Wow, Sounds like a crusade to me. Watch out for those windmills, they can get you from behind if your’re not careful.
From the very first link posted to this thread by Lekatt
“We ALL know what cold reading is…”
How ironic that this would eventually become “ALL” except Lekatt.
So now…
But, Lekatt says unless you are a real psychic you aren’t qualified to detect it. And the method that frauds use while unknown, is definitely not cold reading because cold reading doesn’t exist, and even if it did, it wouldn’t fool anybody.
1-16-2003
1-26-2003
Ummm…
ROFL?
I sympathize with your dilemma, but don’t understand at all how science can help you sort out the flim flam from the truth. Science can’t prove God doesn’t exist, or that my near death experience was just an hallucination. It has no methods for measuring these things, but that doesn’t mean they don’t exist.
I suggest if you are concerned with the con men, just be completely honest. It is not easy to con an honest person.
Find truth and hold to it. You will do alright. My mother always asked me for advice on those things and I saved her a lot of money. Honesty is the best policy. What I believe in is what I have experienced personally.
You’re still misunderstanding me, but less than before.
It’s not science that guides me or tells me what does and doesn’t exist. There’s a much more general philosophical problem here, namely about knowledge and belief. In a nutshell, the problem is that people are fallible; your answer to that is to trust your experiences, even when science apparently says that you’re wrong. That’s fine: whatever gets you through the night.
The problem I see with that perspective is that people can fool themselves, and the more I look, the more I see people fooling themselves. My examples of con men and religious frauds were extreme; the general case of people fooling themselves is much more mundane. I’ve known women who thought that their boyfriend loved them as much they loved him, when he plainly didn’t; but their desire to live a storybook romance blinded them to reality. I’ve seen intelligent university graduates refuse to consider moving from the city they’re in because they’re sure that someone will offer them a high paying job in their neighbourhood as soon as they apply. In an uncountable number of large and small ways, people are guilty of choosing wishful thinking over disinterested appraisal.
So my perspective (which I share with science) is to be deeply aware of my own fallibility, and to limit my commitment to my beliefs to the same degree I’m justified in those beliefs, and to be ready to change my beliefs as others become more justified. It doesn’t mean I’m always right; it means the amount I’m wrong is minimized as best I can make it. That gets me through the night, knowing that I’ve done my best to avoid fooling myself, and that my commitments are as sound as I can make them.
So, like science, I have a “what works” approach to my beliefs. It’s not that I worship science; it’s that I’ve learned by experience to trust the method. Empiricism, or naturalism, or however you want to name it, has demonstrated it’s validity over and over again as a means of investigating the world. If nothing else, the fact that we’re debating this on the Internet speaks to the tremendous efficacy of science to have practical effect and a deep understanding of the world. Think of modern medicine and nuclear power. Think of the space program and the state of global communications.
When I see Creationists trying to debunk evolution, I see people who trust and take advantage of the fruits of science, namely this massively technologized society in which we live, except where it conflicts with their wishful thinking. It’s almost an explicit admission that they’re choosing their preferred belief over what they would accept unquestioningly if there was no conflict. And I see that as the deepest sort of fooling oneself.
The problem you’re having here, Leroy, is that you appear, to me and to many others, to be fooling yourself, and in addition, to be co-opting the buzzwords of science to defend that. You’re perfectly correct when you say that science can’t prove you wrong; neither can any of us. But you’re not convincing us, either, because you’re not using the scientific method, and neither are your sources. There’s a level of rigor to naturalistic thinking that, to my eyes, is missing from your recitations of your experiences and the books you cite.
love,
Justin
—It is not easy to con an honest person.—
In most cases, it’s even easier: honest people tend to think that other people are more honest (like them) than they actually are. Being honest is a great policy: but it’s not particularly relevant to the question at hand: which is determining the truth of things external to your own honesty. (and I hope you weren’t trying to imply that hansel is not being honest).
If you only knew how much time I have spent going over my personal experiences with the spirit world and trying to see “other” explanations that would work. The truth is they didn’t. I am not guessing, I know.
