Psychic Detectives are real

[Normal Dude]

Welcome to JREF. Don't worry, you'll see much more of this

I find it funny that these people always switch tangents and ignore previous questions when their "arguements" lose traction. It's like they think we'll forget and that a question unanswered does not matter. Going off the top of my head, first it was "It was on TV". Then it was about about how "scary' accurate" the info was. Then it was constant repetition of how the police officers were supposed to be "skeptics". Then we get some wack-job physics post that throws out a lot of fancy terms and doesn't say anything. Then the ante is upped to include quantum decoherence and wave functions cut-and-pasted from wikipedia. Then we get a couple of already-faulty posts to some small biased studies. Now we are on N.D.Es! The exact order may not be correct, I'm going off the top of my head, but you get my drift.

Hey, hey, look at my other hand! Shiny thing!

 

[Slimething]

A little bit about quantum decoherence:

Plagiarized from Wikipedia:

In quantum mechanics, quantum decoherence is the mechanism by which quantum systems interact with their environments to exhibit probabilistically additive behavior - a feature of classical physics - and give the appearance of wavefunction collapse. ...

Have you ever heard of theoretical physics slimething? Have you ever read about the double slit experiment or Schrodingers equation? Just curious.

I almost missed this taunt of yours, polio.

Yup. Studied it. You?

What I was completely unaware of concerning decoherence theory as evidenced by the double-slit experiment was that it had anything to do with the waveforms of sub-nuclear particles (you know these as "paricles") detecting when its host megastructure had died. Please explain this aspect of physics as most of us must have skipped this lecture. Really, post the math. I guarantee you won't lose me.

BTW, now that you bring up Schrodinger's equation, please include whatever solution you use to bolster decoherence. That would be fascinating.

So, again, post your math.

 

[RSLancastr]

Why would someone who experienced an N.D.E. be aware of hidden object?

Perhaps it was something hidden on a high shelf, out of a patient's normal field of vision, but visible to someone "floating near the ceiling, looking down at their body on the bed" as is described in many accounts of OBEs, many of which lead to accounts of NDEs.

I seem to recall years ago rading of a doctor/surgeon who had an electric "digital marquee" kind of sign on a high shelf in the operating room, facing up. That way if a patient described seeing themself from the ceiling, they would be asked what the sign read. I don't recall if it was part of a formal study, or just something one doctor did.

 

[vIQleS]

This clearly shows how skepticism can be dogmatic just like some who are dogmatic about religious beliefs.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/dogmatic

Ok - fair enough...

I'll accept this if you're using it in this fashion:

2. asserting opinions in a[n] ... arrogant manner; opinionated.

Some of us can be arrogant, and certainly we're all opinionated.

If you're meaning this (the more common usage I think):

1. characterized by assertion of unproved or unprovable principles

Then can you see how this applies more to you than the average skeptic? Bear in mind:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Skeptic

1. a person who questions the validity or authenticity of something purporting to be factual.

Questioning is not, by definition, dogmatic. And that's all that skepticism is: questioning and challenging [outrageous or unscientific] claims.

There's no counter evidence to these claims except a skeptics opinion.

Opinion has nothing to do with evidence, and nothing to do with the argument against psychic abilities.

For there to be 'counter evidence' (i'm not sure that's even a real thing) surely, there must first be evidence?

AFAIC (and i'm sure most on this board) if psychic abilities were real, then there would be scientific evidence. If you can do it, then you can prove it.

Futher (as i think some others have mentioned), it would be normal. A part of everyday life. Watch (or read) Minority Report. Or Anne McCaffrey's Talent series

If psychics could do what they claim to do, then law enforcement would be very different. Everything would be different.

What they claim to do violates what we know to be true about how the universe works. in order for us to accept psychics, we have to overturn very well extablished laws and principles. We need extrordinary proof before we'll do that.

 

[derekcbart]

Please remember that in 2002 scientists discovered the part of the brain that triggered "out of body experiences" and that NDEs are closely related to OBEs.

Source: [no www] archives DOT cnn DOT com/2002/TECH/science/09/19/coolsc.outofbody/index.html (apparently I still can't post links. I really feel like I've posted more than 15 times)

 

[bob_dezon]

There appears to be quite the collection of fallacies in polomontana's original post.

 

[Boo]

Boo

 

[-Fran-]

I'm too late on here to add anything of value (not that I claim to add things of value even when I'm early on a thread ) I really like reading threads like these though. The OP being hilarious, the people replying being eloquent and smart... I learn.. I laugh...

 

[CLD]

 

[bob_dezon]

I think id like to play wheel of woo

 

[Rodney]

[qimg]http://img512.imageshack.us/img512/5561/wheelom7.jpg[/qimg]

Galileo? He's trotted out by skeptics far more than by believers.

 

[bob_dezon]

I think its a reference alluding to he was once considered heretical but later considered to be correct. Which is usually a woo argument, just you wait itll all be proven correct in the end. This especially applies to anyone talking about paranormal phenomena and quantum mechanics in the same sentance.

