Medium to the Stars?

kali1137 said:
Already professed belief in reincarnation, heaven, ect… there are simply too many woo hurdles to overcome for one thread.
Click to expand...

I'm not as bothered by a professed belief in a communicable afterlife as I am by the ongoing inability to articulate rational lines of reasoning to support such a thing. Why someone believes something is, for me, where the debate lies.

Why, according to him, should we believe Tyler Henry's claims? The best we seem to get is
I think it is evident in Henry's manner, behavior and effect on other people that he is not engaged in fraud. Whether he is effective, we can debate. That he is sincere, and well-intentioned of that there is no doubt. I believe it to be self-evident.
Click to expand...

He considers it "self-evident" beyond doubt that Henry is sincere and well-intentioned. Yeah, every successful charlatan tries to look like that. It's the sine qua non of charlatanism. He notes Henry's charm and its effect on others. Has he never seen a salesman at work? While at first glance this looks like a list of articulable reasons to trust him, it simply boils down to Henry being charming and affable, and Frank wanting to believe him. "There is no doubt," and "I believe it to be self-evident" are cop-outs. If we go farther back into the debate, we see similar admonitions that the show itself just ought to be considered evidence of its own authenticity.

We know the old adage: you can't argue someone out of a position they didn't argue themselves into. I don't see any evidence that Frank's acceptance of the show as authentic necromancy is based on any sort of careful analysis of evidence. Time after time it boils down simply to, "It just seems to be real," accompanied by increasing frustration that his critics don't accept that as an argument, and increasingly bizarre and fantastical dismissals of reasonable alternatives and contravening facts.
 
JayUtah said:
I'm not as bothered by a professed belief in a communicable afterlife as I am by the ongoing inability to articulate rational lines of reasoning to support such a thing. Why someone believes something is, for me, where the debate lies.

Why, according to him, should we believe Tyler Henry's claims? The best we seem to get is
​

He considers it "self-evident" beyond doubt that Henry is sincere and well-intentioned. Yeah, every successful charlatan tries to look like that. It's the sine qua non of charlatanism. He notes Henry's charm and its effect on others. Has he never seen a salesman at work? While at first glance this looks like a list of articulable reasons to trust him, it simply boils down to Henry being charming and affable, and Frank wanting to believe him. "There is no doubt," and "I believe it to be self-evident" are cop-outs. If we go farther back into the debate, we see similar admonitions that the show itself just ought to be considered evidence of its own authenticity.

We know the old adage: you can't argue someone out of a position they didn't argue themselves into. I don't see any evidence that Frank's acceptance of the show as authentic necromancy is based on any sort of careful analysis of evidence. Time after time it boils down simply to, "It just seems to be real," accompanied by increasing frustration that his critics don't accept that as an argument, and increasingly bizarre and fantastical dismissals of reasonable alternatives and contravening facts.
Click to expand...
I am with you on all of this, especially the opening about not being bothered by belief itself. If that bothered me I would have to cut off 90%+ of all my family and friends. Nor does it bother me if someone does not want to discuss their belief or does so but says something like "I can't really defend it, but I believe it." I'm good with that.

What gets me is what is happening here, i.e., a complete lack of rationale while clinging desperately to the claim that it is nothing but rational. This is compounded by the fact that we did not approach Frank and demand he defend his belief; he brought it to us and presented it as proof of itself.

A subset of that is the constant double standards, accompanied by the hubris that Pixel42 mentioned (she said arrogance). In Frank's case it is his anecdote about his non-musical friends thinking another friend of little-to-no talent was a very fine musician while steadfastly refusing to consider that he is copying them in his belief in Henry.
 
Frank McLaughlin said:
That is your limited experience. I get that. I trolled flat earth for a few months. It was fascinating to watch a person with no clue, so sure of themselves.
Click to expand...

I have 35 years of wandering around dark buildings, basements, and attics looking for these "spirits" you seem to think are everywhere. I have a small library of parapsychology books, and a big library of "True Haunting" books.

I can say conclusively, based on first hand research that ghosts, as they are advertised, and accepted in the "mainstream" are not real. If they are not real then NOBODY IS TALKING TO THEM.

The thing I find fascinating, Frank, is when a purveyor of one kind of Woo looks down on other types of Woo. Mediums are on the same floor as Flat Earthers.
 
Axxman300 said:
I can say conclusively, based on first hand research that ghosts, as they are advertised, and accepted in the "mainstream" are not real. If they are not real then NOBODY IS TALKING TO THEM.

The thing I find fascinating, Frank, is when a purveyor of one kind of Woo looks down on other types of Woo. Mediums are on the same floor as Flat Earthers.
Click to expand...


Even if they're not real, that doesn't stop people from trying:

William Shakespeare
Henry IV, Part 1 Act 3 Scene 1

GLENDOWER
I can call spirits from the vasty deep.


HOTSPUR
Why, so can I, or so can any man,
But will they come when you do call for them?
 
Last edited:
<breathless>After participating in this thread, I found this guy squinting at me form my laundry....

jQ9FduZ.jpg


Eleventy!!!! OMG!!!! FSM!!!! Looks just like my dead father.

