# That Fox Psychic show **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [May 12, 2000, 12:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/that-fox-psychic-show/19280 "2000-05-12T00:46:45Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 9\ **Page:** 7
**Author:** ![xenophon41](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xenophon41/32/253_2.png) [@xenophon41](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/xenophon41)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2000, 1:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/that-fox-psychic-show/19280/121 "2000-05-24T01:40:01Z")
> [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > _You’ve got that backwards, Winged Wolf. The “Catch 22” scenario you describe is baloney. The scientists in here are trying to get you to understand that any theory offered up to explain a set of phenomena is absolute nonsense unless and until you can measure or otherwise establish the veracity of reports regarding said phenomena._ > > _Hypothesis. Not theory. And if you can establish facts which seem to show the hypothesis correct, it becomes a theory. Once a theory, it remains so unless you can prove it to be false. That is why Creationism is still considered a theory. Unless you wish to accuse the establishment of saying something just to please the masses…but of course, they would NEVER do that…\_ Well, it looks like some of the science explanations you’re being given here are starting to stick. You did very well with that, except you should add that the hypothesis must be shown to apply equally well to known related phenomena to be considered a theory. (Please don’t pretend from here on out that you don’t understand what a scientific theory is.) And if you’re saying to me “No **xeno** , I wasn’t espousing a baseless _theory_, I was espousing baseless _hypotheses_,” then I’m with ya. Your point about “the establishment” eludes me. > [@](#): > > _But wouldn’t you sure like to know why so many people keep seeing pink unicorns? Until you can explain that, you have to accept that one POSSIBILITY is that they are actually there. If you deny that possibility, you’re not thinking scientifically._ Can you possibly be so thick that you still think, despite so many of us telling you differently, that any skeptic would deny the _possibility_ of “psi”? Science doesn’t work like that. Let’s go over a real life pink unicorn situation, alright? Here’s the story of Hypnagogic Sleep Paralysis — for centuries, people all over the world have reported very similar stories of waking up from deep sleep, unable to move, with an evil dwarflike creature sitting on their chest, trying to suffocate them. Sometimes the creature was merely in the room with them, sometimes it was described as a djinn, a ghost, or simply a presence, but there was always the paralysis and the impression of a menacing presence. Now, this is the sort of thing scientists _love_ to investigate. And because the scientific method was used, they began by experimentation and observation and built hypotheses to explain their observations. They eventually came to understand some of the mechanisms behind these common experiences. At no time did they simply assume that these evil dwarves actually existed, although they kept that possibility open. But no scientist would’ve come up with an _interdimensional gateway_ or _supernatural visitation_ hypothesis until they had an actual E.D. on film or in a cage. > [@](#): > > _You have something against hypotheses, don’t you? \_ No, I have something against hypothesizing from ignorance. > [@](#): > > _None of you have any idea who I actually am. I am incapable of OBJECTIVELY proving psi at this point in time. To subjectively introduce you to it is no problem…nor is it threatening. I suppose you might freak out and start vocally demaning public action, but you would be ignored. I can be vocal in this forum, and I can teach psionics, because to do so offers no threat to me at this time, in this “place”. And I am also more than a bit reckless…I do things which I know might put me into a position of danger, in spite of my bit of paranoia over it._ [heavy sarcasm]Right. You can “teach” it, but you can’t offer any objective evidence for it.[/heavy sarcasm] That doesn’t work, either, **W\_W**. If you can teach it, it can be demonstrated. If it can’t be demonstrated, you haven’t taught anything. > [@](#): > > _There are two ways to avoid certain types of persecution–one way is to hide. The other is to become so well-known that it’s dangerous for anyone who doesn’t want to become equally well-known to touch you. That doesn’t work against the mass of the public in general, but they won’t pose a problem until psi is objectively proven and accepted._ ROTFLMAO Sorry, but really, **W\_W** that’s just too friggin’ funny! But, er, ahem \ sure, go ahead and spread your fame. Remember, you’re not paranoid if they really are out to get you. > [@](#): > > _What would be my motivation? I have better things to do with my time. > As for your certainty about my fooling myself–I find that a curious statement indeed, coming from a person who has yet to try any of the things I’ve offered to teach…and who has no evidence at all one way or the other. Tsk, tsk…certainty, when there is no evidence to support it? Sounds quite a bit like Faith to me…_ OK, read this carefully, because I’m tired of having to simplify things for you:[list=1][_]I don’t speculate about motivation, only about trustworthiness —remember, I’m not a professional skeptic, just a recalcitrant bastard[_]I didn’t say I was certain you were fooling yourself. I said you were either trying to fool others _ **or** _ you were fooling yourself.[_]What leads you to believe I haven’t tried any psychic experiments myself? I’ve participated in or read of many demonstrations, by “professional psychics,” amateur magicians and well meaning lay “investigators” but I’ve yet to see anything that didn’t have a plausible and prosaic explanation.[_]And yes, I have Faith. I have faith in my ability for rational thought. I have faith that the universe I sense contains rational answers for the phenomena within it. I believe that the scientific method is the best way to seek those answers. And I believe if someone tries to sell me a pink unicorn they have no intention of showing me, either they’re not being straight with me or they’re delusional.[/list=1] ---
**Author:** ![David\_B](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/51bf81/32.png) [@David\_B](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David_B)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2000, 2:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/that-fox-psychic-show/19280/122 "2000-05-24T02:22:11Z")
W\_W said: > [@](#): > > And if you can establish facts which seem to show the hypothesis correct, it becomes a theory. Once a theory, it remains so unless you can prove it to be false. That is why Creationism is still considered a theory. You were fine 'til that last sentence. Creationism is _not_ a theory. It doesn’t have the “facts which seem to show the hypothesis correct” so it never made it to that stage. Unless, of course, you know of these “facts” – I’ve asked every creationist who comes through here to post 'em and we’ve never seen anything of worth. So, if you’d like to do that job, please feel free to start a thread on the subject! ---
