tips on spotting charlatan "psychics"

[Czarcasm]

"There is no cut!" -->"I'm a psychic surgeon-My hand goes through the skin psychically"
"What specifically did you cure?" -->"A tumor...that I diagnosed psychically!"
"Why doesn't the blood type match?"-->"It was transformed by the operation!"

Any question can be "magicked away".

 

[Chanakya]

Nope. The burden of proof rests with both parties. One can satisfy that burden and one cannot. Pick which one you would accept. (...)

You’re right, the burden of proof does rest with both parties. One can fulfill it, the other cannot, but the burden rests equally with both. That’s exactly what I was saying there.

(...) Of course it does. The surgeon can meet his burden of proof and the psychic cannot. Both are under an equal onus. When the surgeon meets his burden of proof, are you saying that we should ignore that and ask for it over and over again? Every time somebody challenges it? Nope. It's been done many times. As for the psychics? Not ever. (...)

I meant that Axxman’s comment, although it was made in reply to my post, did not speak to the burden of proof (which is what my post was about).

Okay, quick recap. I do realize that the burden of claim lies on the person making a claim. Nevertheless, I was wondering (and no doubt offending the forum gods/spirits by keeping on at derailing the thread) if the de facto burden of proof might not, in practice, rest with whoever happens to be interested in some issue. Like, if you supported the psychic healer’s claim, the burden of proof would be on you ; if on the other hand you were merely a bystander and made no claims, but nevertheless were very interested in some particular psychic healer’s claims, and if said psychic healer was not very forthcoming in proving his case, then you may (as a result of your interest) find yourself taking on the burden of investigating the issue and doing whatever was necessary to prove it to your satisfaction one way or the other, thus in practice taking on the burden of proof in practice.

And Axxman’s argument, perfectly reasonable though it was in general, did not address that issue at all, and was therefore a bit of a non sequitur.

(...) Meh. Choosing a handle is just choosing a handle. That is what you did right? My own is the Angel of the Abyss, Gatekeeper of Hell, as described in Revelation 9:11. How many purveyors of WOO can I annoy with that? In reality, my real identity has been posted on this very site by me and happy to do so. Choice of handle is more a matter of whimsy than anything else. Revealing actual identity is a matter of personal choice. One cannot force others to do so.

After all, you chose not to do so, so where is the issue?

Just joking there, abaddon! Or attempting to. Not very successfully, apparently.

Interesting, your pseudonym. But why would it annoy the religious? You seem to have very obligingly already put yourself in Hell, and very conspicuously at that, right at the gate, in full view -- which is where the outraged faithful will probably be casting you in their minds when you make heretical dencouncements of faith! So aren't you obliging them rather than annoying them?

There, now, another weak attempt at a joke!

 

[abaddon]

You’re right, the burden of proof does rest with both parties. One can fulfill it, the other cannot, but the burden rests equally with both. That’s exactly what I was saying there.





I meant that Axxman’s comment, although it was made in reply to my post, did not speak to the burden of proof (which is what my post was about).

Okay, quick recap. I do realize that the burden of claim lies on the person making a claim. Nevertheless, I was wondering (and no doubt offending the forum gods/spirits by keeping on at derailing the thread) if the de facto burden of proof might not, in practice, rest with whoever happens to be interested in some issue. Like, if you supported the psychic healer’s claim, the burden of proof would be on you ; if on the other hand you were merely a bystander and made no claims, but nevertheless were very interested in some particular psychic healer’s claims, and if said psychic healer was not very forthcoming in proving his case, then you may (as a result of your interest) find yourself taking on the burden of investigating the issue and doing whatever was necessary to prove it to your satisfaction one way or the other, thus in practice taking on the burden of proof in practice.

And Axxman’s argument, perfectly reasonable though it was in general, did not address that issue at all, and was therefore a bit of a non sequitur.





Just joking there, abaddon! Or attempting to. Not very successfully, apparently.

Interesting, your pseudonym. But why would it annoy the religious? You seem to have very obligingly already put yourself in Hell, and very conspicuously at that, right at the gate, in full view -- which is where the outraged faithful will probably be casting you in their minds when you make heretical dencouncements of faith! So aren't you obliging them rather than annoying them?

There, now, another weak attempt at a joke!

I will be there at the gates of hell waiting for the religious, ushering them in to their preassigned seats.

 

[Ron Swanson]

I just saw this thread and I am commenting on the title alone (have not read any replies) ... I am disturbed the OP is insinuating there is any thing BUT charlatan "Psychics"

 

[Bladesman87]

Gah, no doubt I’m being stupid here, but you know, I still don’t get it.

When you’re “investigating” the case, when you’re “looking into it”, aren’t you, in effect, taking the burden of proof (or onus of validation) onto your own shoulders? What else could “burden of proof” mean but that, that you roll up your sleeves and find facts and string them together using reasoning to build up a case? (As opposed to evaluating, relatively passively, someone’s else labor, and passing judgment on such?)

Burden of proof is something that applies to making a claim. It does not apply to someone investigating someone else's claim. You're conflating two separate issues.

Perhaps you’re talking of the theoretical, formal “burden of proof” here when you say that? I’m referring to the de facto burden of proof.

Okay, I think calling it "de facto burden of proof" is just clumsy, messy, and not very helpful. Burden of proof is already a well defined concept and calling something different by a very similar name is causing all the confusion here.

Just ask the following: Should I sometimes independently investigate the claims of others? And the answer is very clearly: yes. A police man might have the duty to investigate whether a crime might have occurred. I might want to do some research before taking some new medication. Those are normal, responsible things. But, and this is important, they are NOT "burden of proof" issues.

Burden of proof is a philosophical concept relating to arguments. You're not talking about arguments and when one side ought to accept the others claim as being true. You're talking about separate, independent investigation.

OK, last try :

Case 1 : You’re claiming PH can surgically remove gall stones using magic. Therefore, the burden of proof for that claim rests on you. Therefore, when challenged, you do what you have to satisfy your interlocutor. (Whether you succeed in satisfying your interlocutor or not is not really relevant.)

Case 2 : You are simply a bystander. PH is claiming magical surgery powers. So the burden of proof rests on him not you. But PH is not very forthcoming in explaining his methods. Yet you are interested, perhaps because someone in your family needs that operation and regular surgery is ruled out due to some complications (or because you are a reporter who’s working that story, etc, etc). So then what you do is : do what you have to do to satisfy yourself one way or the other. (Again, whether you succeed in satisfying yourself as to PH’s claims is irrelevant.)

In both Case 1 and Case 2, it is you who have pulled up your sleeves and aimed video cameras and brought in regular doctors to validate the surgery and looked up medical tomes to learn about the specific procedure(s), etc, etc, etc. So, in practice, in actual fact, what is the difference between Case 1 and Case 2? In theory, lots. But in practice, none!

Your very interest in the case has put the de facto burden of proof on to your shoulders (in Case 2), despite the fact that you made no claims yourself.

Hasn’t it?

In both cases: I do not accept the PH's claims until they have been demonstrated. If I choose to investigate it myself, that's fine, but I am neither making nor accepting any claims.

The burden of proof is not about who investigates what, it's about when the claim should be believed.

 

[Chanakya]

Burden of proof is something that applies to making a claim. It does not apply to someone investigating someone else's claim. You're conflating two separate issues.



Okay, I think calling it "de facto burden of proof" is just clumsy, messy, and not very helpful. Burden of proof is already a well defined concept and calling something different by a very similar name is causing all the confusion here. Just ask the following: Should I sometimes independently investigate the claims of others? And the answer is very clearly: yes. A police man might have the duty to investigate whether a crime might have occurred. I might want to do some research before taking some new medication. Those are normal, responsible things. But, and this is important, they are NOT "burden of proof" issues. Burden of proof is a philosophical concept relating to arguments. You're not talking about arguments and when one side ought to accept the others claim as being true. You're talking about separate, independent investigation.

In both cases: I do not accept the PH's claims until they have been demonstrated. If I choose to investigate it myself, that's fine, but I am neither making nor accepting any claims.

The burden of proof is not about who investigates what, it's about when the claim should be believed.

That makes sense, Bladesman. If I look at the phrase “burden of proof” without reading the literal meaning of those words, and instead think of it only as a philosophical construct, then I can see where my error lies.

However, while I understand the sense you’re conveying, and how what you’re conveying addresses the question I’d raised, I’m afraid I can’t see my way to agreeing with you, not even if I try.

