This is what pathological skeptics believe

[PixyMisa]

Beth Clarkson's possible anomalous ability.

Which is what?

I know she posts here, I think defending homeopathy.

But you said that only ridiculous claims are accepted for the million dollar challenge, and homeopathy has been accepted for the challenge (tested - FAILED) - therefore you believe homeopathy is ridiculous.

And why is it you are so frightened of stating what the ridiculous claims are? You invariably retreat to content-free mush like - go on, accuse me of building a strawman here - like "Beth Clarkson's possible anomalous ability."

We've tested homeopathy. Don't work.

 

[Batman Jr.]

MRC_Hans' practical test of Solipsism .(tm)

Disclaimer: This experiment might not only bruise your ego, but also your body, so you undertake it entirely at your own risk. I will not be held responsible for any consequences, including, but not limited to, loss of pride, peace of mind, teeth, etc.

1) Find a busy city street.

2) Wait for large aggressive looking male to walk by (generally, the more tattoos, the better).

3) Walk up behind said large aggressive looking male and direct a solid kick at the lower, rear portion of his body.

4) When he turns, tell him: "That was because you mother is so ugly".

5) Observe.

You will now have tangible evidence for the following:

a) You exist physically.

b) At least one other entity exists physically.

c) You and that other entity are in communication, both abstractly and physically.

d) The other entity probably has a mother.

You may conclude that all your observations are, after all, part of an illusion, but the experience should convince you that you had better treat the illusion as reality .

Good luck!

So according to you, because the subject feels pain, that means the outside world is real? The weak solipsist says that the experiential is not sufficient to prove that which is thought to have been experienced, so when you are merely citing another albeit intense example of experience, what are you expecting to be able to prove? This is more an emotional argument than anything else.

Oh, and yes, prescribing to weak solipsism means that you are neither solipsistic nor anti-solipsistic as BronzeDog correctly guessed.

Originally posted by PixyMisa
Well, with the preponderance of evidence that we have, the idea that other people don't possess conscious minds is utterly absurd. It's not proof in the mathematical sense, but it's certainly not something I'm going to worry about.

While I admit that I do not live as a solipsist in my day to day life simply for the fact that I have to trust I know the mind can at least work the way in which it works for me and that there is no evidence that it is even possible for it to exist to the contrary, there is nonetheless no "preponderance" of data alluding to self-awareness in others. In fact, there is exactly none.

 

[PixyMisa]

So according to you, because the subject feels pain, that means the outside world is real? The weak solipsist says that the experiential is not sufficient to prove that which is thought to have been experienced, so when you are merely citing another albeit intense example of experience, what are you expecting to be able to prove? This is more an emotional argument than anything else.

It's not supposed to prove anything, in any absolute sense.

What it does is that it points out - in a very convincing manner - that the world acts as though solipsism was nonsense and materialism was true.

Oh, and yes, prescribing to weak solipsism means that you are neither solipsistic nor anti-solipsistic as BronzeDog correctly guessed.

That's fine, as far as it goes.

All I know for CERTAIN is that I, personally, exist. But by simple observation it quickly becomes patently absurd to assume that I am what exists. Because if all the world is all the result of my mind, then I am a raving paranoid schizophrenic psychopathic sado-masochistic nutcase. In which case, my opinion wouldn't be worth much.

While I admit that I do not live as a solipsist in my day to day life simply for the fact that I have to trust I know the mind can at least work the way in which it works for me and that there is no evidence that it is even possible for it to exist to the contrary, there is nonetheless no "preponderance" of data alluding to self-awareness in others. In fact, there is exactly none.

What? You've never met another person? Or another living creature?

There is an overwhelming preponderance of data that other people are self-aware, and it is added to everytime anyone communicates with anyone else.

People act as though they are self-aware. Simple as that. They all do this. In the face of this infallible trait, holding to solipsism as though it was meaningful (rather than just unfalsifiable) is stupid.

 

[Garrette]

Not a philosopher but I'll take a stab:

Originally posted by Batman, Jr.:

there is nonetheless no "preponderance" of data alluding to self-awareness in others. In fact, there is exactly none.

I disagree.

As I see it, there are two major competing hypotheses here:

1. Solipsism which, if I understand correctly, says that only consciousness of the observer is certain and that all else is a construct of that consciousness.

2. The universe is as it appears to be--separate from the observing consciousness.

I understand there is no proof of either, but plausibilities can be weighed.

For solipsism to be true it must also be true that the constructing consciousness constructs that which is at times painful, uncomfortable, unpleasant and detrimental to itself.

For the universe to be as it appears then all that is necessary is that things are as they appear (I recognize the oversimplification, but I think the point is clear).

Am I missing something?

eta: PixyMisa beat me to it and said, at least in part, the same thing. Probably better.

 

[Bronze Dog]

Quick comment to drop in: We're dealing with strictly metaphysical arguments when it comes to solipsism, so no one is going to prove or disprove anything. Hence, it's pointless to argue.

Recommended topic to focus on: Show Open Mind that us skeptics are interested in evidence by presenting evidence that cold reading works, and is a simpler hypothesis than the existence of paranormal powers.

 

[Garrette]

Originally posted by BronzeDog:

Show Open Mind that us skeptics are interested in evidence by presenting evidence that cold reading works, and is a simpler hypothesis than the existence of paranormal powers.

Won't work for at least two reasons.

1. (The practical one): There are precious few examples of successful cold readings to be had by the public. Reasons include the difficulty in meeting the requirement that the audience must first believe the cold reader is genuine and reconciling that belief with the moral reluctance of those who do not claim to be legitimate psychics to portray themselves as such. Derren Brown's recent Seance performance is an exception, but I do not know if a video or transcript is available.

2. (The intangible one): Find and show 17,000 successful cold readings and Open Mind will brush them aside with trivialities about how the circumstances don't fit exactly the circumstances of the alleged real reading and with protestations that the fact that fakes can be successful doesn't mean legitimate ones aren't there.

btw: I mentioned Open Mind not because I know for a fact this will be his/her response, but because he/she is proximate and it is my impression from what I have read that it will be.

 

[EHocking]

Ye olde non-sequiteur: Scientist are sometimes wrong, so paranormal claims must be right .

Hans

Well, of course my question was rhetorical.

That seems to be the only way you can get an answer that actually addresses the subject of the thread.

 

[AOK Tiger]

Ian,

Hey I am gunna give you a “FREE HIT”.

I will state categorically that a certain “paranormal claim” IS impossible.

It IS impossible to foresee the future.

Reasons:

1. It creates an impossible paradox : If you see the future you can change the future therefore the future you saw never happened and was never available to be “seen” in the first place.
2. The Future cannot possibly be fixed and therefore “seen”. A zillion variable happenings in the present will affect the future.
3. The future has not happened therefore cannot be seen.

Now I am a VERY imaginative person (eg I can think of scientific ways to view the past) but I cannot even IMAGINE a way to get around these impossibilities.. therefore I will STATE foreseeing the future (the actual future and not a prediction) is IMPOSSIBLE.

 

[AOK Tiger]

Ian,

Here is why you are so frustrating. This is the ridiculous comment you make over and over again. You just keep blathering it out there with NOTHING supporting it.

On top of this I have encountered no good reasons why paranormal phenomena cannot exist, and moreover the evidence remains. If parapsychological research largely gives positive results, and this research is tighter than in any other area of science, then what on earth is irrational with concluding that the evidence is fairly strongly suggestive that PSI exists??

You state “parapsychological research largely gives positive results”. Why is it you see this and we don’t ?????

Every piece of “research” you have presented or pointed to that have shown “generally tiny” results of Psi have NEVER been repeated under better controls and have had countless bits of flawed methodology.

We see this research as “interesting” but with its miniscule results, many flaws and inability to be repeated it becomes less than compelling evidence for psi. Hence it is totally ILLOGICAL to conclude it is suggestive of PSI !

Back to the why you see it and we don’t !!!

You MUST assume we either deliberately deny what is in front of us, implying we either have a motivation to deny it or we are mentally incompetent to see it.

Here is why THAT is stupid

1. Motivation. The only motivation we have is that we do not want to be proved wrong. That is fair enough.. BUT… THINK ABOUT IT.. Compelling evidence for PSI is found.. If I admit it is compelling I have to admit I was wrong.. some sadness… BUT I have to admit that PSI exists.. wonderful happiness. The POSITIVE motivation waaaay outweighs the negative. Quadruple this Wonderful happiness for your other “chestnut” proof of continued existence.
2. Mentally Incompetent. That is just laughable. There are at least 50 people on this board far more mentally competent than you (or I for that matter) to assess the evidence and conclude wether or not it is compelling or not !

Lets reverse this now. If I imply YOU have motivation to see what ISN”T there or you have mentally flawed processes.

Here is why that makes sense :

1. Motivation : You get to have mental powers and to live forever. WOW that MUST be strong motivation As well as the not proven wrong thing.
2. Mentally Incompetent : Well actually I DO NOT think you are mentally incompetent BUT you do come in Waaay behind plenty of folk here. You also have to look at the lack of quality support you get.. Jambo etc !

 

[EHocking]

What's Eddison being wrong on occasions have to do with anything? It actually reinforces my point. Proclamations by skeptics that something cannot be true, or cannot exist, are shown to be in error time after time after time.

Another lie made by skeptics time after time after time. I went on about this 2 years ago on here, and even found a website by someone who likewise complained about this strawman the sKeptics attack.

Actually all I wished to do was point out the irony of your use of Edison as the "inventor done wrong by nay-sayers", when the very next quote was him making grandiose, and incorrect predictions.

But since you have decided to miss that - here's the kicker.

Sir William Siemens was not making these statements as a sceptic, he was making the statement as a commercial competitor engaging in damage control. The Siemens companies were in direct competition to manufacture lighting, and indeed, within a couple of years were leading the way in theatrical lighting.

I stand to be corrected if you can show me the Siemens quote in the context of a scientific debunking.

No-one is saying that because skeptics are sometimes wrong, that all . .or indeed any paranormal phenomena exists. I simply state that skeptics proclamations that some alleged phenomenon cannot possible exist should be taken with a huge sack of salt given their track record.

You and I approach the subject from opposite sides.

It is indeed the track record of unsupported paranormal claims that paranormal claims lack validity. I see little point in discussing possible mechanisms for a phenomenon, when that phenomenon has not been demonstrated.

Anectodes just don't cut it as support. They may point to a phenomenon that is worthy of research, perhaps, but the fact that the USAF seriously investigated the UFO phenomenon does not prove that UFOs exist or need much further research applied to them since the report in the 50s came out, since no "smoking gun" evidence has been uncovered since the Blue Book.

On top of this I have encountered no good reasons why paranormal phenomena cannot exist, and moreover the evidence remains. If parapsychological research largely gives positive results, and this research is tighter than in any other area of science, then what on earth is irrational with concluding that the evidence is fairly strongly suggestive that PSI exists??

If only that were the case. Then claim that paranormal research "is tighter than in any other area of science" may be your personal opinion, but the fact that it is NOT the case is one of the reasons that the paranormal controversy remains. The PEAR study you (inevitably) quoted is a case in point.

No skeptic has ever addressed these points.

Quite untrue and you know it. Name one tightly controlled paranormal experiment that shows ANY results (negative or positive) that has NOT had the points it raises or the conclusions it reaches addressed.

They simply claim there is no evidence -- a claim which is simply flat out wrong.

I'm not going to get into one of your tangled meta discussions on your opinion that all the dictionaries in the world incorrectly define "evidence" and that you are the only holder of the true definition. I'll leave that to others with more patience.

Please provide and example of one of these "tight" paranormal research experiments that you say where sceptics claim there is no evidence.