 

[vIQleS]

Schwartz does blind, double blind and triple blind studies.

Could you please humour me and explain in simple terms what a double-blind test is and then in a new paragraph explain what a triple-blind test is?

Use small words and short sentences - assume you're writing for slow children. (so that us skeptics can understand it. )

 

[Ladewig]

It's very simple, classical objects (like your body) just appear classical because of decoherence. This is why you are conscious of "things" because decoherence causes the interference patterns that are associated with the particles in your body to remain hidden but they are still present. So your body is just a reflection of a more connected quantum nature. This is also do to entanglement. This is why the holographic principle shows up in alot of these theories.

This is shown in the double slit experiment. When a measurement occurs you get the appearence of a collapse of the wavefunction but the fullness of the wavefunction is still present it's just one state is observed.

You misused every science term you mentioned. All those things take place on an atomic level. Those things have nothing to do with things as large as humans. They have nothing to do with things as large as human brain cells. Please stop it.

 

[vIQleS]

I think its a reference alluding to he was once considered heretical but later considered to be correct. Which is usually a woo argument, just you wait itll all be proven correct in the end. This especially applies to anyone talking about paranormal phenomena and quantum mechanics in the same sentance.

Yes - i think that should read 'laughed at galileo'.

Still funny tho...

 

[Ladewig]

Opinion seems to be split as to whether or not you are a troll. One question will be enough to satisfy me.

In your first post, you said that Sylvia was not an authentic psychic. In post #43 you said

At some point you have to be a freethinker instead of a closed minded skeptics. Some skeptics are dogmatic about their skepticism and they "believe" psychic ability is not possible no matter how illogical they may sound.

So, Polomontana, what is your response when Sylvia believers read your material and call you the dogmatic, closed-minded skeptic?

 

[CLD]

One of my favorite woo arguments is "skeptics condemn (insert belief) without even bothering to probe its depth or give it a chance." When asked what "probe depth/give it a chance" entails, the answer is usually something like "get a reading from a real psychic" or "go on a real ghost hunt" etc.

 

[Miss Anthrope]

One of my favorite woo arguments is "skeptics condemn (insert belief) without even bothering to probe its depth or give it a chance." When asked what "probe depth/give it a chance" entails, the answer is usually something like "get a reading from a real psychic" or "go on a real ghost hunt" etc.

Yeah, it's real amusing when they use it on me. Then they have to go Scotsman on me.

 

[Nicholas Turnbull]

General comments on this thread

Indeed, as commented above, it is alas rather too late for worthy commentary to be made here. However, I think one important observation here in reference to the initial post is that it is an extremely unwise idea to base one's estimation of fact upon the content of a television show.

The medium of television is easily manipulated, and the principal issue with it is that one can never know the true sequence of events that lay behind its filming. Not only that, but the opinions and biases of the production are entirely the cause of what the programme will present - in other words, you will see what the producer and director want you to see, and think what they want you to think, if you accept it at face value. As yet, I have seen no evidence to suggest that "psychic detectives" have shown any merit whatsoever (I might add that, indeed, they have achieved absolutely zero success where they are needed and have preyed upon those desperate for information - need I even mention the disgustingly loathesome Sylvia Browne on Montel) nor that any of these people have been able to provide conclusive proof of the existence of the psychic phenomena they claim to detect.

Now, I should point out here that this should not be taken necessarily to mean that such claims have been disproven, merely that they have not as yet been proven and cannot yet be accepted. A television show is a test of nothing. I would urge the writer of this initial post to conduct his or her own research into the matter to determine if any evidentiary support exists, outside of pre-packaged ideologies advanced by television producers. Can one independently verify that these people really can have insights into the realm of the supernatural? If so, then they will be able to win the JREF prize with extremely little effort; but I see none of them clamouring to do so. I would be the first to "eat my hat", as it were, when provided with such evidence.

This has nothing to do with skepticism suppressing a given ideology; merely that if such an ideology is to advance claims of efficacy in the "real world" those claims must be backed up with some kind of evidence, especially when real events and real depravities conjoin with such claims. I think that is a perfectly reasonable criterion to accept - for these people can hold any beliefs they wish in my view, but it is only when they wish to advance them to the world as demonstrable that such a burden of proof is created.

I myself hold beliefs outside of the realms of science as a Buddhist, but I do not expect the world to accept the supernatural parts of this belief at face value, and do not even pretend to be able to offer any scientifically-acceptable evidence for them; but when I work as a scientist, I allow no other presuppositions to enter into that arena (in part this is because my beliefs do not conflict with science; but that is irrelevant). I might invite the initial poster to consider that such a duality can exist, and evaluate the claims of this television show on the basis of the real world, since they are making real-world claims.

 

[Miss Anthrope]

Just brilliant, Nicholas.