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

Great Debates
161

[QUOTE=begbert2]
Either that or you’re willing to torture every word and phrase possible to avoid being shown to be wrong -and not even notice you’re doing it.
[/quote]
I’m not the one torturing the language here. In fact, it’s very telling that you’re picking on my words instead of asking me to expand on my belief system. Like you said yourself, that’s evidence of a rigid, religious mindset.

So tell me, begbert2 (what does your username mean, btw? I’m drawing a blank) – who’s taken advantage of you? Was it a psychic? It’s your turn to share.

162

[QUOTE=KGS]
I’m not the one torturing the language here. In fact, it’s very telling that you’re picking on my words instead of asking me to expand on my belief system. Like you said yourself, that’s evidence of a rigid, religious mindset.
[/QUOTE]
I’m “picking” up on the meaning of your entire sentences, that you actually wrote, in the hopes of pointing out a mindset that is possibly hampering your reason. That mindset I described sure hampers the thinking of some people in my locale.

And pray tell, where am I supposedly torturing the language? Or was that some kind of random toss-off about something somebody else in the thread other than myself is doing? You do realize that, absent a specific example (like disequating brainwashing and victimization), accusations of torturing the language (even backhand implied accusations) are ad hominem.

And I’m not asking you to expand on your belief system because I think I get the point. You see dead people (or think you do). Congratulations. You also have various vaguely formed theories about spectral energies and so forth that, until I buy that ghosts actually exist in the way you describe them, have no more interest to me than theories about the specific working of magic in the land of Oz. So the amount of information on your beliefs that you’re giving out without my prompting is plenty enough to satisfy me.

[QUOTE=KGS]
So tell me, begbert2 (what does your username mean, btw? I’m drawing a blank) – who’s taken advantage of you? Was it a psychic? It’s your turn to share.
[/QUOTE]
My name is Bill Egbert. As is my father’s; I was (and am) commonly referred to as “Bill number two” for purposes of differentiation. (Okay, so I have no imagination - or prefer to expend in on other things than clever appellations form myself.)

I was taken to church (mormon) from an early age by my parents; I don’t recall ever believing (and I’m told I didn’t want to be baptised on account of disbelief at eight years old, so that skepticism apparently goes pretty far). At least through my early teens I paid tithing despite having no belief, but as I had no real job and a pathetic allowance I’d be surprised if I lost as much as $100 all told.

I also went to one counselling session with a (non-magical) counsellor with a fiancee that I didn’t pay for (it was her visit), which was pretty clearly a sham; the counsellor talked about her own problems the whole time. (The big, massively expensive group counselling seminar she took me to a little later wasn’t actually a scam, even though it did nothing for me.)

I also had to attend (and pay for) a heck of a lot of expensive college classes that actually had squat to do with the subject of my major; that was sure a ripoff. Does that count? Or are we looking for purely non-secular scams?

Unless you count the several hundred people I’ve met who believe they talk to a big god-spirit-thing in the sky, the only persons claiming actual psychic ability I’ve met have been on this message board (and the word “met” is therefore a bit of a stretch); so far it’s lekatt and you, I think. And neither of you has so much as asked me for money.

163

[QUOTE=KGS]
I think I’m self-aware enough to know my own emotions, if that’s what you’re asking. Unless you’re talking about empathy?
[/quote]

You have told us:

  1. You don’t hear ghosts, you get nebulous input from them often in the form of emotions.
  2. There is a high degree of correlation between your emotional state and that of the putative ghosts: when you are angry you are more likely to experience angry ghosts.
  3. You lack any mechanism to enable you to distinguish wishful thinking from reality.

Using that information you provided as the axioms I resubmit the question: how can you distinguish ghost emotions form your own?

When I hear someone articulate an emotion or read it in their face I can separate that form my own emotional state because:

  1. It comes from a different medium. My emotions are internal, the emotions of others have to come in through my eyes or ears. You can not do that with ghosts.
  2. There is frequently discrepancy. While sometimes I will be in the same mental frame as the sender usually I will not be. Thus I can separate how they feel form what I feel. You can not do that with ghosts.
  3. I have a mechanism that allows me to readily separate the reality of my emotion and their emotions from any desire I may have to believe I can experience their emotions. You can not do that with ghosts.

:dubious:

[QUOTE=KGS]
I’m not the one torturing the language here.
[/quote]

Oh FFS give it up. You have admitted that you are mangling, abusing, sodomising and otherwise torturing the language because you believe you have that right as a professional writer.

Denying it at this stage is just irritating.

Yes, it tells me that he is having as much trouble deciphering what you post as everyone else. There is no point asking you to expand on your beliefs when you can’t even communicate the basics in a way that make them seem plausible.

That is as ridiculous as expecting me to invite someone to expand on their belief that aliens assassinated George Bush when they can’t even explain why they believe George Bush is dead.

No, he didn’t ay that, and all it is evidence of is your inability to communicate.

