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

[KGS]

@Vinyl Turnip

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?

The “gullible” are the so-called psychics he recruits to be on his show. He lures in people who think they have psychic powers, people who are untrained and don’t fully understand how these powers actually work. He lures in his victims in with promises of money and the idea of being on television. He makes them sign contracts that are designed to make the experiment FAIL before it even begins; and then, just in case, he cheats by adding chaotic elements to the so-called “experiment” to make the psychic fail (but since these elements aren’t part of the contract, technically he’s not liable for anything, right? And who’s gonna challenge him?? Scientists? Not likely.)

I’ve seen Randi’s attempt to “disprove” aura reading. He does this by placing twelve subjects behind a screen and having the so-called “psychic” read the auras and determine their birth sign. Umm…that’s NOT how auras work, not even remotely. NOBODY can read that much specific data from somebody’s aura, not even the most skilled charlatan. You need to see the PERSON, and know their name, to get even a glimmer of what kind of person they are. And even if it were possible to read auras w/o the person…what’s to keep the twelve subjects from pulling their aura into their skin? Oh, but Randi doesn’t want that little gem of information to get out, does he?? He’d rather make lots of money & spread his lies for the purpose of self-promotion and appearing on late night talk shows.

Penn & Teller, on the other hand, are fun. I don’t always agree with the information they present on their “Bullshit!” show, but at least the show’s done with good humor and an emphasis on entertainment with the occasional fighting of ignorance. Their episode about the Endangered Species Program, for example, really opened my eyes.

@Musicat

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

Could be a ghost, could be a projection of your Animus out for a morning crawl, could be the fact that you just woke up and are bleary-eyed.

But the most likely explanation is that Microsoft products suck.

[begbert2]

@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?

I appear to have corrupted the page with an unclosed italic tag in post #165. (I wouldn’t have thought that’s how it works, but there ya go. A subsequent loose * in a later post does not fix it, though.)

I’m hoping it’ll fix itself when/if the thread goes to the next page - I like using italics for emphasis. Now I’m forced to resort to substituting in underlines.

Edit: Looks like it worked!

[begbert2]

@KGS

The “gullible” are the so-called psychics he recruits to be on his show. He lures in people who think they have psychic powers, people who are untrained and don’t fully understand how these powers actually work. He lures in his victims in with promises of money and the idea of being on television. He makes them sign contracts that are designed to make the experiment FAIL before it even begins; and then, just in case, he cheats by adding chaotic elements to the so-called “experiment” to make the psychic fail (but since these elements aren’t part of the contract, technically he’s not liable for anything, right? And who’s gonna challenge him?? Scientists? Not likely.)

I’ve seen Randi’s attempt to “disprove” aura reading. He does this by placing twelve subjects behind a screen and having the so-called “psychic” read the auras and determine their birth sign. Umm…that’s NOT how auras work, not even remotely. NOBODY can read that much specific data from somebody’s aura, not even the most skilled charlatan. You need to see the PERSON, and know their name, to get even a glimmer of what kind of person they are. And even if it were possible to read auras w/o the person…what’s to keep the twelve subjects from pulling their aura into their skin? Oh, but Randi doesn’t want that little gem of information to get out, does he?? He’d rather make lots of money & spread his lies for the purpose of self-promotion and appearing on late night talk shows.

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: *infinity.

You just keep telling yourself that, bub.

[Voyager]

@KGS

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.

Since:

1. The article would not be biased against them, being favorable.
2. Thrown in as a slap at my paper. No good paper would even carry this kind of article.
3. Evidence inside the favorable article was adequate for me to conclude that the psychics were preying on their customers. It was not adequate to tell me whether or not they believed in what they said, because they spouted the usual mumbo-jumbo.

Not that this is my only evidence. I was a teenager when Jeanne Dixon predicted the Beatles would die in a crash in Australia.

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.

I would be hard pressed to define a study or experiment to measure the morals or internal beliefs of psychics. As someone noted, a real psychic wouldn’t be in a rundown house giving readings for $50 a pop. I’ve read books by Rhine, I heard Honorton speak, and I’ve seen plenty of debates and data pro and con on this. Even if psychics did exist, it wouldn’t mean that those who claim to have the power actually do.

No, but James Randi does.

Oy. I see plenty of people have responded already, but when I was selling EDA software, and showed new stuff in demo suites, I wish that we were able to use the excuse of disbelief in the audience to explain a core dump. We had to take our medicine.

[VinylTurnip]

@KGS

The “gullible” are the so-called psychics he recruits to be on his show. He lures in people who think they have psychic powers, people who are untrained and don’t fully understand how these powers actually work.

Ah. Well, if that’s your definition, I hope he continues preying. I promise to shed a single tear for each “psychic” to achieve martyrdom at Randi’s ruthless hand.

And by people who are “untrained and don’t fully understand how these powers actually work,” I assume you mean either

a) Neophyte cold-readers who haven’t quite yet perfected the method, or

b) Naïfs who’ve come to sincerely believe that they possess psychic powers and “don’t fully understand how they work” because they’re unaware that, from all reputable, reproducible evidence thusfar gathered, they don’t actually exist.

Group (a) can go pound sand, for all I care. Group (b) may deserve gentler treatment, if their misconception is simply borne out of ignorance and/or wishful thinking, and not a deliberate intent to deceive. Nonetheless, what they need is not someone to nurture their delusion, but rather a basic understanding of things like coincidence and probability, confirmation bias, cold reading tactics, and the scientific method, and these are things that Randi (albeit sometimes in his overly confrontational manner) attempts to educate people about.

If you’re truly concerned about the plight of Randi’s “victims,” you would do better to direct your anger toward hucksters like Browne and Edward, who know full and goddamned well they are frauds, who help perpetuate ignorance and give false hope to the type (b) gullibles, and who enjoy a nice, fat lifestyle from the proceeds of their own chicanery.

[KGS]

@begbert2

I appear to have corrupted the page with an unclosed italic tag in post #165.

Doesn’t appear to be a problem with Firefox. Maybe a ghost invaded your computer and…wait a sec…

[KGS checks the page with IE6.0]

Ah yes, I see the problem. I was looking at the world (by that, I mean this thread) through an alternate portal. Therefore, I didn’t notice the “glitch in the Matrix” that distracted everybody else. (Why do people still use IE anyway? Force of habit?)

[recessiveMeme]

@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?

I didn’t. However, I wouldn’t doubt for a moment that Fogg probably got a little schadenfreude out of the event after it occurred.

@KGS

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

I’ll just assume that, some six days later, you’ve forgotten this little nugget from post 158, wherein I explain my persistence is the use of “hear”:

@recessiveMeme

@KGS

Ok, stop right there. You’re mixing up my words, and worse, you appear stuck on the concrete definition of “hear”, even after I explained that it’s an idiomatic phrase. Let’s back up and replace “hear” with a word that fits better…how about “sense”? Does that work?

Actually, I put the word “hear” in quotes if only to allow you to apply whatever metaphysical significance to the word you desired in the interest of asking a question.

From now on I’ll be sure to use “sense” if doing so will quell your crowing about idiomatic phrases.

@KGS

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

Now, I’m loath to play “internet psychoanalyst” and I wasn’t even going to bring this up until you mentioned projection bias, but…

In post 158, as well as other places, I and others asked something along the lines of, “How do you differentiate between your own feelings and the feelings of any ghosts that happen to be in your vicinity?” It may not seem like much, but I think this is really the most interesting question in the thread.

In posts such as 122 and 141, you characterize the emotions you’ve experience via ghosts as largely negative with ghosts “bragging” about crashing cars in a way you find “disturbing” or ghosts tending to be “VERY angry.” You go on to say that you used to be “an angry person” but that, since you’ve become less angry, you don’t perceive ghost so often anymore. Really, I can’t help but wonder if this isn’t a little projection of your own. Perhaps at some level you perceived a negative aspect to your personality-- like say, excessive anger-- and then, rather than considering the source of those feelings and dealing with them, disowned them and projected them to some external source. Postulating “ghosts” as that source is certainly more creative/fanciful than normal, but nobody said it has to make sense.

Try something: The next time you “sense” the influence of a ghost, it might be interesting for you to carefully consider the mental state of the ghost, imagine what it would be like if you yourself felt that way (pretend the ghost isn’t there), and then contemplate how you’d feel about yourself for feeling that way. Just a thought.

