This is what pathological skeptics believe

[Open Mind]

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

I was just being polite, mentioning no names.

 

[AOK Tiger]

Ian and OPen Mind,

So you guys ARE still here.. not to adress serious valid question but to talk about a magician trying to out cold-read a professional ?

Why not address something relavent ?

EG The motivation issue

 

[H3LL]

I have no idea where you get this notion from. I suspect you are reading peoples' responses to my posts rather than my posts themselves.

I always prefer mundane explanations provided they are realistic and plausible. Before supposing anyone can bend spoons with their minds we would need to eliminate all possible means whereby s/he could cheat. Personally I doubt that people really can bend spoons in an anomalous manner, but I make no definitive assertions.

Perhaps you missed the bit where I said:

BTW, before someone 'spoons' me to death, I use it as an example for all paranormal/super-natural claims.

I still maintain that I believe you to be:

our best example of the privative of skepticism.

and from reading your posts.

Others please correct me if my assessment of Ian is wrong and that Ian is a true skeptic.

 

[Ladewig]

Hold on there, Open Mind.

several poster have asked what you mean by the phrase "extraordinary evidence" in the accusation:

You believe extraordinary paranormal claims requires extraordinary evidence.... yet trust an extraordinary accusation of paranormal fraud only requires anecdotal rumour.

please respond to that question before responding to later questions.

 

[Open Mind]

Open Mind,

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

But that sounds far too paranormal

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…

I'm being honest, if you think I'm lying ...what can I say?

Psychics are indeed inconsistent, no where near perfect. The times I've seen Sylvia Browne I have been totally unimpressed. Perhaps she is better occasionally, I don't know. But I object to what she charges.

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)

This has been discussed in another topic. Of course I have considered ‘hot reading’ possibilities (all are contrived). Perhaps your brain has fallen out by assuming I hadn't?

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 ?

Not in that example but I have in another example, another topic..

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.

I'm not convinced by that argument ...... however in that case are you conducting research? Have you done any from beyond an armchair or has it been served to you from a csicop plate? Just curious.

Cold reading, hot reading, cheating, lying and delusion is all you will ever get.

How do you know? Are you psychic?

You request for evidence is ridiculous.. the whole can’t disprove a negative etc…

The burden of proof is with the claimant, if you are claiming cold reading explains it all, you need to provide evidence. Perhaps it is time for all those csicop magicians to test how well they can cold read in controlled trials compared to decent psychics

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 !

Exactly my point, to most skeptics a paranormal explanation is the very last possible explanation...... once they have been through the whole range of possible 'it's nothing but something else' options ..... they then choose fraud....... if that fails I reckon they might next invent they, the skeptics, were also suffering from unconscious fraud and false memory syndrome to find it at all

 

[Vikram]

...... one psychic gave me my surname and address from a dead next door neighbour ...... try cold reading that

Would this psychic by any chance be interested in a million dollars?

Just asking...

 

[Batman Jr.]

No it can't.

So you can't experience pain in a dream? I don't know, I must be really getting attacked by people at night and somehow I can wake up night after night without any vestige of those attacks having taken place.

Originally posted by PixyMisa
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.

This is where your thinking is flawed. You assume you understand other people's inner perceptions merely because of how they outwardly express themselves. All that can be known is that outward expression and the brain are consistently related, but not inward perception because you can only bear witness to your own and no one else’s.

Originally posted by PixyMisa
That doesn't mean it's right.

Actually, weak solipsism predicates itself on the acceptance of the unknowing of actual conditions, so a glaring dearth of evidence does mean it is right.

Originally posted by PixyMisa
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.

It may be useless in practice, but the illogic behind your opposing of the idea is not corrected by that.

 

[PixyMisa]

So you can't experience pain in a dream?

That wasn't my point. Though I'm not 100% sure of that. Can you?

I don't know, I must be really getting attacked by people at night and somehow I can wake up night after night without any vestige of those attacks having taken place.

Blah blah.

What you can't do is kick someone in the bum and then proceed to insult their mother during R.E.M. sleep.

You can dream something along those lines, but dreams are dreams. You have not, in fact, kicked anyone.

This is where your thinking is flawed. You assume you understand other people's inner perceptions merely because of how they outwardly express themselves.

And all of the evidence points to this assumption being correct.

That's where your thinking is flawed, not mine. You assume that because we cannot categorically prove that other people are self-aware, that there cannot be any evidence indicating that it is so.

All that can be known is that outward expression and the brain are consistently related, but not inward perception because you can only bear witness to your own and no one else’s.

Wrong again.

All that can be known for CERTAIN, with our current theories of the mind, is as you say.

However, the only plausible position given the vast amount of data that we have collected and continue (unavoidably) to collect is that other people are self-aware.

Actually, weak solipsism predicates itself on the acceptance of the unknowing of actual conditions, so a glaring dearth of evidence does mean it is right.

No.

First, despite your pathetic denials, the evidence that other people are self-aware is unavoidable. It's why you don't apply your "weak solipsism" in everyday life.

It's not direct proof, but it's evidence. Everyone outwardly acts exactly the same way you do, and you claim to be self aware. If you want to communicate with anyone, you have to assume that you are wrong and that the are self-aware. Either that, or assume that you are insane.

Second, not only can you not falsify solipsism, you can't prove it or even support it. It's so self-contained that no observation makes any difference at all.

That's why it's useless. It doesn't say anything about anything. You can't prove it is wrong, but it cannot possibly lead you anywhere, so you have to assume that one way or another, the evidence of your observations has meaning. That leads you to materialism, or if you were dropped on your head as a child, to idealism or dualism.

It may be useless in practice, but the illogic behind your opposing of the idea is not corrected by that.

There is no illogic in my deconstruction of your position - or at least, you have failed to show any.

 

[Open Mind]

Hold on there, Open Mind.

several poster have asked what you mean by the phrase "extraordinary evidence" in the accusation:

'You believe extraordinary paranormal claims requires extraordinary evidence.... yet trust an extraordinary accusation of paranormal fraud only requires anecdotal rumour.'


please respond to that question before responding to later questions.

First of all it was not an accusation upon all skeptics, unless they somehow feel it fits them, it was a tongue in cheek 'questionnaire'

What is meant by the Marcello Truzzi sound bite? I sometimes wonder if Truzzi regretted coming up with the catchphrase 'extraordinary claims requires extraordinary evidence' ? To me it seems ..... 'I'm not going to accept it exists unless it behaves in a normal, consistent, predictable manner' (i.e. only when the paranormal behaves more normal, I will accept it ) ..

At best I think it means 'compelling evidence' is much more preferable when the claim seems far fetched

Or did you wish me to explain my comment....

'yet a extraordinary accusation of paranormal fraud only requires anecdotal rumour'

I mean some skeptics seem to happily accept a rumour of fraud as a satisfactory debunk against a paranormal claim without sufficient proof.

Here is a possible example, David Marks (CSICOP fellow)

In a chapter entitled "The Sloppiness Continues", Marks mentions positive results of a remote viewing experiment reported by Marilyn Schlitz and Elmar Gruber. Admitting that this was a successful replication of the similar experiments of Targ and Puthoff, Marks gets off this particular hook by stating: "However, we do not know how many nonsignificant studies remain in the investigators' file drawer. If it is a small handful, which seems likely, the... statistical significance simply melts away like snowflakes in the spring." He has no evidence that any such "file-drawer" studies exist. Marks has shown once again that when negative evidence is required to disprove a positive claim, he simply makes it up.
http://www.skepticalinvestigations.org/whoswho/index.htm

 

[PixyMisa]

Wow, there's a whole site devoted to belittling skeptics? We really seem to have annoyed someone. Of course, it uses the standard techniques of selective reporting, quoting out of context, appeals to authority only when it suits them, and good old unsupported assertions.

Not only that, but the site is ugly and its mother dresses it funny. A bright cyan background is a sign of a diseased mind.

 

[MRC_Hans]

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.

*snip*

As I do note, it does not PROVE that the external world exists, only that it acts as if it does, and that you'd better treat it accordingly. It will show the (weak or strong) solipsist that while they might be imagining the external world, they do not have control over it.

I think it is a pragmatic argument, not an emotional one: Since the experienced world is indistinguishable from a real, external world, the solipsism question is really moot.

Hans

 

[Ladewig]

The burden of proof is with the claimant, if you are claiming cold reading explains it all, you need to provide evidence.

First off, the counterclaim is that cold, warm, and hot reading along with a willingness to believe explains it all. But in any case, you are misapplying the burden of proof. If someone claims that the Tooth Fairy exists and a second person says, "no, all cases of money under a pillow can be explained by parents or other non-supernatural means," then the burden falls on the first person to prove the Tooth Fairy's existance rather than on the second person to show that all money placed under pillows is done under ordinary circumstances.

Perhaps it is time for all those csicop magicians to test how well they can cold read in controlled trials compared to decent psychics

Yes. It is time to do that. Do you know of any decent pyschics that will participate? That is the sticking point.

 

[Ladewig]

To me it seems ..... 'I'm not going to accept it exists unless it behaves in a normal, consistent, predictable manner' (i.e. only when the paranormal behaves more normal, I will accept it ) ..

If the paranormal claim behaves in a manner that is "normal, consistent, and predictable" enough for people to charge $200-$1000 per hour to demonstrate it, then it is "normal, consistent, and predictable" enough to test it under controlled conditions. You can't have it both ways.


