|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
 Posted - 01/15/2006 : 14:08:24 [Permalink]
|
Skepticpsychic wrote: And because I am on the fence about what the source of my experiences really is, I don't think I could come up with anything “paranormal” to be tested on. That I can close my eyes, talk spontaneously and extemporaneously, and produce highly evolved information about of a process that resolves conflict on root levels? Doesn't really sound very paranormal. Unusual perhaps, but paranormal? Could I just be some kind of idiot savant genius type? I'm ok with that.
There was an excellent article in the December 2002 issue of Wired Magazine. The whole issue was a special report on Science + Religion. but in particular there is a skeptical but very sensitive article about the life and death of Elizabeth Targ. The article is called A Prayer Before Dying if anyone wants to look it up; it is well worth reading.
Targ was a psychiatrist who did research into AIDS, brain cancer, and psychic healing. She was quite brilliant (both intuitive and logical) and was raised by a father obsessed with psychic abilities. These two facts, in my opinion, account for her incredible story.
Targ did two studies into psychic healing with AIDS patients, and in both tests which were done by the book (double blind, the healers were over a thousand miles away and didn't know the people they were praying for, and the patients were selected at random), there difference in mortality rate was statistically significant; the psychic/prayer healing appeared to be working. Targ became famous all over the world, and a hero to faith-healers of all sorts. But, under later scrutiny, it was found that Targ and her fellow researchers who all had an interest in the faith healing being real had broke the randomization code to unblind the data, and other things that basically fudged the results. It is likely that they had even fooled themselves into thinking they were being objective. But the results were bogus.
Throughout Targ's life she had a recurring dream where she had a birthday cake with 42 candles, and she always interpreted it as that she was going to die at the age of 42. At the age of 40 she was diagnosed with brain cancer – the same uncommon disease that she'd become an expert about. But she didn't die at the age of 42. She died just before she turned 41. Another tragic irony piled on top of the fact that millions of psychic healers who loved her and believed in her research had been praying, sending energy and such to help her. But none of it worked. She still died. The last line of the article reads: “Not evidence of anything, but too close to just ignore, too close not to ponder.”
I tend to think that something in Targ's subconscious let her know that she was going to develop brain cancer. Maybe some relative of hers had had it. (The article doesn't say.) Or may, like skepticpsychic says, she was some sort of “idiot savant”. Even if we shouldn't conclude anything, our interest in these sort of mysteries is part of the wonder of being human.
|
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
 |
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 01/15/2006 : 14:25:23 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by R.Wreck
quote:
Originally posted by beskeptigal:
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.
I think anybody, even with the best intentions, who tells a known untruth or claims knowledge they can't possibly have, is not helping anyone. "Moving on" based on lies or fantasy is not really moving on, its just moving sideways. Better to face up to the truth, especially when the truth is "We just don't know if Granny has a soul that survives physical death, and if she does we have absolutely no idea what happens to it". It will make you stronger and better in the long run. Better to honor and enjoy the memories of your loved ones than to be bamboozled by nonsense, even well-meaning nonsense.
How are you judging what is best for others?
And how do you apply or not apply this to grief counselors?
To clergy?
Both of whom may say things that are untrue for what they believe is better for the grieving person to hear. "Yes, your father was a wonderful man." |
| Edited by - beskeptigal on 01/15/2006 14:38:34 |
|
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 01/15/2006 : 14:34:14 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kil
quote:
Originally posted by beskeptigal:
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.
Oh here we go again. If you really think it is a good thing to help people by selling them a bullshit last meeting with their loved one, created by a huckster who is stealing from them their true last memory of the person they are grieving for, what can I say that I already haven't said? The priest isn't taking from them their last memory of the person being grieved over. (My guess is that your animosity toward religion has clouded your ability to see how the analogy is a false one.) Edwards is telling them the loved on is still around. And from time to time, if they are willing to pay for it, they can talk to the dead loved one. With that information they will not have to go on with grieving process. And there is nothing good about that.
You are just plain wrong.
I base my opinion on watching the reaction to Edwards by his audiences and by my having seen many many many grieving persons in my life including other counselors' approach to them. How many people have you helped through the grieving process and what formal training have you had in the field? I've been a nurse for more than (eeek) 30 years. I worked in an intensive care unit for more than 10 years and I worked for quite a while in a pediatric bone marrow transplant unit.
How many people have you been with when they died? How many people have you been with while they watched their loved one die? their child die? Have you been there when they were told by the doctor their child died?
I understand your opinion. You may have it. But you don't know what is best for people. Neither do I. I only know that some people are helped to get through the worst of their grief by fantasizing their loved one isn't really gone. It's called magical thinking. It's a common, normal human behavior. It serves a purpose. |
|
|
|
pleco
SFN Addict
USA
2998 Posts |
Posted - 01/15/2006 : 14:35:33 [Permalink]
|
quote:
I tend to think that something in Targ's subconscious let her know that she was going to develop brain cancer. Maybe some relative of hers had had it. (The article doesn't say.) Or may, like skepticpsychic says, she was some sort of “idiot savant”. Even if we shouldn't conclude anything, our interest in these sort of mysteries is part of the wonder of being human.
Or dumb luck. With billions of people on the planet, how often would you get a hit on this? I always thought I would die before 2000. I mean, I was dead sure.
Obviously, my abilities suck. |
by Filthy
The neo-con methane machine will soon be running at full fart. |
|
|
|
|
GeeMack
SFN Regular
USA
1093 Posts |
Posted - 01/15/2006 : 15:19:26 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by pleco...
Or dumb luck. With billions of people on the planet, how often would you get a hit on this? I always thought I would die before 2000. I mean, I was dead sure.
Obviously, my abilities suck.
Maybe you misunderstood your intuition and it meant you'd die before you're 2000 years old. And if that's what the premonition was, forgive my flagrant pessimism here, but I'm willing to bet sawbuck that you'll still be right! 
|
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 01/15/2006 : 17:52:37 [Permalink]
|
quote:
I find your assessment of her reason to not want to be tested by Randi a bit on the harsh side.
Maybe.
My personal opinion in these matters, however, is for the alledged psychic to put up or shut up.
|
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 |
|
|
|
|
moakley
SFN Regular
USA
1888 Posts |
Posted - 01/15/2006 : 19:28:58 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by skepticpsychic
I myself would prefer a platform that isn?t adversarial. John Edward, for example, was part of an extensive study done at the University of Tuscan. I haven?t read the entire study yet, but the fact that he was willing to submit to these blind tests tells me is he willing to be scrutinized. I can understand why he would prefer an atmosphere that was not adversarial to begin with.
I assume that you are talking about the work of Dr. Gary Schwartz of the University of Arizona. http://veritas.arizona.edu/
Other than book form, the only journal that his work has been published in is "Journal of the Society for Psychical Research". The veritas web site sure doesn't list peer reviewed journals where the work has been published. Why not? Makes me suspect that his work could not stand up under the scrutiny of the peer review. A very necessary step for legitimate science.
John Edward turns my stomach. In November 2001 he had planned a series of shows where he intended to talk to the victoms of the WTC tragedy. http://www.apologeticsindex.org/news1/an011025-05.html
I believe John saw an opportunity to make a lot of money. |
Life is good
Philosophy is questions that may never be answered. Religion is answers that may never be questioned. -Anonymous |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 01/15/2006 : 20:56:00 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by JohnOAS
quote:
592,404. (Although my first guess was 7.)
I like it. With the sneaky ability of attempting to get 2 guesses for the price of one, you could have a future in this business. I'm afraid you're wrong though.
You can't think in terms of "right" or "wrong" in cases like this, my friend. Really, the number 592,404 is significant for you in some way. I'm feeling it very strongly. If not yet, maybe sometime in the near future. I want you to write the number down and carry it in your wallet. Keep it fresh in your mind throughout the day and make an effort to look for it to pop up. Also, remember that it isn't always the whole number all at once that has significance. Often, pieces of it will emerge here and there, like echos of music, or ripples on a pond. You must be open to it or you'll find that you miss it when it comes.
P.S. 74,846? 
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
| Edited by - H. Humbert on 01/15/2006 20:59:41 |
|
|
|
R.Wreck
SFN Regular
USA
1191 Posts |
Posted - 01/15/2006 : 21:11:08 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by beskeptigal:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by R.Wreck
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by beskeptigal:
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.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I think anybody, even with the best intentions, who tells a known untruth or claims knowledge they can't possibly have, is not helping anyone. "Moving on" based on lies or fantasy is not really moving on, its just moving sideways. Better to face up to the truth, especially when the truth is "We just don't know if Granny has a soul that survives physical death, and if she does we have absolutely no idea what happens to it". It will make you stronger and better in the long run. Better to honor and enjoy the memories of your loved ones than to be bamboozled by nonsense, even well-meaning nonsense.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
How are you judging what is best for others?
I think that what is best is to be truthful, based on the fact that I don't like to be lied to, and it stands to reason that others wouldn't either (sort of a "golden rule" thing).
quote:
And how do you apply or not apply this to grief counselors?
A grief counsellor should be capable of helping one work through one's own grief. I suppose the counselor could say something that would not contradict the bereaved's spiritual beliefs, but I don't think the counselor should actively reinforce any supernatural fantasies.
quote:
To clergy?
