Dear parapsychologists, I invite you to convince me that you are scientists.

Great Debates
181

[QUOTE=KGS]
I have news for you, jack. Most people don’t spend “hundreds of dollars” on psychics. Those who do, have a problem. Like gambling or something. (And yes, I’ll admit that some psychics – especially those on TV – enable that addiction. It’s disgusting, predatory behavior. But that happens in all walks of life, not just psychics.)
[/QUOTE]
Most people don’t spend much of anything on psychics, I don’t think. (Certainly not around my location.) Heck, for all I personally know, nobody spends anything on psychics at all. I freely admit my lack of census or poll data on this subject.

If people who spend more than a few dollars on psychics do exist, though, I still think that most of them are probably not partaking of psychics purely for entertainment. I think most of them’re at least semiseriously looking for knowledge or deeper meaning or some such stuff. You say otherwise, but to convince me you’ll need an outside authority. So: cite? (Gotta poll?)

[QUOTE=KGS]
What behavior are you talking about. I’m not a professional psychic, I never said I was. It’s not even a hobby for me…more like a passing interest. (BTW did you see the Rockies/Padres playoff game tonight? Lotta ghost activity…especially those bats that kept flying into the audience…hehehe.)
[/QUOTE]
Okay, so you’re composing justifications for their behavior. Whichever; you still seem oddly invested in defending the profession of fraudulently presenting onesself as a psychic, especially for a person without a personal stake in the matter. It just doesn’t seem to be as glamorous or admirable a career as you seem to be saying it is.

And I’m afraid that I don’t watch sports, and so your comment about ghost activity and bats is incomprehensible to me. (Though, if you were 1) not kidding, 2) watching the game on TV, and 3) able therefore to see ghosts over a recordable broadcast media, then I’d think it would be pretty easy to determine whether they’re objectively real or not.)

182

Like a lot of pseudo-science, ghosts sound almost plausible at first, but if you think about it too much, it falls apart.

Most people see human ghosts. After all, we’re humans, so we’d probably be biased towards seeing dead humans. Some people might even see the ghost of a deceased pet, like a cat or dog. But why don’t people see ghost ducks or bison or mammoths or dinosaurs roaming the countryside? Do bacteria have ghosts? I suppose if they did they’d still be microscopic. If it’s violent deaths that cause people to be ghosts, then the entire planet should be overflowing with animal ghosts, as most animals end up dying violent deaths by being eaten by other animals. Is it an “emotion” thing? I suppose only humans or animals connected with humans have enough emotion power to become ghosts. But what makes a house cat loved by its family different from the kangaroo who loved its pup?

If we make the distinction that only humans can become ghosts and see ghosts, then what exactly defines a human? Homo-habilis didn’t just suddenly transform into homo-sapiens one day, it was a very gradual process. At what point in human evolution did ghosts appear? Even now, the idea of species is a transient phenomena, I’m a little less “human” than my parents, and even less than my grandparents, etc etc. We only consider ourselves the same “species” because we’re biased towards a relatively short time frame, in reality every species is constantly changing every generation.

And then we get to the point that although many people have seen what they call “ghosts”, what people call a ghost varies from culture to culture and person to person. Some might say that ghosts are completely invisible, like a poltergeist, and can impact the physical world but otherwise not be seen. Some say that ghosts take the form of the person at their death, but otherwise don’t age from there. Some say that ghosts continue to age, to the point where what appear to be their “bodies” decay and become disfigured. Some say that ghosts have nothing to do with people and are some kind of demons or spawn of Satan or something, and can take many different forms. Can ghosts move objects? Affect your emotions? Are they affected by gravitational and magnetic fields? If they are visible, do they reflect radiation at other wavelengths, such as infrared and ultra-violet? Are they friendly, or angry and bitter toward the living?

Everyone has a different idea of what a ghost is, so it’s not hard to see that the simplest explanation is that ghosts are just a product of an individual’s imagination.

183

[QUOTE=KGS]

I have news for you, jack. Most people don’t spend “hundreds of dollars” on psychics. Those who do, have a problem. Like gambling or something. (And yes, I’ll admit that some psychics – especially those on TV – enable that addiction. It’s disgusting, predatory behavior. But that happens in all walks of life, not just psychics.)

