Amateur Debunker, Or Killjoy?

Great Debates
61

You know, psychics know a lot of stuff about ordinary people. More, in fact that a lot of very highly educated scientists do. This is especially true of the psychics that are dishonest, and do not believe in their own powers. That doesn’t change the fact that they know a lot about people.

Now, in other cases are the sincere psychics. You can usually identify them by the fact that they are true psychic friends. They call you when you are in need, and they don’t want any money. I have several. I don’t know, or care how they do it. They come to me, when I am in need and give me advice about things they don’t even begin to understand, because they want to, and they think it will help. Strange, but the fact is that the total results over years supports their belief that they are psychic. Their timing, perception, and appropriate concern is stunning. Their advice is a bit less . . . reliable.

I don’t find it necessary, or desirable to inform them of their errors in suggested actions. I don’t particularly know that they are wrong, a lot of times, only that I am not going to follow their advice, for whatever reason. But, the thing is that it isn’t important that they know that I think their thought processes provide analytic data they don’t know they possess. I think they are just very very intelligent and perceptive in non traditional ways, and have information that they cannot explain. They just think they are psychic. Now, if they asked me to pay them for their help, I would tell them they know the answer to that already, what with them being so darned psychic. :stuck_out_tongue:

However, I have never been even mildly tempted to correct them on the existence of their psychic power.

Tris

“Yes, I am psycyclic. No, I can’t tell the future. I just think the same stuff over and over.”

62

Triskadecamus, throughout this thread I have admired & been a little in awe of your evenhanded, nonjudgemental and benevolent attitude. From people like you, besides a lot of wonderful insights, I get also a really good example of the kind of person I want to be.

You rock!

63

[QUOTE=brujaja]
[underseved praise deleted] . . . I get also a really good example of the kind of person I want to be.

You rock!
[/QUOTE]
Thanks. I used to be a real asshole. I eventually got over it, though. Of course, it’s taken sixty years to do that!

Tris

64

[QUOTE=brujaja]
…there is one religion I won’t name which I think was just plain made up.
[/QUOTE]

They’re all just made up. Some are simply older than others, thus have a veneer of tradition.

65

[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
There is no theoretical mechanism by which it would be physically possible to “see” the future, communicate with entities that don’t exist (that is allegedly departed souls), perceive another person’s thoughts, etc. These are physical impossibilities. They contradict known physical laws, therefore they are impossible by definition.
[/QUOTE]

I agree that seeing the future flouts our basic understanding of the laws of the universe. Our entire scientific method is built upon the operation of cause and effect; seeing and acting upon events that occur in the future would scuttle that basic law. So I’m with you there.

I’m not clear on what physical law you believe prevents us from perceiving someone else’s thoughts. Thoughts are, as I understand it, the result of chemical and electrical processes in the brain. While we certainly don’t have any technology now that would permit such a thing, it’s unclear to me what physical law would be violated by perceiving someone else’s thoughts.

True dat. I absolutely agree that the default position should be that the ability or phenomenon does not exist until proved.

66

[QUOTE=Bricker]
I’m not clear on what physical law you believe prevents us from perceiving someone else’s thoughts. Thoughts are, as I understand it, the result of chemical and electrical processes in the brain. While we certainly don’t have any technology now that would permit such a thing, it’s unclear to me what physical law would be violated by perceiving someone else’s thoughts.
[/QUOTE]
Well, you’d need powerful enough transmissions that we could detect them, especially if electromagnetic ( probably radio ) based telepathy was to have any range. And almost certainly you’d need specialized receivers/transmitters, which we’d long ago have noticed. Still, ( non-psi ) telepathy in theory doesn’t really deserve to be lumped in with telekinesis/teleportation/precognition/astral travel and such. We could have evolved as electromagnetically based telepaths; we just didn’t. We couldn’t ever have evolved as precognitives and such.

67

[QUOTE=Der Trihs]
Well, you’d need powerful enough transmissions that we could detect them, especially if electromagnetic ( probably radio ) based telepathy was to have any range. And almost certainly you’d need specialized receivers/transmitters, which we’d long ago have noticed. Still, ( non-psi ) telepathy in theory doesn’t really deserve to be lumped in with telekinesis/teleportation/precognition/astral travel and such. We could have evolved as electromagnetically based telepaths; we just didn’t. We couldn’t ever have evolved as precognitives and such.
[/QUOTE]

Agreed. And there’s no particular reason a chance mutation couldn’t produce some highly sensitive person who could read thoughts. It’s unlikely in the extreme, of course, but that’s not to say it violates any understanding we have of the physical laws of the universe, as precognition would.

We could, much more easily, simulate pecognition by imagining some sort of highly efficient observer or actor. If I hold the dice in a certain starting position, and propel them with a precise throw, and the air resistance, coefficient of friction of the table felt, and elasticity of the back wall of the craps table are precisely known, then theoretically I can predict precisely what numbers will end up facing up. There are obvious practical problems associated with this, or with predicting any event where tiny variants in the conditions will morph into different results, but, again, these are problems of application, not of theory.

68

[QUOTE=Bricker]
Agreed. And there’s no particular reason a chance mutation couldn’t produce some highly sensitive person who could read thoughts. It’s unlikely in the extreme, of course, but that’s not to say it violates any understanding we have of the physical laws of the universe, as precognition would.
[/QUOTE]
And by “sensitive”, that’s not “crystals spirits angels woo woo” sensitive, it’s “the presence of any unshielded electronics within a mile radius will send him screaming to the ground, clawing at his head and begging for the noise to stop” sensitive, right?

69

It’s a shame that the “soul” thread has gone so far off the rails. To me, that issue is one of the stickiest to argue “against,” so it would’ve been interesting to see how it developed with the topics of this thread in mind.

70

[QUOTE=begbert2]
And by “sensitive”, that’s not “crystals spirits angels woo woo” sensitive, it’s “the presence of any unshielded electronics within a mile radius will send him screaming to the ground, clawing at his head and begging for the noise to stop” sensitive, right?
[/QUOTE]

Well, certainly that’s closer to how I imagine it might play out, yes. I meant “sensitive to whatever electromagnetic emanations come from thoughts and subject to the inverse-square law for strength of same,” and not “sensitive to the mystical vibrations of the next world.”

Again, my main point is: nothing about “reading thoughts” is violative of any physical laws of the universe, as we understand them.

71

[QUOTE=Bricker]
Agreed. And there’s no particular reason a chance mutation couldn’t produce some highly sensitive person who could read thoughts. It’s unlikely in the extreme, of course, but that’s not to say it violates any understanding we have of the physical laws of the universe, as precognition would.
[/quote]

Sensitive to what? Mutation doesn’t produce completely new apparatus or organs (certainly nothing on the order of what you’re hypothesizing), it’s just a distortion of genetic material that’s already there. I still don’t really even understand what you’re suggesting could be transmitted or received, for that matter.

That wouldn’t be precognition, though, in the sense of a “psychic” ability, it would just be a highly sophisticated application of scientific method (which makes highly accurate predictions all the time).

72

[QUOTE=Bricker]
Well, certainly that’s closer to how I imagine it might play out, yes. I meant “sensitive to whatever electromagnetic emanations come from thoughts and subject to the inverse-square law for strength of same,” and not “sensitive to the mystical vibrations of the next world.”

Again, my main point is: nothing about “reading thoughts” is violative of any physical laws of the universe, as we understand them.
[/QUOTE]

Let me analogize this way. It’s one thing to say it’s physically possible to fly. It’s another thing to say it’s physically possible to fly by flapping one’s arms.

Even if some theoretical technology fotr the reading of thoughts be be devised, it would still be impossible to do it with our brains. It is impossible to do it with the physical apparatus which resides in our bodies, even at the most theoretical level. Your hypothesis about a mutated sensitivity to other people’s thoughts is on a par with a hypothesis about the mutation of a complete human eyeball in one generation.