 

[Bronze Dog]

Just realized one vital piece of information I need before I attempt to dig up research to prove that a cold reader can mimic a psychic: Open Mind, what sort of evidence would it take to convince you that a cold reader can fake being psychic?

I have a feeling that there's no real answer coming up to that question. I'm going to make a quick stop by the haiku topic and the humor forum before I go offline for the day.

 

[Interesting Ian]

We've been through this evidence issue sooo many times! It has been provided again and again and again to people on here. I'm pretty sure no-one actually checks it out.

The most complete resources for experimental evidence suggestive of parapsychological phenomena can be found in several Meta-Analyses. You can find, for example, composite results for 587 studies of consciousness-related anomalies in electronic REG behaviour described in 152 papers (most in peer-reviewed journals) by 68 principle investigators over a 30 year period, in Radin & Nelson, "Evidence for Consciousness-Related Anomalies in Random Physical Systems" Foundations of Physics, Vol 19 No 12, 1989. Utts published a survey of this and related work in Statistical Science in about 1992.

Am I saying there is overwhelming scientific evidence like someone above claimed I was? No I'm not. The scientific evidence as a whole appears to be highly suggestive (from what I've read), but, from everything I've read, it is conceivable, albeit unlikely, that all the positive results could be due to normal means of one nature or another.

However there is a nagging worry about the capricious nature of psi, and the fact that some researchers tend not to be able to get positive results, where as other researchers regularly do. Thus it is just to say possible to suppose that there is a normal explanation at underlying all positive results, but the data in and of itself is highly suggestive of some effect.

But our acceptance of that data will obviously also be influenced by our suppositions regarding reality. If we think that we have very good reasons to suppose that reality operates in certain ways, which do not allow for the existence of such alleged phenomena, then obviously such a person will need a great deal more evidence than a person who doesn't share their underlying suppositions regarding reality. I should stress that it is not irrational to demand extraordinary evidence given such suppositions. However, one could of course attack such suppositions which I do consistently.

In short I think the reasons for embracing the reality of some paranormal phenomena -- and here I'm thinking about psi -- are overwhelming. Not that I'm saying the scientific evidence alone is overwhelming (I lack sufficient knowledge to judge this), but at the very least the scientific evidence appears to be strongly suggestive. This evidence, in addition to the fact that people have related experiences of a psi nature throughout human history and across all cultures, in addition to the fact that I'm basically convinced that a materialist mechanical view of reality is simply untenable, makes it overwhelmingly likely, in my view, that psi exists.

Note however that I feel that psi is capricious, unpredictable, and the evidence will rarely be of an "in your face" nature. So I'm simply not interested in the debunking that Randi and other skeptics get up to since I never believed them in the first place. Look at my sig.

 

[AOK Tiger]

Ian,

You addressed NONE of my comments about motivation or mental capability. Don’t you see THOSE as the main driving forces for forming your “opinions”.

Note however that I feel that psi is capricious, unpredictable, and the evidence will rarely be of an "in your face" nature. So I'm simply not interested in the debunking that Randi and other skeptics get up to since I never believed them in the first place. Look at my sig.

Have you ever noticed that ALL indetectable, indecipherable, inconsequential, miniscule, barely distinguishable from chance, PSI “phenomena” are always.. “capricious”, “unpredictable” and not “in your face”.

Can’t you see these are just excuses you come up with to continue believing. If the evidence for Man’s sense of smell was capricious, unpredictable and not in your face you would dismiss it as non-existent.

 

[PixyMisa]

We've been through this evidence issue sooo many times! It has been provided again and again and again to people on here. I'm pretty sure no-one actually checks it out.

Yes, we do.

The most complete resources for experimental evidence suggestive of parapsychological phenomena can be found in several Meta-Analyses. You can find, for example, composite results for 587 studies of consciousness-related anomalies in electronic REG behaviour described in 152 papers (most in peer-reviewed journals) by 68 principle investigators over a 30 year period, in Radin & Nelson, "Evidence for Consciousness-Related Anomalies in Random Physical Systems" Foundations of Physics, Vol 19 No 12, 1989. Utts published a survey of this and related work in Statistical Science in about 1992.

Statistical manipulation of the results of crappy experiments just gives you crappy statistics.

The value of the PEAR meta-analysis paper is that it not only analysed the results of the experiments, it also compared the results to the quality of the experiment.

And what they found is that the statistical significance of the results is inversely proportional to the quality of the experiment.

When you do the experiment properly, the positive results go away.

Am I saying there is overwhelming scientific evidence like someone above claimed I was? No I'm not. The scientific evidence as a whole appears to be highly suggestive (from what I've read), but, from everything I've read, it is conceivable, albeit unlikely, that all the positive results could be due to normal means of one nature or another.

Why on earth would you think this is unlikely?

We know that when we design the experiments to preclude cheating and bias, the effect disappears.

This directly indicates that previous positive results were the result of cheating and bias.

However there is a nagging worry about the capricious nature of psi

For psi to be capricious, it would have to first exist.

and the fact that some researchers tend not to be able to get positive results, where as other researchers regularly do. Thus it is just to say possible to suppose that there is a normal explanation at underlying all positive results, but the data in and of itself is highly suggestive of some effect.

No.

But our acceptance of that data will obviously also be influenced by our suppositions regarding reality. If we think that we have very good reasons to suppose that reality operates in certain ways, which do not allow for the existence of such alleged phenomena, then obviously such a person will need a great deal more evidence than a person who doesn't share their underlying suppositions regarding reality.

Right.

And everything we know about physics, chemistry and biology precludes the sorts of effects that PEAR are studying.

So for them to be right, physics, chemistry and biology would have to be wrong in really major ways.

Only, physics, chemistry and biology work, very reliably, so we know they're not wrong in really major ways.

I should stress that it is not irrational to demand extraordinary evidence given such suppositions. However, one could of course attack such suppositions which I do consistently.

Heh.

In short I think the reasons for embracing the reality of some paranormal phenomena -- and here I'm thinking about psi -- are overwhelming.

Well, yes, you do think that.

You're wrong.

Not that I'm saying the scientific evidence alone is overwhelming (I lack sufficient knowledge to judge this)

Yes!

See there, Ian, we do have common ground to reach agreement!

but at the very least the scientific evidence appears to be strongly suggestive.

No.

If you actually knew something about science, you would realise that the "evidence" appears to be utterly bogus.

This evidence, in addition to the fact that people have related experiences of a psi nature throughout human history and across all cultures, in addition to the fact that I'm basically convinced that a materialist mechanical view of reality is simply untenable, makes it overwhelmingly likely, in my view, that psi exists.

Yeah, well, you're wrong again.

The so-called evidence has never withstood any proper scrutiny. Not a shred of it has ever survived the light of day.

Note however that I feel that psi is capricious, unpredictable, and the evidence will rarely be of an "in your face" nature.

So what you actually mean is, when we test for it, it isn't there.

So I'm simply not interested in the debunking that Randi and other skeptics get up to since I never believed them in the first place. Look at my sig.

So what you actually mean is, when we test for it, it isn't there, but you're going to go on believing in it anyway because you don't actually care about evidence.

 

[Batman Jr.]

It's not supposed to prove anything, in any absolute sense.

What it does is that it points out - in a very convincing manner - that the world acts as though solipsism was nonsense and materialism was true.

No, it doesn't. You might as well believe that dreams are all real too because the exact same situation Hans described can also occur in REM sleep. I don't know why this is such a difficult concept for supposedly scientifically-minded people.

Originally posted by PixyMisa
What? You've never met another person? Or another living creature?

There is an overwhelming preponderance of data that other people are self-aware, and it is added to everytime anyone communicates with anyone else.

People act as though they are self-aware. Simple as that. They all do this. In the face of this infallible trait, holding to solipsism as though it was meaningful (rather than just unfalsifiable) is stupid.

People act as they should in accordance with how the laws of physics effect the dynamics of the brain. There is no need for self-awareness even in the remotest sense. As I said, there is absolutely no data.

 

[Open Mind]

Sylvia Browne does cold readings, and she does incredibly well.

I disagree, I think Sylvia Brown is rather poor . I've seen better psychics. (As someone will no doubt enquire again as always, unfortunately 2 of the best psychics I ever saw have 'passed on' ... (or in skeptics wording are rotting stone cold dead devoid of all consciousness that came and went due to freak accident called 'life' ) ........ another interesting psychic is an old lady now, so I'm not going to nominate her for any of the skeptic wolf challenges either

Each cold reading she gives earns her 750$.

I know. Pure robbery in my opinion. Outrageous, I strongly disapprove of Browne charging that, even if she was much better....

You are free to search up on the net for how much she costs, which makes this a verifiable statement.

But I already know. Believe it or not the existence (or not) of psi, does not depend on Sylvia Browne or any other TV psychic performance, nor does it depend on money .... Many psychics charge only travel expenses, some charge nothing. (Vast majority aren't worth watching, feeble ability if any ability, some are deluded ....... but that still doesn't mean psi doesn't exist)

And if you want to learn how well cold reading works, just fire up the ol' Google, and you'll hit (.... etc. .....) plenty of web pages explaining the phenomena. Several of these pages will tell you why it's so damn successful.

Probably links to nothing but mere confident anecdotal opinion, I'm not convinced those puiblished skeptic opinion are more valid than mine .... I'll give you my opinion ...... one psychic gave me my surname and address from a dead next door neighbour ...... try cold reading that

Now, perhaps you should stop trying to emulate Dr. Adequate's methods until you actually have a point?

Show me the scientific evidence I don't have a point

There was a TV program several years ago where they got a unknown magician (to secretly cold read) and a psychic to do their thing ...... I thought both were dire ....... but amusingly the unaware recipient said she thought the (magician) wasn't really psychic ('asking too many things') ....and the psychic fitted better .... .. it seems she could cold read better than the magician (and indeed seemed more psychic than the psychic )

Another magician went on a TV program last year to demonstrate cold reading (a psychic was on too) the magicians cold reading was reportedly so embarassingly poor they abandoned it and arranged a hot reading instead.

Skeptics suffer from the same human weaknesses as believers .... bias ....... skeptics remember misses and believers remember hits. Believers make information fit, skeptics will try to work out a reason why it doesn’t fit well. The problem is 'rater bias' .... whereas someone like Schwarts does seem to show a rater bias ... I’ve seen skeptics suffer from the opposite rater bias, skipping over ‘luck’ straight to the next problem and most skeptics don't notice or object because it fits their paradigm

I do think psychics partially cold read (not consciously) but is that all that is going on? I don't think so. My request for evidence is fair.

Edited to fix link and to add: Besides, cold reading has been proven to exist. Actual mediumship has not so far.

Yes, not to you. It is actually very hard to prove anything when 'fraud' is considered more 'normal' to skeptics than the possiblity of a unpredictable paranormal. It has to occur on skeptics terms and skeptics don't seem too interested in long term trials, they only have patience for short term tests.

 

[PixyMisa]

No, it doesn't. You might as well believe that dreams are all real too because the exact same situation Hans described can also occur in REM sleep.

No it can't.

I don't know why this is such a difficult concept for supposedly scientifically-minded people.

Because you are completely and utterly wrong.

People act as they should in accordance with how the laws of physics effect the dynamics of the brain.

Yes.

There is no need for self-awareness even in the remotest sense.

Baloney.

You claim to be self aware, right? I'll assume that you do.

Other people behave just like you. Their biology is just like yours, their mental processes are just like yours, they interact with other people in just the same way you do. They express exactly the same inner feelings, emotions, self doubt, introspection, and so on and so on.

They act self-aware in exactly the same way you act self-aware.

As I said, there is absolutely no data.

You said it. It's wrong.

