The old story is that - just because you see one white swan it doesn’t prove all swans are white.
What you see (or hear) is not necessarily the truth. That applies equally for “false psychics” (entertainers, magicians, or fraudsters), dyed-in-the-wool sceptics, genuine psychics (few and far between), and the gullible who would believe the swan was purple if they were told it should be purple.
Magicians can perform seemingly amazing so-called “psychic tricks” using various techniques e.g. sleight-of-hand, plants in an audience, mechanical devices, preliminary research, clever “interviewing” and feedback, etc etc. This does not prove that all psychics are frauds.
I have personally had some experiences which I find very convincing (or at least, thought-provoking) - but that is a subjective judgement and would not be convincing to anyone else.
Very few paranormal phenomena can be repeated on demand to be subjected to repetitive objective scientific scrutiny. However, there has been considerable research (at Duke University to name one organisation) which proves that certain phenomena can be genuine. (Note the words “can be”).
If psychics provide people with hope, closure, common-sense advice - and do not “rip them off”, I see no problem. If someone watches a public or televised “demonstration” they should treat it as entertainment - because they are not in the position to check the bona-fides of the people involved - or the methods used.
I operate under the advice - “Keep and open mind - but not so open your brains fall out”.
I think you have a pretty good grasp of reality, how people can be fooled, etc., but two things you said need discussion. One, while some TV shows may be “entertainment” to you & me, that description is not readily obvious to all viewers. Many shows are presented as fact when they are, at most, speculation or “facts” that have been soundly refuted long ago. I feel it shouldn’t be be made up to the viewer to make such determinations and some networks deliberately blur the lines in order to attract an audience and dollars.
Two:
I take issue with “very few”. Substitute “none” – there has never been a repeatable paranormal demonstration. Contrast this to a typical chemical reaction, for example, that is repeated in every high school lab by every student with exactly the same results.
As far as “can be” – weasel words, and so noted. “Proves that certain phenomena can be genuine”? I can prove that anything can be genuine! This is a useless statement.
Duke U. is (in-)famous for its attitude towards the paranormal. Although they may be repeating their experiments, if they cannot produce one that can be replicated by others with positive results, they have not proved “that certain phenomena can be genuine”.
I will concede that they may have suggested that certain phenomena may be genuine, but not proved. Some of the characteristics of pathological science are that further tests do not strengthen the postulate, and results tend to be minimal and slippery at best. AFAIK, Duke isn’t getting better results over time.
I think there is a basic human need in many people to believe that there is something “special” about themselves or other individuals (the Guru syndrome). This often results in truly ridiculous gullibility and encourages money-making frauds. Another undesirable consequence is that serious researchers into the paranormal face being labelled as unscientific dupes because the whole subject has been so prone to ridicule.
Because of my reading and personal experiences, I am not prepared to reject all paranormal events, abilities, or practitioners out of hand. As far as I am concerned, the jury is still out - and each case must be examined individually.
Oz Lady, many of your points are well-taken. I would like to reply individually to them. I hesitate because it seems we are getting a little off the OP of Psychics & Cold-Reading. If FordPrefect or the mods prefer, we can divert to a new thread, but for now, I’ll assume we are broadly covering the topic of the paranormal.
The third link you posted is interesting, an article originally from the London Observer, dated today, entitled “Scientists Come Unglued Over Telepathy Row”. Worth reading. Perhaps you meant for it to show how people object to new ideas, but I read it as a legitimate outrage by reputable scientists over poorly done, if not totally absurd, science.
As far as the skepdic link is concerned, I heartily endorse everything Prof. Robert Carroll writes, his extensive, well-organized site and his new book. Bob & I have corresponded on several occasions and I have suggested some topics that he has subsequently covered.
I happened to have been in the audience once upon a time when Jessica Utts (the ucdavis link) presented her theory which I believe could be summed up as: “Since not everything can be explained, we should keep looking at and for anomolies in scientific research.”
Utts’ speech was followed by a torrid refutation by Ray Hyman, then Psychology Professor at the U. of Oregon at Eugene. (Somewhere in the Internet I think you could find his refutation, but I wasn’t able to dig it up with a simple search.) This Utts/Hyman debate is still ongoing; when these two share the podium, there is often a lot of acrimony in the air.
I believe I can sum up Utts, the PEAR study you alluded to, and others, like recent Ganzfeld tests, by referring you to a site I link to so often that I should make it part of my sig: Characteristics of Quack Science. This site contrasts good science which tends to, among other things [ul][li]develop over time[]add to the store of general knowledge[]improve test methods[]get better, more significant results.[/ul]Contrast this to junk, quack or pathological science, which tends to[ul][]not progress over time[]add nothing to our store of knowledge, produces no useful or verifiable predictions[]tightened controls result in poorer resultsresults are inconsistent, nonexistent or slippery and do not improve.[/ul][/li]Utts says the tiny anomolies indicate a need for more research. Hyman and I say it indicates that better controls are indicated or the anomolies are within normal expectations for an imperfect test. AFAIK, Utts hasn’t brought any better test results to the table in a decade or more. The longer this continues, the stronger Hyman’s argument becomes.
Certainly that seems like a sensible approach. No skeptic wants to be accused of not examining evidence.
While I will admit that there is an very, very small chance that some paranormal ability/power does exist, one has to consider the diminishing returns over at least 200 years. You are correct in asserting that “just because you see one white swan it doesn’t prove all swans are white”, but if all the swans you see are white, millions pass by, years pass by, and in spite of a serious, concerted effort by millions of hopefuls swan-watchers with binoculars and cameras, no one has been able to find a non-white swan, what are the chances you ever will? Not zero, but approaching it as a limit.
Here’s another way to look at it. Gravity seems to work reliably, we can detect it, measure it, predict it, use it. Does it work differently somewhere on earth? Could there be one square millimeter of land, terra firma where gravity thumbs its nose at Newton or Einstein? No one can say for sure, because not every square inch of this planet has been analyzed. But wouldn’t it be a bit perverse to make such a claim and expect to be taken seriously?
At this stage in the game, I would say your desire to treat each paranormal case individually is more based on wishful thinking than solid science.
Welcome to the Straight Dope Message Board, Oz Lady, glad to have you with us.
[Moderator hat on] I’d like to keep this thread restricted to cold readings and how they work, and not allow diversion or digression into the question of whether there are actual, genuine paranormal or psychic activity.
The Staff Report tried to be very careful in not delving into that topic, limiting ourselves to cold readings, with a quick mention of hot readings and TV editing.
If you’d like to discuss the broader questions of evidence of paranormal or psychic activity, please open a thread in Great Debates forum, OK? [/moderator hat off]
Oz Lady, if you still have something to say on the paranormal that we haven’t sufficiently covered here, why don’t you start a new thread in GD, and link us to it. It’ll be good practice!