Well, they're in the bullshit business to begin with, so my personal opinion is that they should just shut the fuck up and find some honest line of work. I think they are really just as ludicrous as Edwards and his ilk. And they seem to have a morbid attraction to death which I find rather creepy.
quote:
Both of whom may say things that are untrue for what they believe is better for the grieving person to hear. "Yes, your father was a wonderful man."
Well if dad was really a world class a-hole, then one could say something along the lines of "I'm sure you miss your father, but you'll always have the memory of your time together". Or "Your father will certainly be remembered by all who knew him". No need to make up some line of crap. There are tactful ways of expressing condolences without getting into details that may not be appropriate at the time.
I think, though, that what I really dislike about all the nonsense spouted on the occassion of someone's death, is that it reinforces the belief in magic and illogical thinking, and at a time when people are most vulnerable to it. And these beliefs have real, negative, consequences to the entire society. |
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
|
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 01/15/2006 : 22:20:30 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by beskeptigal
I base my opinion on watching the reaction to Edwards by his audiences and by my having seen many many many grieving persons in my life including other counselors' approach to them.
So, did any of those counselors include in their approach telling the grieving people that the dead loved one is “standing behind me” and communicating to the counselor that he is “doing fine” and “I see a dog or something furry with him…”? Did any of those counselors offer up anything close to magical thinking? Or is this simply the appeal to authority that it looks like? And by the way, you would not have access to any actual grief counseling unless it was for you because, like most client/psychologist relationships, it is a confidential procedure.
quote:
beskeptigal:
How many people have you helped through the grieving process and what formal training have you had in the field? I've been a nurse for more than (eeek) 30 years. I worked in an intensive care unit for more than 10 years and I worked for quite a while in a pediatric bone marrow transplant unit.
How many people have you been with when they died? How many people have you been with while they watched their loved one die? their child die? Have you been there when they were told by the doctor their child died?
I am reminded of the blind man holding the end of an elephant's tail and guesses that he is holding a mouse…
Being around people who just lost a loved one is serious business. But it is still only a moment in the grieving process. My guess is that the doctor told them their child died, just as you said, and not that the child just crossed over and they should find a psychic so they can chat with the dead child. The doctor may have said the loved one is not in pain anymore, to comfort the relatives, and he may have also referred them to a grief counselor.
Sorry, but your 30 years of being a nurse may mean that you had to deal with death and with those who just lost a loved one up close and personal, but that is nowhere near to having experience with the actual grieving process that can take up to years sometimes.
quote:
beskeptigal:
I understand your opinion. You may have it. But you don't know what is best for people. Neither do I. I only know that some people are helped to get through the worst of their grief by fantasizing their loved one isn't really gone. It's called magical thinking. It's a common, normal human behavior. It serves a purpose.
Here is the thing. A confidence man like Edwards does not just build confidence in him within another person. He takes advantage of the person's weakness and vulnerability. There is a bargaining stage to grieving. It is the stage when magical thinking can happen. It is the most vulnerable stage of the process when the grieving person is willing to pay to relieve the pain and fear and loneliness and guilt and whatever uncomfortable feelings they may experiencing around the death of a loved one. And, unlike a grief counselor who carefully guides but does not direct a person through this stage, Edward's is there to name his price and take charge of the show. And he knows exactly what he is doing when he creates images and ideas and whole scenarios out of thin air to the delight of those who are ready to turn off the pain at any price. Do they look relieved and happy? Sure they do. And Edward's is countin |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 01/15/2006 : 23:03:36 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by marfknox
Certainly there a great number of very strange and coincidental things constantly happening to people.
Indeed. That's the source of the old adage that if something has million-to-one odds of happening to a person in a day, it happens eight times in New York City every single day (on average). |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 01/16/2006 : 01:24:00 [Permalink]
|
Kil and RW, it doesn't matter what your personal values are, nor who tells the truth, or who believes or doesn't believe in what they are saying, or what I think is the best way to counsel a grieving person, (because I use a different approach for sure). I have seen people in their grief and have seen successful approaches and unsuccessful approaches to helping them during that time. Regardless of what you think of Edwards, or his scam or beliefs whichever they are, or the beliefs of the clergy, what I am going by in saying Edwards is a successful grief counselor is the results I see when he plays his game or gives his spiel or whatever you want to call it. Believing your loved one is still there is what people do in the acute phase. And magically thinking you can say that one last thing that has become important to you is healthy not unhealthy. After time, after one gets used to the person being gone, then people move on. And no one needs to move on by someone else's time frame except maybe in extreme cases.