What there isn't is proof, but there is data to be found everywhere.

And there cannot be proof because solipsism is not constructed as a falsifiable hypothesis. It can't be disproved.

That doesn't mean it's right.

And it sure as hell doesn't mean it's useful. You've said yourself that you don't apply it in daily life, and that's because you know damn well it doesn't work.

So, given that it's utterly useless and can never be tested, why should we give it any credence at all? A couple of pages in the chapter discussing Descartes, yeah. And then discard it.

 

[PixyMisa]

Yes, not to you. It is actually very hard to prove anything when 'fraud' is considered more 'normal' to skeptics than the possiblity of a unpredictable paranormal. It has to occur on skeptics terms and skeptics don't seem too interested in long term trials, they only have patience for short term tests.

There's a very good reason for this.

Fraud happens all the time. Every single day, in vast numbers of cases. Provably, beyond any doubt at all.

But the paranormal is invariably elusive, and no matter what the claims might be, it never shows up in a properly controlled experiment.

 

[AOK Tiger]

Open Mind,

To quote Dr A.. I think you have opened your mind so far you brain has fallen out !
quote:

I disagree, I think Sylvia Brown is rather poor . I've seen better psychics. (As someone will no doubt inquire again as always, unfortunately 2 of the best psychics I ever saw have passed on (or in skeptics opinion are rotting stone cold dead devoid of all consciousness that came and went due to freak accident called 'life' ) ........ another interesting psychic is an old lady now, so I'm not going to nominate her for any of skeptic wolf challenges either

And yet other will SWEAR by Sylvia.. and you have the usual excuses.. your “great” psychic are either dead, incommunicado or.. *ahem* to nice to be offered up to sceptical wolves like us…

Probably links to nothing but mere confident anecdotal opinion, I'm not convinced those puiblished skeptic opinion are more valid than mine .... I'll give you my opinion ...... one psychic gave me my surname and address from a dead next door neighbour ...... try cold reading that

Sheesh.. try hot reading it. Why couldn’t the psychic have obtained your surname from a LIVE neighbour? (It’s this comment that prompted my “brain fell out” line)

Did you think to ask the psychic .. “can the neighbour tell me something USEFUL ?” Or something I know you could not find out by mundane means ?

Show me the scientific evidence I don't have a point

*Sigh*.. Open.. how many times has disproving a negative been run by you now ?

Skeptics suffer from the same human weaknesses as believers .... bias ....... skeptics remember misses and believers remember hits. Believers make information fit, skeptics will try to work out a reason why it doesn’t fit well. The problem is 'rater bias' .... whereas someone like Schwarts does seem to show a rater bias ... I’ve seen skeptics suffer from the opposite rater bias, skipping over ‘luck’ straight to the next problem and most skeptics don't notice or object because it fits their paradigm

You actually *finally* make a reasonable point here. BUT what could be out motivation to fool ourselves.. it is way weaker than yours. We are actually MORE motivated to have Psi and afterlife etc to be proven to exist.

We are like Dubya searching for weapons of mass destruction and having to admit that NONE exist !

I do think psychics partially cold read (not consciously) but is that all that is going on? I don't think so. My request for evidence is fair.

Cold reading, hot reading, cheating, lying and delusion is all you will ever get. You request for evidence is ridiculous.. the whole can’t disprove a negative etc…

Yes, not to you. It is actually very hard to prove anything when 'fraud' is considered more 'normal' to skeptics than the possiblity of a unpredictable paranormal. It has to occur on skeptics terms and skeptics don't seem too interested in long term trials, they only have patience for short term tests.

Open… you really have to just close of your mind a little… Fraud actually EXISTS.. Of course we consider it more normal than fantasy paranormal stuff !

 

[Interesting Ian]

Another magician went on a TV program last year to demonstrate cold reading (a psychic was on too) the magicians cold reading was reportedly so embarassingly poor they abandoned it and arranged a hot reading instead.

Yes, that was Randi. Unless it happened to another "magician" too LOL