73

[QUOTE=Bricker]
Agreed. And there’s no particular reason a chance mutation couldn’t produce some highly sensitive person who could read thoughts. It’s unlikely in the extreme, of course, but that’s not to say it violates any understanding we have of the physical laws of the universe, as precognition would.

[/QUOTE]

Not really, unless you believe in hopeful monsters. Evolution doesn’t work that way. To read thoughts, the brain would have to transmit impulses powerful enough to be read at some distance away (which would take lots of costly in terms of energy mechanisms for no benefit), evolve a receiver, and evolve the mechanism for understanding the transmission. No chance mutation is going to do all those things outside of sci-fi (and I use the term advisedly.) If telepathy existed, we’d have been able to pick up the signals long ago.

I might be able to dream up an evolutionary sequence that would make it possible, but it would take millions of years if not more. Exposing people to radiation ain’t going to do it.

As for your first post, don’t you think it is better for us not to believe in a few correct things than to believe in a zillion incorrect ones? In the late 19th century, reports of meteorites were laughed at, until a bunch fell in France and everyone became convinced. The skeptics were right, especially because they were willing to change their minds with more evidence. If someone tells us about an experience, I want to deduce the consequences if that experience were true. Lots of people claim they talk to God, but God never seems to tell them anything they didn’t know already, and God always seems to be just what their society believes God should be. In the same way, aliens supposedly kidnapping people over the past few decades had an uncanny resemblance to those in the last hit space movie. Maybe, maybe, one of these fantastic things is true - and maybe one of the emails is from a real Nigerian oil minister.

74

[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]

That was my point. I would be amazed if ANYBODY (except maybe small children) really believes a stage magician is doing real magic, yet somehow they can’t see that the idea of real psychic powers is just as preposterous.
[/quote]

I’m sure you’re right, but remember that Arthur Conan Doyle kept telling Houdini that he was deluded in believing he did all his tricks by stage magic, and that he really had supernatural powers.

75

[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]

There are no documented examples of psychics being able to solve criminal cases. There has never been a single verifiable example – or even strong indication – of genuine psychic powers ever being demonstrated by anyone ever. Not a single time.
[/QUOTE]

Actually, I remember one case where a psychic pinpointed the location of a body (not at the request of the police. He spontaneously offered the info). It was mentionned in the medias at the time because as a result, the psychic was briefly detained until it was established he wasn’t involved in the crime.

However I don’t think a single occurence proves anything. I understand that each time there’s a high profile criminal case, the police receive “informations” from psychics by the boatload. As a result, it’s unavoidable that some of those psychics will get it right.

76

Well, Dio would probably say that the incident you describe is a stronger indication that the psychic WAS involved in the crime (as he was in the SVU episode probably inspired by what you mention) that that he was psychic.

He probably intended something where the psychic in question can’t have any direct say in the outcome - like the whole “if psychic powers worked, why don’t they win the lottery five times in a row” question.

Anyway, this whole issue brings up a lot of others in my mind, like whether it’s okay to be smug or to belittle just because the other party does it to you all the time, or because they’re the majority or powerful, or because you’re undeniably right and they’re definitely wrong. Plus a lot of other things I’m finding it hard to express in words. Hmm.

77

[QUOTE=Leaper]
Well, Dio would probably say that the incident you describe is a stronger indication that the psychic WAS involved in the crime (as he was in the SVU episode probably inspired by what you mention) that that he was psychic.
[/quote]

Actually, the first thing I’d want to know is what is meant by the statement that the psychic “pinpointed” the location of the body. How are we defining “pinpointed.” It’s usally the case when claims like that are made that a target is drawn around the arrow. A few vague “hits” are dressed up and presented a bullseye.

I’m saying it has to be a case where no natural explanation is feasible. If a psychic gives the exact street address where a murder victim is buried in a crawlspace, then both the possibilities that the psychic had prior knowledge or that it was sheer coincidence are still more likely than magic.

I think maybe there’s an issue of perception here. Not every correction of ignorance is intended to belittling or condescending. Sometimes it’s just a genuine impulse to help someone out. To me it’s the same impulse as to tell someone they mispelled a word or that they got a date wrong or that their zipper is down. If they are potentially going to be swindled, I feel even more of an impulse to warn them.

78

[QUOTE=Cervaise]

Now, by contrast, if the guy had suggested that we go back to his office, where he had a supply of homeopathic “memory water,” which he would administer for its curative and restorative properties, I would have had no problem at all laughing in his face, and subjecting him to endless, brutal ridicule.

On consideration of the distinction between one and the other, I have a hard time pinning down the exact dividing line between them, and why my behavior in the two situations feels appropriate. I perceive them as being very different, and yet I’m not sure I can put into words why exactly that is.
[/QUOTE]

In my opinion, you cant put it into words because actually there’s no difference. As you said yourself, they’re both doing exactly the same thing : out of concern for your well-being, they’re offering an useless but harmless “help”. If in your opinion it would be rude to subject the first one to ridicule, then it’s equally rude in the second situation.

In all likehood it feels appropriate to you for the same reason it feels appropriate to many other people. Riduling a mainstream religious belief is often, and arbitrarily, deemed socially not acceptable. There has been endless arguments on this board regarding this very issue following atheists/theists debates, when a believer takes offense at his mainstrem belief being compared with a fringe belief, because it’s “obviously” not the same thing, even though, like you, they’re unable to explain why.

Note that, with the exception of ** Der Thris **, even on this board, even amongst the most ardent atheists, everybody follows this implicit and arbitrarily rule. But actually ** Der Thris ** is fundamentally right. It isn’t consistent to put the gloves on when discussing mainstream beliefs and put them off in all other cases as it’s usually done (though there are of course people and posters who keep the gloves on in all cases).

79

[QUOTE=clairobscur]
In my opinion, you cant put it into words because actually there’s no difference. As you said yourself, they’re both doing exactly the same thing : out of concern for your well-being, they’re offering an useless but harmless “help”. If in your opinion it would be rude to subject the first one to ridicule, then it’s equally rude in the second situation.

In all likehood it feels appropriate to you for the same reason it feels appropriate to many other people. Riduling a mainstream religious belief is often, and arbitrarily, deemed socially not acceptable. There has been endless arguments on this board regarding this very issue following atheists/theists debates, when a believer takes offense at his mainstrem belief being compared with a fringe belief, because it’s “obviously” not the same thing, even though, like you, they’re unable to explain why.

Note that, with the exception of ** Der Thris **, even on this board, even amongst the most ardent atheists, everybody follows this implicit and arbitrarily rule. But actually ** Der Thris ** is fundamentally right. It isn’t consistent to put the gloves on when discussing mainstream beliefs and put them off in all other cases as it’s usually done (though there are of course people and posters who keep the gloves on in all cases).
[/QUOTE]

I think there’s a difference between ridiculing an unfalsifiable belief (like per se faith in a deity) and calling attention to a claim which can be empirically demonstrated to be false. “God exists.” No problem. “God created the universe.” Still unfalsifiable, no problem. “God created the earth 6000 years ago and all animals, including humans were instantly formed as is.” Now I have some correcting to do.

80

[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
Actually, the first thing I’d want to know is what is meant by the statement that the psychic “pinpointed” the location of the body. How are we defining “pinpointed.” It’s usally the case when claims like that are made that a target is drawn around the arrow. A few vague “hits” are dressed up and presented a bullseye.
.
[/QUOTE]

Unfortunately, it was long ago (more than 15 years ago at least) and I don’t remember (and it probably wasn’t mentionned exactly how precise the “pinpointing” was). I only remember that the kid’s body was quite long away from the area being searched. Also, it wasn’t a case of the police following the hint given by the psychic, but of the body being eventually discovered, and the enquirers remembering that this particular place or area had been previously mentionned.