But I don’t expect others, especially those that won’t read the material to understand. I am not trying to change you. I know you and everyone else will find the path, they always do.
Love
Leroy
You are wrong. People who are honest, don’t expect something for nothing. When a “deal” is offered that is not fair in every way, the red flag will go up, and the deal will be ignored. This is common sense and has been taught for generations that I know of. The old saying is “You can’t cheat an honest man.” It works only if the person is honest, however.
Love
Leroy
Lekatt I agree with you about the difficulty of cheating an honest man.
You however are not even honest with yourself. In this thread alone you have:
[ul]- condemned others for calling people names, but called Doc Cathode a fake
-
claimed to have psychic powers but later flatly denied doing so
-
denied certain things about your family but (in the same paragraph) admitted you know little or nothing about your family[/ul] On other sites and threads you have claimed to have had an NDE (indeed you seem obsessed with them to the point of having a whole website on the topic) , but it turns out you have never actually had one: you merely had an experience while sleeping for goodness sake.
It may be hard to cheat an honest man. Presumably therefore it is easy to cheat a dishonest man. You are not even honest with yourself, let alone honest with other posters to these boards. The ease with which tv psychics cheat you is therefore not surprising.
Don’t you think it would be harder to cheat a con man, considering that they are experts at scamming people?
We’re getting into hijack territory Blalron, but I really do agree with Lekatt on this one. I’m a lawyer, and I deal with these sorts of people from time to time. My invariable although counter intuitive experience is that it is the shady characters who fall for the get rich quick schemes. I have met or personally known of only two people who actually went for Nigerian scams. They were both sleazy, dishonest assholes themselves. One got ripped off, the other (a client of mine) didn’t but only because my firm advised him not to be so stupid. You would be amazed how much persuasion on our part it took for the latter guy to be convinced that the Nigerian scam was a scam. And yet the guy concerned was himself someone who needed lawyers precisely because he kept getting caught out running sleazy cons himself!
You make up whatever you think, friend, all of what you said is false.
quote:
Originally posted by Diogenes the Cynic
DocEther, are you a real psychotic or just a champion whoosher? I can’t really tell.
OK, I did call Doc a fake, which was kinder than what most called him. I still stand by the statement, but don’t want to hurt his feelings.
The rest of what you said is double false.
Love
Leroy
So they weren’t authentic- How can anybody tell whether a psychic is authentic or not? Are you going to feed us the old, I can just tell line?
Did Miss Cleo-who still claims to be psychic BTW, or the Bangs sisters fail to pay their “I’m a real psychic” dues or something? Do you get a bonus card if you sign up three or more of the family in the psychic community?
Do you have any evidence that he’s a fake, or is this another “feelings” type of thing?
Hell, Lekatt, don’t stop there. Call what I’ve said triple false. Fuck it, call it a hundred times false. That oughta convince us.
Unless of course we’ve read this thread, in which case your lies are pretty much obvious and no amount of denial is going to help you.
As for Doc Cathode, the issue is not what names others have called him. The issue is that:
2/ you suggest it is inappropriate to insult psychics or call them frauds
3/you insist that the onus is on those who doubt psychic’s claims to come up with evidence to prove that their claims are false
And yet, when Doc Cathode comes out with some claims with which you disagree, suddenly you are calling him a fake, thereby breaking your own rule 1/, while failing to provide any evidence that he is a fake, thereby breaking your own rule 2/.
Whether Doc Cathode is or is not a fake is not the issue. The issue is that your reaction to him gives lie to any suggestion that you have faith in your own convictions.
Is double false like a double negative?
Doc Cathode is a genuine EtherPsychologist. I can tell by the feelings I get from him and the words he uses.
I called him my new hero.
Why isn’t there some sort of Paranormal Psychic Skills Trade Regulatory Commission? Sure would do a lot for the real psychics out there by keeping them from getting mixed up with the fakes.
Praagh’s take on skeptics:
[quote]
[quote]