"Crossing Over w/ John Edward"- for real or clever con?

Great Debates
141

“Short of the audience member being a plant and a really good actor this seemed legitimate.”

Requiring a “really good actor?” That’s the test that we use to jump to spiritualism? “No, it couldn’t be a good actor, it must be spiritualism?” Eh, I think Occam shaves away the spiritualism not the acting.

John Edward is not near as good at fake spiritualism as Houdini was. Houdini was so good at it he spent the rest of his life trying to show the deceived how it worked. Moreover, he promised to contact us from the dead. Any word?

142

abetternamefordano, I think the incident you’re talking about is discussing in a link in CFLausen’s first post. It’s not that far above your own, give it a look.

It has nothing to do with a magic wand. How about the fact that, while lots of people in history have claimed psychich powers, none have ever managed to explain them? The closest thing I’ve seen to an attempt at explaining psychic powers is a bunch of bullcrap about people not using 90% of their brains.

Lying has nothing to do with it. Non-connected people have come up with a lot of the same myths. It doesn’t mean they’re true. I think it just means people all want similar things. One thing that almost anyone would want (at least on its face) is to know the future, simply because we CAN’T know the future for certain.

I’m sure many of the people who do it believe in themselves. Edward may or may not be one of them, who knows. But if you look at traditional seers, like the Oracles of Delphi and such, I wouldn’t be surprised if they felt they were really receiving visions, since they wouldn’t have been aware of alternative explanations.

143

Lekatt, have any response to this? You’ve been asking for demonstrations of how Cold Reading works. This is one of the best explanations I’ve seen so far.

144

I do believe in psychics. I’ve met charlatans, and I’ve met the real deal.

I have exhibited psychic phenomena within myself.

In general the arguments against psychic phenomena are specious in and of themselves. It’s an argument that presupposes that there are no forces at work for which we have no machine that can detect them. It also presupposes that because something is explainable, that the phenomena is not what it has been labeled as.

Qabalah and Quantum Physics follow very similar ideas, as with Quantum Physics and Zen Buddhism.

Now, I’m not going to be able to read your mind even though I claim to have exhibited a psychic experience. It has for me always involved someone in tune with it. It’s more of an empathic experience, and I don’t get intellectual concepts transmitted. However I can tell “ok it hurts there” on someone’s body. I can control the amount of heat that comes from my hands. This is a common practice in both Reiki and Yoga. And I have had people tell me that they felt better after I did so.

I’ve had a direct mental connection with someone over distance. I am sure there are many explanations for how this was accomplished. Perhaps the person in question who was oftentimes very intimately involved with me, was so aware of my mental processes that they could know things just be observable behavior. Well I don’t think that this denies a “6th Sense”

Now my first impression of John Edward was that yes, he is a charlatan, and I don’t like what he’s doing. However, I do believe that he is connecting to some sort of experience that most people are unconnected to, and I won’t diminish that.

There is so much to life that is wonderful and there to be experienced and cherished, but the intellect is not the only way in which we can experience our environment. We experience our world sensually, and some experiences cannot be understood intellectually. They can be DESCRIBED intellectually, but not understood. For instance the smell of a woman’s perfume right under her ear. The feeling that you shared with her as you got that close to her exposed skin.

Oftentimes it is presupposed that because something is objective that the experience of the objective is the same for one and all, and that if someone deviates from that objective then they are suffering some level of insanity. I do not agree.

As market research shows, humanity DOES operate on some sort of collective level. How that connection is established is not really known. It can be speculated at, but as of now we don’t have any accepted theory as to why it happens. It’s a major point of contention. Some don’t even believe that there is a collective experience on that level.

I have first hand experience as to the collective not only interacting as a collective, but each individual being aware that it is part of a larger collective. The results are quite beautiful actually, and I am sad that people miss such an opportunity because their skepticism has them holding out until it is verified for them.

One of the biggest travesties of modern education is the way science is taught. First of all, as any scientist will tell you, all science is “theory”. NOTHING is inherently provable. Einstein’s “Theory of Relativity” goes deeply into this idea. Einstein’s work was very metaphysical in nature, but he was able to create verifiable results from such work.

Aleister Crowley who viewed himself as a scientist (yes I know he was a master manipulator also) had a lot to say on this subject, and one quote that stuck with me in particular is that what is Universal (the objective) cannot be known by two people at the same time. His example that he gave was two people looking at a star. Two people look at the same star, but no matter what, they are looking at it from an infinitesimally small angle of differentiation. But no matter how small it is, it’s still there. And if you were by some miracle able to get them to see it from the exact same spot, they’d still be looking at it at two different times. Now apply this to all the conciousness that has informed your subjective experiences over a lifetime, and you will see how massive that variation from person to person truly is. The experience of that star is so vastly different because of the metaphors that we apply to stars. The different books we’ve read about stars, the different ways we’ve looked at stars and even the different languages we know the word for star in.

Scientific rigor is not as hard and fast as it has been played up to be. In fact one notion of the skeptics that is often overlooked by most self-proclaimed skeptics is that just because an experiment has repeated verifiable results over and over and over, does not mean that just because you’ve been able to do it that way 100 times, that on the 101st it won’t work out the way you expected. A true skeptic presupposes NOTHING AT ALL to be true. The true skeptic is informed by his experience at every moment of his life, the only things that are true being the experience that he is having AT THAT MOMENT.

So no, I will not, nor could I possibly verify for you any phenomena for which you have no belief, if you believe that it’s not possible. If you believe so, then for you it will not be possible, and your world is too divergent from mine for us to communicate on all the levels that it would be possible for us to communicate.

However, an interesting excercise would be to go as far as you are willing into your own mind and figure out how many of your steadfast beliefs are suppositions. After you have done this, watch “Crossing Over” again, and see then how you feel about John Edward.

As for his ethics? I do not apply my personal ethics to anyone else, but personally, I do not feel that I could charge money for either healing (massage, reiki etc…) or Martial Arts training.

Barter is fine though :wink: this is because what is bartered has a bit of the person it’s bartered from within it. If I give someone a massage, and in turn they cook me dinner. We are both being nourished by one another on a more personal level than a simple exchange of Federal Bank Promisory notes. If you want me to fix your computer that’ll be $ 65 an hour. :wink:

Erek

145

ok, Van Praagh is the one I’ve seen on TV. I have no idea who this John Edward bloke is. So replace Van Praagh in my post where you see the name John Edward.

146

That’s all very nice, especially in that it doesn’t deal at all with the important question posed several times in this thread: “How do you tell a real psychic from a fake one?” The answer in mswas’s post seem to be “people with psychic abilities know who has psychic abilities.” GRRREAT. In fact, mswas seems to be arguing that Van Praagh is real and a fake at the same time.

Bwa? Market research shows whatnow? Maybe it shows people often think alike, which is hardly supernatural…

This cop-out stuff seems to be used by anybody who is positive they know the truth, but either doesn’t want to subject it to any kind of verifiable standard, or doesn’t even know what those standards are.
“Psychics are real, really!”
“How do you know?”
“I just know.”
“Can you tell me how?”
“You wouldn’t understand. You have to believe to understand.”
“Can you show me?”
“No, because you don’t believe.”

:smack: :smack: :smack:

147

Given a choice beween interpreting a phenomenon as caused by methods we already know about (educated guesses, AKA cold reading), or as being caused by mystical powers that, even if true, yield results no better than that of educated guesses… well, I choose the natural explanation rather than the supernatural.

148

This is true. Far from being overlooked by skeptics though, it’s a fundamental part of science. This is why reproducability is so important: the more often you can do something, or demonstrate that your explanation fits the facts, the more likely it is you’ve got something going. And there’s no question that science has, at times, overturned very longstanding notions.
BUT: I think this argument is still mystic hogwash. Why? I ask you this, mswas: which is the bigger act of faith- figuring that something will probably be true the 101st time, or that what you’ve verified 100 times will go out the window?
So far, gravity has been a constant in my life. It’s applied just as it’s supposed to to every move I’ve made, which is millions at the least, exactly as it’s supposed to. As a skeptic, I’m aware it could shut off right now, for no discernable reason, because everything we think we know about gravitation could be wrong. But you know what? I’m pretty sure it won’t. And if you think it will, it’s you who are making the big leap of faith, and you who needs to give me even a SHRED of a fraction of a reason to think that it could happen.

149

How? All psychic phenomena that you can mention have been shown to work using fully mundane means. If you travelled back in time and showed your car to a bunch of Medieval peasants and told them it worked by magic, that doesn’t mean that it’s really magic.

As opposed to the pro-psychic argument, that presupposes that there ARE forces at work for which we have no machine that can detect them, AND happen to be utterly useless for anything other than telling Ms. Margaret that her dear husband Fred says “Hi.”

So you’re scoffing at science because it presents evidence? My god, what a frightening mind you have. And not in the good way.

Like, someone you know? Like, someone you’re familiar with? Like, someone you’ve been friends with for years?

Like, someone that you’re likely to be able to predict because you know what kind of a person they are, what kinds of things they’re likely to say or think or feel under given circumstances?

Yup. Must be telepathy.

You’re correct. Delusion is another way to experience our environment. However, intellect is the only way to PROPERLY EXPLAIN our environment without resorting to the supernatural. Millenia ago, primitive man attributed, say, lightning as the work of the gods. Now, intellect and science tells us that nothing supernatural is happening.

Such is the same with psychic ability.

Insanity? Whoever said anything about insanity? We’re talking about Ignorance, here, which is quite different from mere insanity.

Bullshit. You don’t understand the first thing about science. PLENTY is provable. I can prove that 2+2=4. I can prove that gravity will make a baseball fall down when I drop it. I can prove that electricity can move through copper wires, or that hydrogen and oxygen can put a man in space, or that an airplane can fly.

What science is just happens to be the open admission that anything is possible, or open to being doubted or disproven. HOWEVER, it also requires evidence. So before you go and denounce science, go get some evidence for your absurd claims.

Of course. But they don’t say it’s NOT true until they can come up with some positive evidence that it is. You are asking us to believe in psychic ability without testing it AT ALL. You are demanding that we accept your views, with ZERO evidence, above the scientific viewpoint, which has explained EVERYTHING thus far, with NO discrepancies.

All science needs is one negative test to gum up a theory. Just one. Just ONE psychic that can display his abilities in an agreed-upon lab experiment. JUST ONE.

Hasn’t happened yet.

Untrue. A true skeptic accepts that there are reasonable limits at which one should really accept something as truth. For example, for the past twenty-two years of my life, the sun has risen every morning. That’s enough evidence to convince me that there’s a 99.999999999999999999999999% chance that the sun will rise tomorrow morning, as well. And that number is close enough to 100% that it’s plenty fair to round up.

Of course. The mating call of the swindler.

150

Duh! How can a transcript be created prior to the test? Different alleged “psychics” profess different “talents”. The procedures and questions and such for any fair test would need to be customized to the claims of the individual “psychic” under test.

Then why do you so consistently evade and hide information from us? Are you going to start providing legitimate citations for your claims? You’ve shown no such willingness before!

Oh. My. Bob. Did he actually write that? I hereby nominate that for the Single Stupidest Assertion in a GD thread for 2003!

lekatt, honey, you need to get more rest. For one thing, if Randi already believed in psychic ability, he wouldn’t NEED to test claims of it’s existence! Let alone risk a million dollars to do so! What he’s doing, hon, is testing the claims of those who insist that they have paranormal abilities under circumstances that genuinely attempt to eliminate the possibility of cheating. And so far no one has ever been successful at demonstrating their claims where they are not given the opportunity to cheat.

If they’re so obvious, perhaps you’ll detail them for us?? Your bizarre worldview in which every honest and rigorous truth-seeker (i.e., scientist) suppresses the truth at all costs and where the “truth” is only known and proclaimed by under-educated foil-hats and money-grubbing charlatans appears to be a deeply psychotic one. But I can see how someone who is deeply invested in crackpottery might well have fun with it!

You don’t understand, lekatt. You really, really just don’t understand! There is nothing – NOTHING – in science so beloved and valued and sought for as being able to legitimately contradict mainstream scientific beliefs! Discovering a genuine anomaly or new phenomenon that would necessitate “re-writing science” is the greatest wish and desire of every scientist in the world!

How could you possibly not know that? You must be APPALLINGLY ignorant of science and scientists not to know that!