Why *would* I ignore the literal meaning of the words “burden of proof”, after all? You or I or anyone else? Surely the same sense would be conveyed if, instead, I used the term “onus of validation”?

I’m no expert on this sort of thing, I’ll be the first to acknowledge that, but I don’t think “burden of proof” is a philosophical construct at all, that is, it isn’t a concept actually made up to express some philosophical idea. (Had that been the case, one could have totally ignored the literal/etymological meaning of the word or phrase.) As far as I can think this through, it is merely a rule in philosophy about how the burden of proof, or onus of proof, or onus of validation, should lie. And in any case, whether construct or rule, there’s no reason, surely, why it should not be questioned and examined?

I agree, “de facto burden of proof” is clumsy phrasing, but how else do I refer to what the burden of proof, in practice (as opposed to in theory), might be?

And if the de facto burden of proof (however phrased) is different from the actual formal theoretical burden of proof, then shouldn’t the actual formal theoretical burden of proof ideally have provision for de facto exceptions?

(Unless of course I’m wholly wrong about how I’m thinking about this, and I know that is probably the case, but I just don’t see where it is I’m wrong.)



Incidentally, here’s something I got to thinking about your Court Case example earlier on : that the burden of proof lies on the prosecution isn’t, it seems to me, an inevitable philosophical imperative. It is merely a wholly pragmatic application of our wholly subjective moral standards. Simply a function of our subjective preference for letting a guilty man go free, when in doubt, rather than ending up punishing an innocent man.

We can think of hypotheticals where the system might consider someone guilty unless proven innocent. In pseudo-democracies, back in olden days when you had slaves and freemen, when a slave is tried for a crime against a freeman, it is conceivable that the system might require the slave to prove their innocence rather than vice versa. (Just a hypothetical, I don’t know if that’s how it actually was historically, and there could be people here in this forum who might have definite knowledge about how the law saw this, back in ancient Greece perhaps, or even in pre-civil-war USA). From what I recall about that book, read long back, by Harper Lee (which was only fiction, but probably reflected that actual legal situation then I suppose), they’d actually needed to show that the slave was innocent, and that someone else had committed the crime, isn’t it?)

The same sort of thing may have applied in aristocratic societies and monarchies, with the plebs getting decapitated or quartered-and-drawn or whatever on the say-so of the king or lord, unless they could expressly show that they didn’t do whatever they were being accused of. (Again, just a hypothetical. Whether the law actually took that form in Europe some centuries back is known, surely, but I don’t know it myself.)

So anyway, what I was saying is : “innocent until proven guilty” doesn't seem to be an absolute unshakeable philosophical necessity after all.

Although this probably does not really address the “burden of proof” rule directly, but the base, the default, to introduce a change over which the burden of proof will be needed. Whether to begin with we assume everyone accused to be guilty and therefore punishable, or we assume everyone to be innocent seems subjective and a reflection of our values : when a claim is made that challenges that status quo, that is when the "proof" (or validation) becomes necessary, and the burden of that proof falls on the person making that particular claim.

And, circling back : we seem to have a theoretical burden of proof, and an in-practice, de facto burden of proof, and there are times when the two don’t coincide.

 

[Bladesman87]

Why *would* I ignore the literal meaning of the words “burden of proof”, after all?

I'll just touch on this for now and come back to some other stuff later, but: words don't have only one meaning. They have different meanings in different contexts. You can use whatever words you like to refer to whatever you want. You can call a tree a rabbit and as long as you explain what you mean by rabbit then we can have a discussion.

However, that's a really sloppy and confusing way to try and have conversations. There's already a general meaning for "tree" and another one for "rabbit". It's much easier for everyone else if you just stick to calling a tree a tree and a rabbit a rabbit.

If you want to call two different things by the same name then realise it's going to make it very hard for people to follow you and you'll end up confusing yourself like you are now.

"Burden of proof" in arguments, philosophy, general society, has a widely understood meaning. If you want to talk about a new concept then give it a new name.

 

[Czarcasm]

I just love people that think that the real world is like a video game: Just use the right words in the right order, and reality just goes away and you get to be in "god mode". Sovereign citizen fans do this too-If they use little understood terms and tertiary(or worse) definitions, they can "prove" that not only don't they don't have to pay any taxes or use any licenses, judges will bow before them and give them access to secret bank accounts containing millions of dollars.

