I think this was the line being referred to. :smack:
Good answer…I’d be impressed, if you were able to do a cold read over the Internet. (Although, “in the same room” kinda conflicts with the whole idea of “distant”…)
Basically, he designs his tests in such a way that deliberately prevent any person from succeeding, whether he has real psychic powers or not. He also demands impossible results, like a dowser who found 17 of 20 water sources, but failed the test because he didn’t find all 20.
Another example: He had 12 people stand behind a screen, so their “aura” could be visible (but not the person) and had a psychic guess each person’s birth month by reading the aura. Anyone who’s studied auras, and how they work, will know that you CAN’T read the aura, if you can’t see the person. It’s not like a solar eclipse. And what’s to keep the test subject from pulling their aura all the way to their skin?? Then you can’t read it at all, even if you see the person.
Psychic powers are 90% subjective – that’s why they don’t stand up to Scientific Method. However, that does not necessarily make them fake. After all, every person’s experience with the universe is 100% subjective.
We may all agree on certain things, like the earth revolving around the sun, or the Apollo missions being real. That’s Logic. But, there’s a whole realm of human experience that goes beyond Logic, and people who limit themselves to what can be determined by reading thermometers, calculators, wind gauges and Gallup polls, are really selling themselves short.
I asked you, “(1) For what reason should anyone consider that you possess genuine psychic faculties? Putting it another way, what evidence would you offer to support the contention that you have psychic abilities or gifts?” You said:
This does not even address, let alone answer, the question that I put to you. And note that my question is not one that requires any psychic faculties. It’s just a question of fact.
I asked you, “Are you able and qualified to answer questions in a way that constitutes more than just jokes, evasive manoevres, guesswork or cold reading? If so, please explain the underlying mechanism by which you receive the information contained in your answers.” You said:
No, it’s not up to me. It may be up to me to form an opinion about your abilities, and I expect this is what you meant. But my question is about the nature of the claim you are making when you call yourself a psychic, and when you invite people to ask you questions on the basis that you are psychic.
Two simple factual questions. You haven’t addressed either of them. If you can’t even handle questions of simple fact, it is hard to credit the belief that you can answer questions which would require the exercise of psychic faculties.
So let’s try again. After all, this message board is about fighting ignorance, not spreading it around, and if (note the word ‘if’) you are bogus, then this is worth pointing out.
(1) For what reason should anyone consider that you possess genuine psychic faculties? Putting it another way, what evidence would you offer to support the contention that you have psychic abilities or gifts?
(2) Are you able and qualified to answer questions in a way that constitutes more than just jokes, evasive manoevres, guesswork or cold reading? If so, please explain the underlying mechanism by which you receive the information contained in your answers.
You are both wrong.
The quote is from Mythbusters.
It is the answer to one of the “Tricky Treats” quiz questions.
I thought this was a joke thread at the outset … you’re serious?
OK, then.
I just rolled up a number on percentile dice (what can I say, I’ve been a geek for years.) I’ve written it down on a Post-It, and I’ve stuck it to the front of my computer. I’m looking at it right now. (Yes, I can touch-type.)
Number. Randomly generated, between 1 and 100. What is it?
Do you understand that cold reading techniques can be used unconsciously? Plenty of dowsers believe in what they’re doing too.
I mentally sent you a question an hour ago. Why haven’t you answered it yet?
Nothing, I suppose. I may attempt it one day. However, I don’t feel ready to do it for an audience just yet. Fair enough?
I believe the idea is that you use the relationship the person in the room has with the person who isn’t in the room to read the person who isn’t in the room. Honestly I don’t know how it works, only that it does work.
I am not here to comment on the validity or merits of the Million Dollar Challenge referred to on the James Randi Educational Foundation website, and I myself have some reservations about the merits of the Challenge. However, since we’re here to ‘fight ignorance’ rather than spread it around, may I just offer some factual corrections.
This is incorrect on several counts, and suggests that either KGS has never bothered to read the terms and conditions of the Challenge, or has failed to understand them. (1) Randi does not design the tests for any claimant. Prior to any test taking place, the claimant and those appointed to conduct the tests jointly devise a test which all parties agree will constitute a valid test of the claimant’s abilities as the claimant cares to state them. The people appointed to conduct and supervise the tests are also selected and agreed jointly by all parties concerned before any test goes ahead. (2) The tests are not designed such that they cannot be passed. In every single case of a test being conducted according to the terms and conditions of the Challenge, there is an empirically verifiable ‘score’ or ‘benchmark’ which all parties agree will consitute success.
Wrong again, ignorant again. See above. Before any test takes place, all parties (including the claimant, obviously) agree what will constitute success or failure.
There is no accurate and independently verifable cite supporting the claim that (a) a dowser obtained these results while participating in the Million Dollar Challenge and (b) that a pass rate of 20 hits out of 20 was required to be considered a success. If you disagree, then please provide such a citation. You cannot, because none exists.