But in any case, surely you can see the usefulness of the maxim as stated. If two people were going to meet you at a specific time and both showed up late, you might ask them what caused each of them to be late. If the first said, there was an accident on the freeway and the second said, I was busy regenerating my arm because it was completly severed last night before it was eaten by a lions, then I cannot imagine that you would apply the same standards of evidence in both cases.

 

[Interesting Ian]

If the paranormal claim behaves in a manner that is "normal, consistent, and predictable" enough for people to charge $200-$1000 per hour to demonstrate it, then it is "normal, consistent, and predictable" enough to test it under controlled conditions. You can't have it both ways.

It's absolutely disgusting to charge such sums of money. Who is arguing that it is reasonable? Is this the best you can do? We all know that frauds exist. We all know that people are out there who will exploit others for money -- whether in claiming paranormal abilities or in a million other ways.

But you really should have enough sense to understand that this gives absolutely zero evidence or reason to disbelieve in mediumship or the paranormal.

Until you "skeptic" guys admit the blatantly obvious, no intelligent person is ever going to take any notice of your assertions. Concentrate on converting thicko believers. Until you become more honest and sensible with your arguments you're wasting your time on people like myself and Open Mind .

 

[Open Mind]

Wow, there's a whole site devoted to belittling skeptics? We really seem to have annoyed someone.

Who is this 'we', do you have a group mind? What happened to individual 'critical thinking'?

Of course, it uses the standard techniques of selective reporting, quoting out of context, appeals to authority only when it suits them, and good old unsupported assertions.

And you think CSICOP doesn't do that?

Not only that, but the site is ugly and its mother dresses it funny. A bright cyan background is a sign of a diseased mind. [/B]

Ah you are mystic colourologist, how long have you had this gift? A prize awaits

 

[Open Mind]

If someone claims that the Tooth Fairy exists ........

Who mentioned fairies? Is this a strawman fairy?

Yes. It is time to do that. Do you know of any decent pyschics that will participate? That is the sticking point.

Hmm .... I thought Scwartz had already made that challange and some magicians refused?

 

[Ashles]

Who is this 'we', do you have a group mind? What happened to individual 'critical thinking'?

Ah, another one of Open Mind's little fallacies that he refuses to give up on.
Or are we not allowed to use the word 'we' any more?

Sign of pretty weak arguing there Open mind.

 

[Ersby]

In a chapter entitled "The Sloppiness Continues", Marks mentions positive results of a remote viewing experiment reported by Marilyn Schlitz and Elmar Gruber. Admitting that this was a successful replication of the similar experiments of Targ and Puthoff, Marks gets off this particular hook by stating: "However, we do not know how many nonsignificant studies remain in the investigators' file drawer. If it is a small handful, which seems likely, the... statistical significance simply melts away like snowflakes in the spring." He has no evidence that any such "file-drawer" studies exist. Marks has shown once again that when negative evidence is required to disprove a positive claim, he simply makes it up.

"He has no evidence that any such "file-drawer" exists"?!

This is Targ and Puthoff, who worked at SRI and SIAC and who (untilvery recently) had the vast majority of their work classified and unavailable to public view.

I'd call that a file drawer.

 

[Garrette]

Originally posted by Open Mind:

Hmm .... I thought Scwartz had already made that challange and some magicians refused?

I don't know about other magicians, but I did not refuse.

I, in fact, went out of my way to communicate with Schwartz and with someone previously on this forum who claimed to be a close enough friend to arrange this.

No response from Schwartz.

My opinion is that the sticking point was that I insisted that conditions for admitted fakes (me) had to be identical to the conditions for non-admitted fakes (Edward, Campbell, et al) and that the analysis had to be the same. I specifically mentioned one of the Edward readings in which Edward was missing completely with the sitter but Schwartz gave him high marks for giving information about Schwartz instead. This mean that all I have to do for an amazingly successful reading is find out information on one of the cameramen and spout it out during a sitting to do as well as Edward.

Funny thing. Edward did that once, too. Hot read a camera man, I mean.

---

Beyond that, you can find examples by people on this forum who conducted fake readings on the 'net. I think Ersby is one of them.

That's not my strength, though. I do better in a more personal environment.

---

Your implication is flat out wrong, OM. There are magicians, admitted fakes, whatever who would jump at the chance to compare with those who claim to be real. It is the "psychics" who back out.

 

[Garrette]

I find it amusing how Open Mind dismisses Sylvia Browne, partly for what OM sees as poor readings but mainly for SB's temerity in charging so much.

What can we call this common fallacy that goes "Yes, Psychic X is popular but fake. My Psychic Y, however, is real. I cannot be fooled."

I think it's along the lines of the need to feel special, directed not against skeptics in this instance but against fellow believers who just happen to believe wrongly.