164

[QUOTE=begbert2]
You do realize that, absent a specific example (like disequating brainwashing and victimization), accusations of torturing the language (even backhand implied accusations) are ad hominem.
[/quote]
Umm…you were the first of us to levy the accusation of “torturing the language,” not me. However, I reread your post and saw your exact phrase was, “you’re willing to torture every word and phrase,” and while I don’t follow your logic, that’s not precisely an accusation. So I’ll answer your question by connotating the words:

“Taken Advantage Of” – implies that you choose to trust someone, and they abuse your trust.
“Brainwashed” – implies that no choice was involved.

The matter of “choice” is a critical distinction.

You’re lucky that you were able to maintain a skeptical attitude at such a young age. Myself, I was baptized into Xtianity at age six – a highly evangelical, fundamentalist sect of Xtiantiy. Armageddon, Creationism, the works. I was also discouraged from having friends who did not attend the same church. To make matters worse, my parents would skip from church to church quite often, so any friends I made at the previous congregation were instantly lost. Kind of made it difficult to trust in long-term relationships, you know? I’m still working through it. My point is, faith in Jesus Christ was never my choice – ergo, I was brainwashed. However, it was entirely my own choice to walk away from religion entirely; the most important (and scariest!) decision I ever made.

It’s true, many people in the psychological industry have serious issues. All I can say about that is, when it comes to therapists (the non-M.D. variety, at least) you really need to shop around for the one who fits YOUR needs. Consider it like paying somebody to be your friend. (And if you have enough friends…who needs therapy?)

:confused: You sound very bitter about this. Is it true that you learned nothing from your elective courses? Or did your religious parents force you to attent specific college classes to fulfill their own expectations? It’s strange that you’d imply that higher education is “a ripoff.”

In which case, I would recommend you don’t ever visit a psychic. Conversing with a psychic requires an open mind – that’s how the science of cold reading works, after all. Otherwise, she’ll just tell you a bunch of random shit that makes no sense. And heaven help us if you directly confront a psychic about “cold reading”…that REALLY pisses 'em off. They might even go so far as to plant a negative suggestion in your brain. Some psychics are a dangerous breed.

However, I must refute your claim that I’ve “been duped” out of $175. First of all, the meditation class was worth every penny (and I didn’t even pay for it!) The other $45, if nothing else, I would consider “entertainment” expenses. Think of it as paying $10 for a movie. If it’s a bad movie, then yeah, I’d have every right to feel cheated. But if it’s a good movie, I don’t mind paying money – despite the fact that everything on the silver screen is essentially somebody lying to you.

165

[QUOTE=KGS]
Umm…you were the first of us to levy the accusation of “torturing the language,” not me. However, I reread your post and saw your exact phrase was, “you’re willing to torture every word and phrase,” and while I don’t follow your logic, that’s not precisely an accusation. So I’ll answer your question by connotating the words:

“Taken Advantage Of” – implies that you choose to trust someone, and they abuse your trust.
“Brainwashed” – implies that no choice was involved.

The matter of “choice” is a critical distinction.
[/QUOTE]
The words --they scream with pain!

Reality check: is this worth arguing about? I’m of the opinion that you answered Blake’s challenge casually and perhaps without fully realizing the scope of the question, and have now dug in your heels to defend your answer. It’s a natural response to (perhaps accurately) perceived attack. Even so, though.

(And I think you can be taken advantage of without either your consent or even your awareness of it. You merely have to have them find you in some sort of position of vulnerability, for them to take advantage of. YMMV though, apparently.)

[QUOTE=KGS]
You’re lucky that you were able to maintain a skeptical attitude at such a young age. Myself, I was baptized into Xtianity at age six – a highly evangelical, fundamentalist sect of Xtiantiy. Armageddon, Creationism, the works. I was also discouraged from having friends who did not attend the same church. To make matters worse, my parents would skip from church to church quite often, so any friends I made at the previous congregation were instantly lost. Kind of made it difficult to trust in long-term relationships, you know? I’m still working through it. My point is, faith in Jesus Christ was never my choice – ergo, I was brainwashed. However, it was entirely my own choice to walk away from religion entirely; the most important (and scariest!) decision I ever made.
[/QUOTE]
Err, you have my pity?

And if it makes you feel better, in some other thread around here we pretty much determined that nobody chooses what they believe, at least not directly. Belief is (seemingly) based on a non-conscious processing of known evidence. So, the best you can do is try and keep your mind open to as much different evidence as possible, and try and entertain all the facts and options with a fair and open mind, in the hopes of giving yourself at least the opportunity to see the holes and inconsistencies in your beliefs.

Or something like that.

[QUOTE=KGS]
It’s true, many people in the psychological industry have serious issues. All I can say about that is, when it comes to therapists (the non-M.D. variety, at least) you really need to shop around for the one who fits YOUR needs. Consider it like paying somebody to be your friend. (And if you have enough friends…who needs therapy?)
[/QUOTE]
I don’t need therapy; what I need is a girlfriend. I didn’t need therapy at the time, either; I was just along for the ride to survey the goings-on (and was not impressed by what my then-fiance was pouring her money into).

(And I personally don’t believe you can ever pay somebody to be your friend. Go through the motions, yes. Care two whits about you personally, no.)