 

[Butter!]

What is this. I don't even.

 

[Chanakya]

I'll just touch on this for now and come back to some other stuff later, but: words don't have only one meaning. They have different meanings in different contexts. You can use whatever words you like to refer to whatever you want. You can call a tree a rabbit and as long as you explain what you mean by rabbit then we can have a discussion.

However, that's a really sloppy and confusing way to try and have conversations. There's already a general meaning for "tree" and another one for "rabbit". It's much easier for everyone else if you just stick to calling a tree a tree and a rabbit a rabbit.

If you want to call two different things by the same name then realise it's going to make it very hard for people to follow you and you'll end up confusing yourself like you are now.

"Burden of proof" in arguments, philosophy, general society, has a widely understood meaning. If you want to talk about a new concept then give it a new name.

OK, got it! Spent some time going through some stuff, all very basic, linked in the first few pages that Google throws at you when you ask about “burden of proof” in the philosophical context.

Of course I was wrong, and here’s where I was getting muddled :

Burden, the word, generally refers to ‘load’ (and can be thought to extend, metaphorically, to intellectual load and labor). In thinking of “burden of proof” I’d been thinking of the labor involved in getting at the proof. But the “burden” in “burden of proof” refers not so much to the load (or the labor), as to ‘obligation’.

You’re obligated, by commonly accepted rules of reasoning and logic, to undertake labor necessary for producing the proof for the claim you’re positing (or else forgo your claim). Of course, you may choose to take up that burden, that load, that labor, even when you’re not so obligated : but willingly taking up a labor that you’re not obligated to is very different from being obligated to take up that labor. That may indeed effectively put the load and the burden on you, but not the obligation.

(Of course you’d been saying the same thing, and I’d been thinking the same thing, for quite some time. What wasn’t clicking, for me, was that I kept on thinking of “burden” in terms of ‘load’ or ‘labor’, where I ought to have thought of “burden” in terms of ‘obligation’.)

So, confusion cleared. I rather enjoyed the process of going through this stuff. You, Bladesman, may well have found the going more tedious than I did! Thank you for taking the trouble to walk me through this.

 

[Bladesman87]

That looks pretty much correct to me. You're welcome.

 

[gigmaster]

does anyone know how one can detect fakery when looking at a "psychic" surgeon or the like? Are there ways to be able to learn how to spot slight of hand tricks?

For example here is a photo of a "psychic" surgeon that I once mentioned on this forum

http://culturacolectiva.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/cicloliterarii.jpg

It claims to be a photo of a pancreatic "surgery" but I as many of you guys have my doubts.

For example it looks like the "surgeon" is simply pressuring down on a point of the belly rather than cutting into a person. I don't think that's what a person's stomach looks like when its being cut can any surgeons confirm?

Also I don't think that's were a pancreas is located in a human body or what a pancreas even looks like.

Would those be signs of fakery that I just pointed out?

What would constitute a non-charlatan' psychic, since psychic abilities do not exist? There is no psychic ability that does not involve fakery, in some form,

 

[fuelair]

I'm honestly not sure what you're asking here. The burden of proof is a philosophical concept. No individual is forced to believe in any philosophical ideas they don't like, and simply explaining the rationale behind them can not force an unwilling individual to accept them.

All the concept says is that the burden of proving a claim rests upon the one making it. If an individual claims to have psychic powers then they have to demonstrate that. If I say they don't, well, I might be asked to prove that and then have a very hard time. In that regard, if you want to make a purely rational argument the best you can ever say is: no psychic powers have ever been demonstrated to exist.

In honesty, I don't believe that psychic powers exist in anyone, but the argument for that is a much lengthier, more convoluted, and less certain one.

For instance, with a psychic surgeon, all they have to do is take a scan of a person with an appendix, remove the appendix, and then do another scan showing it's now gone from the person (all under controlled conditions, of course). Any conventional surgeon can, and in many instance even would as part of standard practice, do this. So why does the psychic surgeon rely on videos that can easily be mimicked by sleight of hand?

Because they do not have to to fool the tools and fools who believe in and pay them!!!!