Are you sure you’re not a troll, lekatt?

Oh wretched new world, that hath such people in it!

151

It may seem redundant to mention this since we’re in a thread where Randi has already been brought up, but if you can really do this on a regular basis you can collect Randi’s million dollars. I know you said in your post you didn’t think it was ethical to heal for money, but think of all the ethical things you can do with a million dollars, and how much you can teach all those folks who aren’t really “true skeptics”.

All kidding aside, give this some serious consideration. It could be an incredible learning experience for all of us.

152

I can’t keep up with these… :slight_smile:

Thank you…I guess (what’s a “noob”?) :slight_smile:

You are very right: There is a very good reason why John Edward (no s) especially throws out many guesses. It is simply to increase the number of possible hits. And when you look at how those guesses can be interpreted…man, he can’t lose.

Absolutely, although you are missing the point a bit: The Aztecs did not refer to Quetzalcoatl as “white”, but “the light one”, as opposed to Tezcatlipoca, “the dark one”. This image of two powers fighting at the time of creation can be found in most myths.

We should also remember that Quetzalcoatl was a feathered serpent. Not much snake-imagery over Cortez…

What you are doing is called “Appeal to Ignorance”, which is a logical fallacy much used in paranormal circles. Yes, it is possible that, at least at some point in history, there has been a real McCoy.

But we cannot distinguish between fact and fiction, when it comes to these accounts. We cannot go back and check. What we can do is to investigate the claims of living people as thoroughly possible, and see if we find just one with paranormal abilities. They sure are not lacking in numbers, but not one - not one - has ever been found to possess these.

I am reasonably familiar with the “special hits” of John Edward, but I have never heard about this one. Do you have some references, e.g. a transcript of the reading?

Careful, now. We haven’t even found a psychic with these powers, so it might be a little premature to begin discussing what they are. :slight_smile:

Somebody - I think it was Ray Hyman - has put forward the idea that the longer you are in “the trade”, the less likely it is that you are deluded.

153

Noob = Newbie = New poster to the SDMB.

Welcome!

Pash

154

And PLEASE bear in mind that “newbie” is not used in this case with the tone of derision you’ll find elsewhere, like other boards or in The Pit, when the new person is as thoughtful and wellspoken as you.

155

I like the argument that there may be some SP that we don’t know about. Maybe, like sharks, we can pick up electrical…ah…whatever.

I’m just conceding that there could be senses we don’t understand.

Also, it’s possible – even probable – that we don’t fully understand the senses we know about already. I know that when I feel the hairs on my neck stand up I should take notice. This is no more extra-sensory than Aunt Edna’s arthritis acting up when storms are in the area.

How any of this should make me believe in someone who makes money from an alleged gift he can’t explain – except that spirits come to him haphazardly, sometimes one syllable at a time – I have no idea.

156

Controlling the tempature of your hands / other parts of your body has nothing to do with paranormal phenomenom. It’s a very simple self-hypnosis trick, hell even I can do it.

157

ah, they’re electrical whatever rays.

158

Pearls before swine

Spoofe: Your post seemed to be very heavily laden with judgement against me from the get go.

Using the ad hominem attack of calling me a swindler presupposes that I have some hidden agenda to convince you of psychic phenomena. I don’t, I am just relating my experience, take it or leave it.

Now, from what I read and I may have missed something, but it seems that no one actually addressed my entire post. The part where I said that just because something is explainable doesn’t mean that it’s no longer the thing that people call it. Therefore just because cold reading is an effective communication method, doesn’t mean that people can’t make incredible intuitive leaps based upon totally disparate sensory information, and come up with correct assumptions. Now let’s apply this to 2+2 = 4.

First, I never said I had any problem with scientific rigor. I was trying to say that Scientific Rigor is oftentimes thrown out the window when people make arguments about scientific rigor.

First of all YOU CANNOT PROVE to me that 2+2 = 4, that’s not possible to prove. 2 is an abstract concept as is 4. Two represents another abstract concept 1+1. It also represents another abstract concept 3-1 or 4-2. These are all ABSTRACT CONCEPTS. You can prove them to me, only within the bounds of the rules that the system that contains them lays out. So if I go with standard Arithmetic and I faithfully concur that it describes absolute truth, then YES you can prove to me that 2+2 = 4. However, this does not mean ANYTHING, if I don’t faithfully concur. You cannot prove it to me at all. Why can’t you prove it? Because not only are the numbers abstract concepts, but so is the system. Arithmetic itself is an ABSTRACT CONCEPT.

