“Coherence” 
But as already a psychic has give us a definition of cold reading, for discussion sake I will go for his definition of cold reading, so stop pretending there is no definition.
I will profess that Gaudere’s law is more powerful than any pretended psychic powers.
BTW the “cold reading” definition by the psychic, is in the glossary, don’t you guys say that lying lips are an abomination to the lord?
There are four definitions and none of them match, four different theories on what cold reading means.
Now that is no definition at all, it makes no difference who it comes from. I think you need to read the thread a little better.
No denial, just no proof, in order to order you much register and be in the whatever it is.
No proof.
A very good definition and discussion is found in the Skeptic’s Dictionary. Also, at that site, an excellent resource by Sacramento Philosophy Prof. Bob Carroll, look up the “Forer effect,” also known as the “Barnum effect.”
See here for a line-by-line analysis of a cold reading session by JVP.
Lekatt refuses to look at any of this info; any site URL or TV show name that doesn’t meet his high standards will not be read. Our loss, I’m sure.
So any concept with multiple definitions does not exist?
Look in dictionaries from 4 different publishers and you’ll see four different definitions of just about every word in any language you care to name, do you doubt their existence? If not, why not?
Can’t you read between the lines of the four given definitions and extract the common meaning?
Great! Please provide proof - controlled studies - that there is such a thing as psychic ability.
Already done that, check back. or go to Duke University.
No, some of the definitions are directly opposed to each other.
Randi says anyone can do cold reading and another says only a skilled person can.
read them.
No, you didn’t.
Only 20 more pages to go until lekatt admits that cold reading is a technique widely used performing mentalists, and that its performance very closely resembles those of Tv channelers giving readings!
There are only about a dozen psychics that really make big money from their ability. They write books, give lectures, and are on radio and TV shows. This kind of exposure makes big money for anyone who is successful in any field. Most of these psychics have organizations and means to return a great deal of this money back into good works projects. James Van Praagh is now building a healing center in Brazil among other things. I suggest you go to the site of the psychic and see what they are doing besides earning money. It will surprise you.
The rest of us spiritual people 99+% work at jobs during the day, or night in my case, and help people on their off hours usually for nothing or some small fee. You can get, in my estimation, the best psychic in town for about $20. a half hour. She works with delinquent children as her regular job.
To say psychics take advantage of people is to not know about psychics. If you check around you can find a local group of psychics that meet in your community and go to their meeting, find out about them. Ask questions and learn.
In my case, I have spent several thousand dollars on my site, and it has helped hundreds of people. I am glad to be of service. I have never collected one penny from anyone.
Love
Leroy
http://www.seanharribance.com/thepsychic.html
Here’s one, go to Duke university for a lot more.
If you find fault, don’t tell me, go tell the good doctors and researchers. I am sure they will appreciate your input.
…
…
- from www.skepdic.com
…
…
…
- Randi’s (actually just the abstract of a lengthier article) http://www.randi.org/library/index.html
- The one GIGObuster came up with here from “Psychic Steven”
Where are the contradictions? All I see are differences of expression and lengthiness/detail.
Cold reading is a skill according to definition 1. but that doesn’t mean you have to be “skilled” to do it, it means you have to be “skilled” to do it convincingly.
Definition 2 says it’s used by professional manipulators, but that doesn’t exclude it’s use by anyone else.
How, specifically do these definitions oppose each other? It should be pretty easy for you to point these bits out, I’ve quoted everything I think is significant right here for you, if you think I’m hiding something in my …s then I’ve provided direct links to the source.
~atarian
::waits, but doesn’t hold breath::
Randi said on TV that you could take a reading given by a psychic and use it word for word to give readings to other people with the same results the psychic got the first time.
The bottom line is psychics do not do cold readings, they don’t have to, they use their inner spiritual senses to give the reading.
Skeptics say that psychics do cold readings, and the definition is vague and conflicting depending on the person who gives the definition. I wanted to test cold readings in a controlled research experiment, but can’t even get a definition clear enough to do that. Skeptics have no evidence, proof or anything else that psychics do anything other than what they say they do.
If fact no controlled study type evidence or proof has been presented anywhere on this board in favor of skeptical claims. All skeptics have are claims and since they know nothing about psychics and what they do it should now be time for them to put up or shut up.
Show your proof, show your proof!
I can readily see why skeptics are not taken seriously by the general public, they have nothing serious to talk about.
Actually skeptics are losing their battle on all fronts of spiritualism.
More and more studies are being done that show positive results for our spiritual nature. There is really no pressing reason to continue this discussion unless some real true evidence can be produced by skeptics.
Leroy, I don’t understand your belief that “Cold reading does not exist”.
If I were to correctly guess that somebody’s close relative had died of a cancer related to somehwere in their chest, the death being quick at the end, that they had a favourite chair they used to sit in, this chair having a peculiar scratch, and that near this chair there was a telephone and a photograph of this close relative with the person…
…have I performed a cold reading?
Is your definition of “cold reading” different from “lucky guessing”?
Your opinion cannot be that “nobody has ever guessed lucky before”, surely?
So what? That is not a definition of cold reading, I’ve given you Randi’s definition, address it please.
Looking above four definitions you’ve menioned (the ones I have quoted and linked to); what specifically are the differences that make them mutually incompatible and lead you to dismiss the existence of cold reading?
Please note that although that’s worded differently, it’s still basically the same question. Can you answer it?
We’ve given you four definitions…where are the conflicts?
~atarian
::still waiting::
Leroy, I offer to be part of an experiment. Right here, in this thread.
I will give a reading for other posters, upon request. (You may be one of them if you wish, but understand that you have given information about yourself already, including that nobody in your family has died of cancer despite not knowing the causes of death of many relatives on your father’s side, and so your reading may be influenced by this.)
They will respond to my reading with a simple “Right” or “Wrong”.
My definition of “Cold Reading” is “Guessing”. Everyone who requests a reading must agree to this definition in order that it remain consistent.
We can discuss the significance of the results at the end.
OK?
::Clapping::
Lekatt-You, you’re good! It took me a little bit to realize, but dang you’ve really got this debate thing covered don’t you?
Instead of defending the impossible position of genuine psychics, you have gone on the attack, trying to discredit cold readers. Which you haven’t done BTW, ignoring evidence and people’s posts isn’t very polite. Also IIRC this thread is about Psychics like Praagh, not cold readers.
Methinks you are trying to confuse the issue.
Will the Duke cite be as obviously biased and self-serving as your link?