[QUOTE=KGS]
:confused: You sound very bitter about this. Is it true that you learned nothing from your elective courses? Or did your religious parents force you to attent specific college classes to fulfill their own expectations? It’s strange that you’d imply that higher education is “a ripoff.”
[/QUOTE]
Higher education is a business, as a general rule; they’re in the business of pursuing the twofold (compatible) aims of filling classrooms in all their different sub-colleges, and in ensuring that their graduates have some vague idea about things outside their field. This is all well and good, but as a student I went there with the twofold goals of learning about my specific field (computer programming, incidentally) and getting that little piece of paper. Unfortunately, pursuing the second required me to take more irrelevant classes than relevant ones. That’s just how it works.

Did I learn anything from the electives and irrelevant required courses? A little, maybe, from some of them. But even if I did learn something from them, that still doesn’t necessarily make them worth the price I paid. (Though if you want to see a real ripoff, try buying textbooks! They’re always grossly overpriced, especially if like me you never read them.)

And actually I’m not really all that bitter; I was merely fishing for things where I was overtly forced to pay for things I didn’t want or need perhaps without sufficient prior warning, since that seemed to be in the neighborhood of what you were asking about. And this seemed to be something that fit that bill.

(And my parents had nothing to do with it, incidentally. They’re not that bad, just periodically annoying, for various reasons.)

[QUOTE=KGS]
In which case, I would recommend you don’t ever visit a psychic. Conversing with a psychic requires an open mind – that’s how the science of cold reading works, after all. Otherwise, she’ll just tell you a bunch of random shit that makes no sense. And heaven help us if you directly confront a psychic about “cold reading”…that REALLY pisses 'em off. They might even go so far as to plant a negative suggestion in your brain. Some psychics are a dangerous breed.
[/QUOTE]
If the psychic is fake (as you’d expect them to be if they’re trying to do a cold reading of you, which of course has nothing to do with actual mind reading), then how the heck would they “plant a negative suggestion in your brain”? I have no idea what you’re talking about here. Is this supposed to be a real psychic we’re talking about, with maAaAaAagical powers? Or is it a faker, impotent, and therefore effectively harmless, no matter how infuriated they get? And are you using the same definition of cold reading as I am?

You have confused me…

[QUOTE=KGS]
However, I must refute your claim that I’ve “been duped” out of $175. First of all, the meditation class was worth every penny (and I didn’t even pay for it!) The other $45, if nothing else, I would consider “entertainment” expenses. Think of it as paying $10 for a movie. If it’s a bad movie, then yeah, I’d have every right to feel cheated. But if it’s a good movie, I don’t mind paying money – despite the fact that everything on the silver screen is essentially somebody lying to you.
[/QUOTE]
Depends on your definition of “duped”, I suppose… :stuck_out_tongue:

And you can have your fun wherever you find it. It sounds loads cheaper than my hobbies, at least; still though you might want to be aware that if you actually start to believe in this stuff, it may get even more fun, but you start to be in peril of sounding very weird on message boards. (You’re not usually supposed to believe the movie is a true story, after all.)
(I like parentheses (in case you couldn’t tell (or even if you could, really)).)

166

[QUOTE=begbert2]
The words --they scream with pain!

Reality check: is this worth arguing about?
[/quote]
Is it worth arguing about the definition of words? Nope, not really. If your sole defense is to nitpick my (ab)use of the English language, and writhe with histrionics when my explanation goes beyond your intelligence level, then yes, this will become an extremely tedious conversation very quickly.

I don’t mind if you have difficulty understanding my experiences with the paranormal…but if you need a refresher course in English 101, there are night schools you can attend. Check your local library, they’ll point you in the right direction.

When did I answer any of Blake’s questions? And why do you assume that his words are an attack? He’s not even talking to you.

Link? Seriously, you’ve piqued my interest.

This is the true definition of a scientist; or, at least, an open-minded individual. But this paragraph directly contradicts your previous sentence stating that belief does not involve choice. Of course it does.

Don’t we all.

Cold reading is not the only tool available to us. Hypnosis. Unconscious suggestions. Emotionally charged words interwoven into seemingly innocuous dialogue. The neurotypical mind is far more pliable than you’d like to admit. And it’s not just psychics who use these mind-bending tools. Advertising, for example.

Yes.

167

[QUOTE=KGS]
When did I answer any of Blake’s questions?
[/quote]

Well you have been studiously ducking most of them, too difficult I assume. :wink:

But you did repsond to me asking whether you had ever given money to psychics for example. But the issue at hand is tht you responded to several of my comments by boasting that you abuse the English language at will. That is the issue in point here. You can’t boast that you abuse English at one point and later lciam that all misundertandings are our fault beause you use perfect English.

Maybe he knows me.
Somewhat more seriously, I have been extremely skeptical of your position.

That’s rather the point.

168

[QUOTE=Blake]
But you did repsond to me asking whether you had ever given money to psychics for example.
[/QUOTE]
That was you?? I thought I was replying to Czarcasm. Oh well, it’s a fair cop.

169

[QUOTE=KGS]
Disappointed, actually. It sounds like you’re saying, synchronicity is just coincidence. “It’s just coincidence” is the fallback position for people with a deterministic mindset.
[/quote]

No, synchronicity isn’t “just a coincidence”. It’s a series of coincidences the brain perceives as a pattern with the help of confirmation bias. Let’s just say that, over the course of an average person’s life, they consider the idea of a butterfly 100,000 times w/o the visual stimulus of actually seeing a butterfly. Let’s also say that same person, throughout the course of their life, happens to see 1,000,000 butterflies while wandering around outside. Let’s also say that something like .01% of the times that person happened to be thinking about a butterfly, one flitted past. This is where pattern recognition and confirmation bias step in.

You might be inclined to say, “What a coincidence!” And then you might recall another time in your life when something similar happened. And then you might perceive a connection between those events-- ding, ding, “Pattern recognized!” shouts some aspect of your subconscious. At this point you can either postulate the existence of some magical energy field which connect you to all butterflies, or, at the very least, gives you the latent ability to conjure butterflies through sheer force of will… or you can reflect on the fact that, given all the butterflies you’ve seen in your life and all the chances you’ve had to contemplate butterflies, it’s bound to happen every once in a while. You could even go so far as to consider that perhaps you’ve been conditioned to think about butterflies under circumstances conducive to the appearance of butterflies. For example, when presented with a patch of wildflowers on a warm summer day, some aspect of your subconscious is probably expecting to see a butterfly if only because it has happened so many times before.

[QUOTE=KGS]
Not to be confrontational or anything, but to me that’s almost like a Christian who says, “God works in mysterious ways.” Frustrating, and very hard to argue against.
[/quote]
I disagree. “God works in mysterious ways” is a defense against logical criticism directed at an illogical proposition. “It’s synchronicity” is, itself, an illogical proposition. Of course, there are some apple/orange issues with this comparison as “god” constitutes a consciousness with some sort of intent and “synchronicity” constitutes a vague philosophy that attempts to ascribe meaning to coincidence. I’m not really saying “synchronicity is just coincidence” so much as I’m saying “synchronicity and coincidence are mutually exclusive.” Coincidence is either coincidental, or it has some neat metaphysical significance.

[QUOTE=KGS]
(And if synchronicity doesn’t connect with you, I can only imagine what you think of apophenia…)
[/quote]

Admittedly, I was unfamiliar with the term “apophenia” prior to examining your link. Having done so, I can tell you that I think that “the experience of seeing patterns or connections in random or meaningless data” is a very common occurrence. I’d be surprised to hear anyone claim they’d never experienced apophenia at one time or another. Our minds are remarkably sophisticated where pattern recognition is concerned. The problem is that, in amongst all the “useful” pattern searching we do at a subconscious level- attractive member of opposite sex, delicious foodstuff, big red octagonal sign- we also run into the occasional false positive like, say, seeing Jesus on a burnt piece of toast.

[QUOTE=KGS]
Weird, huh? I haven’t figured that part out yet.
[/quote]
Me neither, it seems. Anyways, thanks for indulging me.

170

[QUOTE=KGS]
Is it worth arguing about the definition of words? Nope, not really. If your sole defense is to nitpick my (ab)use of the English language, and writhe with histrionics when my explanation goes beyond your intelligence level, then yes, this will become an extremely tedious conversation very quickly.

I don’t mind if you have difficulty understanding my experiences with the paranormal…but if you need a refresher course in English 101, there are night schools you can attend. Check your local library, they’ll point you in the right direction.
[/QUOTE]
As to your idiot ad-hominem attacks against my intellegence and speech skills (oh, the irony): eat turf. I do occasionally meet people who are smarter than me but I’d lay odds that you’re not one of them, especially as you were unable to detect an attempt to let you gracefully terminate this line of argument, which was becoming foolish before your last post, and which you have now elevated to the level of transcendent stupidity.

[QUOTE=KGS]
Link? Seriously, you’ve piqued my interest.
[/QUOTE]

If God Made Me, He Knows I Can’t Believe in Him
Be warned; as you might expect from the title, it’s positively riddled with hijacks.

[QUOTE=KGS]
This is the true definition of a scientist; or, at least, an open-minded individual. But this paragraph directly contradicts your previous sentence stating that belief does not involve choice. Of course it does.
[/QUOTE]
Actually the previous sentence I wrote was “Belief is (seemingly) based on a non-conscious processing of known evidence.”, which of course is not a contradiction. There were no contradictions in that paragraph, if you have the inclination and wherewithal to actually read and understand my words; so kindly don’t resort to making false statements about the content of my posts.

To clarify the kind of “choice” we’re talking about regarding beliefs, it’s the difference between steering a car with the steering wheel, and running in front of it placing rocks and digging ruts in front of the wheels in an attempt to indirectly effect its course. I refer you to the other thread for further discussion of the subject (bring a fine-toothed comb to sift out the relevent content with, and a shovel too, just in case).