Nah. I just thought it was hilarious in the context of this thread. One can apply meaning to anything if one willingly chooses to do so. If anything, that looks like George Galloway is attempting to emerge from my laundry and he isn't even dead.

Oh and before the cynics arrive, that was not a set up, just a random occurrence.
 
xterra said:
Even if they're not real, that doesn't stop people from trying:

William Shakespeare
Henry IV, Part 1 Act 3 Scene 1

GLENDOWER
I can call spirits from the vasty deep.


HOTSPUR
Why, so can I, or so can any man,
But will they come when you do call for them?
Click to expand...
William Shakespeare was the relevant xkcd before there was an xkcd.
 
JayUtah said:
I'm not as bothered by a professed belief in a communicable afterlife as I am by the ongoing inability to articulate rational lines of reasoning to support such a thing. Why someone believes something is, for me, where the debate lies.

Why, according to him, should we believe Tyler Henry's claims? The best we seem to get is
​

He considers it "self-evident" beyond doubt that Henry is sincere and well-intentioned. Yeah, every successful charlatan tries to look like that. It's the sine qua non of charlatanism. He notes Henry's charm and its effect on others. Has he never seen a salesman at work? While at first glance this looks like a list of articulable reasons to trust him, it simply boils down to Henry being charming and affable, and Frank wanting to believe him. "There is no doubt," and "I believe it to be self-evident" are cop-outs. If we go farther back into the debate, we see similar admonitions that the show itself just ought to be considered evidence of its own authenticity.

We know the old adage: you can't argue someone out of a position they didn't argue themselves into. I don't see any evidence that Frank's acceptance of the show as authentic necromancy is based on any sort of careful analysis of evidence. Time after time it boils down simply to, "It just seems to be real," accompanied by increasing frustration that his critics don't accept that as an argument, and increasingly bizarre and fantastical dismissals of reasonable alternatives and contravening facts.
Click to expand...

In general, I also am not bothered by what people believe. It is only when people start believing in it to their own detriment or the detriment of others that I really fight that belief. I have known people who will only make decisions based on what their psychic tells them. Overall, Frank's belief in tv medium isn't harmful, just sad at the logic he uses to back it up. This thread really jumped the shark for me when he stated that he doubted celebrities could/would fake reactions/emotions even though that is what they make a very good living doing. All the arguments are coming from a fantasy land and you simply can't reason against that.
 
kali1137 said:
I have known people who will only make decisions based on what their psychic tells them.
Click to expand...
I worked with an ad agency once and the guy who negotiated music rights had good stories, dealing with rock stars and all. One song in particular was difficult to get as he had to skip right over the publishing company and agent, and deal directly with the lead singer of the group. During the talks, held by phone, this singer had his psychic on his cell phone to his ear while talking to the agent / agency / etc. on the speakerphone. It was apparently a bit surreal. At some point, they wondered whether the cell phone thing was an act and he was pretending to consult someone, which is only marginally weirder.
 
If a person previously unknown to me just out of the blue told me some details of myself that I am aware very few could know of I would be impressed.
I would question his source and eliminate easy common methods first.

If he took money first or does a cold reading questions and blurbs session I am gone. If said person needs a payment by credit card and three days to my appointment ya, it's a hot reading.

To date that gifted person has not appeared to me, serious doubts it is going to happen.
 
MEequalsIxR said:
Is there a difference between a psychic and a medium?
Click to expand...
AIUI a psychic is someone who obtains information by any supernatural means, whilst a medium obtains information specifically by communicating with the deceased. So a medium is a psychic, but a psychic is not necessarily a medium. Palm readers, Tarot card readers etc are psychics (or rather they would be if they were genuine) but they are not mediums.
 
Pixel42 said:
AIUI a psychic is someone who obtains information by any supernatural means, whilst a medium obtains information specifically by communicating with the deceased. So a medium is a psychic, but a psychic is not necessarily a medium. Palm readers, Tarot card readers etc are psychics (or rather they would be if they were genuine) but they are not mediums.
Click to expand...

Thank you.

I rather like the way you put the highlighted bit.
 
MEequalsIxR said:
Is there a difference between a psychic and a medium?
Click to expand...
For the overview, Pixel42's post is as good as it gets, but with this question you have hit on one of the core problems in discussing someone's legitimacy or fraudulence. The claimant should define what they are, including their abilities and limitations (which includes the conditions required for success as well as expected accuracy), but they rarely do. And when they do, they are rarely consistent between claimants, and they are rarely consistent with the same claimant whose definition of his abilities will change based on the circumstance.
 
Garrette said:
For the overview, Pixel42's post is as good as it gets, but with this question you have hit on one of the core problems in discussing someone's legitimacy or fraudulence. The claimant should define what they are, including their abilities and limitations (which includes the conditions required for success as well as expected accuracy), but they rarely do. And when they do, they are rarely consistent between claimants, and they are rarely consistent with the same claimant whose definition of his abilities will change based on the circumstance.
Click to expand...

It is my belief they are all frauds either intentional or self deluding and I don't really think self deluding goes all that far. Why define themselves today when tomorrow they can scam from another angle.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom