You might think that by giving one or two explanations of how it is sometimes done by magicians would demonstrate that magicians have tricks that make the effects look real, so therefore one should scrutinize people who claim to have these powers. Instead, what it seems to do is challenge people to say, “But the one I saw couldn’t have been done that way! Explain that!”. :rolleyes:
Thank the endless nothingness of space for Derren Brown, the atheist’s messiah. What’s best about him, is that while proclaiming it’s all fake, he does the “psychic” stuff 10 times better than any “real” psychic!
He’s fortunately not well known in the USA (I can trust you here tho, right?), which has enabled him to do things like a faith-healing tour, and a few other good scams, which are popular over there. He’s reproduced classic Victorian psychic stuff arguably much better than the original acts would have.
Ian Rowland (who posts here and has written Staff Report) also out-does self-proclaimed psychics, and has written a book on “The Full Facts of Cold Reading” available from his website.
Yeah, because if scientists are studying something, it’s because they totally believe it’s real and want to learn how it works. They’re not really the type to try to disprove anything…sigh.
To science, obvious trickery is a waste of time and money. “It’s just a trick” is an immediate “we don’t need to study that, we’re not going to learn something new and impressive about physics, we’re just going to learn that a guy can bend a spoon with his hands”.
Now there have been some scientific studies, if you start looking at the psychology and how trickery works. But that’s different than physics or chemistry. Different people studying different things in different ways.
Studying how someone could convince you he’s using his mind to do things is quite different than studying how someone could use his mind to do things.
And to make it clear, Ian Rowland = Ianzin from post #6
I am not a magician, but armed only with Cecil’s article, I have bent spoons in front of friends a handful of times with 100% success. It’s interesting though that there are a bazillion ways to achieve this illusion. (Cold reading is harder, but still easier than I thought it would be, at least the sole time I attempted it with a pack of Tarot cards, with no training or even knowledge of the term.)
Anyway, this my method of debunking Geller: “Oh, I can bend spoons.”
I well remember the initial blaze of publicity for Geller in the UK, much of it provided by the BBC, which seemed to have become staffed suddenly by gullible, open-mouthed yokels. Geller used every cheap parlour-trick in the book, including the hoary old chestnut of using the awesome powers of his mind to stop viewers’ watches. Needless to say thousands upon thousands of dolts called in to say that their watches had indeed stopped at that exact moment. The BBC of course made no attempt to explain how totally unremarkable this was.
I think a lot of cold reading may be the Forer effect, coupled with the ability to fob off identical answers to multiple people (brilliantly poked fun of in “A Handful of Dust” by Evelyn Waugh btw). Course, I’d have to cede authority to the expert on the matter, so by all means buy ianzin’s book.
To quote a friend: We were watching Uri Geller on TV and suddenly we started a bender.
No, it’s more that scientists (with the exception of psychologists and sociologists) aren’t used to lying and deceit. When you measure plants or animals, they don’t try to trick you*. God doesn’t play dice. Nature doesn’t change the laws of physics when you look in the other direction.
And if you aren’t a magician yourself, it can be damn hard to figure out how a trick is done. So it’s easier to say “something psi must have occurred” than “a trick must have been done, but I don’t know how”.
Remember also that in the 1970s, psychological research about the subconscious effects of the scientists was less researched than today - we now know about how to guard about forcing the results we want to (though we still don’t succeed, because grants and publishing introduce new pressures). When the CIA funds your remote viewing project because they know that it works since the Soviets are doing it with success, it’s going to be hard to step up and say “it’s not really working, the Soviets must be lying” instead of saying “Indeterminate, needs more research”.
*once you’ve accounted for the Kluger Hans effect in animals in your design set up