|
|
|
skepticpsychic
New Member
USA
21 Posts |
 Posted - 01/14/2006 : 12:38:12 [Permalink]
|
First, thanks for your comments. They helped me realize that while I am a skeptic, the conversation I want to have is about Skepticism. The difference is found in my Bible, the dictionary. According to American Heritage, a skeptic instinctively doubts, questions or disagrees with assertions and generally accepted conclusions. It's one thing to just doubt or disagree because you are doubting and disagreeable. This is either humor or a waste of time. “Skepticism” is a philosophy or doctrine that absolute knowledge is impossible and that inquiry must be a process of doubting in order to acquire approximate or relative certainty. I would like to use doubt as a tool to seek a higher relative certainty therefore a greater truth.
The most absolute truth I know is that be you Christian, spiritual, physicist, atheist, skeptic or anything else, life is a mystery. Some things cannot be proven absolutely, on both sides of the every coin. Even if my studies show my predictions to be 98% accurate, I still can't prove how I think it happens, I can only prove that it happens. Because I can't prove the source, I must examine the affect my belief in the source has on my life and the world around me. For me, it's something of a Hippocratic oath: first do no harm. Whether I can “prove” I am psychic or not, does my belief in it do harm to anyone in any way? This is my standard bearing. There have been times when I've been asked by a “spirit” to deliver a message to a living relative and I have refused, because I felt the recipient too emotionally fragile for a susceptible suggestion from me about the object of their grief (why I disagree with John Edward). When I have chosen to deliver the message, however, no one's ever been harmed (why I don't mind John Edward, I can't see that anyone gets harmed unless he creates an unhealthy dependency with them to garner power over them). Contrary, the love, peace and wonder created by my experiences seem to enrich all parties involved.
As far as cold reading, I do not operate like Edwards, van Praagh, etc. trying to guess if there is someone around them with a name that starts with "j or d." First, I read with my eyes closed. Second, I don't ask people questions about themselves. They come in and if they are first-time clients I ask if they have any questions about me or my credentials. If they do, I answer them to the best of my ability, then I close my eyes, get out of my way and speak. The dissertation contains information about the client that I don't know nor could glean from body language. (I am not sure how I would know that someone's parents were divorced when they were 8 years old through body language). While I believe there are "psychics" who purposefully do engage in this cold reading type of thing, I am not one of them.
Another difference is that Edwards, Brown, etc. make interface with the living people and proceed to then claim to talk to those who have passed over (can I just say dead people without 16 comments about the morgue please??)…My experience is that I perceive the spirit and get the message first, and then circumstances guide me to the living relative.
I also have two associates and also a larger circle of people who have taken part in actively documenting and studying the content of the readings I have given over the past 13 years. I have plenty of witnesses who can attest to the facts of how the events played out: who was there, what day it happened, what was said, etc. We studied as scientifically as we could the information that was given during the reading and documented our experiences in dated diaries. We have recordings and transcripts of the dated readings, what the passing of time has reveal about their accuracy, and the effects the information had on the quality of our lives.
Could I just be schizophrenic? Sure. Think "Beautiful Mind." The difference, though, is that John Nash's imaginary friends were dark sinister characters telling him to do bad thing |
The Skeptic Psychic
www.writingup.com/blog/skepticpsychic |
 |
|
|
GeeMack
SFN Regular
USA
1093 Posts |
Posted - 01/14/2006 : 13:05:07 [Permalink]
|
Just as a place to start...quote:
Originally posted by skepticpsychic...
[...] (why I disagree with John Edward). When I have chosen to deliver the message, however, no one's ever been harmed (why I don't mind John Edward, I can't see that anyone gets harmed unless he creates an unhealthy dependency with them to garner power over them).
Most of us disagree with John Edward because he is a charlatan, a fake. He uses the standard magicians' trick of cold reading, yet claims to be legitimate. He was soundly debunked on the first episode of Penn & Teller's show Bullshit!. In fact, Penn Jillette has this to say about Mr. Edward...quote:
Originally posted by Penn Jillette...
