Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all,
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.

Debunking skeptics .....

12467

Comments

  • #92
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭[Deleted User]


    kylith wrote: »
    also known as this


    I love this as its completely true, and if you reverse it you get the skeptic side.


  • #93
    maccored
    Registered Users Posts: 10,660 ✭✭✭✭maccored


    kylith wrote: »
    It's 'knowing' or 'feeling'. I 'know/feel' this is true...'. 'I feel a presence...'. If you believe something is true then, in paranormal circles, that's good enough, also known as this

    I have to say I love the way everyone around here knows everyone and everything (considering Zombrex was talking about me) yet heads are so firmly up arses Im surprised any of ye's can see where yer going..

    Pity though theres no link between common sense and that link kylith posted.

    Im amazed though so many brainiacs on here think paranormal research is science based all the same ..... considering its apparently a no no to use common sense .


  • #94
    maccored
    Registered Users Posts: 10,660 ✭✭✭✭maccored


    So hang on ... to be sceptical about something you have to be a scientist. Man, you are pure genius you are. Its no wonder you dont know what skeptic means.
    Zombrex wrote: »
    Yes that is precisely the point. Yet you still seem to think that you are some how still a skeptic by carrying on regardless. The basic point you are spectacularly not understanding is that if you were actually a skeptic this would matter to you a great deal, you wouldn't brush it off as if this is some minor inconvenience, oh its not scientific but not to worry, we'll just use are common sense instead. Because that worked so well for the last 5 thousand years before human's developed the philosophy of science, just ask the people who used to think everything was made up for fire water and air. :rolleyes:

    If you were actually a skeptic (or even knew what that meant) you wouldn't believe nonsense that despite paranormal "research" not being in anyway scientific it still had use in terms of gathering accurate knowledge about the universe by using "common sense" instead of a proper methodology.
    (heres a hint - there is no methodology so far for paranormal research ... you might know that if you bothered getting out into the field and doing something bar trying to educate us 'morons' on the internet)
    The idea that anyone could be seriously research the paranormal using some methodology as ridiculous unreliable as human common sense demonstrates not only are they not a skeptic but they don't even understand what that means in the first place.

    That is comedy gold that is. Hey world - dont use common sense! Yeah, very smart. You are a genius sir.
    They haven't invented an emoticon to express how face palming your posts about skepticism are. You don't have the first clue what that term actually means, or the rational behind it.
    This is the part I agree with - in reference to yourself of course.


  • #95
    maccored
    Registered Users Posts: 10,660 ✭✭✭✭maccored


    How Pseudoskeptics hijack "Skepticism" to mean its opposite:
    Disinformation, Mind Control and Suppression

    Pseudoskeptics are not just wrong and fallacious in their reasoning and approach to investigating the paranormal with outright rejection of anything that doesn't fit into a materialist orthodox paradigm. They've also, knowingly or unknowingly, engaged in deceptive mind control by hijacking critical terms to mean their OPPOSITE, including the very term "skeptic" itself. And they've hid what they truly are (suppressors of new ideas) by pretending to the opposite of what they are. Let me explain.

    As mentioned earlier, a skeptic doubts, inquires, questions, ponders, etc. But these pseudoskeptics do anything but. They attack, ridicule, discredit and suppress anything and everything that challenges the materialist reductionist paradigm.

    I think that is a fitting quote as it comes from the site being discussed and it accurately described a poster or two in this thread.


  • #96
    Genghiz Cohen
    Registered Users Posts: 7,182 ✭✭✭Genghiz Cohen


    maccored wrote: »
    Excuse me .... do you purposely not understand my posts or do I really have to dumb things down for you?
    Seems upset when Zombrex appears to insult him.
    Appears to insult other poster.
    maccored wrote: »
    Dave claims the paranormal can be researched scientifically. I say at present it can't, considering we cant scientifically research EVPS yet (as just one example).

    The reason why we cant is we cant properly examine the environment (certainly not at a cost the average researcher can afford anyway). If you say we can, then please explain how.