That's all I'm going to say because I feel bad about the thread hijacking and we have discussed this before. I understand your positions, I just think you are thinking too rationally and not considering how irrational thinking is sometimes of great benefit. Now if Edwards had them sign over their life savings like some of those televangelists, then we'd be in closer agreement. |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 01/16/2006 : 03:47:50 [Permalink]
|
quote:
That's all I'm going to say because I feel bad about the thread hijacking and we have discussed this before. I understand your positions, I just think you are thinking too rationally and not considering how irrational thinking is sometimes of great benefit. Now if Edwards had them sign over their life savings like some of those televangelists, then we'd be in closer agreement.
Snuggle up, b'gal; it is beyond doubt that the vile, little feather merchant would do exactly that if he thought he could get by with it. It is not inconcievable that he has already.
Here's Michael Shermer discussing another scumbag: James van Praagh.
'Nuff said, and said well.
|
"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! 
|
|
|
|
skepticpsychic
New Member
USA
21 Posts |
Posted - 01/16/2006 : 05:36:04 [Permalink]
|
Review of the Skeptic Friends Network
WOW! Great feedback. Sorry I can't respond to all your responses. If anyone would like to continue a particular thread, please feel free to write me at skepticpsychic@aol.com.
My experience on the Skeptic Friends Network has been very enriching. Subjective perspective needs a good going over on a regular basis. Your site has given me a kick in the proverbial butt and helped me fulfill the intention of using doubt as a tool to gain a higher knowledge.
Your group of skeptics seem a pretty even mix of fundament fringe (do we really need to use profanity to call John Edward a douche bag?); the hard-nose “old journalists,” (I consider Randi in this category); the bibliophilic, attention-to-detailers (making sure we follow protocol to the tee) and my favorite, those willing to explore the mystery (thus pissing off the fundamental fringe). Thank you, I have learned something from everyone.
I have to admit, I did not thoroughly read your website before I joined. I confess to laboring under the assumption that we were going to be skeptical about everything: the war, politics, religion, etc. I was surprised to find that psychics are your pet project! Good thing I don't take myself too serious! Don't you love the synchronicity that led me to you? : )
On a scale of 1 to 10 in producing a forum where you achieve the desired outcome you claim to seek in your “Who We Are” statement, I'd rate you a 7.
However, room for improvement exists.
If you intention is to use Skepticism a productive change agent that brings us together to agree upon an approximate or relatively certain reality, I am all for it, right there with you.
If your intention is just to disprove psychics, you might be shooting yourself in the foot. Skepticism isn't about being adversarial, it's about thinking critically. Focusing on debunking psychics because you think we are a danger to society gives us power even we don't claim to have. Just as you can't disprove something that is not falsifiable, working “for” something you are “against” dilutes your efforts.
Instead of having to fight against the Nazi's, what if the Germany people were fighting for more critical thinking at the time when Nazi's were coming into power? Hitler didn't do what he did alone. He had hundreds of thousands of German's marching along lock step because they didn't think for themselves. What if those people were truly critical thinkers? Maybe Hitler wouldn't have had such a big power base on the inside.
Have you become like the Christians? (Believe me, if I am not getting from the skeptics, I am getting it from the Christians.) Do you think you are right because [you have the statistical information to prove it/the bible tells you so] and the [psychics and Christians/psychic and skeptics] are wrong because [they can't prove it/they don't believe in the bible] and vow to do everything in your power to save the world from the [insane psychics and religious charlatans/pagan skeptics] because in your estimation we are [cowards/heathens]? If so, I have what I hope is a constructive suggestion.
6,000,000,000+ people share this planet right now. This Earth is literally armed to the hilt with WMDs and we got a bunch of people in power who think “holy war” is the latest claim to fame. Even if my belief that I am talking to Einstein sounds unreal to you, what he tells me makes perfect sense. We cannot solve the problems at the same level we created them. Regardless of what skeptics can prove or disprove, what Christians believe about the “only truth” of the Bible, what Muslims feel about what Christians think about them, whoever the hell I think I am cavorting with in some alleged afterlife, we all have to learn how to get along.
We all have to learn to get along. And no, I don't have the statistics of what the odds are that we really will blow ourselves to kingdom come, contaminating the soil and atmosphere for countless years through |
The Skeptic Psychic
www.writingup.com/blog/skepticpsychic |
|
|
|
pleco
SFN Addict
USA
2998 Posts |
Posted - 01/16/2006 : 06:13:50 [Permalink]
|
There is a tiny bit of difference between having data and methodology that says something probably is true and my religious/new age/psychic book tells me so.
The fact that you can't see the difference speaks volumes. |
by Filthy
The neo-con methane machine will soon be running at full fart. |
|
| Edited by - pleco on 01/16/2006 06:14:38 |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