One of the weird things Houdini discovered is that some of these mediums actually slip into believing their own bullshit. They forget their own misses, or as John Edward, THE BIGGEST DOUCHE IN THE UNIVERSE, does, rewrite them as hits that we're just not able to recognize. Cold reading can be done accidently. That doesn't mean the psychic is a better person. Lying to themselves does not make lying to others ok. It can make intellectually lazy scumbags more convincing and dangerous. But even if these fucks know they're just making shit up and pushing people's buttons, they tell themselves, "At least I'm comforting the bereaved." WHO THE FUCK ARE THEY TO DECIDE THAT LYING ABOUT THE UNIVERSE AND A DEAD LOVED ONE IS WHAT THE BEREAVED NEEDS? That's condescending BULLSHIT!
I'd say that pretty much sums it up. So if you really believe you are a psychic, skepticpsychic, even bringing his name into the conversation seems rather a waste of time, and making more than a cursory comparison between yourself and his profession won't really help your credibility.quote:
Originally posted by skepticpsychic...
One is about proving you are right and the other about working together with doubts to come to a higher truth. The times I have seen [James Randi], he appears very much like the first.
Again let me remind you, you obviously completely misunderstand James Randi, and appear to have a fairly incorrect notion about skepticism in general. A skeptic isn't all about proving him/herself right, and Mr. Randi never claims to be doing that, nor does he set about his task under that premise. He expects those who claim to have various supernatural powers to prove themselves right. A task which, by the way, none of them has ever been able to accomplish to the satisfaction of not just James Randi, but all of science.
You see, to be considered "real", these powers must pass certain tests, requirements of the fairly universally accepted concept of scientific method. Mr. Randi didn't invent this method. He just requires claimants of supernatural capabilities to subject their claims to this method if they are to be reasonably accepted as real.
Edited some spelling and grammar. |
| Edited by - GeeMack on 01/14/2006 13:21:10 |
|
|
|
skepticpsychic
New Member
USA
21 Posts |
Posted - 01/14/2006 : 13:58:25 [Permalink]
|
“Keep in mind that it is easy to get off track when more than one event or occurrence is brought into a conversation. It would probably be most productive if you limit your discussion to a single event at a time. That would help keep things in focus, less confusing, and help you receive more useful feedback.”
Yes, but I had to get a feel for the room and introduce myself. Mine is not a simple story and it's a touchy topic. Like the topic of abortion, it provokes a myriad of opinions, projections, claims of fact and science, claims of truth and evil from both sides. I can't tell you how many times I have had to deal with people telling me I am evil. I wanted to ease my way into this room to see what I would be dealing with.
"So, can you prove this power exists? If not, what is there to discuss?"
What will be the criteria for proof? For example, I predicted on January 1, 2006 that Angelina and Brad Pritt were about to have a baby, and on January 6th it was announced to be true. So I got that one right. But so what? Since the odds were 50/50 that anyone could get this right, this alone is no proof I am psychic.
However, in December, 2004 I predicted for Bill Clinton:
"You will be called to serve in a larger diplomatic circle in 2005. It is something beyond the causes you are working for now. A crisis of sorts in the world situation brings you to the table as a representative of a greater voice. You will not be representing a political party, but you will be asked to represent a certain segment of the population, ones who have been working for peace and justice. This new mission will bring you back into the limelight and reveal a redemption you yourself have already experienced, but now the public will see as well."
I think this would have to be a little heavier weighted into the PROOF column than Brad and Angelina's bambino. As far as irrefutable evidence, the prediction was written in December, 2004. The show was taped two weeks before Christmas and broadcast on Plum-TV, East Hampton, NY throughout the first week of January 2005. The first public service announcement for the Clinton and George Sr. tsunami effort wasn't aired until January 11, 2005. I think we can also rule out “educated guessing” on this one.
However, add the new baby into the PROOF column if you are figuring strictly percentage right. At what percentage of accuracy does proof exist? When do we have enough evidence to stop doubting and come to approximate or relative certainty?
“Unless you offer up every last detail of those events, proper skeptical feedback will be impossible.”
I have more documentation than you would ever want to read, not to mention witnesses to corroborate. I plan to share one story at a time.
“Are you in this professionally, for the money (there is quite a lot of it to be had, you know), or just do it because you perhaps can?”