[QUOTE=KGS]
Cold reading is not the only tool available to us. Hypnosis. Unconscious suggestions. Emotionally charged words interwoven into seemingly innocuous dialogue. The neurotypical mind is far more pliable than you’d like to admit. And it’s not just psychics who use these mind-bending tools. Advertising, for example.
[/QUOTE]
So, when you say “psychic”, you actually mean “fraud pretending to have psychic abilities”. (This casts an interesting light on the whole discussion, really.) So unless I actually let a psychic hypnotize me, I clearly don’t have anything to worry about. Hypnotism, unlike cold reading and various other scams, typically does require a willing subject.

So is seems that you were just making empty noise when talking about the threat of so-called psychics - they’re only potentially dangerous if you play their game deeply enough to get in a suggestive state, in which case you’re not going to do anything to piss them off anyway.

(And this may come as a shock to you, but for all the magical power of advertising, they really can’t make you buy anything you don’t want to (unless you have, like, extraordinary gullibility and zero willpower or something.))

[QUOTE=KGS]
Yes.
[/QUOTE]
Then I don’t need an open mind for cold reading to be effective on me as long as I engage in discussion with them and refrain from lying in my answers.

171

[QUOTE=recessiveMeme]
No, synchronicity isn’t “just a coincidence”. It’s a series of coincidences the brain perceives as a pattern with the help of confirmation bias. Let’s just say that, over the course of an average person’s life, they consider the idea of a butterfly 100,000 times w/o the visual stimulus of actually seeing a butterfly. Let’s also say that same person, throughout the course of their life, happens to see 1,000,000 butterflies while wandering around outside. Let’s also say that something like .01% of the times that person happened to be thinking about a butterfly, one flitted past. This is where pattern recognition and confirmation bias step in.
[/quote]
Ah, good ol’ pattern recognition. Highly useful.

You realize, pattern recognition (absent any scientifically verified methodology, such as black/yellow = danger) can indeed be a sign of something real, not imagined. Let me give an example: Ignaz Semmelweis. Poor, deluded Semmelweis. He’s the guy who first discovered Germ Theory.

Back in the 1840’s, when babies were more commonly delivered by hospital doctors instead of midwives, the infant mortality rate rose dramatically. Semmelweis noticed this pattern, and more importantly, noticed the correlation between infant mortality and doctors not washing their hands. He ran experiments and published papers supporting his hypothesis. Unfortunately, his people skills sucked. The doctors didn’t see Semmelweis as a cogent, rational scientist, but as a raving lunatic screaming, “AAAAHHH!!! GERMS!!! INVISIBLE BUGS!!! WASH YOUR HANDS, WASH YOUR HANDS!!” Poor Semmelweis was so distracted by his emotional desire to save human lives (as opposed to the higher goal of fighting ignorance) that he would not relent, and ultimately was committed to a mental institution. (Where he deliberately cut himself with a dirty knife, got infected with sepsis, and died. How ironic.)

Now, here’s where Semmelweis went wrong. He saw the pattern linking germs, poor hygiene, and lethal infection. The doctors, however, did not. (Actually, the doctors were likely angered by a threat to their daily routine – doctors have a God Complex, after all. How DARE some crazy Hungarian tells them what to do!) More importantly, the doctors noticed a different pattern entirely. Semmelweis focused on the 13% of patients who died – doctors focused on the 87% patients who lived. So doctors were thinking: “If germs really exist, wouldn’t they kill everyone? Are these MAGIC germs, who randomly, maliciously kill some people, while letting others live? No way! Semmelweis must be a fucking loon.”

Nowadays, Germ Theory has been demonstrated so conclusively that even the most ignorant lay person (Christian Scientists & schizophrenics aside) accepts germ theory as fact, even if they’ve never peered through a microscope. We also know why germs sometimes don’t kill people. Because…and this is the salient point…Semmelweis failed to recognize the human immune response system. As we now know, the human body is extremely capable of fighting off infection, or even preventing infection in the first place.

My point is…just because someone notices a grand pattern in the overall matrix doesn’t necessarily mean he’s wrong. Additionally, if that grand pattern turns out to be fact, there might be an even grander pattern that you’re blissfully unaware of.

That’s also why science & emotions don’t mix. Scientific Method often fails when human emotion (to say nothing of prejudice, politics, and financial interests) are a direct factor in the experimental process.

Why can’t it be both?

172

[QUOTE=begbert2]
…especially as you were unable to detect an attempt to let you gracefully terminate this line of argument…
[/quote]
If you want to terminate this conversation, that’s easy: Don’t Reply. Why must I be the one to assume responsibility for your emotional need to disconnect?

Coincidentally (or synchronistically?) I’m slogging through that thread right now. You’re right, it’s a tough read. But I fail to see the connection between that thread and this one. Could you elaborate, please?

I meant nothing of the kind. Unlike most psychics, I’m willing to discuss the science of cold reading. Naturally, it’s more than just reading body language (which is why some psychics really do have “the gift” – but even that boils down to pure science, despite our lack of methodology to prove it yet.) Also, you should understand that most neurotypical people are NOT consciously aware of their own body language, or the emotions they project through words. That’s why cold reading is such an effective (and profitable!) substitute for real psychic power!

So you say. But I believe you’re mistaken.

173

[QUOTE=KGS]
If you want to terminate this conversation, that’s easy: Don’t Reply. Why must I be the one to assume responsibility for your emotional need to disconnect?
[/QUOTE]
My emotional need? I challenge your errors for the same reason that people around here engage lekatt; errors left unchallenged gain the appearance of validity by virtue of the lack of challenge. So, instead, they get challenged. That’s how things work around here.

[QUOTE=KGS]
Coincidentally (or synchronistically?) I’m slogging through that thread right now. You’re right, it’s a tough read. But I fail to see the connection between that thread and this one. Could you elaborate, please?
[/QUOTE]
In the OP of that thread Stoid is complaining that they don’t have the ability to choose their beliefs; that beliefs are not a conscious choice. I believe that the topic wanders off into parts unknown within the first page, though me and Revenant Threshold briefly revisited the subject in posts# 290, 299, and 301-304.

The relation that that has to this thread was your assertion that beliefs are a matter of choice, which of course was part of that “KGS cannot admit error” subthread that you poisoned a post or two ago with your “best defense is a good offense” personal insults.

[QUOTE=KGS]
I meant nothing of the kind. Unlike most psychics, I’m willing to discuss the science of cold reading. Naturally, it’s more than just reading body language (which is why some psychics really do have “the gift” – but even that boils down to pure science, despite our lack of methodology to prove it yet.) Also, you should understand that most neurotypical people are NOT consciously aware of their own body language, or the emotions they project through words. That’s why cold reading is such an effective (and profitable!) substitute for real psychic power!
[/QUOTE]
Okay, let’s be clear. If a person uses cold reading, then they’re not excersizing any form of psychic power whatsoever in doing so. They might believe they are, if they have deluded themselves, and they might fool you into believing they are (indeed, that’s most of the point of cold reading). But they’re not. Cold reading is a scam, a trick. An effective and profitable lie.

I would expect a genuine psychic to disclaim the frauds, since their prevalence strongly undermines any reason to believe that anyone claiming psychic powers isn’t lying.

So I have to ask, why are you lumping the frauds in with the supposed genuine psychics in your discussion of them? I do so because I think that in this context “genuine” means “has fooled KGS”, and thus all psychics have the same amount of actual power (none). Why to you lump the baby in with the bathwater?

[QUOTE=KGS]
So you say. But I believe you’re mistaken.
[/QUOTE]
I believe I’m not. As you say, “most neurotypical people are NOT consciously aware of their own body language, or the emotions they project through words.” Why should that stop happening just because I think the so-called psychic is full of crap?

174

KGS, regarding Semmelweis…
Actually, I thought I made it clear that pattern recognition is frequently useful and that “hits” were more common than false positives. The anecdote regarding Semmelweis and Germ Theory is certainly interesting, but it’s somewhat missing the point. True, Semmelweis noticed a pattern and, true, mainstream thought took a while to come around to the idea… but they eventually came around. The difference here is that Semmelweis observed something that was actually happening (women dying of puerperal fever), noticed a variable (hand washing vs. not hand washing), and came up with an experimental procedure to test his theory. Eureka! Hand washing had a noticeable effect on mortality rates. He was doing science. An observation led to a hypothesis, which led to an experiment, which yielded repeatable results to support the hypothesis.

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.

It’s like if Einstein had said, “Oh, I dunno… matter and energy could be related, maybe.” and then gone off to do something else. He would have been right, but until someone did the math, who cares? Some pretty bright people saw patterns that led them to think the luminferous ether was a pretty good idea… until it wasn’t.

[QUOTE=KGS]
That’s also why science & emotions don’t mix. Scientific Method often fails when human emotion (to say nothing of prejudice, politics, and financial interests) are a direct factor in the experimental process.
[/quote]
And yet, science always gets it right in the end. Of course, science only gets rolling along after someone goes to the trouble to start doing the work. Why don’t you get the ball rolling on synchronicity? Propose an experiment that will help me differentiate between mere coincidence and meaningful coincidence. Help me figure out how to determine which car accidents are caused by ghosts and which aren’t.

[QUOTE=KSG]
Why can’t it be both?
[/quote]
Am I misunderstanding you, or are you asking me why something can’t be meaningful and meaningless at the same time?

175

[QUOTE=recessiveMeme]
KGS, regarding Semmelweis…
Actually, I thought I made it clear that pattern recognition is frequently useful and that “hits” were more common than false positives.
[/quote]
Yes, I did misread your intention. Sorry 'bout that.

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.

String Theory kinda fizzled out, too.

Perhaps I will someday. 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!”

Coincidence has meaning, whether you ascribe meaning to it or not. If you notice a coincidence, the very act of observation gives it meaning. It doesn’t have to be anything significant or earth-shattering – if you’re browsing through your address book and notice the number “15” five times in a row, you would probably think, “Oh, that’s interesting.” And that’s it. It doesn’t have to be any more meaningful than that. The only meaningless coincidences are the ones that nobody notices.

176

[QUOTE=begbert2]
My emotional need? I challenge your errors for the same reason that people around here engage lekatt; errors left unchallenged gain the appearance of validity by virtue of the lack of challenge.
[/quote]
If your only motivation is to challenge my so-called “errors”, why are you getting so testy about it?

