well, the scientific community certainly spends only a very tiny fraction of it's time studying fake psychics. On the other hand, it spends no time at all studying real psychics. Ten points if you guess why.
 
wareagle said:
Why does the scientific community run around hounding fake psychics and then wonder why no one is impressed that they uncovered a fake psychic.
Click to expand...
Evidence for this assertion?
The scientific community bases its standards of what psychic is based on the fables and premises of fake psychics ... I find that equally peculiar.
Click to expand...
I base my view of what psychics are on what people who claim to be psychic claim they can do. Psychics investigated scientifically turn out to be fakes. Your reaction seems to be to assume that investigators can somehow sense which ones are fakes and only investigate those. Maybe the scientists are psychic.

Are you familiar with the no true Scotsman fallacy? It seems pertinent here.
 
Pixel42 said:
Can you at least consider the possibility that your own perception that the mediums you met were right more often than would be expected by random chance is likewise a false perception? How would you go about establishing whether it is or not?
Click to expand...

Actually, this specific medium might have something going on - in the opposite direction. In the thirteen years since princess Diana died, he has made two predictions that are sort-of accurate enough to be memorable. Considering how vague and muddy the Diana one is, and how banal the other, that number is almost paranormally low.

wareagle said:
Why does the scientific community run around hounding fake psychics and then wonder why no one is impressed that they uncovered a fake psychic. The scientific community bases its standards of what psychic is based on the fables and premises of fake psychics ... I find that equally peculiar.
Click to expand...

That's because it's all they have to go on. Get back to us when there's a coherent hypothesis as an alternative to what you call "fake psychics". The fakes - which provisionally seems to be all of them - are harming their followers, intentionally or not, and need to be dealt with by exposure.

The first step to forming a working hypothesis of "true psychics" is describing what they do that non-psychics can't. To date, that simple first step has proved an almost impossible task for the proponents of psychic phenomena. How the hell is science, or just a reasonable onlooker, supposed to test for the existence of something nobody is even able to describe?
 
Mirrorglass said:
Well, the scientific community certainly spends only a very tiny fraction of it's time studying fake psychics. On the other hand, it spends no time at all studying real psychics. Ten points if you guess why.
Click to expand...

I understand, all the furor is generate by a very small portion of the scientific community and swelled to a tidal wave by those who are scientifically inclined but not actually scientists.

Because a psychic can't support the bizarre expectations built around psychic? Expectation of any sort being a sort of half -aresed predictive event all on its own.
 
wareagle said:
I understand, all the furor is generate by a very small portion of the scientific community and swelled to a tidal wave by those who are scientifically inclined but not actually scientists.

Because a psychic can't support the bizarre expectations built around psychic? Expectation of any sort being a sort of half -aresed predictive event all on its own.
Click to expand...

By "bizarre expectations" do you mean "what the psychic actually says he or she can do"?

PS: Welcome to the forum!

PPS: Are you from Alabama our just a fan of one of our schools?
 
wareagle said:
I understand, all the furor is generate by a very small portion of the scientific community and swelled to a tidal wave by those who are scientifically inclined but not actually scientists.

Because a psychic can't support the bizarre expectations built around psychic? Expectation of any sort being a sort of half -aresed predictive event all on its own.
Click to expand...

We understand: ambiguity and vagaries are paradigms in the psychic community.
 
wareagle said:
I understand, all the furor is generate by a very small portion of the scientific community and swelled to a tidal wave by those who are scientifically inclined but not actually scientists.

Because a psychic can't support the bizarre expectations built around psychic? Expectation of any sort being a sort of half -aresed predictive event all on its own.
Click to expand...

The point is, the scientific community has never found a real psychic. Not even one. It's not that they've chosen to ignore such people - such people simply can't be found. So what do you propose people should do, instead of investigating the people who claim to be psychics?
 
ThatSoundAgain said:
Actually, this specific medium might have something going on - in the opposite direction. In the thirteen years since princess Diana died, he has made two predictions that are sort-of accurate enough to be memorable. Considering how vague and muddy the Diana one is, and how banal the other, that number is almost paranormally low.



That's because it's all they have to go on. Get back to us when there's a coherent hypothesis as an alternative to what you call "fake psychics". The fakes - which provisionally seems to be all of them - are harming their followers, intentionally or not, and need to be dealt with by exposure.

The first step to forming a working hypothesis of "true psychics" is describing what they do that non-psychics can't. To date, that simple first step has proved an almost impossible task for the proponents of psychic phenomena. How the hell is science, or just a reasonable onlooker, supposed to test for the existence of something nobody is even able to describe?
Click to expand...

Right. No one can show you what you can't see let alone make you believe it.

I think its perfect-ably acceptable that someone should expect a psychic to produce or accomplish something rather than trying to rework consciousness as we know it to fit their world view.
 
wareagle said:
Right. No one can show you what you can't see let alone make you believe it.
Click to expand...

Yes, anyone can. If they bring a convincing argument.

I think its perfect-ably acceptable that someone should expect a psychic to produce or accomplish something rather than trying to rework consciousness as we know it to fit their world view.
Click to expand...

Could you rephrase this? I can't figure out who the bolded pronoun refers to.
 
Mirrorglass said:
The point is, the scientific community has never found a real psychic. Not even one. It's not that they've chosen to ignore such people - such people simply can't be found. So what do you propose people should do, instead of investigating the people who claim to be psychics?
Click to expand...

What is science looking for? What are you looking for. What would be your expectation in a psychic? Maybe a false expectation has been put out there? by who?
 
wareagle said:
What is science looking for? What are you looking for. What would be your expectation in a psychic? Maybe a false expectation has been put out there? by who?
Click to expand...

I don't expect to find a psychic. I only consider the question "is this a psychic?" when someone has already made the claim of being one. In that case, that person invariably will tell me what I should look for, and so far, invariably nothing like that has been found.
 
ThatSoundAgain said:
Yes, anyone can. If they bring a convincing argument.

That's not a convincing argument. someone has to be willing to suspend their own beliefs. I can make a convincing arguement but I might not be able to offer any concrete evidence.


Could you rephrase this? I can't figure out who the bolded pronoun refers to.[/QUOTE

It says what it says. You can't take your perception of the world and impose it on common perception and expect everyone to accept it when they can't see it. No one can fully know the perceptions of others. Again one is insisting the one should see what can't be seen. Can you SEE how I view things. No not unless I gouged my eyes out and handed them to you.
Click to expand...
 
wareagle said:
What would be your expectation in a psychic? Maybe a false expectation has been put out there? by who?
Click to expand...


I expect a psychic to be able to do whatever it is he or she claims.

How is the psychic defining the term 'psychic'? What skills is the psychic claiming he or she has?

wareagle, are you a true psychic?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom