And please remember, Hastur, that many “fake” psychics believe that their own powers are real, and are not intentionally putting on a con game. If person A attempts to do an “aura reading” on person B, and gives the usual vague mish-mosh of predictions typical of most telephone psychics, and person B responds with, “Wow, that’s amazing! You got it dead on!”, then person A will have their belief in their own aura-reading powers reinforced. If person A does a reading on person C, and person C also comments that the reading was “dead on,” then person A may become firmly, intractably convinced of the existence of his own aura-reading powers. He will not have noticed that both person B and person C gave him little hints as he went along, nor will he notice that person B and person C both failed to apply even the tiniest degree of skeptical scrutiny and instead jumped onto the “person A just gave me a dead-on reading” bandwagon when there’s the slightest correlation between something person A predicted and something in person B or C’s private lives.
I am sure there are psychics who believe their powers are real. I am not so sure there are psychics whose powers really are real.
The majority of people who have taken the Randi Challenge fall into that catagory, tracer. The con-men know that they have nothing to gain and everything to lose by takeing the challenge, so the people who volunteer are almost always the poor, deluded souls that believe they actually have some special ability. When they agree to terms of a successful test, the testers usually have to try to get them to tone down their claim to make the test more definative. Many times the claiments will say that they can produce a result with 100% accuracy.
So, let me get this straight. You take garlic, something that has been proven to be good for you for the common non-fatal cold, and you think this puts you in the “crackpot” category?
I eat broccoli and cauliflower and carrots to stay healthy, most people do. I imagine people take garlic for the same reason.
I guess if colds were deadly, and garlic was proven to be harmful, and no amount of reasoning with you could prove otherwise, than you would be a crackpot.
Hastur, could you please define “polite” for me, please? I’ve never known it to mean,“accepting at face value even the most fantastic claims.”
Y’know, I’m usually a gentle person not prone to screaming and swearing. But I swear on every ghod from Apollo to Zeus that the next time someone throws out the “fact” that some psychics are real, then gives me the silent “you hurt my feelings so I’m not gonna give you an answer” treatment when ask for one stinking example, I’m going to start the nastiest Pit thread you’ve ever seen.
No. Unlike the magic thread, this time you are not being rude. I am having a hard time keeping up with this thread because of all the time I am spending at the hospital for friends and myself.
Since being diagnosed with multiple sclerosis and diabetes, I have had to be at the hospital 4 out of 5 days. And then I am tired when I get home from the fatigue. I am getting to things as I can.
A genuine psychic. Well, there is a local tarot reader down here. She has 70 percent accuracy from what I have seen. I have also seen one in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, but her name eludes me at the moment.
Polite is being respectful of the opinions and experiences of others. Being polite means slurs are not thrown at people for disagreements, and that people are not called crackpots for believing in things that others do not.
In short, it is treating others with courtesy, and having a debate, rather than an attack session.
Not all skeptics behave badly, but I think on this board they often reduce themselves to nasty vitriol, and then when the opposing side gets pissed off, they often claim it is because there is no support for their beliefs and the attack then becomes more vicious.
What this thread was about for the entire time, from the OP, was on WHY some sceptics became instantly nasty within a discussion about the paranormal, and why they seem so dead set on trying to kill belief for everyone else. To me, it almost seems like a Don Quixcotesque pursuit.
Charlotte. I am not giving out her last name on the boards, because that would violate her privacy.
Are you requesting an audience with her? If you do, I can e-mail you and try to set up a meeting. Though, she is not my biggest fan, and sees me as competition. Thus, I can not promise anything on her behalf.
Now that I think of it, there is another psychic here named Danni. She’s not easy to track down, but I may be able to find her as well.
How does it work? I’ve yet to see any Tarot reading that didn’t require the subject to interpret things. Of course the subject interprets things in such a way as to reflect their own worries, problems, and wishes.
Now… why in a discussion of behaviour of skeptics has it come quite quickly to Czarcasm asking for proof when that is not what the thread is about.
The discussion of politeness and desire on the part of the skeptic to disabuse the believer has been touched on, but has mostly become hijacked by people who wish to discuss faith, belief, and whether these things are real.
Why has it devolved to this, and why will most of the skeptics not stay on topic to discuss the OP?
I would appreciate if Czarcasm, for example, told us why he seems focused on people not believing.
From jab1, I’d like to know why his mode of skepticism often leads him to being hostile, calling people names, and making fun of those who do believe.
These are examples of what I have been talking about, and I am truly curious to the answers.
If you are asking how tarot reading works, I can only say that it is an individual process from my experience.
For me, it is not reading the meanings of the cards from a book, card by card. It is an intuitive thing, a feeling I get as each card is turned over. I don’t do traditional spreads. I draw three cards. I may have to reshuffle the deck and draw again through a long reading, but three cards are often enough for me to answer a regular question.
Beware anyone who has a book next to them and reads out of it to you. The books are very inaccurate, IMHO.
Cards have a general meaning, but with the complex symbology of the cards, and the multiple types of decks involved, it is really an individual thing.
Find me a single thread that stays completely on-topic after more than a page, and I will give you a million dollars.
I do not like to say it “devolved”. Rather, it “evolved”. It developed into something more than you originally intended. If you would like to excercise total and utter control of a thread, start your own message board.
Well, I am happy to see that I have no totally hijacked Hastur’s thread, but I will try to respond to some of the points addressed to me…
Agreed. If the person wants to tell you all about their belief in lilac tea, then of course you ought to discuss it with them, and give your opinion about it. But if the person is happily drinking lilac tea, and seem happy, and aren’t harming anyone, I see no need to feel “obligated to dissuade” them. I mean, mention something to them, sure. But to keep working on them, over and over? It’s annoying. I think that’s been one of my main points. And the reason I bring it up is that some people do feel “obligated” to argue with the lilac-drinker, which I think could be called (yes, I have to say it) obnoxious.
Agreed, agreed, agreed. I think I’ve agreed to this from the git-go. Hence my mention of the “life and death” exception.
And that’s fine, when the person they wish to confront is interested in talking about it.
It’s not wrong, and I don’t blame someone for trying, and I’d try myself, up to a point. But I think some people cannot grasp that some people WILL choose the “irrational”, even when they are given ample information of the “rational” option. And I get the impression (from jab in particular) that this does not compute. He seems incredulous that someone would choose the “irrational”, therefore it appears to me that jab concludes that they must not have really understood their options. And so he thinks he must keep trying and trying and trying… And I believe that there are cases that they do understand. And they still choose the “crackpot” alternative. And that’s their choice.
It’s not that it is so terrible or dangerous for a person to be pestered by a insistent and obnoxious skeptic, it’s just that it is OBNOXIOUS. And it also shows (IMO) a supreme arrogance in the persistent skeptic (and I certainly don’t believe all skeptics are obnoxious, or persistent).
Yes, I do. Some of it comes from being inflicted, time and again, by people who want to “save” me from my vegetarianism. And trust me (pldennison can back me up on this one) people DO want to do this. Over and over. I’m tired of it. Simple as that. No, I am not saying that I feel “threatened” by these pests, they aren’t making me waver in my vegetarianism. I don’t feel they are “dangerous”, just arrogant, and irritating. They are a PAIN IN THE ASS. And that’s it in a nutshell for me.
Everyone gets to decide for themself what they deem to be obnoxious. I think most people consider telemarketers obnoxious. I think that many people think preachers or missionaries who are way too aggressive in trying to “convert” unwilling victims are obnoxious. And I think that people who endlessly nag harmless people who are minding their own business are…obnoxious. YMMV.
When the recipient of the “useful information” makes it abundantly clear that yeah, they’ve heard the lecture before many times, yeah, they are totally clear on their options, and would the skeptic please shut the hell up - then yeah, that’s nagging. But as I have said before, “nagging” is a far more understandable thing when it’s a matter of immediate life and death. But even then, there’s a point where it’s not helping. I have met many smokers who are so fed up with being nagged, they almost continue to smoke out of an act of defiance. I kid you not. Some people cannot be reached that way. Being constantly reminded is sometimes quite irritating. Any attempts to persuade such a person must be done in a subtle way (very subtle).
A skeptic can personally criticise whatever they want, I just think they have to realize there’s a point where it’s useless to keep confronting people who do not welcome their input (and yes, they do know what they are doing, and still choose to do it). As far as what I think is “dangerous”, I’m probably as ambiguous about it as the next person. I usually try to keep my mouth shut for a while, though, when encountering a person who I suspect is on the edge of being too crackpot. I don’t shoot my mouth off right away, because sometimes their weird crackpotism somehow works for them.
The same can be said for telemarketers. And no, they are not high on the list of what’s horrible in the world, but I personally am just sick of it. Sick of having people try to “save” me from something that isn’t hurting me, and is totally none of their business.
There comes a point when I’ve given enough of my time to “skeptics”. I do not “owe” skeptics my time and energy every damned time they see fit to share their wisdom with me. My time is precious too, I tire of hearing the same arguments and evidence, over and over. (I am thinking specifically of vegetarianism here.)
Certainly.
But the thing is, no one seems to be able to agree on what is and is not irrational. Some people think religion is irrational, some don’t. Some think vegetarianism is irrational, some don’t. So which is it? Do we get rid of religion and vegetarianism in the name of “rational belief”, or not?
And, I’d like to add, why should I assume all the “skeptics” are actually rational themselves? I mean, I personally don’t consider people who regard vegetarians as “suspect” be all that rational. (But maybe that’s just me.) And hey - here’s an idea! Can I call myself a “skeptic”, and get to go around pestering people about things I deem “irrational”, in the name of trying to eleminate “irrationality”? I have decided that eating meat is “irrational”, so I will make sure to share this wisdom with everyone I meet, whether they want to listen to me or not…
Pepperlandgirl: Garlic wasn’t always considered a mainstream health cure like it is now. Garlic pills used to be only available in health food stores, and it was considered quite “weird” to use it as a cure for colds. My mom was way ahead of her time when she got our whole family to start taking garlic many years ago. I was considered quite “crackpot” at school, with my garlic pills. It is my hunch that one of the reasons you now see garlic pills in all grocery stores is because “crackpots” like my mom started catching onto it, and its popularity spread.
Hastur, the only thing I am “fixated” on is the fact that, yet again, you have made an incredible claim and attacked those who asked you to back it up. You have no names, you have no proof, you have no evidence. You have nothing but the need to attack those who refuse to believe you blindly.
You made an incredible claim.
I asked you, politely, to back up the claim.
You refused to back up your claim, then tried to turn this thread into some sort half-baked analysis into my motives.
Look, if it makes you feel better to believe that you, or others, have some sort of “magical” powers, I have no objections.
Unless, of course, you try to make such claims in a message board dedicated to fighting ignorance without providing any evidence.
I believe you, yosemitebabe about the garlic pills, but it still seems odd to me that you would put it on the same level, or almost the same level, as people who believe in UFOs, psychics, ghosts, using magnets as some sort of cure-all, cleansing stones, and other paranormal activities.
You said that garlic pills hasn’t always been mainstream, but that some people took them anyway. Well, that probably prompted tests to be ran on them, and the benefits of taking garlic was revealed. A “crackpot” notion was tested, and proved to be not so crazy after all. That’s all skeptics want, I believe. To test the “crackpot” notions, and discourage people from believing the ones that lack any evidence, because those types of things can be harmful to their wellbeing and more importantly, to the well-being of others.
And Hastur, if you want to ignore Czarcasm and David B, well, that’s fine by me. I don’t care either way. But I also requested the name of just one genuine psychic. Also, I have a second part to my question. If you know such a person, why hasn’t said person accepted Randi’s challenge? It would seem to be an easy million that could be kept for personal gain, or donated to charities, or one could use it to set up some sort of research facility in paranormal activity. Really, the possibilities are almost endless. A lot of good could come from that prize if someone would claim it. How come the real pyschics haven’t done so yet?
I gave you two names. Look back on the bottom of page three.
I do not ask for blind belief.
I did not make an incredible claim, you percieve I made an incredible claim.
What I see is ignorance on your behalf, reading into my motives when I am asking about yours.
In the magick thread, you did ask me to back up my claim. You and others in that thread were nasty, hostile, and insulting. I have every right and reason to retract an offer based on that. Just because you want proof does not obligate me to be treated and talked to in an abusive manner, nor does it require me to endure that in person.
I offered to meet with you in person for coffee to discuss this. That I will still do.
Well, when I was a kid, garlic was almost (well, close) to being considered “quakery” by many people around me. It had no substantial evidence of effectiveness at the time (that I knew of) and yet I took it. And people occasionally gave me a hard time about it. So, yeah, maybe I’m living in the past a little with garlic. But I’ll bet there are some 2001 versions of garlic floating out there… Also, I still encounter people who won’t acknowledge the value of garlic as a cure for colds, and give me a weird look because I take it.
Sure.
Sure, I don’t necessarily disagree with this. But I remind you - when I started using garlic, there wasn’t the evidence that it was as good as we all know it is now. And yet I used it anyway. So I was a “crackpot”! Clearly a crackpot (at that time), and therefore people were trying to “save” me from my garlic!
However, my focus on this thread is more on things that are considered pretty harmless. (My vegetarianism is pretty damned harmless. At least I think so.)
I have been meaning to bring something else up, while I’m at it. (I know I am opening up a whole new can of worms here, so forgive me.) Do some of you think illicit drugs are “irrational”? I am sure some of you do, but I have noticed a sympathy towards drug use among some Dopers (ooh! That’s a pun!). I have read many arguments about how a person should be able to take any drug they want, in their own home, as long as they are not hurting anyone else.
But the people who indulge in illicit drugs (pot, for example) do not get these drugs from doctors, or from the pharmacy. Certainly these substances are not inspected and approved by the FDA. Is this “rational”? Is it “rational” for someone to risk arrest or imprisonment in order to take an intoxicating drug? Especially when there is significant evidence of the health risks involved in using illicit drugs? (Excepting the use of medical pot.) But yet for some reason, some people (some who perhaps consider themselves “skeptics”) are totally for everyone else minding their own business when it comes to illicit drugs. Why is this?
You gave me two first names, one of which you gave as a “maybe” because she might consider you to be the opposition. You refused to give a last name, to “protect” that persons’ privacy. How convenient.
Let’s say I make a positive claim? Neither you, nor your friend, have any psychic abilities. You will not present such powers to be tested, and you will not present your friend to be tested. This one is so easy to disprove-all you have to do is present evidence of psychic abilities.
Was I too rude?
Perhaps you have nothing to prove to us skeptics?
Maybe this is really about my supposed problems?