With that, I’ll leave you to “Randi Battle 2k7: Bout #2,718,281,828,459”…

[begbert2]

@KGS

Doesn’t appear to be a problem with Firefox. Maybe a ghost invaded your computer and…wait a sec…

[KGS checks the page with IE6.0]

Ah yes, I see the problem. I was looking at the world (by that, I mean this thread) through an alternate portal. Therefore, I didn’t notice the “glitch in the Matrix” that distracted everybody else. (Why do people still use IE anyway? Force of habit?)

Force of workplace.

[lekatt]

@Vinyl Turnip

Ah. Well, if that’s your definition, I hope he continues preying. I promise to shed a single tear for each “psychic” to achieve martyrdom at Randi’s ruthless hand.

And by people who are “untrained and don’t fully understand how these powers actually work,” I assume you mean either

a) Neophyte cold-readers who haven’t quite yet perfected the method, or

b) Naïfs who’ve come to sincerely believe that they possess psychic powers and “don’t fully understand how they work” because they’re unaware that, from all reputable, reproducible evidence thusfar gathered, they don’t actually exist.

Group (a) can go pound sand, for all I care. Group (b) may deserve gentler treatment, if their misconception is simply borne out of ignorance and/or wishful thinking, and not a deliberate intent to deceive. Nonetheless, what they need is not someone to nurture their delusion, but rather a basic understanding of things like coincidence and probability, confirmation bias, cold reading tactics, and the scientific method, and these are things that Randi (albeit sometimes in his overly confrontational manner) attempts to educate people about.

If you’re truly concerned about the plight of Randi’s “victims,” you would do better to direct your anger toward hucksters like Browne and Edward, who know full and goddamned well they are frauds, who help perpetuate ignorance and give false hope to the type (b) gullibles, and who enjoy a nice, fat lifestyle from the proceeds of their own chicanery.

No such thing as false hope, there is only hope or no hope at all. Here we are again talking about psychics in a very negative mode by those who have convinced themselves they know about psychics. Sure there are good psychics and some not so good, just like doctors, lawyers, and such. But psychics still are in demand in hospitals, police work, and counseling to name a few.

I have been looking for a study on “cold reading” for many years. One that compared real psychics with those who do the cold readings, none found. Oh, well. Just another figment of skeptical imagination. We are all psychic to some extent.

[lekatt]

@Vinyl Turnip

Ah. Well, if that’s your definition, I hope he continues preying. I promise to shed a single tear for each “psychic” to achieve martyrdom at Randi’s ruthless hand.

And by people who are “untrained and don’t fully understand how these powers actually work,” I assume you mean either

a) Neophyte cold-readers who haven’t quite yet perfected the method, or

b) Naïfs who’ve come to sincerely believe that they possess psychic powers and “don’t fully understand how they work” because they’re unaware that, from all reputable, reproducible evidence thusfar gathered, they don’t actually exist.

Group (a) can go pound sand, for all I care. Group (b) may deserve gentler treatment, if their misconception is simply borne out of ignorance and/or wishful thinking, and not a deliberate intent to deceive. Nonetheless, what they need is not someone to nurture their delusion, but rather a basic understanding of things like coincidence and probability, confirmation bias, cold reading tactics, and the scientific method, and these are things that Randi (albeit sometimes in his overly confrontational manner) attempts to educate people about.

If you’re truly concerned about the plight of Randi’s “victims,” you would do better to direct your anger toward hucksters like Browne and Edward, who know full and goddamned well they are frauds, who help perpetuate ignorance and give false hope to the type (b) gullibles, and who enjoy a nice, fat lifestyle from the proceeds of their own chicanery.

No such thing as false hope, there is only hope or no hope at all. Here we are again talking about psychics in a very negative mode by those who have convinced themselves they know about psychics. Sure there are good psychics and some not so good, just like doctors, lawyers, and such. But psychics still are in demand in hospitals, police work, and counseling to name a few.

I have been looking for a study on “cold reading” for many years. One that compared real psychics with those who do the cold readings, none found. Oh, well. Just another figment of skeptical imagination. We are all psychic to some extent.

Oh yes, how did you come by the information that Edward and Browne know themselves to be frauds, perhaps you could enlighten us with your great knowledge, cite.

[Musicat]

@KGS

The “gullible” are the so-called psychics he recruits to be on his show. He lures in people who think they have psychic powers, people who are untrained and don’t fully understand how these powers actually work.

And you’re gullible if you think they are merely gullible. But unlike you (I hope), they are either crooks or ones who resist all efforts to show a scientific explanation for what they want to believe isn’t.

