I have 3 stories about lost objects, I will do one at a time starting from the most recent. I was leaving for work with a cup of coffee in my hand and my keys. For some reason I had seperated my work keys from my car keys. I set the coffee and keys down so I could lock the gate when leaving. Upon arriving at work I realized my tool box keys were gone and knew exactly where I had set them down. I speeded back home ( a little over an hour had passed) and the keys were gone. 2 days later I came home from work and the keys were on the ground right about where I had set them. I left a note on the gate that I wanted to give $10.00 to the guy who returned my keys. Next day shortly after returning home the guy shows up for his reward. I asked him why he decided to bring the keys back and he said it was bothering him a lot that I might be looking for them. Very reasonable answer from most people except this guy was a hardcore crackhead and known neighborhood thief. He had thrown them in some bushes and had to spend some time finding them. I chalked it up to good fortune but in the back of my head I almost feel like he was getting a signal of some kind.
Not only that but I’ve just found the testing protocol on line here. It was known to the “psychics” that the test subjects were female and 18-30 years of age. In that light, the reading quoted is a sad joke. It’s an obvious mix of things that a huge percentage of young college women would feel, mixed with a scattering of “long shot” guesses. The more so when you know the college in question is one known for arts and social sciences.
What percentage of young women at such a college in London would not fit or think she fits all or most of the following:
- Affectionate, touchy-feely sort of person.
- Can’t sleep well at night, all sorts of thoughts running through my head.
- Wants children. Not yet, too young.
- Singing and dancing.
- Would like to develop performance skills.
- Collecting old photos of places I’ve been to.
- Learn to get along together better would be a good start.
- Can’t get him out of my head. I wish we could be together.
- Optimistic and open-minded.
- Want to get university degree.
- Living in London enjoyed very much.
- Have many friends here in London.
- Want to go home soon to see family.
Many others while not quite as certain, are pretty high chance winners for the known demographic and are in loose enough language you could very often make them fit somehow:
- Individual likes and dislikes – laws and government, not good.
- I can get into paints and crayons.
- I enjoy winter months.
- Wants to go to South America.
- Like things with salt not sugar.
- Sometimes pain in leg.
- Badminton, tennis.
Then there are a few longish shots:
- Help in canteen sometimes.
- Brother in Holland at home.
- Birthday November.
- Dutch ancestry?
- Glasgow is an important place.
“Pat” has gone with a Dutch semi-long shot but bearing mind that Holland is just over the channel and the relevant college has a very high percentage of international students, maybe not such a long shot at all. Note careful wording such as “Birthday November” which would fit with anyone at all who is important in the sitter’s life having a birthday in November.
You’re not even trying, here are you? Seriously? I hope this isn’t your best shot. Because, damn that’s pathetic.
That was my weakest, of the three but most recent. waiting for the tricker treaters to finish up then I will post the other two. If you knew this guy it would make more sense.
By this logic, quarks didn’t exist prior to the 1960s.
I respect all your skepticism, but my life experience tells me different. I don’t expect to convince anyone, so I won’t be wasting a lot of keystrokes or time regaling you with story after story after story — this will be my only post about it — but I have experienced things that go beyond the oft-reported “I was just thinking about you and the phone rang and there you are — what a coincidence!” type things. For instance …
There having been no prior history of a space shuttle ever exploding on liftoff, it would be a little bit beyond mere coincidence to have “seen” the Challenger lift off, explode in mid-air, GASP! in horror, only to notice that it was still sitting on the platform. … And then a few minutes later when it lifted off, watch it explode in mid-air … again.
A friend invited me over to show me her favorite video game, “Kings Quest V.” This was way back in the '80s when you still had to install games from half a dozen “floppy” disks, which she had to do because she didn’t have it installed on her home computer. It booted up then gave us a screen that read:
To ensure that you are a licensed user of this product, please refer to your user’s manual and enter the last word of the second paragraph on page 32.
Problem was, although it was a legitimate copy and not bootlegged, she had no idea where the manual even was anymore. She turned it off then got up and left the room. That’s when an image of a “Curious George” type monkey popped into my head and It. Just. Would. Not. Leave.
For some reason I thought she had gone to look for the manual (which in retrospect makes no sense because she had turned the game off), so I started it back up again, but this time I got a different question. I proceeded to turn it off and start it up again, trying to cycle back through to that same question about the last word of the 2nd paragraph on page 32. At some point my friend came back in and asked what on earth I was doing and when I told her, she was a bit exasperated because the odds of “guessing” some random word like that, from the manual of a game I’d never even heard of before, let alone seen or played, were about a googolplex to one. But I persisted, and when that question came back, I typed in the word “monkey” and the game opened and took us to the start screen.
And my friend backed her chair away from me with her face as white as a ghost; actually, almost as if she’d seen one. As far as she knew, for as many times as she’d played that game she’d never once seen a monkey anywhere in it.
What I cannot do, and which no one can, is touch someone’s hand or look at a deck of cards or stare into a crystal ball and make predictions. That’s just absurd on its face.
But sometimes I just see things.
<shrug>
So what are you saying, that we should believe in everything in case someday we find evidence it exists? Do you really want to go through with that argument? You might want to google “Russell’s teapot” for a start.
Personally I prefer to believe in things when we have the evidence and not before. I have no difficulty at all with the fact that I don’t yet believe in things for which evidence may later be found.
Believing is something and being open to something are not the same. I consider myself open to this but not convinced it exists.
No. I’m commenting on the logic of “it hasn’t been scientifically proven, therefor it doesn’t exist.” That would say that quarks didn’t exist prior to the 1960s (or 1970s)
And that is your right. Just as other people can draw their own conclusions based on their own experiences that may not fall into the narrow realm of “scientific proof” because to achieve scientific proof requires someone with enough interest in the topic to fund the study. And few ‘scientific studies’ are independently funded (think of outcome bias).
Even the study being discussed here is of TWO “psychics” who make a living from their assertion reading five people each. Can you explain why this is anything more than a pop-science experiment meant to grab headlines?
Honeybadger, I hate to destroy your faith in destitute crackheads, but the man who showed up to collect the reward didn’t find your keys. He just saw your sign and figured out a way to make a few bucks. More than likely, your keys were there the whole time.
Or not. Maybe he just found your keys, realized he couldn’t use your work keys to break into your house (or was a decent enough person to not break into your house anyway), and returned them. Your story doesn’t even qualify as an interesting coincidence, much less suggest a psychic connection.
**Enkel **you are strawmanning something chronic and that says a lot about your position. You’re putting stuff in quotes that no one has said. It’s beyond silly to suggest that things actually don’t exist till you have evidence of them, and no one has said that. Your whole quark thing is a strawman.
Contrastingly, I can’t see much reason to believe things exist for which there is no evidence.
And suggesting that psychics may be real but that the studies to prove it just lack sufficient interest to obtain funding is laughable. There have been dozens upon dozens of studies of alleged psychics. They always fall on their face. Most of the high profile “psychics” are smart enough to know never to even agree to be tested because they are frauds. The necessary tests are cheap and are regularly carried out by volunteers. Funding isn’t the problem. Being able to pass even basic tests is the problem.
Throwing around vague and glib put-downs such as that this experiment was “a pop-science experiment meant to grab headlines” is meaningless unless you can actually say what was wrong with the experiment conducted. I’ve debated people like you up hill and down dale. It’s always the same. You can throw around insults and put downs and vague hints of bias all you like. But I bet you can’t actually come up with any solid criticism at all of what was defective about the methodology of this experiment.
And before you drag out the old chestnuts, consider that even the psychics themselves thought it was all good, till they failed.
My comment was about the requirement for scientific proof of existence. If you mean anecdotal proof of existence, then I agree with you.
Most studies that I’ve seen are relying on claims by people who make a living as psychics. So, if you state that people who charge for psychic services are predominantly (nearly 99.99%) frauds. Then I would agree with that.
Only two test subjects.
No control subjects.
No repetition of the testing approach.
This appears to be an annual Halloween thing that this school department does.
Looking at their web page, I haven’t found any peer reviewed studies from them, despite the fact that they were established over a decade ago.
It isn’t an insult to question bias in any experiment. That is a part of scientific review. I will retract my ‘vague hint of bias’ if you can produce a link to a peer reviewed study by this group.
Actually, if you read the link, neither had a problem with the test even after they failed. The link above includes their entire response.
No, no. He FELT SOMETHING IN THE BACK OF HIS HEAD. Which is likelier: a crackhead returned keys because he wanted ten bucks, or a dude used his telepathic powers to communicate with a crackhead? Occam’s razor, man!
The ten bucks was after the keys were allready returned and he did have to identify them. They were work keys. I have never seen any psychic exhibition I believed was anything but phony, but lots of little stories I hear relayed in idol conversation make me wonder if something isn’t happening.
Well, there’s your problem. Don’t trust your own senses, they will lie to you.
It always baffles me why people like youy use that argument. It never convinces anyone.
Do you even believe it yourself?
As a counter example, consider that there have been many psychic tests that were poorly designed, and the psychic succeeded. This down to the poor design of the test, not because of any psychic ability.
One example of this is the astrologer tested by CSICOP when they were newly formed. The astrologer succeeded in the test they set him.
Now the fact is, both the astrologer and CSICOP agreed in advance that it was a fair test of his abilities. Of course, after he won, CSICOP made a lot of excuses.
Do you see the problem here? I put it to you that the consent form proves exactly nothing. If you believe it does, then you must also apply the same lo. gic to the CSICOP test.
I don’t think you really believe it yourself. And when you use an obviously flawed argument that you don’t believe yourself, you fail to convince anyone.
Just to clarify the above post, the astrologer won CSICOP’s test because the test was poorly designed. Not because astrology works.
Both parties saying that it’s a fair test does not prove that it is a fair test.
Enkel your first comment is a non-sequitur.
Your comments about professional psychics don’t seem to relate much to my point that there have been plenty studies done and funding isn’t the problem.
Your criticisms of methodology have no substance.
That there were only two psychics tested doesn’t mean the methodology was invalid it just means it was a limited study of those two psychics.
You are incorrect that there were no controls: the test is whether a given sitter can pick the reading the psychic gave of them from the four other readings the psychic gave about other people (the controls). And so on through each given sitter. It’s a hella elegant and efficient protocol.
There was no lack of repetition. Each psychic was given five sitters to test. I’m wondering if you actually read the study.
You still haven’t provided any basis for any allegation of bias. Lack of peer review doesn’t indicate bias. It just means something hasn’t been peer reviewed for bias. And peer review is pretty much what we are doing now.
You don’t have a thing. You just have vague accusations and doubts.
Finally, you say “neither had a problem with the test even after they failed”. What, you mean apart from the fact that “Pat” said:
and
Pat confirmed that what was proposed would be a fair test of her abilities. She knew it precluded sitting face to face with and hearing the voice of the sitter, and she knew the setting. Straight after the reading she thought the reading had gone well. After she failed, she said she need to be face to face and hear the sitter’s voice and another setting. But according to you she didn’t have a problem with the test. Well OK then. Whatever you say…
Thank you.
Peter I know the point baffles you. It baffles approximately no one else. I don’t intend to waste any significant amount of time going over it with you again.
Both the testers and the tested are fallible and make mistakes. However, tester mistakes are occasional, and once the mistakes are corrected, no psychic effect ever shows up. Usually the mistake they make is understandable ie they have overlooked something obscure.
Contrastingly, mistakes by the tested seem habitual: it seems utterly commonplace for tested psychics who fail to make some allegation that the test protocol was in some way at fault, and IME the “fault” is something that should have been obvious beforehand (the latest test being a classic example).
I’d be the first to accept that this doesn’t prove that psychic powers are not real. It does however have heavy negative implications concerning whether supposed psychics who agree to be tested are just people who are fooling themselves.