    If you can find cheap multisensors and if you can outline the various environmental factors that may cause EVPs (I am assuming you have heard proper evps and not the usual 'i moved, I made a noise and now its a ghost' type ones) then please, tell me how as I cant find cost effective multisensors and I only know of some of the environmental factors that can cause evps. if we knew all the ranges and had the gear THEN we might be able to have a stab at some form of scientific research into evps.

    You could say EVPs are never unexplainable, and if you do then I say you just havent heard any proper ones yet. Then again, if you dont research and just play internet smartarse, then I suppose you mightn't have.

    So PLEASE explain whatever point you were trying to make as I dont know what the hell you're on about.

    My point is "If they have an effect on the physical world, then yes[ we can test for them]."

    The initial tests don't even have to involve expensive recording equipment.
    Take one 'real' EVP and one fake, artificially generated one. The real one was taken after a simple question was asked, like; What is your name?"
    Then tell 50 people that the recording was taken after that question was asked and let them listen to either the real or the fake one and see what answers they come up with.

    This test would show a difference between real EVPs and just background noise being wrongly interpreted. If you can't get a definite trend towards the real EVP then there is no point continuing.
    maccored wrote: »
    plus - where the blue **** have I ever suggested the following?

    You didn't, as far as I can see. You are quick to accuse others of not reading your posts but then you don't read ours. Check the line after that bit you quoted, it says:
    No, I don't imagine you do.

    See?
    maccored wrote: »
    If you dont have an argument then fine ... but stop trying to invent one on my behalf please.

    I think you are doing just fine destroying your credibility on your own.


  • Advertisement
  • #97
    Standman
    Registered Users Posts: 1,681 ✭✭✭Standman


    I'm just a bit confused as to why some people think a "paranormal" description of an event warrants even a consideration in the first place.


  • #98
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    maccored wrote: »
    So hang on ... to be sceptical about something you have to be a scientist.

    No, to be a skeptic you have understand the principles of science and appreciate why they matter. If you simply ignore them because its too boring or not fun enough (or because you simply don't have a clue what they are), and instead rely on the utterly unreliable assessment of "common sense", which is basically just another name for guessing, then you are not in any way being a skeptic.
    maccored wrote: »
    (heres a hint - there is no methodology so far for paranormal research ... you might know that if you bothered getting out into the field and doing something bar trying to educate us 'morons' on the internet)
    Ah, brilliant.

    Explain to me maccored what I would "do" in the field of paranormal research when there isn't a methodology to use ...

    Of course there is a methodology, it is called guessing and making sh*t up (or as you put it "common sense"). The problem is you don't seem to grasp why that is a bad methodology to use and why you shouldn't use it and why using it makes you the opposite of a skeptic.
    maccored wrote: »
    That is comedy gold that is. Hey world - dont use common sense! Yeah, very smart. You are a genius sir.

    Dear lord. :rolleyes:

    Let me hand this over a man who put it better than me

    Common sense is nothing more than a deposit of prejudices laid down by the mind before you reach eighteen.
    Albert Einstein


  • #99
    Dave!
    Closed Accounts Posts: 27,857 ✭✭✭✭Dave!


    FYI - another attempt to scientifically test for paranormal abilities (a replication attempt of Daryl Bem's Psi research) fails:

    Correcting the Past: Failures to Replicate Psi


  • #100
    Rob Humanoid
    Registered Users Posts: 123 ✭✭Rob Humanoid


    I'd have to admit that I'm a bit of 'skeptic/cynic'. I honestly think, that it's quite hard to remain totally objective given the huge amount of deliberate misinformation and commercialism within the paranormal community.

    That, for me anyway, tends to drown out the other more genuine people - Not that I'd believe them anyway, as I don't believe in psychic phenomena, etc.

    But as long as there's plenty of 'proper skeptics' out there, we should be alright. I like Brain Dunning's take on it...


  • #101
    SteedBurger
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 4 ✭SteedBurger


    There must be a paranormal reason why everyone here is using the American spelling of sceptic?


  • Advertisement
  • #102
    Rob Humanoid
    Registered Users Posts: 123 ✭✭Rob Humanoid


    My computer is set to American spelling for some inexplicable reason...And I'm just too lazy to fix it. :D


  • #103
    maccored
    Registered Users Posts: 10,660 ✭✭✭✭maccored


    Zombrex wrote: »
    No, to be a skeptic you have understand the principles of science and appreciate why they matter. If you simply ignore them because its too boring or not fun enough (or because you simply don't have a clue what they are), and instead rely on the utterly unreliable assessment of "common sense", which is basically just another name for guessing, then you are not in any way being a skeptic.

    If thats how you define sceptic and common sense, then more power to you. Its no wonder you're so confused. being sceptical technically has nothing to do with science per se. You really should read up a bit on the whole thing.

    Ah, brilliant.

    Explain to me maccored what I would "do" in the field of paranormal research when there isn't a methodology to use ...

    How about helping to develop one? Better than complaining about he paranormal on the internet.
    Of course there is a methodology, it is called guessing and making sh*t up (or as you put it "common sense"). The problem is you don't seem to grasp why that is a bad methodology to use and why you shouldn't use it and why using it makes you the opposite of a skeptic.

    So you are saying my "methodology" is "guessing and making sh*t up". Fancy backing that up? Plus, please understand that from where Im sitting, you dont sound very scientific at all. Are you a scientist, or do you just want to sound intelligent?


    Dear lord. :rolleyes:

    Let me hand this over a man who put it better than me

    Common sense is nothing more than a deposit of prejudices laid down by the mind before you reach eighteen.
    Albert Einstein

    So now you think common sense is rubbish. Well done.


  • #104
    maccored
    Registered Users Posts: 10,660 ✭✭✭✭maccored


    Genghiz Cohen wrote: »
    Seems upset when Zombrex appears to insult him.
    Appears to insult other poster.

    what kind of argument is that? People used to go on like that in primary school ... i fail to see your point. Maybe you should tell me.


    My point is "If they have an effect on the physical world, then yes[ we can test for them]."

    The initial tests don't even have to involve expensive recording equipment.
    Take one 'real' EVP and one fake, artificially generated one. The real one was taken after a simple question was asked, like; What is your name?"
    Then tell 50 people that the recording was taken after that question was asked and let them listen to either the real or the fake one and see what answers they come up with.

    This test would show a difference between real EVPs and just background noise being wrongly interpreted. If you can't get a definite trend towards the real EVP then there is no point continuing.

    I dont believe you understand the kind of evps that are being captured. theres plenty that cant be described as 'background noise'. Then again, you'd only know that if you actually went looking for them and decided to do some actual research. there are many things that have an effect on the world that we dont know of yet. Going by your assumption, science should know everything by now. obviously thats not true, so youre "we can test for them" idea (ie everything that affects anything in the world) is obviously misguided.


    You didn't, as far as I can see. You are quick to accuse others of not reading your posts but then you don't read ours. Check the line after that bit you quoted, it says:

    See?

    I think you are doing just fine destroying your credibility on your own.

    I have been reading the posts. I think the issue is moreso that you either refuse blindly to or just cant understand what Im talking about since to many of you people either believe that everything paranormal exists or that nothing paranormal exists. All whlst never actually bothering to go research anything. And then a bunch of you like to think you are hyper intelligent scientists. Yeah, right.


  • #105
    maccored
    Registered Users Posts: 10,660 ✭✭✭✭maccored


    surely that would depend on the 'event' and whatever had apparently happened. again - and I hate repeating myself - but if more people started to research the subject they'd find there are many occasions where the most obvious answers dont seem to be the correct ones, and people end up assuming its 'paranormal'. That obviously doesnt mean it *was* paranormal - but making assumptions far far away on the internet wont get anyone anywhere either.
    Standman wrote: »
    I'm just a bit confused as to why some people think a "paranormal" description of an event warrants even a consideration in the first place.


  • #106
    maccored
    Registered Users Posts: 10,660 ✭✭✭✭maccored


    Rob Humanoid wrote: »
    That, for me anyway, tends to drown out the other more genuine people - Not that I'd believe them anyway, as I don't believe in psychic phenomena, etc.

    Dont forget , the paranormal covers a lot more than psychics


  • #107
    maccored
    Registered Users Posts: 10,660 ✭✭✭✭maccored


    kylith wrote: »
    Originally Posted by Zombrex viewpost.gif
    Groan ... thank you for brilliantly demonstrating my point.

    Explain how you learn anything about the paranormal using "your head" but not scientifically? All that means is that we can't find anything scientifically but we still like to pretend something exciting is going on so we simply abandon scientific principles and make it up.

    Christ it is like the Enlightenment never even happened .... what next? Well we cannot scientific demonstrate this lead will turn into gold but if we just use "common sense" I'm sure we can imagine how it might
    It's 'knowing' or 'feeling'. I 'know/feel' this is true...'. 'I feel a presence...'. If you believe something is true then, in paranormal circles, that's good enough, also known as this

    I believe its about time this was called out for what it is as well. Zombrex twisting (or else just cant understand) viewpoints by claiming I stated you CANT use science to research the paranormal, rather than at present there is no scientific methodology to do so, and then kylith answering that misconceived post with some bull**** about 'feelings'. Are you telling me kylith, thats how I approach the paranormal - because apparently you are. Once more I'll make a request to back that claim up - though I know I wont get an answer (which is why this forum is so boring).


  • #108
    IRWolfie-
    Registered Users Posts: 100 ✭✭IRWolfie-


    Science is that process of systematically building our knowledge of the universe.
    maccored wrote:
    there is no methodology so far for paranormal research

    And with that goes any claim that paranormal research is falsifiable or meaningful.

    Science deals with claims that are falsifiable. If it's not falsifiable it is outside the realm of things that we can show to be true about the universe, and thus eliminated by Occam's Razor as superfluous to our understanding. You can not have evidence for the paranormal because, then you would be acknowledging that it is falsifiable. Your comments display an ignorance of what science is, and the philosophy of science, and why it is relevant to the discussion.

    You may then argue that your belief is a religion, but just remember that you can not make claims to evidence. It is forbidden to you while you claim or your statements lead to the claim that it is not falsifiable.

    No doubt you have experienced some things you can't explain, or one of a number of "hidden persuaders" http://www.skepdic.com/hiddenpersuaders.html to convince you that the paranormal is real. You've used a number of fallacious arguments to try and back up your position, made a number of straw men arguments, and engaged in rampant hypocrisy by attacking other editors after complaining about being attacked. You appear to be convinced something exists, whilst simultaneously berating people for the way "everyone around here knows everyone and everything". So let's switch the tables. Why are you so convinced the paranormal exists? How are you so convinced if you acknowledge that you are only using the flawed arbiter of truth which is common sense, and do not have any rigorous methodology?

    Also, maybe you want to limit yourself to one reply before someone else comments? Making 5 posts in a row reminds me of someone doing a Gish gallop, and quite frankly, makes you look a bit unbalanced.


  • #109
    nagirrac
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,019 ✭✭✭nagirrac


    Of course there is methodology for paranormal research. Studies such as Ganzfeld experiments looking at evidence for psi effects are carried out following the scientific method and are completely falsifiable. Many studies have shown evidence for psi effects, other studies show no such evidence. It can be argued whether the science conducted is good science or bad science for any of the work done in terms of the experimental method, how well the experiments were controlled, etc. but to say it is not science or follows the scientific method is simply lying.

    Skeptics call it pseudoscience because they don't like the conclusions, but are actually anti science as science should be neutral when it comes to conclusions and not dictated by dogma. The evidence I have seen from people like Dean Radin suggests that psi effects exist but are not understood. Much of the evidence I have seen from skeptics is either sloppy or dishonest or both, they appear to be much more interested in debunking ideas they don't like because of their belief systems than actually conducting science.


  • #110
    IRWolfie-
    Registered Users Posts: 100 ✭✭IRWolfie-


    nagirrac wrote: »
    Of course there is methodology for paranormal research.
    maccored wrote:
    there is no methodology so far for paranormal research

    Two paranormal enthusiasts are saying the opposite of each other. Which of the true believers is correct?
    nagirrac wrote:
    Skeptics call it pseudoscience because they don't like the conclusions, ...

    We've already established that you like particular physicists because they say what you agree with. Isn't that doing what you say skeptics are doing?

    Don't forget, there is a million dollar prize for anyone who can demonstrate psychic ability.


  • #111
    nagirrac
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,019 ✭✭✭nagirrac


    IRWolfie- wrote: »
    Two paranormal enthusiasts are saying the opposite of each other. Which of the true believers is correct?

    We've already established that you like particular physicists because they say what you agree with. Isn't that doing what you say skeptics are doing?

    Don't forget, there is a million dollar prize for anyone who can demonstrate psychic ability.

    If you have a science background you already know the answer to #1.

    No, most skeptics do no science and earn their living debunking the work of others. We can argue about the different conclusions of individual scientists, but most sceptics are not scientists. Apples and oranges.

    You mean James Randi, the failed magician? Why would any serious scientist waste their time with this charlatan?


  • Advertisement
  • #112
    IRWolfie-
    Registered Users Posts: 100 ✭✭IRWolfie-


    nagirrac wrote:
    You mean James Randi, the failed magician? Why would any serious scientist waste their time with this charlatan?

    You regard Academy of Magical Arts Lifetime Achievement Fellowship award winning, Houdini record beating, spoon bending, James Randi, who is internationally known for being a great magician in his day, James Randi who famously exposed James Hydrick, Uri Geller and many more, as a failed magician. Excuse me if I don't take that seriously.

    With all due respect, until you get an award from the American Physical Society, get a fellowship from the McArthur foundation, take part in medical research team http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1740-9713.2005.00109.x/abstract (despite your claims to the contrary, skeptics do plenty of research; perhaps you simply haven't looked.) and have an asteroid named after you, I might respect your points, but at the moment you just sound like you irrationally hate him for exposing the bull****.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QlfMsZwr8rc

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q7BQKu0YP8Y

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lT_cz_QNIn4


  • #113
    nagirrac
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,019 ✭✭✭nagirrac


    You forgot the Richard Dawkins award which is what really seals it for me;)

    Randi does a good job exposing fellow magicians and charlatans which is doing society a favor. Howver, in my opinion he crosses the line when he accuses serious scientists studying psi effects using the scientific method of being charlatans.


  • #114
    IRWolfie-
    Registered Users Posts: 100 ✭✭IRWolfie-


    nagirrac wrote: »
    Howver, in my opinion he crosses the line when he accuses serious scientists studying psi effects using the scientific method of being charlatans.
    Your comment is too general to address. Who specifically are you talking about?


  • #115
    nagirrac
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,019 ✭✭✭nagirrac


    IRWolfie- wrote: »
    Your comment is too general to address. Who specifically are you talking about?

    As I said, when he moves aways from his area of expertise (sleight of hand and deception) and into genuine areas of scientific research, such ESP and telekenesis. He has been very critical of people like Dean Radin for example, and not being a scientist himself he is out of hs knowledge zone in this area and just spreading misinformation. Like a lot of skeptics he has never actually looked at the data seriously, and more significantly as a professional skeptic, whose career is based on debunking, he cannot look at it objectively.

    Basically I think Randi has build a career picking on easy targets, magicians and psychics. I find his exposing magicians a bit dishonest given he made his living from the same profession for many years. Magicians are entertainers, people pay money to be entertained, so what if it is based on deception? Magicians are not called illusionists for nothing. Clearly there are many charlatans out there claiming to be psychics, but in the grand scheme of things, again so what? People go to see them and pay a few bob and feel better afterwards, a bit like people going to mass.

    If Randi and other professional skeptics were truly serious about exposing fraud, why don't they go after the big targets? How about going after organized religion, not the small fry faith healers, the whole shebang. Go after pharma companies who sell drugs "off label". Astra Zeneca was fined $520 million in 2010 for selling Seroquel as a treatment for "bad behavior" in children, when their own clinical trials had shown serious side effects in children. I know these are somewhat straw man arguments, but there is a contextual issue here of what professional skeptics bring to the table.

    Fundamentally I don't believe science should be constrained by what is viewed as being "common sense" or what is the consensus view of reality. I have great respect for scientists who go out on a limb and explore aspects of our reality that are not well understood. Life would be so boring to me at least without people like Grof, Sheldrake, Radin, McKenna, who challenge our comfortable view of reality and common sense. They are complementary to materialist reductionist science in my opinion, and suppressing them is to deny how we evolved as a creative species. We didn't evolve in terms of civilization by following an exact recipe, we evolved mainly by individuals leapling into the unknown.


  • #116
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    Well don't worry, there is a whole host of real scientists happy to criticize Dean Radin and his nonsense, so I'm sure Randi doesn't worry about it that much :P


  • #117
    nagirrac
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,019 ✭✭✭nagirrac


    Zombrex wrote: »
    Well don't worry, there is a whole host of real scientists happy to criticize Dean Radin and his nonsense, so I'm sure Randi doesn't worry about it that much :P

    Point us to one scientist who has criticised the work of Dean Radin. Not disagreed with the conclusions, criticised the work and called it nonsense. You won't find any, as any scientist who has looked at his work regards the quality of the experiments as exemplary, and indeed most scientists today accept that psi effects exist but are not understood. Again, educate yourself.

    Randi has enough to be worried about since his partner of 30 years was convicted of identity theft (which caused signicant harm to the individual he stole from), something Randi admitted in court he was aware of. Interesting that the exposer of fraud turned out to be a dishonest fraud himself, a bit like a preacher bashing gays who turns out to be gay himself.


  • #118
    IRWolfie-
    Registered Users Posts: 100 ✭✭IRWolfie-


    nagirrac wrote: »
    Point us to one scientist who has criticised the work of Dean Radin.

    http://www.skepdic.com/refuge/radin1.html

    You don't look very hard. You have a stereotypical image of what a skeptic is, and it's not backed up by the evidence. You need to stop with the straw man opinion of skeptics.

    As an aside, accusations that if your partner commits a crime that you committed a crime is wrong and stupid. It's dirty mudslinging, and it only reflects badly on you.


  • #119
    nagirrac
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,019 ✭✭✭nagirrac


    IRWolfie- wrote: »
    http://www.skepdic.com/refuge/radin1.html

    You don't look very hard. You have a stereotypical image of what a skeptic is, and it's not backed up by the evidence. You need to stop with the straw man opinion of skeptics.

    As an aside, accusations that if your partner commits a crime that you committed a crime is wrong and stupid. It's dirty mudslinging, and it only reflects badly on you.

    I asked for a refutation of Radin's work by a scientist and you post a review of his book by an atheist Philosopher??? Really, you think that's a meaningful response. There are sceptics, which all of us should be, and there are professional sceptics who earn their living from expressing their biased point of view. Can you really not tell the difference? Point me to a scientist who has criticized Radin's work or stop the waffle.

    I don't know where you live but in the USA harboring a criminal and aiding and abetting a criminal are crimes. Randi admitted in court that he knew his partner was from Venezuela and had a Venezuelan passport when they met. They travelled together for over 25 years, where did Randi think he got his US passport from? The question as to why Randi was not charged is an interesting one, most of the speculation on that question is it involved an out of court settlement with the victim.

    I have no interest in who Randi sleeps with or whether they are criminals or not, it speaks to character and honesty, the fact that the individual was a paid director of the Randi foundation headed by Randi adds to the dishonesty. No doubt there will be a heart rending documentary on the evils of US immigration coming shortly with Dawkins as the guest speaker.


  • #120
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭[Deleted User]


    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QlfMsZwr8rc

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q7BQKu0YP8Y

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lT_cz_QNIn4
    [/QUOTE]


    All Easily replicated. :pac:

    I saw James Randhi doing an interview on how psychics use cold reading. This was somebody else's finding that he has now nicked (probably to sell books) Its funny during the 90s there was not a sniff of cold reading from him.


  • Advertisement
  • #121
    IRWolfie-
    Registered Users Posts: 100 ✭✭IRWolfie-


    Dre, I don't know what you mean by "All Easily replicated". James Randi exposed Hydrick and Popoff. It wasn't a magic trick; once he exposed them, it's not like someone else can go and expose them again. I don't think Randi has ever pretended that cold reading was something he came up with. He's a representative for skepticism, so he gets asked about these things, and talks about them. That's how fields progress, you build on the works of others.
    By mentioning the 90s you seem to be implying that cold reading was only recently discovered, but the forer effect for example, was found in the late 40's.


Advertisement