[/QUOTE]

Don’t you remember the psychic hotlines? Not fraud? They couldn’t afford those ads on a few bucks a customer, you know. Here is a link giving some of the actions taken against some of them. They were set up to hold people on the phone, running up charges. I don’t know if our friendly neighborhood storefront psychics believe in what they do or not, but they prey on immigrant women who grew up believing this hogwash.

TV psychics are entertainment. Of course, honest magicians can do the same stuff while never claiming powers - and it is just as much fun.

184

[QUOTE=KGS]
BTW did you see the Rockies/Padres playoff game tonight? Lotta ghost activity…especially those bats that kept flying into the audience…hehehe.
[/quote]
Am I to understand that, in your reckoning of things, Josh Fogg and Jake Peavy both lost control of their respective bats because of ghosts? Is there some reason that ghosts hate pitchers? Unless you’re joking, this is just beyond the pale-- even for this thread. Can I assume that when you say “see the game”, you’re talking about a conventional method of viewing available to inhabitants of our plane of existence like TVs or radios? And, if so, can “empathetic connections” be established through those means of communication? I mean, we’re all being constantly bombarded by electromagnetic waves carrying a TV show, something from the radio, or any number of cell phone conversations. If you can empathetically absorb the emotional transmissions of any ghosts near the point of origin for any of those signals things must be quite confusing for you.
(While I’m willing to admit that Trevor Hoffman looked “spooked”, I’m going to assert that probably had more to do with the Blake Street Bombers than ghosts.)

While I’m here, I might as well address this other stuff as well:

[QUOTE=KGS]

[QUOTE=recessiveMeme]
Where synchronicity is concerned, as far as I can tell, Jung basically noticed that there is such a thing as coincidence (an observation), proposed that coincidence isn’t actually coincidence, but rather part of an amazing metaphysical tapestry which confers meaning on seemingly mundane events (a hypothesis), and then… he pretty much just left it at that.
[/quote]
I gathered that as well. The problem, as I’ve mentioned already, is coming up with repeatable experiments to test such an enormous, pervasive, utterly chaotic system.
[/quote]
At least that’s settled. All I wanted to do when I first started that particular line of conversation was to disabuse you of the notion that synchronicity constituted a “scientific principle.” It sounds like we can at least agree on that.

[QUOTE=KGS]
The only limitation is how much time I’m willing to devote. After all, we humans have a limited lifespan, and I’ve recently reached the age where I’m really starting to think, “Oh shit, if I’m gonna leave my mark on the universe, I’d better get started!”
[/quote]
Keep going on like this about your ability to “hear” ghosts talking about affecting the outcome of MLB games and you might not make a mark on the universe, but you’ll probably make an impression on anyone who’s paying attention. :wink:

[QUOTE=KGS]
Coincidence has meaning, whether you ascribe meaning to it or not. If you notice a coincidence, the very act of observation gives it meaning… The only meaningless coincidences are the ones that nobody notices.
[/quote]
Ah, but now we’re playing semantics again. How ironic that I view your definition of “meaningful” as so all-encompassing as to be meaningless. However, if you feel that the metaphysical “meaning” Jung talks about with regard to synchronicity derives from nothing more interesting than the act of mere consideration on the part of an observer, I won’t argue the point.

185

[QUOTE=Yumblie]
Everyone has a different idea of what a ghost is, so it’s not hard to see that the simplest explanation is that ghosts are just a product of an individual’s imagination.
[/QUOTE]
Fair enough. But your conclusion does beg the question of how Imagination affects Reality. After all, one person’s imagination can have a tremendous affect on the mundane world. Harry Potter, for example. Or Frodo Baggins. Or even God.

186

[QUOTE=KGS]
Fair enough. But your conclusion does beg the question of how Imagination affects Reality. After all, one person’s imagination can have a tremendous affect on the mundane world. Harry Potter, for example. Or Frodo Baggins. Or even God.
[/QUOTE]
Imagination only effects the actions of the person who is doing the imagining; those actions can then effect others. There is no evidence that imagination has any other effect on the world besides the effects of the actions of the imaginer. (For example, imagining something doesn’t cause it to be true or to exist.)

187

[QUOTE=Voyager]
Don’t you remember the psychic hotlines? Not fraud? They couldn’t afford those ads on a few bucks a customer, you know. Here is a link giving some of the actions taken against some of them. They were set up to hold people on the phone, running up charges.
[/quote]
I said it before and I’ll say it again – if you see a psychic on TV who wants you to give them money, stay away. FAR away. There are so many charlatans in the business, especially on television, that it’s best to assume ANY so-called psychic on TV is a fraud. The evidence (including your link) speaks for itself.

Small-time psychics might be total frauds, or they might be honest, or they might be fulfilling someone immigrant lady’s need to believe in their own subjective reality (just as churches of all denominations enable some people’s delusional need for religion.) Without specifics, I can’t accept or defend any particular psychic’s actions – but I do note you’re painting with a pretty wide brush there. Any reason for that?

Some people like theater, some like violent action movies, others like to stay at home a and read a book. It’s impossible (and a bit disingenuous) to judge the quality of entertainment, because one’s enjoyment of psychics/magicians/street mimes/whatever is as subjective as you can get.

188

[QUOTE=recessiveMeme]
Am I to understand that, in your reckoning of things, Josh Fogg and Jake Peavy both lost control of their respective bats because of ghosts? Is there some reason that ghosts hate pitchers? Unless you’re joking, this is just beyond the pale-- even for this thread.
[/quote]
Yeah, you caught me…I was joking. Sorry 'bout that, just trying to inject a little levity into this thread.

But since you did see the game…did you notice (after Peavy lost his bat) that mischievous grin on Fogg’s face? That slight twinkle in his eye? Almost like…he pictured something happening, and it happened? Not that it affected the outcome of the game or anything like that (and nobody got hurt, thank goodness!)

However, no “ghost” was involved. I’m willing to state that as fact.

Yes, I watched it on DVR. (Unfortunately I didn’t set the time right and missed the 13th inning…I heard it was exciting. Dang it!)

You’re talking about the electromagnetic spectrum, and as far as I can determine, the human brain cannot detect any part of the spectrum (aside from photons in the frequency range of “visible light”, assuming you have functional retinas) without the aid of recently invented scientific instruments. At least, I’m not aware of any such claims, and certainly there’s no substantive proof that human brains can detect gamma rays or radio waves.

Therefore, ghosts must use an entirely different type of energy. What kind of energy? How is it measured? I don’t know.

There’s that word “hear” again. :rolleyes: Why are you stuck on that word, even after I explained it was an idiomatic phrase??

189

[QUOTE=KGS]
But since you did see the game…did you notice (after Peavy lost his bat) that mischievous grin on Fogg’s face? That slight twinkle in his eye? Almost like…he pictured something happening, and it happened? Not that it affected the outcome of the game or anything like that (and nobody got hurt, thank goodness!)
[/QUOTE]
See, this is what we call “seeing what you want to see”. Unless you have a reason to know that Fogg wasn’t simply amused to see Peavy lose his bat?

I have a suspicion as to the mechanism by which you see/hear/ingest/whichever ghosts now.

190

[QUOTE=begbert2]
For example, imagining something doesn’t cause it to be true or to exist.
[/QUOTE]
Ah, but you’re wrong. Imagining something CAN cause it to happen. That’s how “predicting the future” works. It’s not like reading tea leaves or the zodiac symbols and saying, “I see…you are likely…to be eaten by a grue.” It’s about getting what you want. Anyone can do it, not just professional psychics. (In a way, it’s not so much “predicting the future” but “influencing the outcome of events”, if you like.)

But it does require an open mind. It also helps if you’re grounded & centered when you imagine what you want. The only exceptions are (1) you can’t defy the laws of physics (sorry, no anti-gravity device for you!) and (2) if somebody wants an event to happen which countervenes what YOU want to happen, and their will is stronger than yours…then it won’t happen. And it won’t work at all if you don’t know WTF you want in the first place. :stuck_out_tongue:

191

[QUOTE=begbert2]
See, this is what we call “seeing what you want to see”. Unless you have a reason to know that Fogg wasn’t simply amused to see Peavy lose his bat?
[/QUOTE]
I rewound that part and watched it several times. There was more than “simple amusement” on his face. I don’t know him, and I don’t follow baseball that often, so I’m not about to state with absolute certainty that that’s what happened. It’s just how I interpreted the event. After all, these transient “psychic moments” happen all the time, to normal people. They don’t always realize what they did, either.

And what, pray tell, would that be? Please explain.

192

[QUOTE=KGS]
Ah, but you’re wrong. Imagining something CAN cause it to happen. That’s how “predicting the future” works. It’s not like reading tea leaves or the zodiac symbols and saying, “I see…you are likely…to be eaten by a grue.” It’s about getting what you want. Anyone can do it, not just professional psychics. (In a way, it’s not so much “predicting the future” but “influencing the outcome of events”, if you like.)

But it does require an open mind. It also helps if you’re grounded & centered when you imagine what you want. The only exceptions are (1) you can’t defy the laws of physics (sorry, no anti-gravity device for you!) and (2) if somebody wants an event to happen which countervenes what YOU want to happen, and their will is stronger than yours…then it won’t happen. And it won’t work at all if you don’t know WTF you want in the first place. :stuck_out_tongue:
[/QUOTE]
Given that I already accounted for the effects imagination has on actions of the person, I call this complete BS. No matter how hard you sit on your butt and wish for something, you’re not going to get it. Now, if you really want something, and then do something about it, then sure, your positive thinking will have an effect -through your actions. Which I already accounted for.

Sorry, no. And predicting the future? Please. If saying “I’m going to stand up” and then standing up counted as precognition, then we’d all be in the hocus-pocus business.

[QUOTE=KGS]
I rewound that part and watched it several times. There was more than “simple amusement” on his face. I don’t know him, and I don’t follow baseball that often, so I’m not about to state with absolute certainty that that’s what happened. It’s just how I interpreted the event. After all, these transient “psychic moments” happen all the time, to normal people. They don’t always realize what they did, either.
[/QUOTE]
Mm-hmm. Next you’re going to tell me that you can retroactively make him have predicted the future, with the magical power of ~positive thinking~. You have just convinced me for dead certain that you have no psychic powers whatsoever and don’t see any ghosts at all. You just see something, anything, and then decide it was a ghost or a spectral or psychic experience or whatever. Because your arbitrary and imaginative interpretation is all that counts, and can’t possibly be wrong, so screw reality; right?

193

[QUOTE=begbert2]
Given that I already accounted for the effects imagination has on actions of the person, I call this complete BS. No matter how hard you sit on your butt and wish for something, you’re not going to get it.
[/quote]
I never said “wish”. That’s different. And it’s true, if you sit on your butt all day and do nothing, then that’s exactly what will happen to you…nothing. Even if you do visualize it properly.

FINALLY we agree on something…

Whatever. :rolleyes: I’m not here to prove anything about myself, anyway. (Except that I’m a scientist.)

But before you leave, begbert2, you might want to read up on projection bias. Just sayin’.

194

[QUOTE=KGS]

Small-time psychics might be total frauds, or they might be honest, or they might be fulfilling someone immigrant lady’s need to believe in their own subjective reality (just as churches of all denominations enable some people’s delusional need for religion.) Without specifics, I can’t accept or defend any particular psychic’s actions – but I do note you’re painting with a pretty wide brush there. Any reason for that?

[/quote]

Because there is one within walking distance of my house, and another not far away, and our local paper had a write-up about them. A favorable one, but our local paper is not exactly Pulitzer Prize quality. That favorable article contained enough data for my conclusion. But think about it. A psychic in a storefront is going to have a limited customer base, and will depend on repeat business like any other business owner. Sure you can call them entertainment - but you can call a pusher a purveyor of entertainment also.

Not quite my point. Penn and Teller do psychic stuff, but they don’t prey on the gullible. Quite the opposite. I saw them at Princeton once, and Penn came outside during the break, in full debunking mode. (Long before Bullshit aired.) It was great. There is all sorts of honest entertainment, then there are people trying to get their customers dependent.

195

[QUOTE=Voyager]
Because there is one within walking distance of my house, and another not far away, and our local paper had a write-up about them. A favorable one, but our local paper is not exactly Pulitzer Prize quality. That favorable article contained enough data for my conclusion. But think about it. A psychic in a storefront is going to have a limited customer base, and will depend on repeat business like any other business owner. Sure you can call them entertainment - but you can call a pusher a purveyor of entertainment also. [emphasis mine]
[/quote]
I’m confused. Let’s examine your methodology here:
(1) You read a “favorable” article about psychic readers in a local newspaper.
(2) The newspaper in question does not meet your standard of journalistic integrity.
(3) Therefore, all psychic readers are equivalent to drug dealers. Q.E.D.

Well, I guess that’s sorta how scientific method works. Do you still have the article? Perhaps it’s time for a little peer review.

No, but James Randi does.

196

[QUOTE=KGS]
<SNIP>

No, but James Randi does.
[/QUOTE]

KGS

So how do you figure this? I’ll admit that James Randi DOES tend to call the gullible exactly that, gullible. How is this preying on them? Yes, I would agree that James Randi is somewhat abrasive and irritating but that has nothing to do with whether he’s right or not. And please, don’t tell me that;

a) The money doesn’t really exist.

b) The tests are “rigged” in some way.

c) He wouldn’t really give-up the money anyway.

All of these have come up before and been generally knocked down. Randi just requires that people prove their paranormal powers, no big deal if they actually exist.

Regards

Testy

197

[QUOTE=KGS]
No, but James Randi does.
[/QUOTE]

I would also be curious to hear your explanation of how James Randi, someone who has devoted a large part of his life to exposing the deception and tricks used by fraudsters to feign “psychic” abilities in order to swindle money out of people, “preys upon the gullible.”

Perhaps you meant “prays for” the gullible, or “loses patience with,” or even “laments the very existence of” the gullible. I’m sure it must be frustrating and even heartbreaking to see people continue to be separated from their hard-earned savings by charlatans, to see the same sorts of bogus tricks being played decade after decade, and watch credulous, well-meaning, often emotionally vulnerable folks perennially exploited by unethical con men.

In many ways I wish Randi (who by all accounts is something of a gruff jerk, and not a wellspring of unconditional love and light like Sylvia Browne or John Edward) had never instituted his million-dollar challenge— not because there’s anything inherently wrong with the concept, but because it gives every mushbrained woo-woo with an axe to grind one thing they can point toward as incontrovertible evidence of Randi’s “dishonesty”: “it must be rigged, because otherwise surely someone would’ve taken the prize by now, right? I mean if you held a lottery every day for years and nobody won, you’d know something was up, right? Randi must be a LIAR and a FRAUD!”

But even momentarily accepting that ludicrous notion, I still can’t quite fathom how Randi is "preying on the gullible’ with what he does; to my knowledge he does not earn anything from the million-dollar paranormal challenge entrants. KGS, if you would be so kind, please describe in detail what you mean by your claim: who are the gullible, how is he preying upon them, and what does he gain from doing so?

198

[QUOTE=Vinyl Turnip]
<SNIP>
In many ways I wish Randi (who by all accounts is something of a gruff jerk, and not a wellspring of unconditional love and light like Sylvia Browne or John Edward) had never instituted his million-dollar challenge— not because there’s anything inherently wrong with the concept, but because it gives every mushbrained woo-woo with an axe to grind one thing they can point toward as incontrovertible evidence of Randi’s “dishonesty”: “it must be rigged, because otherwise surely someone would’ve taken the prize by now, right? I mean if you held a lottery every day for years and nobody won, you’d know something was up, right? Randi must be a LIAR and a FRAUD!”

<SNIP>
[/QUOTE]

Vinyl Turnip
I take your point but I love the challenge. “My money’s on the table now put-up or shut-up.”
I like it because it keeps the woo woo crowd on the defensive. Those people are desperate to find some loophole where they don’t actually have to prove anything and can keep on fleecing the gullible.

Regards

Testy

199

Something paranormal has happened to this thread, or at least my viewing of it. How come it’s now all in italics?

Note: I have added no italic tags at all in this post; it didn’t show italic on preview, but after posting, it’s italic. What gives? What’s messing with our thread coding?

200

[QUOTE=Musicat]
Something paranormal has happened to this thread, or at least my viewing of it. How come it’s now all in italics?

Note: I have added no italic tags at all in this post; it didn’t show italic on preview, but after posting, it’s italic. What gives? What’s messing with our thread coding?
[/QUOTE]

Musicat… I sense a strange disturbance in your life force. They are trying to tell you something… GEEEEHHHTT OOUUUTTTTTT GEEHHHHTTTTT OUUUUUTTTTTTT! RUUUN RUUUUUN!!*.