I started in 1978 and charged $10. Now I give hour and a half private readings for $100, and group classes in my living room for $25. (I had to laugh that Sylvia Brown has groups in her living room and charges $1000 a head. 35 people and I wouldn't have to work for a year!!) I also use my gift to just help people, like Julie, whose sister was in a coma and she wanted me to see if I could communicate with her. I would never charge for delivering messages from the dead people to the living. I always say if I can ever make enough money not to have to work at anything (like if one of my songs sold, or I could be a really successful realtor), I would never charge for readings ever again, and I would only read for who I really wanted to. But yes in a good month I may make $1000 from my work but sometimes I don't make anything. Oh and I also have a “Birthday Reading” network of friends and family who get a reading once a year as a birthday presents. : )
“Do you keep records detailing the hit/miss/can't-see-it numbers and percentages, and if so, what are they?”
As I said, we have been |
The Skeptic Psychic
www.writingup.com/blog/skepticpsychic |
|
|
|
skepticpsychic
New Member
USA
21 Posts |
Posted - 01/14/2006 : 14:17:33 [Permalink]
|
"John Edward, THE BIGGEST DOUCHE IN THE UNIVERSE, does, rewrite them as hits that we're just not able to recognize. Cold reading can be done accidently. That doesn't mean the psychic is a better person. Lying to themselves does not make lying to others ok. It can make intellectually lazy scumbags more convincing and dangerous. But even if these fucks know they're just making shit up and pushing people's buttons, they tell themselves, "At least I'm comforting the bereaved." WHO THE FUCK ARE THEY TO DECIDE THAT LYING ABOUT THE UNIVERSE AND A DEAD LOVED ONE IS WHAT THE BEREAVED NEEDS? That's condescending BULLSHIT!...I'd say that pretty much sums it up. So if you really believe you are a psychic, skepticpsychic, even bringing his name into the conversation seems rather a waste of time, and making more than a cursory comparison between yourself and his profession won't really help your credibility."
For me this is the example of a skeptic being disagreeable for the sake of being disagreable. And I don't appreciate the profanity. If you want to let of steam perhaps a forum more geared towards psychology or self-help might be the thing.
That fact that you can't allow someone's name in the conversation that has context to our discussion, and that I can't have an objective view of Edward without losing credibility are the very reasons why I am skeptical of skeptics. It's the same beef I have with the Christians. Randi's not RIGHT and all psychics WRONG. Life is just not that black and white. As I said, one has to be careful not to play off of people's emotions, and yet, when I take that chance, positive outcomes are created. Who are you to tell someone who was comforted by the thought that the spirit of the loved one is near is wrong?
I am more than willing to look at what Randi has to say but I will leave it to him to prove his is not a PR hungry sensationalist and if he has anything slightly resembling the above tone and mockery, you lose me. I am interested in subjecting myself to fair and objective guidelines, I even have no problem being "proved wrong." I will still be who I am, and in the end, I am way ok with that. What I won't do it walk into a trap wherein I get to be peppered with profanities because you disagree. |
The Skeptic Psychic
www.writingup.com/blog/skepticpsychic |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 01/14/2006 : 15:11:21 [Permalink]
|
Everybody cold reads; everybody! It is a skill necessary to our interactions with our societies. We tell each other a great deal about ourselves without ever intending to nor of being conscious of doing so. And we recieve a lot of information from others in the same way. Of course, some of us are better at it than others.
The afore-mentioned Edward, et al., really are the bottom scrapings of the cesspool, right there in the muck with Benny Hinn and other human exoparasites that prey upon the gullible like lamprays. Of course, at something like a mere $700 per hour, they might be a trifle behind Hinn in collections. A little research will easily verify this.
I'd suggest that you study Randi's site, and research him as well. He's a crusty, old bastard but he gives everyone a fair shake.
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
|
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
|
|
BigPapaSmurf
SFN Die Hard
3192 Posts |
Posted - 01/14/2006 : 15:44:28 [Permalink]
|
| http://www.skepticfriends.org/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=5363 here it is, of course only half of us were making a real effort to predict something. Although none of us tried with psychic abilities... |
"...things I have neither seen nor experienced nor heard tell of from anybody else; things, what is more, that do not in fact exist and could not ever exist at all. So my readers must not believe a word I say." -Lucian on his book True History
"...They accept such things on faith alone, without any evidence. So if a fraudulent and cunning person who knows how to take advantage of a situation comes among them, he can make himself rich in a short time." -Lucian critical of early Christians c.166 AD From his book, De Morte Peregrini |
|
|
|
GeeMack
SFN Regular
USA
1093 Posts |
Posted - 01/14/2006 : 15:47:31 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by skepticpsychic...
I am interested in subjecting myself to fair and objective guidelines, I even have no problem being "proved wrong." I will still be who I am, and in the end, I am way ok with that. What I won't do it walk into a trap wherein I get to be peppered with profanities because you disagree.
Maybe you're being a bit overly sensitive here. Penn Jillette peppered John Edward with profanities. John Edward claims to be a real psychic. He's not. He takes advantage of grieving people, takes their money, and is dishonest about using mere trickery to do it. If you believe you are a real psychic, then it seems counterproductive to your credibility to bring his name into the discussion.
And again you're missing the point of skepticism, or at least the way the people here on this forum might apply skepticism. Nobody here, nor at the Randi Foundation, nor in any group of real skeptics will try to prove you wrong. If you're the one claiming to be psychic, the burden of proof rests upon you. You have to prove yourself right. There is a huge difference.
And within that realm of proving yourself right, you will be expected to adhere to the scientific method. Certain kinds of "evidence" aren't going to be acceptable. Experimentation will be required, as will predictability and repeatability. The process demands that one follow rigorous procedures of testing. Things like faith, unevidenced claims, hearsay, natural event, incredulity, and chance are excluded from evidence.
The scrutiny of skepticism is often uncomfortable for those who claim to possess supernatural powers because it starts out like this: We don't accept a default position that those powers exist, then set about the task of trying to prove they don't. At the outset we have no evidence, exactly the same amount of evidence that supports there being an Invisible Pink Unicorn standing in my living room... none. And just as much reason to believe it's true. You see how that isn't nay-saying, that's just starting with nothing, zero, and hoping to build a body of evidence from there.
You mentioned "fair and objective guidelines". Perhaps you should describe what you feel are fair and objective guidelines. What is it you think you can do that might be considered psychic? What sort of experimentation might demonstrate it? What conditions might be required to accomplish the experiment? What sort of outcome might be predicted? Would this be repeatable, to the same level of success, under the same conditions, or other conditions? How can we determine that it is actually a psychic phenomenon and not just a natural or chance occurrence? Detailing the guidelines and experiment sounds like a good point of entry.
Edited for spelling. |
| Edited by - GeeMack on 01/14/2006 15:53:50 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 01/14/2006 : 16:07:50 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by skepticpsychic
However, in December, 2004 I predicted for Bill Clinton:
"You will be called to serve in a larger diplomatic circle in 2005. It is something beyond the causes you are working for now. A crisis of sorts in the world situation brings you to the table as a representative of a greater voice. You will not be representing a political party, but you will be asked to represent a certain segment of the population, ones who have been working for peace and justice. This new mission will bring you back into the limelight and reveal a redemption you yourself have already experienced, but now the public will see as well."
I think this would have to be a little heavier weighted into the PROOF column than Brad and Angelina's bambino. As far as irrefutable evidence, the prediction was written in December, 2004. The show was taped two weeks before Christmas and broadcast on Plum-TV, East Hampton, NY throughout the first week of January 2005. The first public service announcement for the Clinton and George Sr. tsunami effort wasn't aired until January 11, 2005. I think we can also rule out “educated guessing” on this one.
But we cannot rule out "vague." Since when, for example, are the tsunami victims people "who have been working for peace and justice?" And the "of a sort" phrase offers enough wiggle room that if Clinton had joined any world-wide effort, you could have claimed "success." Heck, I think the prediction is far more validated by Clinton's work against HIV/AIDS, but if you want to offer up his tsunami recovery efforts, it's no skin off my nose.
Did you predict the tsunami itself?
Did you peg Katrina and Rita?quote:
I have more documentation than you would ever want to read, not to mention witnesses to corroborate. I plan to share one story at a time.
Well, let's see the documentation on the Clinton prediction, then.quote:
That's the point…I am adamant about the facts of what has happened to me, but I want to let go of my personal conviction of what I think it all means to explore other options. I am in essence challenging my own authority and love all this information and input.
Well, what you'll want to do then is be honest with yourself and ask, "is there any way I could have been correct about prediction X without being psychic?" Given the ambiguity of both the Brad and Angelina pregnancy (you should have defined "soon") and the Clinton service ("of a sort?") predictions, I'd have to say "yes" if I were you.
By the way, you might want to check out Bob Carroll's "Philosophical Skepticism" article, from his Skeptic's Dictionary. Most of the people you'll find here on the SFN are what he terms "ordinary skeptics," and not philosophical skeptics. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 01/14/2006 : 20:04:39 [Permalink]
|
skepticpsychic wrote: Even if my studies show my predictions to be 98% accurate, I still can't prove how I think it happens, I can only prove that it happens. Because I can't prove the source, I must examine the affect my belief in the source has on my life and the world around me. For me, it's something of a Hippocratic oath: first do no harm. Whether I can “prove” I am psychic or not, does my belief in it do harm to anyone in any way? This is my standard bearing.
You sound like a skeptic to me. You can believe in and even act on the possibility that you are a true psychic, and be a skeptic at the same time. What makes you a skeptic is that you are aware that your psychic experiences cannot be scientificly proven to be truly psychic, and thus, you accept the ultimate conclusion of "I don't know."
But, of course, these experiences are real and you need to deal with them in some way. I think your whole "first do no harm" approach is very sensible and humanistic. |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
| Edited by - marfknox on 01/14/2006 20:04:51 |
|
|
|
R.Wreck
SFN Regular
USA
1191 Posts |
Posted - 01/14/2006 : 20:14:30 [Permalink]
|
First, welcome to SFN skepticpsychic.
quote:
Originally posted by skepticpsychic
Through the process of my channeling, they delivered to us a formula for resolving conflict on a molecular level, then they coached us through 13 years of testing it on ourselves.
I'm intrigued. Care to share this formula?
quote:
However, in December, 2004 I predicted for Bill Clinton:
"You will be called to serve in a larger diplomatic circle in 2005. It is something beyond the causes you are working for now. A crisis of sorts in the world situation brings you to the table as a representative of a greater voice. You will not be representing a political party, but you will be asked to represent a certain segment of the population, ones who have been working for peace and justice. This new mission will bring you back into the limelight and reveal a redemption you yourself have already experienced, but now the public will see as well."
I think this would have to be a little heavier weighted into the PROOF column than Brad and Angelina's bambino. As far as irrefutable evidence, the prediction was written in December, 2004. The show was taped two weeks before Christmas and broadcast on Plum-TV, East Hampton, NY throughout the first week of January 2005. The first public service announcement for the Clinton and George Sr. tsunami effort wasn't aired until January 11, 2005. I think we can also rule out “educated guessing” on this one.
Predicting that an ex-president, especially a relatively young publicity hound one, would pop up in relation to a crisis of some sorts doesn't really seem to be going out on much of a limb. There are sufficient crises to keep any ex-pres in the public eye as often as he wants to be seen. Now, had you specifically predicted a tsunami in the correct location on the correct date and the subsequent Clinton tie-in, that would be impressive. As Dave correctly pointed out, the more vague your prediction, the less remarkable it is when something happens that could possibly fit. Vagueness has been the hallmark of prophecy and prediction since time immemorial. People are still shoehorning Nostradamus' drivel into current and historical events, and Browne, Edwards et al usually try to make their "predictions" seem like hits in part through the very lack of specifics given.
I'm sure you believe that your journals etc. should be considered as evidence of your psychic ability. If you really want to test this ability however, you need to subject yourself to a controlled test and you will need to perform significantly better than pure chance would predict. Do that and not only will you have your answer, you could have a cool million so you can fulfill your dream of using your ability when and how you want. Good luck. |
The foundation of morality is to . . . give up pretending to believe that for which there is no evidence, and repeating unintelligible propositions about things beyond the possibliities of knowledge.
T. H. Huxley
The Cattle Prod of Enlightened Compassion
|
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 01/14/2006 : 20:18:12 [Permalink]
|
I think this thread a little confusing. Some of you seem to be getting a little too huffy about the Randi thing. Skepticpsychic has been nothing but polite, honest, and open, so let's return that favor.