The only thing this is an ‘example’ of is your imagination and ignorance. If this test to which you refer was being conducted within the terms and conditions of the Challenge, then the claimant (the person claiming to be able to read auras) must have agreed in advance that this was a valid way to test the claim being made, or else the test would not and could not have proceeded. It is also not the case that ‘anyone’ who has studied auras would agree that if you can’t see the person, you can’t see the aura. James Randi made a TV series for Granada TV here in the UK. I attended some of the tapings, and I knew some of the production team working on the show. One of the shows featured a test along the lines you describe, in which an aura reader attempted to detect the aura of someone standing behind a screen, the test being predicated on the notion that the aura extends beyond the boundary of the physical body. The aura reader had agreed in advance that this was a fair test of the stated ability, and the production team had this agreement in writing, signed by all parties.
Just for clarification, however, let me point out that the demonstrations and tests featured in these TV shows were not considered to be anything to do with the Million dollar Challenge, nor were they ever represented as such. In fact, this particular series was made before the Million Dollar Challenge was actually formulated as such. The aura reader failed this test anyway, which is beside the point. The point is, the aura reader had agreed in writing beforehand that the test was a valid one. This was actually a legal requirement that the production team had to observe scrupulously - they could not conduct these tests and broadcast them unless all parties had agreed that the tests were a valid way of exploring the authenticity of the claims being made.
Your own sentence doesn’t make sense. If it is the case that 10% of ‘psychic powers’ are not subjective, then this 10% shuld be verifiable through controlled scientific trials. At the present time, no such supporting evidence has been produced. This may change in the future, of course, but all we can do is state what we know to be the case based on evidence available to date.
No-one is discussing limiting one’s appreciation or experience to things that can be measured by instrumentation. The point is that some psychics maintain that their powers can be verified via the scientific method and empirical evidence, and have participated in the Million Dollar Challenge on this basis. To date, none have demonstrated that this is the case. It is incorrect to state otherwise.
You’re right, that doesn’t answer you’re question. I answered a lot of these while I was at work, so I might’ve been distracted. I’ll try again.
I knew coming into this thread that someone would ask for evidence that would be difficult, if not impossible, to provide over the internet. I’ve already posted about an experience which I feel at least should at least provoke further questioning into the subject. I’ve been waiting for someone to come along and accuse me of making the whole thing up which, amazingly, hasn’t happened yet. I don’t know that this medium allows for me to prove anything to you in the manner to which the members of this board are accustomed.
May I ask what kind of evidence you would find convincing?
Yes, that is what I meant. Sorry if it wasn’t clear.
Like I said earlier, if someone is being flippant, like the very first reply to this thread was, they will get a flippant answer. I will answer honestly if the question is asked honestly. I would ask you to review my responses to AuntBeast and KGS and then consider if I’m responding with “jokes, evasive, manuvers, guesswork, or cold reading”.
Interesting. Might you have any links about that I could read? I am willing to admit there’s a possibilty that I’m mistaken or wrong.
And I answered you telepathically. Not my fault if you weren’t paying attention. 
Ashtar –
I would have told you this, too. And I’ve have totally been fucking with you:
YOU: "I’m sensing that your deceased aunt was a left-handed Inuit ballerina named Mabel . . . "
ME: "My God, you’re right!!!
I find your faith in both yourself and your fellow humans to be touching.
You are correct, sir. Now…why any “real” psychic would agree to some of these rules, when they are certain to fail…well, it shows that the test-taker really doesn’t understand their psychic abilities at all. Either that, or they themselves are in league with Randi, and deliberately fail, $64,000 Question style. (Not that there’s anything legally wrong with that…such contests are purely for entertainment, after all!)
This was something I saw during one of Randi’s televised specials, many years ago. Forgive me if I got the details wrong…it might have been 17 of 22 water sources, not 20. (In any case, it was definitely more than half.) However, I do remember that the required total had to be 100% success, nothing less.
If you do not trust my assertion, and refuse to believe what I say absent any direct citation from the scholarly/scientific community…well, what else can I say? Remember that “100% Subjective” statement I made? That’s it, right there.
Let me rephrase. May I ask what kind of evidence that I can provide to you in this medium would you find convincing?
Oh, ianzin? Lord Ashtar already answered your question, in fact you cited it. At least, the answer to this question:
Read your post again, until you see it. If you don’t see the answer by tomorrow, I will point it out for you.
Oh, flippant, was it? How have you been able to offer any proof that you aren’t making up a bunch of BS to play into peoples’ naivete? You aren’t going to find much of that here, pal. If you’re a psychic, as you claim, offer some proof. Enough with the evasive non-answers and the dismissal of criticism and the ignoring of people who don’t believe any of your claims. It’s time to pony up, or quit wasting our time.
I don’t have the ability to do this. See my earlier post about how psychic =! omniscient.