So I guess exposing crooks and fighting ignorance, in your book, is mean and nasty. And what does that make the SDMB?

(Why do people still use IE anyway? Force of habit?)

Since 100% of the people I support on a regular basis haven’t even heard of Firefox, but use IE, it pretty much is the one I need to know. So I use it. It’s a weak excuse, I know.

Anyway, the break in the space-time continuum that caused rampant italics seems to have been fixed. Didn’t know so much havoc could be wrought with an errant “I”.

Note to self: Always use "I"s in pairs or suffer the consequences.

[Musicat]

@lekatt

I have been looking for a study on “cold reading” for many years. One that compared real psychics with those who do the cold readings, none found. Oh, well. Just another figment of skeptical imagination. We are all psychic to some extent.

And in all your tortured years on SDMB, you haven’t been able to show us a single “real” psychic or anyone, including yourself, that has such powers that can be demonstrated satisfactorily to everyone. It’s all psycho-babble.

Which brings us back to the OP…

[begbert2]

@lekatt

I have been looking for a study on “cold reading” for many years. One that compared real psychics with those who do the cold readings, none found. Oh, well. Just another figment of skeptical imagination. We are all psychic to some extent.

You will also find a shortage of studies comparing horses to unicorns. Fancy that.

[lekatt]

@Musicat

And in all your tortured years on SDMB, you haven’t been able to show us a single “real” psychic or anyone, including yourself, that has such powers that can be demonstrated satisfactorily to everyone. It’s all psycho-babble.

Which brings us back to the OP…

Well, of course not, how can people who have convinced themselves that psychics don’t exist be shown a psychic.

Van Praque, Edwards, Browne, and many more must have something going for them as they are in great demand. There is a show on TV called “Psychic Detectives” you might want to catch. Psychics help the police solve their cases.

Just pretend they are not there and they will go away.

Not tortured for me, just enjoyment.

[lekatt]

@begbert2

You will also find a shortage of studies comparing horses to unicorns. Fancy that.

Really?

[Musicat]

@lekatt

Van Praque, Edwards, Browne, and many more must have something going for them as they are in great demand.

Crime DOES pay and there are a million suckers out there. Here’s hoping you’re not one of them. :rolleyes:

[begbert2]

@lekatt

Really?

Go ahead: look for one. Just remember the old adage that we keep trying to pound into your head: “anecdotes, stories, and works of fiction are not studies”.

@lekatt

Van Praque, Edwards, Browne, and many more must have something going for them as they are in great demand.

So, you believe people are infallible and unable to be fooled now? Remember, some of these people might also believe in sciencey things, like gravity.

@lekatt

There is a show on TV called “Psychic Detectives” you might want to catch. Psychics help the police solve their cases.

I’ll go one better; there’s a show where people actually have psychic powers! It’s called “Heroes”.

[Peter_Morris]

@Vinyl Turnip

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.

Well, I’m not going to argue whether Randi is a fraud. I’ll just point out that he does in fact make plenty of money out of his activities. He persuades people to donate hundreds of thousands of dollars to JREF every year. The main expenditure of JREF is Randi’s salary.

Check it out for yourself at www.guidestar.org. You have to register, but it’s free (basic registration).

Once you’ve registered, check out JREF’s form 990, which shows income and expenditure.
See for yourself how much money Randi makes from the million dollar challenge. I’m not sure if that includes book sales and TV appearances. You can make up your own mind if this amounts to exploiting the gullible. I’ll not say anything further on the matter.

[Musicat]

Perhaps we need a corollary to Godwin’s Law, the **Peter-Leroy Corollary: **

As an online discussion on the paranormal grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving James Randi as a fraud or psychics as real approaches one.

[begbert2]

@Musicat

Perhaps we need a corollary to Godwin’s Law, the **Peter-Leroy Corollary: **

As an online discussion on the paranormal grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving James Randi as a fraud or psychics as real approaches one.

I don’t know about Randi, but if nobody’s taking the side of psychics being real right from the start, then what you have is not technically a discussion, but rather either a diatribe or storytime.

(And if Randi is preying on those gullible enough to believe they were psychics, then he at least differs from the other predatory sorts under discussion here in that he’s actively trying to dry out his own supply of suckers and put himself out of business.

It goes without saying that Randi is not preying on real psychics. To them, he would be prey.)