Now we can move onto the concrete, you’re going to try to prove to me that 2+2 = 4 by taking two apples in each hand and putting them in one bowl. Now, you have to apply two abstract concepts to those apples. First you apply the fact that it’s an apple. After that, you apply that each apple is singular. Singularity is ALSO an abstract concept. So, now you have a multiple of singularities (multiplicity is ALSO abstract). Then you take the multiply singular apples and you put them together numbering 2. Then you do the same thing in the other hand. Now I have to accept yet another abstract concept, the idea that singularities can be placed together to form a group. Ok, I accept this. You do it, I’m amazed! You made 2+2 = 4, but it wasn’t proven to me. I had to take the fact that the abstract applications you were making to the objects somehow applied to my understanding of the objects, that’s an incredible leap of faith don’t you think?

All science rests upon theory. Theory is an abstraction of the actual. Some theories don’t produce any verifiable results, others do. However, EVERY theory has one thing in common, in that it is abstract. All theories are built on a foundation of previous theories. Theories are designed to aid us in our conceptualizing all that we are concious of. Therefore anything that you can say that you can PROVE to me, you really can’t because you will just be building it upon a framework of subjective material that has been verified enough by you, or someone you trust, or someone who your trust trusts. I’ve heard that Hiroshima was bombed to oblivion by an Atomic bomb, but I have never verified it, nor have i ever met anyone that I can verify has ever been to Hiroshima, let alone been to Hiroshima at the time of the Atomic blast. I hear that Julius Caesar ruled a great empire called Rome, but I can’t possibly verify whether or not he existed anymore than I can verify that Zeus existed. There is lot’s of documented evidence of Julius Caesar, but there is also lots of documented evidence of Zeus.

Then you made a comment about proving to me something about Oxygen. Well, good luck with that, considering it’s impossible for me to see it without the aid of a COMPUTER. I see lots of stuff on my computer, but usually people tell me it doesn’t ACTUALLY exist. When I’m rolling up on Frag o’Muffin with my tri-barelled rocket launcher and I blow his legs in one direction and his torso in another, everyone tells me that it’s ok, because it didn’t REALLY happen, it was just an imaginary event on my computer. So how can I truly verify that this oxygen thing exists? Sure I can verify air with my senses, but oxygen? you’re going to try to convince me that I can only breathe CERTAIN parts of the air? Were you intending to use your abstract system of “Mathematics” to do so?

My point is this, that you are calling people idiots for believing in something that YOU don’t believe in, but you can’t really verify anything for another person without resorting to abstraction either.

I have communicated psychically with people that I know. I don’t need YOUR approval to believe in it. I believe that there are certain abstract systems have been codified and accepted by society to a great enough degree that they are accepted as “true” but I see it as so much dogma. Sure the scientific method is a handy tool, but it’s as abstract as the ideas it’s using to formulate it’s hypotheses. When String Theory and moong landings are accepted as hard science, yet people laugh at the idea of psychic phenomena, just because the people who believe in it cannot prove it to THEM, I just can’t take it seriously. I believe someone landed on the moon, but it is completely unverifiable to me, because I’ve seen it only on TV. However, I’ve also seen Keanu Reeves dodge bullets on TV, which is as plausible to me as a moon landing really, but I’ve seen him come on TV later and discuss how he didn’t REALLY dodge bullets and he explained to me the sleight of hand he used to fake such a magical ability.

For the most part it doesn’t bother me whether you believe in psychic phenomena or not. However, you are making bald assumptions and stating that they are fact, while deriding people who DO believe in psychic phenomena as being either crazy or stupid.

Maeglin who is one of my IRL best friends is a devout skeptic, and I believe totally in the validity of his worldview, and it fills lots of blanks for me. However I get the same courtesy from him, and as with anything else we pick and choose what we take from the other’s viewpoint.

I cannot prove anything to you, but neither can you prove anything to me, because though there very well may be an objective reality, our interpretations of it, are completely and totally subjective. So regardless, if I am able to look at someone and tell that they are thinking “X” and not verify why I know that, but be pretty certain that I do, and you are able to verify the same thing, using facial expressions, demeanor, sighs, or whatever, it does not disprove what I observed, it only explains it in a way that YOU yourself can understand.

If any of you TRULY wants to try, you are welcome to try and prove something to me without the use of abstract concepts, but that would be very difficult considering that words are ALSO abstract concepts.

As for this dude that makes his living by trying to make people look like jackasses for believing in something and not being able to prove it based upon a set of rules that he sets down. I’m not really interested, perhaps I’ll change my mind some day, but if you don’t believe in it, you don’t have to. If I were to attempt to locate pain in someone’s body without touching them, and I wasn’t able to do it that time, it wouldn’t make me lose faith in my own abilities, I would just say that I couldn’t do it THAT time. Just as I don’t lose faith in my eyesight when it’s foggy out.

Erek

159

To sum it up, I think that denying the validity of another person’s experience just because you don’t appreciate the aesthetics of the turn of phrase to which they choose to describe their experience, is about as ignorant as it gets.

RJKUgly: I think that would be like casting pearls before swine, because there would be NO WAY that I could actually prove it. Maybe I would say that it was in their kidney, and they would agree, and I could also detect something iin the lung and they agree. There is nothing that will convince the skeptics of the validity of what I did. They would claim it’s rigged, that I had visual cues from the patient, that I got lucky, or any other form that they so chose. I am willing to accept that there are things that I believe in that there are people who even get ANGRY at the fact that I believe in it despite the fact that it doesn’t stop them from believing whatever they want to.

Erek

160

I will openly admit to being biased against people with no evidence.

I’m not even going to touch your “abstract concept” tirade until you do one thing: Define “abstract concept”. It seems that you’ve concluded that everything that YOU have not personally experienced is “abstract” and thus worthy of dismissal. On the level that you’re thinking of, “abstract” is more or less the same as “theoretical”, which is a far cry from the other definitions of “abstract”.

Explain to me just why it is utterly impossible that this supposed “communication” wasn’t merely an instance of you two having similar thoughts at the same time. That happens to me all the time. It happens to EVERYONE all the time. It’s called “coincidence”.

I have yet to call anyone an idiot, yet I’m reconsidering my policy.

Get your definitions of “abstract” straight. In this argument, there are two: One, as I pointed out above, is a synonym of “theoretical”. The other, as you are attempting to utilize it, means “difficult to understand” or “insufficiently factual”, which is, indeed, precisely what psychic ability is. See here for more.

Relying on evidence is NOT an “abstract” idea. We make observations, we make hypotheses about the causes of those observations, test the hypotheses, and when the test is positive, we call it a “theory”. Explain to me what is “abstract” about that process.

Then apply that sort of logic to psychic ability. Observe the phenomenon (John Edward supposedly talking to the dead), make a hypothesis about how he does it (you say it’s magic, I say it’s a parlor trick), test the hypothesis (replicate John Edward’s success using the cold reading method), and when the test is positive (it is, and always has been), that’s the theory.

The flaw in YOUR take on things is that you’ve essentially defined your preferred hypothesis to be untestable. Ergo, it is a flawed hypothesis, and THAT is the problem that intelligent people have with your method.

Because you have no evidence.

Because you ignore evidence.

Once again, define “abstract concepts” in such a way that it is useful in discussion.

Bullshit. “Validity”? Any possible belief is NOT valid just because someone wants to believe in it. No amount of belief will make 2+2=5. No amount of belief will put a space shuttle in orbit.

BELIEF IS NOT VALID when you’re trying to discuss factual matters. John Edward’s techniques CAN be objectively quantified, outside ANY belief.

What IS Ignorant, my dear mswas, is claiming that belief is superior to fact, or denying evidence as “abstract” simply because it does not conform to your worldview. I have every reason to dismiss your beliefs, simply because they do not have any basis in evidence or fact (unless you’d like to present some). YOU have NO reason to dismiss my FACTS due simply to your belief. Your belief has no power or validity in the face of evidence that proves otherwise.