• 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.

psychics

panchov

Thinker
P
Joined
Nov 4, 2007
Messages
221
Hello, I'm new here.
I came here because I was thinking about James Randi this weekend during an Amelia Kinkade seminar I attended. For those of you who don't know, she's a pet psychic.
It's weird because I get sick of James Randi (and M. Shermer especially) always so negative. I mean I would think the word skeptic would indicate one also had an open mind, but these guys just seem to be negative about EVERYTHING.
Problem is, I'm beginning to suspect they're right!

Ameila Kinkade was just so inane I could barely contain myself from shouting out the whole time. She had a really sweet guy come up with his sweet dog and the whole class read the dog. Amelia decided there was a black lab in this dog's life. She went around the room asking us. First person said she saw a black lab. Amelia said THIS IS A SCIENTIFIC IMPOSSIBLITY, so of course a lot of other people saw labs too. I thought they guy had told her so she new they were right, but no black lab was just her guess. She just kept pretending that it was right even though the guy never confirmed it.

Also this dog she said was his childhood dog, a german shepherd ("as soon as the dog came into the room he said to me German Shepherd, German Shepherd"). THe guy didn't confirm he had had a GS as a kid, but he didn't deny it either (I figured he didn't want to embarrass her), but she just kept repeating it.

Ok, I'll stop now, I could go on and on. Except that she kept telling us that in her previous sessions the entire classes would get certain specific information from animals. Nobody including her said anything very specific at all and most of what they said was wrong or ("Daddy sits in front of a computer.") Ok sure, who doesn't?

SO my question is, why can people like this get away with this stuff? And how is it that on tv they're always giving such dead on specific information and they're right? Are all tv shows cheats? What about those psychic detectives, they get the police to say they were right? I'm so confused. I want to know what's reall going on.

By the way, I was a little skeptical of her psychic abilities before I went, but I hoped she might at least have some general cat psychology to share with me to help my unhappy cat, but it was all just gibberish nonsense and weird metaphysical rules that she made up! Ugh!

I honestly think it's possible that some people are psychic, except that I think what we call psychic is really just people who are very tuned into (what did Jung call it, collective memory? and things like that). All I ever see are frauds though - had a similar experience with James VP.

Thanks for listening to me. I'm wondering is there any way to really address this issue? I go to John Jay College (Criminal Justice) and was thinking I'd like to do a double blind study of psychic detectives - wonder if I could manage it.
 
Hey neighbor. I graduated from Hunter College and Adelphi University.

For one, James Randi and Michael Shermer are not negative at all. Wanting scientific evidence for claims of the paranormal is not being negative, it is being rational and wanting empirical evidence. And they do have an open mind. Randi is not closed off to the possibility that paranormal claims do not exist, he just wants evidence under strict, scientific rigor. This is not being close-minded or negative

"SO my question is, why can people like this get away with this stuff? And how is it that on tv they're always giving such dead on specific information and they're right? Are all tv shows cheats? What about those psychic detectives, they get the police to say they were right? I'm so confused. I want to know what's reall going on."

People get away with this stuff, bc SO many people believe in it. Is it really dead on specific information that they get right? Or is it just a generalization that can be applied to many people? Also, I am more prone to believe in the psychology of persuasion for people to believe psychic information. Even if information does not exactly fit, most people want to believe SO badly that the paranormal is real, that they will search for anything in their lives to make a connection. So, if a psychic says to someone, "I see a John in your life" the person is flabbergasted by this. John is a very popular male name. I can name at least 5-8 John's that I know!

And the fact that the person is also introduced as a "psychic investigator" puts the person in a place of authority and people tend to believe people that are "experts" in their field. Kind of like, you are more prone to believe a speaker if the speaker is a recognized authority figure in the field of study. If someone told you I had no psychic abilities at all, and yet I tried to read your mind, your past or what not, and if I got a couple things right, would you believe it was because I was psychic? Probably not! You would assume I got lucky. If a person is introduced as a "psychic" and they get a couple things right about your life, you will assume they have paranormal abilities.
 
Last edited:
panchov said:
... leading part snipped ...

SO my question is, why can people like this get away with this stuff? And how is it that on tv they're always giving such dead on specific information and they're right? Are all tv shows cheats? What about those psychic detectives, they get the police to say they were right? I'm so confused. I want to know what's reall going on.

... trailing part snipped ...
Click to expand...
Welcome to the forum, Panchov!

Yes, the TV shows are cheats. Sometimes it's just selective editing to show only the hits and conveniently not include the misses. Other times it's more blatant, like a ghost hunter programme that ran in the UK.

As for the psychic detectives, you'll find it's the psychic detectives themselves that are touting the claims of having "assisted" the police. Very often the police deny outright that the psychic was of any use. Other times, such as when the police detective is married to the psychic (can someone dig up a reference for this, please?), the police will say the psychic was useful. Look up some skeptical analysis on Allison Dubois; her claims are all in her head.

Check out the Psychics and Missing People thread to see just how truly useless "psychics" are when it comes to helping the police.
 
Last edited:
Thanks for your responses! Showmeproof, we are neighbors!

I know I've seen some police on those shows saying how wonderful the psychics were. I believe there was one where the policeman said the psychic led them directly to a body, someplace where nobody would have looked. I really need to do a study on this!

I forgot to mention two other things she said: 1-there was a famous true story where a girl who received a transplanted heart from a murdered girl had vivid memories of the murder and helped catch the guy (she id him in a lineup) - now I don't know how they got him in a lineup under those circumstances

2-she said a dog's nasal passages are as long as a football field - ok, am I dumb or is this impossible? But she was serious.

I tried to look both these "facts" up on the internet to no avail.

The worst thing she said was that she was visiting a friend and the friend's dog told her that she was the friend's aborted baby reincarnated. I was afraid to ask her if she repeated the info to the friend because if she said yes I would have lost it. These people -- so weird!!!!!!
 
panchov said:
The worst thing she said was that she was visiting a friend and the friend's dog told her that she was the friend's aborted baby reincarnated. I was afraid to ask her if she repeated the info to the friend because if she said yes I would have lost it. These people -- so weird!!!!!!
Click to expand...


oh dear...
 
Hello, I'm new here.
Click to expand...

Welcome, we were all new here once.

I came here because I was thinking about James Randi this weekend during an Amelia Kinkade seminar I attended. For those of you who don't know, she's a pet psychic.
It's weird because I get sick of James Randi (and M. Shermer especially) always so negative. I mean I would think the word skeptic would indicate one also had an open mind, but these guys just seem to be negative about EVERYTHING.
Problem is, I'm beginning to suspect they're right!
Click to expand...

I have only met Shermer a couple times not sure if I would say he is negative. Randi I have met many many times, and Yes he can come off as negative at times. You have to remember that he hears this stuff all day long where ever he goes, email, phone ect... He has been doing this for years and years, I think that if any of us lived his life for just a few months we would be frustrated and negative as well. This man shows you how the tricks are done, he explains why they do it and how people fall for it, he shows videos of the people faking it and on and on, yet people still believe in woo. How frustrating is that! Trust me he isn't as negative as he should be.

Also when he is interviewed on TV or radio he knows that he only has seconds to get his point across, the woo-person usually has 4 times that. Randi must be very "to the point" and that can also come across as rude.

Ameila Kinkade was just so inane I could barely contain myself from shouting out the whole time. She had a really sweet guy come up with his sweet dog and the whole class read the dog. Amelia decided there was a black lab in this dog's life. She went around the room asking us. First person said she saw a black lab. Amelia said THIS IS A SCIENTIFIC IMPOSSIBLITY, so of course a lot of other people saw labs too. I thought they guy had told her so she new they were right, but no black lab was just her guess. She just kept pretending that it was right even though the guy never confirmed it.

Also this dog she said was his childhood dog, a german shepherd ("as soon as the dog came into the room he said to me German Shepherd, German Shepherd"). THe guy didn't confirm he had had a GS as a kid, but he didn't deny it either (I figured he didn't want to embarrass her), but she just kept repeating it.

Ok, I'll stop now, I could go on and on. Except that she kept telling us that in her previous sessions the entire classes would get certain specific information from animals. Nobody including her said anything very specific at all and most of what they said was wrong or ("Daddy sits in front of a computer.") Ok sure, who doesn't?
Click to expand...

You have just experienced "cold reading" and not done very well. Look up on Wikipedia.

SO my question is, why can people like this get away with this stuff? And how is it that on tv they're always giving such dead on specific information and they're right? Are all tv shows cheats? What about those psychic detectives, they get the police to say they were right? I'm so confused. I want to know what's reall going on.
Click to expand...

Well we would like to know why people continue to believe in woo when it is clearly (at least to us) fakery. People believe mainly because they want to believe. People want to feel like they have some control in this amazing wonderful world, psychics and woo help people feel like they can control their own lives. I think you might like to read Shermer's "Why People Believe Weird Things" which explains it so much better than I can.

Robert Lancaster's site www.stopsylviabrowne.com is another good place to understand how someone could be sooooo wrong but still be on TV and still make mega-millions from supporters.

I can't remember right now, but someone posted a link to an English article that showed that the British don't use psychics. I think all TV psychic detectives are fakes. Think this over, if this could possibly be true then everything we know about the laws of nature, would be wrong. These people would win every award possible, the Noble prize and more, heck they would make new awards to give to them if it were possible. Time magazine covers heck they might make People magazine? On a slow week maybe?



By the way, I was a little skeptical of her psychic abilities before I went, but I hoped she might at least have some general cat psychology to share with me to help my unhappy cat, but it was all just gibberish nonsense and weird metaphysical rules that she made up! Ugh!

I honestly think it's possible that some people are psychic, except that I think what we call psychic is really just people who are very tuned into (what did Jung call it, collective memory? and things like that). All I ever see are frauds though - had a similar experience with James VP.

Thanks for listening to me. I'm wondering is there any way to really address this issue? I go to John Jay College (Criminal Justice) and was thinking I'd like to do a double blind study of psychic detectives - wonder if I could manage it.
Click to expand...

Your just at the beginning of this search. You are starting to question and that is a VERY GOOD thing. I use occum's razor for just about everything, is it more likely that everything we know about the world is wrong and psychics can receive visions and thoughts or is it more likely that these people are making a quick buck off gullible people?

Sorry I don't think I have ever heard of any science supporting "collective memory" the Nobel prize people haven't yet either. Maybe People magazine have....?

Susan
 
I tried to look both these "facts" up on the internet to no avail.
Click to expand...

You gotta wonder why you can't find these "facts"

I really wonder why these psychics still throw this stuff out. Don't they know that everyone carries a little recording devise (camera phone) and just about everyone has Internet access (some in the phone) and the Internet makes checking stuff really easy? Honestly I don't think Sylvia Browne really thought anyone would have to power to check her facts when she starting years ago. Never occurred to her the vastness of the Internet, the instant communications and the power of the Internet. Wonder why she didn't see this coming.....

Susan
 
OMG!

I had a German Shepherd as a kid and my dog now has part black lab!!!!

OMG! she meant ME!!!! W-O-W!!! :jaw-dropp
 
sgf8 said:
**snip**

I use occum's razor for just about everything, is it more likely that everything we know about the world is wrong and psychics can receive visions and thoughts or is it more likely that these people are making a quick buck off gullible people?

**snip**
Click to expand...

Occams razor doesn't say that out of two outcomes, choose the one more likely (no need for a razor, the answer is obvious via statistics). It's if two outcomes have equal probability, choose the simpler explanation.
 
Muppet said:
Occams razor doesn't say that out of two outcomes, choose the one more likely (no need for a razor, the answer is obvious via statistics). It's if two outcomes have equal probability, choose the simpler explanation.
Click to expand...

Occam's razor doesn't say that either. It simply advises you not to multiply entities without necessity. If two ideas have equal explanatory power it does not provide you a way to choose between them unless one explanation invokes entities which would otherwise be unnecessary (for example, God directing the course of evolution is discarded in favour of natural selection, since the processes by which natural selection acts are already present, but God isn't). However, if two ideas have equal explanatory abilities and neither involve novel forces, there's no particular reason to choose the simpler explanation, other than wishful thinking. And we have learned (I hope) that wishful thinking serves us poorly.

Linda
 
You guys are cool! I should have come here before

I do tend to think there is something along the lines of collective memory, I just don't think it's anything mystical. Ideas and social rules do tend to cross societies that have no contact with each other etc. Maybe a better word for it is instinct. I don't know, but I guess it's also what makes some police better at their job than others, they just have better abilties.

You know that dog whisperer guy - he doesn't pretent to be psychic, does he? (I'm not all that familiar with him so I can't swear he doesn't) - he just seems to be very talented at working with animals.

It's a crazy world we live in, that's for sure!

Thanks again for all your responses and welcomes!
 
fls said:
Occam's razor doesn't say that either. It simply advises you not to multiply entities without necessity. If two ideas have equal explanatory power it does not provide you a way to choose between them unless one explanation invokes entities which would otherwise be unnecessary (for example, God directing the course of evolution is discarded in favour of natural selection, since the processes by which natural selection acts are already present, but God isn't). However, if two ideas have equal explanatory abilities and neither involve novel forces, there's no particular reason to choose the simpler explanation, other than wishful thinking. And we have learned (I hope) that wishful thinking serves us poorly.

Linda
Click to expand...

Thank you. But occam did say that a simpler solution is preferred over a more complex one if both are equally likely to be correct. The sentance "Entities are not to be multiplied without neccessity" predates occam and I don't think he ever actually wrote that.

When you really get down to it one has to define what parameters makes one argument more simple then another. One way is to use how many entities are required for an argument to work.

There is a reason to choose the simpler explanation, according to occam the simpler explanation is more likely to be correct.
 
panchov said:
I do tend to think there is something along the lines of collective memory, I just don't think it's anything mystical. Ideas and social rules do tend to cross societies that have no contact with each other etc. Maybe a better word for it is instinct. I don't know, but I guess it's also what makes some police better at their job than others, they just have better abilties.
Click to expand...

You know, I've never really liked the concept of "instict," even as it's used scientifically. It's a description of behavior, rather than explanation. For example, a scientist observes that mammalian babies root about for a nipple mere minutes after birth - when asked how a creature can exhibit a behavior that wasn't learned, they say, "Well, it's instinctual." But that's tautological, and it leads to nonsense like "collective memory."

Really, what scientists should say is that it's encoded into our DNA. It's an evolved behavior.
 
I can see what you're saying

But don't you have to have proof for your argument also? Perhaps nurturing our babies is encoded in our DNA, but if I show you two policeman, one of whom is great at his job and one who isn't, can you prove to me that comes down to DNA?

Or what about a child music genius that comes from a non musical family?

I'm not saying you're not right, maybe it is DNA plus something to do with their surroundings, but have we proved that yet?
 
panchov said:
But don't you have to have proof for your argument also? Perhaps nurturing our babies is encoded in our DNA, but if I show you two policeman, one of whom is great at his job and one who isn't, can you prove to me that comes down to DNA?
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, I wasn't trying to argue that ever single thing about our lives is genetically determined. I would never even attempt that argument, especially with the new research coming out that shows that our environment can trigger the expression of certain parts of our genome. When it comes to animal behavior, its definitely difficult to determine which behaviors are genetic (and therefore common to the breed) and which are caused by their upbringing, etc.

If you read what I actually wrote, what I was arguing is that "instinct" is really "survival-selected behavior". A newborn mammal that is hard-wired to root about for a nipple to breast-feed is more likely to survive with an uncaring mother than a newborn mammal who must be led to the nipple.
 
Muppet said:
Thank you. But occam did say that a simpler solution is preferred over a more complex one if both are equally likely to be correct. The sentance "Entities are not to be multiplied without neccessity" predates occam and I don't think he ever actually wrote that.

When you really get down to it one has to define what parameters makes one argument more simple then another. One way is to use how many entities are required for an argument to work.

There is a reason to choose the simpler explanation, according to occam the simpler explanation is more likely to be correct.
Click to expand...

I was attempting to refer to Occam's razor, rather than Occam, per se. The comparison works well when you are considering the parsimonious version of an idea (unnecessary assumptions have been shaved away) and the original idea. But it does not seem to be particularly applicable (or useful) when comparing two competing ideas. It makes far more sense to choose between them on the basis of evidence rather than on some measure of 'simple'. And in reality, that is what science does - postulate what evidence would differentiate the two and then perform experiments to collect that evidence.

Linda
 
To prove that she can read an animal's mind, first she would have to prove that animals are conscious and self-aware.

I spent months in a philosophy class debating back and forth as to whether or not animals are conscious and self-aware. Nothing was resolved. The best I can say is that I believe that animals have a rudimentary consciousness and awareness in that they clearly have preferences for certain foods or toys. However, I can't prove that these preferences aren't a function of instinct or genetic encoding rather than being true preferences. It might be that my cat likes tuna and doesn't like liver because liver makes her stomach hurt. I can't really ask her, after all.
 
In addition, if I believe that cats are not conscious and self-aware in any way, that means my cat couldn't possibly love me the way I think she does. Who wants to believe that? :( Unfortunately it's probably true. I'm about 99% sure she's just in it for the catfood.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom