Are mediums a hoax??

6th

From this article: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/caitlin_moran/article1432276.ece

This month Princeton University will close its ESP lab, after nearly 30 years of research into the paranormal. Set up in 1979 to investigate whether human consciousness could “interfere with sensitive computers and machinery”, the lab has cost a fairly reasonable $10 million, but concluded — after almost three decades — that its studies revealed only a small, yet statistically significant, effect in experiments. Richard Wise-man, a professor of psychology at the University of Hertfordshire, summed up by saying that the lab’s work was interesting, “but ultimately difficult to make practical use of”.

Personally, I find this to be quietly revelatory news. We’ve always been given to understand that the paranormal, should it exist, is a vast, billowing mass of indefinable power, what men ought not meddle in lest they unstitch the very fabric of the Universe. But from the Princeton findings, it seems that the paranormal lacks the capacity to become the new global superpower — usurping the US — if only a few more teenagers got stoned and mucked about with a Ouija board. Instead, it seems that the powers of the paranormal are quite comfortingly mundane. ESP cannot stop a man’s heart or short-circuit a tank. It seems that all that the paranormal is actually capable of doing is to allow people to guess whether a staff member at Princeton is about to show them a picture of a circle, or a couple of wavy lines. That isn’t the tip of an iceberg of paranormal potential which, if trained, could topple governments. It is , we now know, the iceberg.

Of course, if Princeton’s findings extend outward to other matters of the paranormal, a gigantic slab of mankind’s communal perception is going to the wall. Take the restless undead, for instance. It’s always good to consider what impact any new scientific research is going to have on those guys. Previously, had we been called upon to define what spirits from beyond the grave might be up to, we would have surmised a general schedule of walking the Earth for eternity, and a widespread proclivity for passing on cryptic messages from beyond the grave. Should Princeton’s conclusions on ESP extend to all paranormal activity, it might well turn out that ghosts do, in fact, exist. There really is life after death. That life after death, however, would extend solely to being able to manifest as a spooky “OOOoooooOOooo” sound up a chimney and, possibly, knob-rattling. Likewise demonic possession. In all likelihood, it may well be provably possible to be possessed by a demon. It could well be happening all the time. But on the basis of the evidence from Princeton, possession wouldn’t entail the possessee becoming superhumanly strong, levitating heavy objects, vomiting pea soup and killing nursemaids. Instead, demonic possession might be as nugatory and inconsequential as having a small voice inside that occasionally says: “You could have Marmite on toast now. If you want. ’Sup to you. Like, whatever.”

Oryx

Aisling&M wrote:

And if I was honest, I would not be easily swayed into believe in the paranormal had I not experienced it myself so I can understand where you come from.

Ive always said that too.

Im not going on the defensive here, no reason to, but Im neither a charlatan nor a manipulator, I dont have any need to be. I dont make a living from any of this. I am curious as to where it comes from myself, which is why I share experiences here. Ive said here many times paranormal events have happened to me that are far beyond what you could chalk up to delusion or imagination. Thats what has proved to me the existence of 'something else'. And Im still on a search to find out how to find out more about that something else and how we use it in our lives here.

mossieh

Aisling&M wrote:

okay okay, I'm sucked in! I love a good debate.

Fair play.

Aisling&M wrote:

And I rescind my use of the word counterract......not the right choice.

Are you saying that you will only believe something once a scientist has documentation to show it's existence?

If that is the case, fair enough.

I don't think you can make good decisions without good factual information. In the case of a paranormal claim that pushed my credibility, yes, I'd have to see scientific evidence to accept it as a reality.

Aisling&M wrote:

But scientists have in the past and currently find themselves at odds with each other over many paranormal and non-paranormal issues.

How do you feel/what do you THINK about two scientists who both believe they have evidence to prove a case in two different ways?

That's as it should be. The crucial thing is not the individual scientists, it's the scientific method. Where different conclusions are drawn, obviously the technique must be refined until one theory wins or both are found to be partially correct and complementary. When one scientist announces a breakthrough it will usually be as a result of the efforts of many others, making smaller breakthroughs, culminating in his or her putting it all together.

Aisling&M wrote:

I have not done the research to give examples but I think I'm accurate enough in saying that scientists do not always agree.....so which scientists will you believe in matters or creditting/discreditting research into the paranormal?

To be honest, I agree with 6th here, I'd love to see some serious effort put in to a scientific study of paranormal activity. There is an inherent difficulty for scientists here in that it is such a wide field ranging from some aspects that are reasonably easy to conceive like esp, for example to the more outlandish, like banshees or mediums. If you say you are going to study esp, everyone will assume you believe in pixies and guardian angels.

Aisling&M wrote:

Because if your belief system is based firmly in analytical research it should be based entirely on an unfaltering system. I do not believe scientists are 100% accurate or correct in collecting data and analysing it and arriving at a decision 100% of the time.

No, there is no unfaltering system, in fact an experiment that fails or gives different results to what was expected can be more educational than one that exactly meets expectation. The key is the word experiment. If all we ever do is accept everything we are told as fact, nothing ever changes or improves. It is by constantly questioning accepted wisdom that we progress. Scientists are certainly not right 100% of the time, but they completely accept that. If everyone had the same approach, we'd all get on a lot better.

Aisling&M wrote:

(I do wish to say here that I have a lot of respect for Scientific research and scientists at large, just addressing their limitations and their fallibility).

And if I was honest, I would not be easily swayed into believe in the paranormal had I not experienced it myself so I can understand where you come from.

Scientists are fallible, certainly, but if you were having brain surgery, would you prefer a scientist or a voodoo priest performing it?

Aisling&M

If I was having surgery, I'd want a specially qualified neuro-surgeon, if I had a problem and before surgery wanted to try healing, I'd go to a holistic practicioner/voodoo priest.......LOL

mossieh

Aisling&M wrote:

If I was having surgery, I'd want a specially qualified neuro-surgeon, if I had a problem and before surgery wanted to try healing, I'd go to a holistic practicioner/voodoo priest.......LOL

Fair enough.

karynp

6th,
I fully agree with you here, Sylvia Browne wrongly told a missing boys parents he was murdered, he turned up safe a few years later,she has been exposed,also she charges 700 dollars for a half hour reading, this is a downright disgrace,considering all the money she has made on her books also........but yes, on an individual basis is the best form of judgement
.

6th wrote:

Well I can say plenty negative about some mediums but I think the fairest way to judge is on a case by case basis.

Sylvia Brown (who I personally believe is a hack) is a psychic & medium who for many years has been held in very high regard by alot of people. Skeptics have always questioned (some would say hounded) her and her claims. Recently (I must find the thread and link to it) she was outed on a very big case for being unethical, uncaring & just plain WRONG ... not a little bit wrong but truck loads of it!

She was hugely popular and was/is very in demand. If she can get to that stage in her career by whatever means she did why should people be expected to in the abilities of people like her? Personally I think its wrong to claim all are bogus based on the likes of Sylvia Brown but people have every reason to be suspicious and skeptical - cynical is another matter.

Best to judge on a case by cases basis and personal experiences where possible.

GuanYin

In fairness Aisling - scientists don't (or shouldn't) try and prove anything. They work by generating a plausible explanation and then systematically trying to discredit it themselves. This is what should, in theory, keep science honest.

If science tries to discredit paranormal phenomenon, it isn't through malicious intent.

karynp

Why would someone who believes it's all cynical trickery participate in it? And why would that invalidate my argument? Does the fact that I don't believe in the tooth fairy disqualify me from talking about her/him/it?

Seeing is believing my friend,its like saying you dont like a certain food, if you havent tried it then how can you comment?
We all have the free will to choose what we do and dont like or believe in this life,however,I dont believe in knocking someone elses beliefs either,everyone to their own....

I sometimes wonder how, in this relatively enlightened age we live in, with so much information at our fingertips, conmen continue to thrive. I guess as long as a subset of society are happy to operate with their analytical and critical faculties smothered in wishful thinking, they always will.[/QUOTE]

There will always be conmen in some form or another,a mediums job is to bring evidence of life after death,while i most certainly can accpet there is an element who have jumped on the bandwagon, i cannot accept that it is all,I myself have experienced many things with the spirit world, i also live with a very skeptical partner and he has witnessed things too, so on this note i rest.

Aisling&M

Really the intent of my post was not about scientific process.......more to question Mossieh and ask if he requires scientific proof for his beliefs then how does he feel when they get it wrong.......

karynp

Mordeth wrote:

talked to him, have you?


I have felt what i believe to be Gods love and thats my call, not for anyone else to interfere with or try to slate....
I believe most of our troubles on this earth are manmade, we have created most of the mess on earth, as for getting into a debate about God,no thanks, it would go on for years.

karynp

I have to laugh reading this reply, you cant try to shove your beliefs down anothers throat, if you feel that strongly about what you claim is not at all true then distance yourself from any talk of it.......

mossieh wrote:

There is a fundamental difference between a belief based on empirical and reasoned analysis and one based on wishful thinking or lazy-mindedness.

Those who buy into fanciful and utterly illogical explanations for situations they don't understand are quick to accuse those who don't of being close-minded, but the great breakthroughs in human development have been made by scientists, not magicians. Automatically accepting the fantastic explanation over the mundane is how we operated as a society in the dark ages. Imagination is required to make breakthroughs in our knowledge of how the universe works but without a sound basis of logic and common sense, all you're left with is cloud talk and alchemy.

It irritates me, frankly, to hear obviously intelligent people devote so much time to what logic tells me is nonsense. The real, bricks and mortar world we live in is more amazing and exciting than we can yet fathom, it doesn't need to be embellished with angels and bogeymen.

Put down the your necronomicon/bible/koran and pick up A Brief History of Time. And stop wasting yours, life is too short.

GuanYin

I'm beginning to think this may be more for the spirituality forum.


Thaed?

karynp

Ok folks, now i am bored with this argument, its going nowhere and wont ever end, there will always be both sides of the coin, I for one am ducking out of this .........

mossieh wrote:

With respect Aisling, how does that counteract what I said? You are sure that 'a lot of spiritual people' imagined these breakthroughs long before the scientists? Who are these people? And what did the scientists do? How did they make those breakthroughs without imagination and great insight? Why didn't the 'spiritual' people make the breakthroughs?



You see, I've never heard of a single person who could definitively see the future or spirits in any proveable way. All you ever get are anecdotes. Anecdotes are pretty easy to invent.



ok.



The talents you've listed, art/music/language are all highly visible, documented and proveable talents. Characteristics that are not shared by so-called psychic abilities.

6th

karynp wrote:

6th,
I fully agree with you here, Sylvia Browne wrongly told a missing boys parents he was murdered, he turned up safe a few years later,she has been exposed,also she charges 700 dollars for a half hour reading, this is a downright disgrace,considering all the money she has made on her books also........but yes, on an individual basis is the best form of judgement.

I am sure Sylvia Brown was recommended to plenty of people based on individual reports. So there is no real reason to believe in the paranormal ... its about faith, ts not rational and its not logical but we are still free to chose it.

Seeing is not believing, we can be fooled by ourselves, our bodies & minds -then there are individuals who can choose to fool us and use our senses against us. Illustionists are people who make a living out of the fact that you cant believe what you see.

Understanding is believing. If we understand something then there is little or no room for doubt. With paranormal phenomenon there is always room for doubt.

Seeing as its a question of belief & faith I agree with psi that its a question for the Spirituality forum.

meanmachine3

MOSSIEH: i pose a simple question to you.
do you believe in anthing paranormal or supernatural?

6th

meanmachine3 wrote:

MOSSIEH: i pose a simple question to you.
do you believe in anthing paranormal or supernatural?

Meanmachine: For anyone to answer that question the meaning of both paranormal and supernatural would need to be cleary defined. Would you care to difine them in such a way so as to allow mossieh to answer your question?

Nevyn

mossieh wrote:

I don't know whether or not it's possible, but based on the complete lack of verifiable evidence I very much doubt it.

There was a time it was believed the earth was flat....

mossieh wrote:

I that that the most vocal exponents of the 'art' are charlatans and manipulators.

No more then what 'drs' used to be every calling/profession has it's quacks.

mossieh wrote:

I think that some who claim to be mediums or psychics truly believe that they are, but that doesn't mean that they are correct and is more likely to be wishful thinking on their part.

Honestly it tends to be the reverse, people who are spend thier time wishfulling thinking they weren't and going to all manner of lengths to aviod the realtity that they are even to the extent of drinking most of the time.

I doubt anyone person who posts here who has any sort of abilty ( with in the realms of what we are talking about ) never tried to run away from or deny thier gifts or railed against them wishing and praying it wasn't so.

My next question to you is have you ever been and under gone the experience of seeing a medium ( who come in all sizes or shapes ) or a reader ?
and if not why ?

GuanYin

I'm gonna copy this to spirtuality.

Dave!

Yes, mediums are a hoax. Who's that Scouse guy who's always on the TV lately? Absolute chancer, whoever he is! I can't believe people actually believe this stuff, but thankfully it's quite a small minority.

Fallen Seraph

There was that story a while back (I'm afraid that I can't cite references) about Houdini. It seems he had quite the interest in mediums. So much so that when he got married he had some word (some female name, not that of his wife, iirc) engraved on his wife's wedding ring and said to her that if he died before her and she tried to contact him through a medium that he would tell the medium to say that word. In the end he died before her and she spent the next several years going to various mediums. I'm sure you'll be surprised to learn that the punch-line is that not a single medium said the designated word.

6th

Sounds like he bought a cheap ring in a pawn shop and then came up with an elaborate story to cover his thrifty ways to his wife

aidan24326

Adam wrote:

Are mediums a hoax??

<aidan24326 banned for one week for violating the charter>