StopSylviaBrowne - I Speak With Sylvia Browne

[CFLarsen]

I think I understand what you are saying Claus, however, though such behaviour would be indicative of a non psychic, it could also indicate a callous psychic with good business sense.

Maybe - only, if she really was even the slightest bit psychic, she wouldn't have to be a callous swine.



Apologies to swine, of course.

 

[GoodGuysEatPie]

And finally, I want to thank you all for your praise of me, but I need to clarify. I only went because I was afraid that Robert would not be allowed to ask his question and I just might have the opportunity. The only way I kept from being scared to death was by play-acting - I was pretending to be an SB admirer. Once I knew that Robert was going to be able to ask his question, and knowing that I had none of my own, I began to panic. I ended up continuing my play-acting and asked a question I thought one of her supporters would ask. I'm not very good at thinking on my feet. The brave ones here were Claus (real grace under pressure - and a lot better at the spy game than I - and, Claus, thanks again for making this possible for us) and my husband and hero, Robert S. Lancaster.

I think I just got a little teary reading that.

~ggep~

 

[Severus Snape]

Awesome article, RSL.
I salute you.
Kenneth

 

[Rasmus]

We have to go with what Sylvia says. Always go with the claim. At the time she is delivering a psychic message, there is no doubt. She is right at the time.

Yes. But that only means that we can never trust her confidence - still we might be well-advised to trust her actual message at about 80%.

You keep missing this point: There is a huge difference between saying "I may be wrong, but it looks to me as if Shawn Hornbeck is dead" and "Shawn Hornbeck is dead" (but after which she admits that she was wrong).

Yes, there is a huge difference - I just disagree that it amounts to logical proof she isn't psychic. She isn't psychic because in reality she is nowhere near a 80% success rate.

How do you tell if a message is of psychic nature, if it is erroneous?

I am making no claims towards the precise nature of psychic messages. I just utterly fail to see why the medium in which a message is transferred and the truth-value of the message should be linked.

My dad called me on the phone last week. What he actually said and whether it was true has nothing to do with the fact that I had a telephone conversation with my dad.

It isn't her demeanour at the time of passing on a message. It's her assuredness at the time of passing on a message.

So what?

Her assuredness is unjustified. And she admits as much! But it simply doesn't follow that she isn't psychic!

She could be less certain of herself. She could work with disclaimers on every single bit of advice she gives - it wouldn't change anything, much less her success rate.

At the time of her passing on a message, does she give any indication that she is fallible? No, she does not.

So what? That makes her unreliable. It doesn't make her non-psychic.

It is only after the fact that she admits that she is not always correct. But she doesn't say when she is doing it if she is wrong or not.

So?

We can show she is correct less than 100% of the time, and we can show that some of the time she seems to ignore that.

That makes her what I would call "wrong sometimes". It doesn't make her non-psychic. (What makes her non-psychic is that she is actually "wrong most of the time")

That is why you don't get it: You don't understand that it makes a huge difference when psychics like Sylvia admit they are wrong. They only do it after they are shown to be wrong.

No, I get that it makes a huge difference. I just don't get how this should show she non-psychic. Yo9u need to make certain assumptions about what it is like to receive psychic messages, namely, that they are always right and that you can tell them apart from ideas or feelings originating within your head. You need to assume that when a psychic get it wrong it is because they are not, in fact, acting on a genuine psychic message but something different.

Your logic just doesn't hold up, though. A psychic could be hearing voices all the time, and the same voices might sometimes be telling the truth, and sometimes not.

Such a person would be fully psychic, yet have a success rate of only 80% for example.

Her confidence at the time of giving out messages wouldn't make any difference to her being psychic or her having a success rate of 80%.

All you can deduce from her self-claimed success rate of 80% and the fact that she is never uncertain is that she is too certain of herself.

 

[FramerDave]

I was in Las Vegas back in January for a convention. I recall when I was passing through the Excalibur I saw a large poster advertising the witch. I thought it was rather interesting that RSL and friends found no posters advertising her performance (for lack of a better word) and were forced to hunt down the venue.

Do you suppose that she and her people knew that TAM would be in town soon, along with her arch nemesis(es) [what the heck is the plural of nemesis anyway?] James Randi and RSL, along with many others of a skeptical mindset?

I'd wager she had them removed temporarily to try and keep a low profile during the time all the dark entities were in town.

And of course Robert and Claus, allow me to add my thanks and encouragement for your great work.

 

[grayman]

Nemeses.

 

[Amapola]

Wow! Congratulations to RSL, his wife and Claus.

Most people just sit on the couch and say "if I saw so-and-so in person I would (fill in improbable action here)!". Yet you actually got up off the couch and did it, and did it very well indeed. That is very inspiring. Thank you.

 

[Wowbagger]

This Sylvia Browne show sounds like a big rip off!

Good thing I saw the SpongeBob SquarePants 4-D show, instead!

 

[Demigorgon]

Great Article. Keep up the nasty fight!

 

[CFLarsen]

Yes. But that only means that we can never trust her confidence - still we might be well-advised to trust her actual message at about 80%.

If you accept that her 80% estimate is correct, then you also have to accept what else she says. The only source for that % is Sylvia herself. You can't have it both ways.

Yes, there is a huge difference - I just disagree that it amounts to logical proof she isn't psychic. She isn't psychic because in reality she is nowhere near a 80% success rate.

I am not saying this is logical proof she isn't psychic.

I am saying that this is logical proof that she herself knows she isn't psychic.

Do you - finally - understand?

I am making no claims towards the precise nature of psychic messages. I just utterly fail to see why the medium in which a message is transferred and the truth-value of the message should be linked.

Why? Are you serious? That's the whole idea of mediumship: That the messages are true. The afterlife exists, because of what the psychic says: The verifiable messages make believers believe that the non-verifiable messages are also true.

So what?

Her assuredness is unjustified. And she admits as much! But it simply doesn't follow that she isn't psychic!

She could be less certain of herself. She could work with disclaimers on every single bit of advice she gives - it wouldn't change anything, much less her success rate.

Yes, it would, because then, she would give the disclaimer in advance.

So what? That makes her unreliable. It doesn't make her non-psychic.

So?

We can show she is correct less than 100% of the time, and we can show that some of the time she seems to ignore that.

That makes her what I would call "wrong sometimes". It doesn't make her non-psychic. (What makes her non-psychic is that she is actually "wrong most of the time")

No, I get that it makes a huge difference. I just don't get how this should show she non-psychic. Yo9u need to make certain assumptions about what it is like to receive psychic messages, namely, that they are always right and that you can tell them apart from ideas or feelings originating within your head. You need to assume that when a psychic get it wrong it is because they are not, in fact, acting on a genuine psychic message but something different.

Your logic just doesn't hold up, though. A psychic could be hearing voices all the time, and the same voices might sometimes be telling the truth, and sometimes not.

Such a person would be fully psychic, yet have a success rate of only 80% for example.

Her confidence at the time of giving out messages wouldn't make any difference to her being psychic or her having a success rate of 80%.

All you can deduce from her self-claimed success rate of 80% and the fact that she is never uncertain is that she is too certain of herself.

Again, that's not the point I am making with my question. You are arguing against a point I am not making.

 

[alfaniner]

Claus, although it is greatly appreciated that you provided the means for RSL to attend the show, your little slap fight with Rasmus is kind of taking away from the thread. I'd suggest moving it to another one.

 

[Professor Yaffle]

Any logical proof that is based on "If X is true then Y would behave in Z way" is no logical proof at all, because people do not always behave logically or in ways one would expect. Someonene could (as I have said before) be psychic with 80% accuracy, be unable to tell which of her pronouncements were in the 80% category, yet still give pronouncements that seem to be giving the impression that she was 100% certain - if she was a cold hearted money grabbing bitch who perceived that she would get more customers if she acted in such a way.

 

[CFLarsen]

Claus, although it is greatly appreciated that you provided the means for RSL to attend the show, your little slap fight with Rasmus is kind of taking away from the thread. I'd suggest moving it to another one.

It's not a slap-fight. I'm trying to get Rasmus to understand what my intent was with the question.

 

[Professor Yaffle]

It's not a slap-fight. I'm trying to get Rasmus to understand what my intent was with the question.

Well I think the response to it in this thread has shown that you made the right decision about which question to ask.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Of all the SSB articles to date, this one was by far the most exciting read!

Amazing!

I look forward to an update on the SB's "masters degree" article when this pans out.

By the way, is the second installment of the series on SB's finances coming soon? I'm really curious about what kind of house she owns and so on.

 

[steve s]

I remember someone on this forum saying that Sylvia was once reluctant to share a stage with JE, as if she was too good to have to stoop so low.

It probably had more to do with her being afraid he would steal the show due to her total lack of charisma.

Steve S.

 

[RSLancastr]

Another great article.....

Thanks, glenn!

Great stuff. If I ever want to crash a Noreen Renier lecture I'll pass along another set of tickets for you and your wife. -John Merrell

Naaah, Renier already has a nemesis!

Great article!

Thanks, Meridian!

Apologies for the pedanrty!

That's "pedantry."

Kudos, Robert. This is your best article yet.

Thanks, Steve!

The guys you have to feel sorry for are the one who have to live with her all the way back to where ever she comes from, particularly which ever one she can pin with "letting Lancaster in".

Yeah, I don't think that was a very pleasant trip for anyone involved.

and my husband and hero, Robert S. Lancaster.

Love you, sweets.

Very professional job Mr. Lancaster et al.
Thanks for doing this for all of us!

Thanks, pch!

Great article. Amusing and enlightening.

Thanks!

When I saw the thread title, this image popped into my head:

Which one am I?

Excellent work!

Thanks, john!

Hotel security was Sylvia's brick.

Interesting analogy...

You have an accent. I don't.

Let's take a vote on that at TAM7!

Great job, and I look forward to more great stuff.

Thanks Spidey! Good to see you around again.

Great article RSL.

THanks, ES!

One thing which worries me, do you think that the next reporter to question Browne on SSB will hear something like "Oh, him? He came to one of my shows in Las Vegas and made a scene, security ended up kicking him out!"

It doesn't worry me. But it is one reason I got the article up as soon as I could.

Great job Robert, Susan, and Claus!

Thanks, Ysidro!

Great stuff, Robert - but don't forget to
a) get rid of the beard, or
b) wear a burqa
the next time you attend one of Sylvia's shows...

I'm thinking of getting one of those "fat lady suits" like the one Arnold wore to get past security in Total Recall...

By the way, I was delighted to hear that she was holding court in a tiny studio theatre, not selling out a huge hotel conference room!

Well, I think she still does her "lectures" in larger venues.

Least I get carried away with my bickering: Great work as usual, RSL. Thanks too to your wife and Claus!

Thanks, Rasmus!

Out of curiosity, was Sylvia's performance less conspicuously advertised than John Edward's? Did anyone get a glimpse of where Edward was, the size of the room, audience, etc?

I saw Edawrd posters all over the Flamingo, but then, I spent several days there, as opposed to a couple of hours at the Excalibur. But I did see his show advertised on the strip, and I saw no such advertising for Browne.

I don't know what size room he plays at the Flamingo. Good question.

Also, I could swear I remember someone on this forum saying that Sylvia was once reluctant to share a stage with JE, as if she was too good to have to stoop so low.

I believe that is in the "These Freaks Only ome Out at Night" article, and that PastBrowneFan has mentioned it here as well.

Awesome article, RSL.

Thanks, Snape!

I was in Las Vegas back in January for a convention. I recall when I was passing through the Excalibur I saw a large poster advertising the witch. I thought it was rather interesting that RSL and friends found no posters advertising her performance (for lack of a better word) and were forced to hunt down the venue.

It is possible that the poster was there, and we just didn't see it. We did not case the whole place. But it was nowhere to be seen walking straight into the lobby from the main entrance.

I'd wager she had them removed temporarily to try and keep a low profile during the time all the dark entities were in town.

That hadn't ocurred to me. I guess it is possible.

Wow! Congratulations to RSL, his wife and Claus.

Thanks, Amapola!

This Sylvia Browne show sounds like a big rip off!

Good thing I saw the SpongeBob SquarePants 4-D show, instead!

I dunno, I think that SpongeBob is into some woo...

Great Article. Keep up the nasty fight!

Thanks, Demi!

Of all the SSB articles to date, this one was by far the most exciting read!

Thanks, Joe.

By the way, is the second installment of the series on SB's finances coming soon? I'm really curious about what kind of house she owns and so on.

When I get the time to finish the research and write it. No ETA as yet.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Nemeses.

Wasn't he a pharaoh?

 

[cow_cat]

Add one more "Fantastic" from the peanut gallery. Although 'fantastic' doesn't seem sufficient in this case. Is there a word which is one higher than fantastic? It seems you have exhausted the english language of superlatives.

I've just noticed that Phil Plait has given you a plug on his blog.

And finally, I want to thank you all for your praise of me, but I need to clarify. I only went because I was afraid that Robert would not be allowed to ask his question and I just might have the opportunity. The only way I kept from being scared to death was by play-acting - I was pretending to be an SB admirer. Once I knew that Robert was going to be able to ask his question, and knowing that I had none of my own, I began to panic. I ended up continuing my play-acting and asked a question I thought one of her supporters would ask. I'm not very good at thinking on my feet. The brave ones here were Claus (real grace under pressure - and a lot better at the spy game than I - and, Claus, thanks again for making this possible for us) and my husband and hero, Robert S. Lancaster.

Just a quick word to Mrs. RSL - Don't belittle your own part in this venture. A good definition of bravery is being scared of doing something, but doing it anyway because it is the right thing to do. That describes your actions perfectly. A hearty well done to yourself and Howard Claus aswell.

 

[MIKILLINI]

RS your manners were quite good and respectful. You did very well, and Browne revealed to others in the audience (at least those who didn't have the Sylvia worship veneer covering their common sense) how much of a sham she really is.
Especially the 4th woman who was told by Sylvia her passed on loved one "really liked the service" even though the funeral services had not taken place. Sheesh!

What a slap in the face, having to pay for getting lied to.
Kudos to you, good job!