I think some of them have an authentic gift which allows them to see a glimpse into the past, present, and future.
I wrote (somewhat paraphrased):
Hastur, I’d expect that someone who believed in psychic powers would feel strongly that the fake ones be driven out of the marketplace, because every fake makes the real ones harder to find.
The way I look at the issue is this: If psychic powers that can produce valuable results exist, they are very very important. By trying their best to distinguish between real and fake “psychics” skeptics are taking the whole issue seriously, just as it is building inspectors who take the issue of building safety seriously. No one asks why building inspectors are so negative about buildings that turn out to be unsafe - but the difference between a valid psychic prediction and a fradulent one is at least as important as the distinction between a safe building and a dangerous one - real psychic predictions would lead to a revolution in science, health (mental and physical), business, etc. producing great benefits for society. With all that at stake, how can someone not support investigations of whether a particular claimed psychic is faking it or not? Or have I misinterpreted?
Since no one replied to my post (due to other aspects of the OP being chatted about), I thought I’d open my own thread about the issue I’m concerned about which in summary is “If this is true, it’s very important; if it’s false, it’s trivial - so who is taking the claim more seriously - those who check whether it’s true or those who assume it is”
This is a very good question, and one that deserves an answer. Unfortunately, I am a skeptic, and will not attempt to speak for the motives of others. I hadn’t heard the building inspector analogy yet, though, and I will use that one.
As a Christian, I believe in the supra-natural (or supernatural, a term more accurate but which I don’t like to use since it implies ghosts and ESP and all that nonsense). I believe that God exists and that He works through humanity in this world, though He generally lets us experience the consequences of our own free will, even when those consequences are terrible. My religion is based on faith – a requirement that I must believe something that I cannot prove through science or rational means or through any of the myriad tools we have at our disposal in this world.
But God, at least as I believe in Him, is entirely beyond proof. Being beyond the natural world and not bound by its laws, he can be neither proven nor disproven, at least insofar as we understand the objective term “proof.” Most sceptics understand this and don’t concern themselves with the subject much; being entirely beyond the scope of provability or probability, it’s not a subject worth their attention.
In contrast, psychic powers, ESP, astrology, etc., are subjects that are often claimed to be amenable to proof. For example, the assertion that the stars in a particular alignment lead to given personality characteristics, or the assertion that one person can read another’s mind – those are things that can be proven or disproven through objective testing. They are amenable to the challenges of proof. And all the evidence that I have personally seen to date indicates that they are all basically bullshit. So I don’t believe in them.
If there was a way to prove or disprove God, I would certainly put Him to that test. But there isn’t, which is why I had to decide whether or not to take Him on faith, or by “proof” that is obviously subjective, not objective, and therefore not really “proof” at all.
It is true that many believers in paranormal phenomena – and I use the term “believers” here intentionally – treat the subject with a quasi-religious kind of faith.
Although astrology, psychic powers, etc., do make testable predictions and are thus amenable to scientific scrutiny, non-skeptics tend overwhelmingly to take the stance that “unless it’s disproven, it must be true” – exactly the opposite of how scientific understanding is supposed to progress. And when challenged, or presented with evidence that threatens to disprove their pet pseudoscience, such believers tend to react with the same kind of indignance a religious person displays when somebody tells him there is no God.
Note that many non-skeptics are only believers in one particular branch of pseudoscience. There are plenty of UFOlogists who do not believe in the existence of psychic powers or in the predictive power of astrology, for example. When Martin Gardner’s book Fads and Fallacies in the Name of Science was published, Martin Gardner received a lot of letters that ran along the lines of, “I’m glad you did such a good job debunking all those other nonsensical pseudosciences, but you’re wrong about {bigfoot, orgone, telepathy, pyramid power, etc.}. That’s for real.”
I agree with your dismissal of psychic powers, since whenever tested, they fail to materialise.
[mini-hijack]
I understand that your religion is based on faith, and that an omnipotent Being could, by definition, conceal himself from us. But then what makes you have faith in God?
[end mini-hijack]
Jeez, glee, that’s a big question, but I will try to answer it briefly. My answer is not an invitation for anyone to challenge that faith, but I will answer because you have asked. The over-simplified version is that I believe in God because I see too much of order and goodness in the world to be just a product of randomness; I see much in the world that is not explainable by scientific theory (like why we should be self-aware, or why we should appreciate or even understand or even appreciate abstract beauty); and because when I ask myself, in the depths of my self, whether God exists, the answer I recieve is “yes.”
Jodi,
I appreciate your answer (I knew it was a big question!).
I’m sure this would be interesting to discuss further, but also that it would be a big hijack to do it here.
I’ve had creationists tell me that they are “skeptical” of all that other New Age stuff, but creationism is real. I’ve had others tell me that creationism is bunk but alternative medicine (or at least a certain form) is real. Etc.
The most common, however, is a particular “psychic” telling me how all those other “psychics” are bogus, but they are the Real Thing. :rolleyes:
I want to make clear that I am not questioning your faith here–that is a decision you and I and everyone else has to make for ourselves. I do think it’s prudent however, to note that because something is unexplained does not mean it is unexplainable. It’s a not-insignificant difference.
I’d love it if everyone thought their religion through as well as you have. In my experience, too many people who “believe” never question those beliefs.
Jodi, I agree completely (with the whole post, not just the quoted part) - I am a Christian as well, and thus believe miracles to be possible. I continue to apply skepticism to current claims of miracles, though, which seems to be the distinction between Hastur and us - he apparently believes there there are currently people who can perform feats of psychic power which are useful and repeatable. I’d really like his answer to my question
This is a great question, and it is answerable. The reason why all psychics object to investigation of “bad psychics” is because deep in their heart of hearts, even if they do really believe they have special powers, they are afraid that they will not hold up to scrutiny. Therefore, any such activity is a threat to their livelihood.
Also tangential, but I don’t understand the TV phone psychics. In the commercials, you call on the phone and they tell you things *you already know[/i. What a waste of money! Even if you believe in psychics, why would you let them waste $2.00 a minute telling you things you already know? Jeezum crow!
In other words, your test (a license based on the test, perhaps?) would simply convict all psychics, or be useless to detect fake ones. If you can come up with a test for which this is not true, I would be happy to listen.
Whoops, hit submit too soon. Also, why would any good test help fake psychics? That’s supposed to be the point of a test, right, to tell who’s real and who’s fake?
And here is some an example of a test:
Protocols agreed to by Sylvia Browne. (Sorry, you’ll have to scroll down to the section that begins, “For the record, as promised, here’s the test I offered to Sylvia Browne on the King show. . .”) Both she and Randi agreed that this was a fair test–on Larry King Live, anyway. She has not yet accepted in writing. Which of your conditions does this test not meet?