Umm…huh? Did you make a typo? Because I never replied to that thread. I haven’t opened any “subthreads” about this topic. And for certain, I have never taken the position that I’m infallible – sheesh, look at my reply to Blake in post #168. I acknowledge my mistakes all the time. If you’ve truly reached the conclusion that “KGS cannot admit error”, then you must be delusional. Unless you can cite specific examples where I was wrong, but refused to admit it???

I’m sorry you feel that way. There’s nothing inherently evil about cold reading. Only when you apply the science for personal gain at the expense of other people does it become iniquitous.

177

[QUOTE=KGS]
If your only motivation is to challenge my so-called “errors”, why are you getting so testy about it?
[/QUOTE]
It might have something to do with your increasingly common personal insults against me, such as the one in the following quoted text:

[QUOTE=KGS]
Umm…huh? Did you make a typo? Because I never replied to that thread. I haven’t opened any “subthreads” about this topic. And for certain, I have never taken the position that I’m infallible – sheesh, look at my reply to Blake in post #168. I acknowledge my mistakes all the time. If you’ve truly reached the conclusion that “KGS cannot admit error”, then you must be delusional. Unless you can cite specific examples where I was wrong, but refused to admit it???
[/QUOTE]
Subthread of conversation, within this forum thread. You know, the one about how you claimed never to have been taken advantage of “a priest, con man, or any other predatory person who took advantage of my belief in the paranormal.”, then persisted in trying to redefine ‘brainwashing’ as not having been taken advantage of, to avoid admitting that it had not occurred to you that the christian period of your history would qualify as such in answer to that question. That subthread.

And it’s quite nice of you to accuse me of being delusional. Were I to engage you in “debate” at the same level that you seem to be gravitating towards, I would firstly state that I think you are quite literally delusional, in that you imagine yourself to see spirits that do not in fact exist and you believe that these imaginings are real; and, having said that, I would carry on to verbally equate various portions of your physical body to fecal matter, and to describe your maternal parent as being overweight (with various consequences). (The additional commentary would be required since the first comment is not sufficiently irrelvent to the topic to equate to the insults you have been flinging at me.)

[QUOTE=KGS]
I’m sorry you feel that way. There’s nothing inherently evil about cold reading. Only when you apply the science for personal gain at the expense of other people does it become iniquitous.
[/QUOTE]
Firstly, cold reading is not a science, any more than driving a car is a science. It’s a (non-magical) skill, or the act of carrying out that skill, that can be readily explained without resorting to fantasy. Secondly, as the entire and sole function of cold reading is to probe for and extract quantities of specific information from your subject without them deliberately giving it to you and while fooling them into thinking that they’re not giving it to you, I know of no non-duplicitous use for this, other than skeptic’s demonstrations of the fact that no magic is required to do the trick

And I think it’s ‘iniquitious’ to to fool people and spread deception, even if you refrain from charging them for the priviledge. You don’t have to gain from an act for it to be wrong.

178

[QUOTE=begbert2]
Were I to engage you in “debate” at the same level that you seem to be gravitating towards, I would firstly state that I think you are quite literally delusional, in that you imagine yourself to see spirits that do not in fact exist and you believe that these imaginings are real;
[/quote]
How do you define delusional? I would agree, that if I were to claim I could defy gravity, manipulate inertia, or prove that 1+1=3, I would be delusional. But I don’t. I sense spirits, yes, and so do a lot of other people, including several of my friends & family. Just because YOU have never sensed a spirit in your life doesn’t mean nobody else does. Think of it as being colorblind.

Naturally, such discussion would be inappropriate for this forum, and I commend you for restraining yourself. If you wish to delve into such conversation, there is another forum for that. You know where to go.

Umm…yes it is. That’s why it works. Watch John Edwards sometime, you’ll see cold reading in action. Or Sylvia Plath. Or Miss Cleo. (But I’d guess you’d consider them “evil” psychics…)

Magic appears as magic only to the unscientific observer. If I were to time travel back 10,000 years (not to suggest that I could) and bring a flashlight and a gun, and demonstrate them both, I would be considered a God. Or at least, nobody would fuck with me. :cool:

Mr. Egbert, you’re missing the point entirely. People seek out psychics because they want to be entertained. That’s all it is – entertainment. And that’s why it’s so important to keep an open mind, because all good psychics WANT to entertain you. If you’re closed-off, skeptical, or (worst of all) confrontational, they’ll just say some random bullshit that could apply to anybody. It won’t enhance your subjective experience of reality.

Some people get addicted to psychics, yes. But people get addicted to all sorts of things. It’s not our fault.

Yes, most psychics will only tell you what you want to hear. That’s what their customers want.

Yes, professional psychics charge money. But, don’t you also? It’s a job, after all; everyone needs to work to survive. Would you flip burgers for free?