**Author:** ![xenophon41](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xenophon41/32/253_2.png) [@xenophon41](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/xenophon41)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2000, 2:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/that-fox-psychic-show/19280/123 "2000-05-24T02:42:10Z")
Meant to provide a link to a sleep paralysis page: [http://watarts.uwaterloo.ca/~acheyne/S\_P.html](http://watarts.uwaterloo.ca/~acheyne/S_P.html) ---
**Author:** ![JonF](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/cab0a1/32.png) [@JonF](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JonF)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2000, 10:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/that-fox-psychic-show/19280/124 "2000-05-24T10:47:17Z")
> [@](#): > > If you can teach it, it can be demonstrated. If it can’t be demonstrated, you haven’t taught anything. I don’t agree with you there. I can conceive of her being able to “teach” by convincing people to believe that they experience some vague, undemonstrable feelings. ---
**Author:** ![xenophon41](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xenophon41/32/253_2.png) [@xenophon41](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/xenophon41)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2000, 1:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/that-fox-psychic-show/19280/125 "2000-05-24T13:32:15Z")
> [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > _If you can teach it, it can be demonstrated. If it can’t be demonstrated, you haven’t taught anything._ > > \*I don’t agree with you there. I can conceive of her being able to “teach” by convincing people to believe that they experience some vague, undemonstrable feelings. > > * * * > > jrf\* But **JonF** , in that case, what has she taught? Walking someone through exercises that produce vague feelings or altered perception is called either stage magic or “therapy” depending on who’s conducting the exercise, and why. In any case, what **W\_W** claims to teach is “psionics”, which, by context must mean either _extra-sensory perception_ of some kind or the ability to _remotely influence things or conditions_ using the power of the mind (_please jump in and correct me if that’s inaccurate, **W\_W** , wouldn’t want to assume anything_). > [@](#): > > _I teach psionics. Personal experience is my proof–and personal experience is my students’ proof, along with validation by other psis._ If **W\_W** walks her “students” through scenario’s that produce feelings or perceptions, but which do not result in any student learning to reproduce an effect or gain remote knowledge which can be reasonably verified, then NO, she hasn’t taught anything. She’s at best demonstrated a few mind games. If I teach mathematics, my students should be able to demonstrate this by graphing a curve; if I teach pottery, my students should be able to produce an ashtray for me; if I’m a flight instructor, my students should be able to land a plane. Why should we change the expectations just because we’re talking about “psionics”? ---
**Author:** ![JonF](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/cab0a1/32.png) [@JonF](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JonF)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2000, 4:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/that-fox-psychic-show/19280/126 "2000-05-24T16:13:18Z")
> [@](#): > > But JonF, in that case, what has she taught? In that hypothetical case, she may have taught her students to _believe_ that they are producing or experiencing an effect or effects which she has taught them to _believe_ are produced by use of psychic powers. Even if psychic powers do not exist, I can conceive of teaching someone that. I don’t think that particular teaching is particularly useful {grin}, but I submit that it’s teaching. ---
**Author:** ![xenophon41](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xenophon41/32/253_2.png) [@xenophon41](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/xenophon41)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2000, 5:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/that-fox-psychic-show/19280/127 "2000-05-24T17:22:58Z")
> [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > _If you can teach it, it can be demonstrated. If it can’t be demonstrated, you haven’t taught anything._ > > _In that hypothetical case, she may have taught her students to believe that they are producing or experiencing an effect or effects which she has taught them to believe are produced by use of psychic powers. Even if psychic powers do not exist, I can conceive of teaching someone that. I don’t think that particular teaching is particularly useful {grin}, but I submit that it’s teaching._ **JonF** I’ll agree that _something_ was taught, and that my original statement, _on that specific point_, was in error. Would this be a better statement for you? **If you can teach it, it can be demonstrated. If it can’t be demonstrated, _you can’t teach it_.** I submit that if no objective evidence can be found for either an _effect caused_ or _specific knowledge gained_ purely by use of “psychic” abilities, then they haven’t been demonstrated. ---
**Author:** ![JonF](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/cab0a1/32.png) [@JonF](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JonF)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2000, 5:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/that-fox-psychic-show/19280/128 "2000-05-24T17:55:21Z")
I think that she may be able to teach something that can’t be demonstrated, that she can’t prove the existence of to a third party, and a third party would not be able to verify that _what she thinks she taught_ and _what the student thinks he/she learned_ have any connection. It’s a minor nit. ---
**Author:** ![xenophon41](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xenophon41/32/253_2.png) [@xenophon41](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/xenophon41)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2000, 6:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/that-fox-psychic-show/19280/129 "2000-05-24T18:03:58Z")
> [@](#): > > _It’s a minor nit._ But it was a whole lot more fun to argue than anything else has been on this topic! [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/that-fox-psychic-show/19280.md?page=6)