Skepticpsychic wrote: "Randi's not RIGHT and all psychics WRONG." and on principle, this is exactly correct. Take the cyclops cat thread - Humbert saw that the eye was open, and knowing that kittens are normally born with eyes closed, he concluded that it was a photoshopped image. But he was wrong; the cyclops kitten was legit. Sometimes we are wrong. Sometimes we jump to a conclusion of rejection before we actually do know all the facts. I think that is all that skepticpsychic is getting at. She didn't say she was skeptical of skepticism, she said she was skeptical of skeptics! Look, I love Randi as much as the rest of you. Even met him and saw him speak once, and I think he's awesome. That's not the point. All people are suseptible to mistakes, arrogance, overconfidence, etc. Maybe it would do us some good to have some humility. |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 01/14/2006 : 23:41:51 [Permalink]
|
Seriously, present your claims to Randi.
Any test he sets up has to earn your 100% approval before it gets carried out.
If you really are psychic, you can get a cool million.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 01/15/2006 : 00:23:49 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by marfknox
I think this thread a little confusing. Some of you seem to be getting a little too huffy about the Randi thing. Skepticpsychic has been nothing but polite, honest, and open, so let's return that favor.
...
Thank you Marfknox. Some of the posts here sound more hostile than called for.
Penn and Teller are also entertainers. Their program, Bullshit, is on HBO for a reason, and while they are probably being themselves, I would think a little profanity is for their target market.
Edwards hasn't shown he can do more than cold reading. I disagree with the others here, though, and do think he helps as well as other kinds of grief counselors. I thinks he helps people move on. After all, not many people think a priest telling someone they'll see their loved one in heaven some day is such a bad thing. And before anyone proclaims priests don't charge $300/hr, some of them take donations from the most vulnerable and some of them take BIG donations from those vulnerable people. We've had discussions about Edwards here before.
Sylvia, on the other hand pretty much is a total fake yet manages to get herself on shows like Larry King. She would fit the category of having marketed herself rather than the category of having been a psychic. She had a 30% success on her predictions according to the skeptic on Larry King to which she ducked the question. And we all know about her telling Randi in public that she would take his challenge. Randi has a day count on his site with the number of days since the agreement and still no Sylvia. I think it's upwards of about 3 or 4 years now. |
| Edited by - beskeptigal on 01/15/2006 00:39:58 |
|
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 01/15/2006 : 01:19:35 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by skepticpsychic
Some things cannot be proven absolutely
Lots of things. That's not usually a reason a skeptic would be skeptical.
quote:
Originally posted by skepticpsychic
I still can't prove how I think it happens, I can only prove that it happens
Evidence of psychic events would not require a cause be found. Much of science finds 'what' before it finds 'how'.
quote:
Originally posted by skepticpsychic
There have been times when I've been asked by a “spirit” to deliver a message...
Out loud, or just in your thoughts? Thinking something even you must admit does not make it so. And if you do hear voices you really might want to think about that schizoid diagnosis. That doesn't leave an easy path of convincing anyone it occurred just on your word alone, even if you passed a lie detector test (if they were reliable).
So you'll have to prove communication with the dead separately from knowing someone's past and that is separate from predicting the future.
quote:
Originally posted by skepticpsychic
(can I just say dead people without 16 comments about the morgue please??)…
Especially the stick poking kind. 
quote:
Originally posted by skepticpsychic
I also have two associates and also a larger circle of people who have taken part in actively documenting and studying the content of the readings I have given over the past 13 years. I have plenty of witnesses who can attest to the facts of how the events played out: who was there, what day it happened, what was said, etc. We studied as scientifically as we could the information that was given during the reading and documented our experiences in dated diaries. We have recordings and transcripts of the dated readings, what the passing of time has reveal about their accuracy, and the effects the information had on the quality of our lives.
The data collection may or may not be complete enough to do a true scientific analysis. The way science would treat this kind of study would be to determine first what data to collect, then collect and analyze it.
You would want to determine what constitutes a correct prediction. You would want some agreement among skeptics or at least neutral parties what constitutes a correct prediction.
I may have one of the most open minds among the very skeptical here because I am very interested in the psychic detective stuff that has been on the telly. Yet I'm sorry to tell you I wasn't the least bit impressed about either the Clinton or the Bradalena baby prediction. Dave made some very good and certainly very valid points about the Clinton prediction and anyone could have made a prediction about the baby. The news media was harping on it for months, Brad's adopting her kids, I wonder if they're going to have one of their own, and even months and months before any of this there was some rumor about Brad leaving Jennifer because he wanted a baby and she didn't. (Sorry, I'm a news junkie and addicted to channel s |
| Edited by - beskeptigal on 01/15/2006 01:21:51 |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