“We suspend our disbeliefs, and we are entertained” – Rush

179

[QUOTE=KGS]
How do you define delusional? I would agree, that if I were to claim I could defy gravity, manipulate inertia, or prove that 1+1=3, I would be delusional. But I don’t. I sense spirits, yes, and so do a lot of other people, including several of my friends & family. Just because YOU have never sensed a spirit in your life doesn’t mean nobody else does. Think of it as being colorblind.
[/QUOTE]
I think you’re seeing colors that aren’t there, which makes seein’ ‘em not much better than those other claims in my eyes. And, if I actually cared that much if you were delusional or not, I would point out that it’s not my job to prove that you’re not imagining the ghosts or whatever. If you’re deluded, that’s your problem. If you for some reason want me to think you’re not deluded, it’d be your job to convince me otherwise. (Though, if ghosts actually existed, I’d have expected somebody to definitively proven their objective extence long before now. Just sayin’.)

I’m not impressed by the argument from popularity, either. I know lots of people who don’t see ghosts, including several of my friends and family. Maybe we should take a poll and decide reality by popular demand? (Mind you, in a properly random poll, I think I’d still win.)

[QUOTE=KGS]
Naturally, such discussion would be inappropriate for this forum, and I commend you for restraining yourself. If you wish to delve into such conversation, there is another forum for that. You know where to go.
[/QUOTE]
It doesn’t require much restraint to refrain from levying insults of the sort you have been; all personal propriety aside, I recognize how much it would weaken my position to go around insulting my co-debaters intelligence and such.

[QUOTE=KGS]
Umm…yes it is. That’s why it works. Watch John Edwards sometime, you’ll see cold reading in action. Or Sylvia Plath. Or Miss Cleo. (But I’d guess you’d consider them “evil” psychics…)
[/QUOTE]
It takes more than being a fraud to reach the ‘evil’ mark on my personal meter. And there’s a distinct difference between being a science and being merely real - a science is a study of something.

That said, we are (again) debating the meaning of a word, and I don’t intend to debate this minor issue further. Suffice to say I have pointed out your misuse of the word, helpfully provided a correction, and if you choose not to use this as an opportunity to correct your misunderstanding: whichever. No amount of debate is going to convince me that your use of the word is correct, so there’s no point in you rebutting. (No, your being a writer gives you no inherent authority in this matter, either.)

[QUOTE=KGS]
Magic appears as magic only to the unscientific observer. If I were to time travel back 10,000 years (not to suggest that I could) and bring a flashlight and a gun, and demonstrate them both, I would be considered a God. Or at least, nobody would fuck with me. :cool:
[/QUOTE]
Um, if magic existed, it would appear as magic to everyone, since it actually would be magic. (I’d think the were trying to say “science only appears as magic…”, except then your response here would make no sense. Actually, it doesn’t make sense anyway, unless you were just randomly picking a word of mine to launch a random attack at.)

[QUOTE=KGS]
Mr. Egbert, you’re missing the point entirely. People seek out psychics because they want to be entertained. That’s all it is – entertainment. And that’s why it’s so important to keep an open mind, because all good psychics WANT to entertain you. If you’re closed-off, skeptical, or (worst of all) confrontational, they’ll just say some random bullshit that could apply to anybody. It won’t enhance your subjective experience of reality.]
[/QUOTE]
The thing is, with the notable exception of persons wandering up to carnival barkers who only charge a couple of bucks, I think this is just not true. People don’t spend hundreds of dollars consulting a psychic for ‘fun’. They do it because they believe it at some level, and if fulfils a need they percieve they have. The false psychics of course exploit these needs by telling whatever stream of lies they find profits themselves the best.

Honest entertainers admit to being purely for entertainment. “Entertainers” that don’t, the refrain from doing so because if they did, they’d lose business, since their customers are not looking for entertainment.

Seriously, you sound like you’re rationalizing your behavior. You might look into why you feel the need to do that.

[QUOTE=KGS]
Some people get addicted to psychics, yes. But people get addicted to all sorts of things. It’s not our fault.
[/QUOTE]
You sound like a cigarette salesman.

[QUOTE=KGS]
Yes, most psychics will only tell you what you want to hear. That’s what their customers want.
[/QUOTE]
You sound like a crooked used car salesman, except I believe that they are legally accountable for their lies.

[QUOTE=KGS]
Yes, professional psychics charge money. But, don’t you also? It’s a job, after all; everyone needs to work to survive. Would you flip burgers for free?
[/QUOTE]
No, but I also wouldn’t steal TVs for cash, which is equally well defended by this justification of yours. Flipping burgers is honest work at least.

[QUOTE=KGS]
“We suspend our disbeliefs, and we are entertained” – Rush
[/QUOTE]
Oh, yes, Rush: the authoritative source and last word on the matter. Everyone who is defrauded by a false psychic is part of a religion clearly must be just doing it for laughs, then.

180

[QUOTE=begbert2]
Maybe we should take a poll and decide reality by popular demand? (Mind you, in a properly random poll, I think I’d still win.)
[/quote]
What? You’d apply a democratic process to SCIENCE??!? What, are you Republican or something? :wink:

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.)

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.)

Rush is a great band, but they’re not the final, authoritative word on everything.
You’re thinking of The Simpsons. :cool: