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
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/

psychic/medium accuracy

  • 23-03-2008 01:40PM
    #1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 419 ✭✭


    last night i went to a psychic. now i wont go into specifics obviously. but some things he seemed to get spot on and some things were totaly wrong. what im wondering (having never went before) is this usual? do you tend to 'fit' what he says to your life? or do really good psychics get almost everything right? by the way it was a group party so he seen 6 or so people in sucession, and he seemed to get everyone else fairly right.


«13

Comments

  • Closed Accounts Posts: 457 ✭✭hiorta


    An evaluation of this may be in time delay - where information not yet known to you is given, it may be years ahead, with our sense of time being irrelevant in this field - or may be designed to stimulate your thinking patterns.

    Of course, it may be twaddle.

    This is why Mediums prefer to tape the sitting, it is difficult to follow what is being said and keep the mind from exploring what was just said.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,569 ✭✭✭iamhunted


    i dunno - i'd be surprised if out of 1000 psychics that 10 of them were genuine. As much as I believe there mediums who can connect to the spirit world, I dont think there are too many of them.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 343 ✭✭karynp


    iamhunted wrote: »
    i dunno - i'd be surprised if out of 1000 psychics that 10 of them were genuine. As much as I believe there mediums who can connect to the spirit world, I dont think there are too many of them.

    Actually,there a quite a lot who are genuine,its just unfortunate that its the ones who arent who get the spot light.
    A genuine medium will present rock solid evidence of the person coming through,not wishy washy general stuff.Evidence is usually presented firstly by a description of the spirit,cause of death and then evidence that is very fitting to the deceased.
    As for psychics...well,many people read tarot cards ect,but not too many actually do it psychically. So going for a reading can be tricky as it may be advertised as a card reader not a psychic.As cards have general meanings,many meaning for each card so when a person in not genuine as a psychic there bound to find something that will fit eventually.
    However,im very sure that the ones who are not genuine do not last,get a bad name and eventually go away.


  • Posts: 25,874 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    karynp wrote: »
    A genuine medium will present rock solid evidence of the person coming through,not wishy washy general stuff.Evidence is usually presented firstly by a description of the spirit,cause of death and then evidence that is very fitting to the deceased.
    So if there is genuine evidence of psychic ability how come James Randi's Million Dollar Prize hasn't even been close to being won?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 15,552 ✭✭✭✭GuanYin


    King Mob wrote: »
    So if there is genuine evidence of psychic ability how come James Randi's Million Dollar Prize hasn't even been close to being won?

    Maybe its not an exact art or maybe the stipulations are too strict for the nature of the ability.


  • Advertisement
  • Posts: 25,874 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    http://www.randi.org/joom/challenge-info.html
    Nope the claimant designs the test which is then modified till both parties can agree. the only problem i see is you need some media exposure. but then shouldn't be too hard if they truly have a supernatural ability.
    It even allows for an inexact art.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 343 ✭✭karynp


    King Mob wrote: »
    So if there is genuine evidence of psychic ability how come James Randi's Million Dollar Prize hasn't even been close to being won?


    we are talking about mediumistic ability,there is a difference between that and psychic ability.
    And,Mr Randi is a major sceptic so whatever he puts to a psychic is bound to be torn apart by him,i would imagine its a case of him not being trusted.
    A good friend of mine who is also a majorly known psychic and medium,has written many many books too,was tested by a leading university over a period of 7 years,random testing for various degrees of his abilities,he did not recieve any results until the 7 years had passed,never knew where of when he would be called for the tests,but he passed them with a 98% accuracy.The difference between the university and James Randi was trust,there was trust that the research and testing was being done for the greater good not for glory.


  • Posts: 25,874 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    karynp wrote: »
    we are talking about mediumistic ability,there is a difference between that and psychic ability.
    And,Mr Randi is a major sceptic so whatever he puts to a psychic is bound to be torn apart by him,i would imagine its a case of him not being trusted.
    A good friend of mine who is also a majorly known psychic and medium,has written many many books too,was tested by a leading university over a period of 7 years,random testing for various degrees of his abilities,he did not recieve any results until the 7 years had passed,never knew where of when he would be called for the tests,but he passed them with a 98% accuracy.The difference between the university and James Randi was trust,there was trust that the research and testing was being done for the greater good not for glory.

    Well first off, which university ? has this research ever been published? it would be really interesting to see.
    Secondly James Randi himself has very little to do with the testing process, the correspondence with all applicants is documented and available to view to the public. Many people have used this excuse time and time again it nothing new.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 15,552 ✭✭✭✭GuanYin


    King Mob wrote: »
    http://www.randi.org/joom/challenge-info.html
    Nope the claimant designs the test which is then modified till both parties can agree. the only problem i see is you need some media exposure. but then shouldn't be too hard if they truly have a supernatural ability.
    It even allows for an inexact art.

    I see, well having looked through the site, it seems simple enough. That said, I think that, from my limited understanding, focusing may be an issue in those circumstances.

    The other issue, is what person, genuine or not, really wants to expose themselves to either the abuse or scorn of the skeptic society (who, I can tell you, are not all the most civil bunch) or the possability of becoming a lab rat.

    I've seen what happens to lab rats


  • Posts: 25,874 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    I see, well having looked through the site, it seems simple enough. That said, I think that, from my limited understanding, focusing may be an issue in those circumstances.

    The other issue, is what person, genuine or not, really wants to expose themselves to either the abuse or scorn of the skeptic society (who, I can tell you, are not all the most civil bunch) or the possability of becoming a lab rat.

    I've seen what happens to lab rats

    well if they do truly have psychic abilities wouldn't changing the way we think and the laws of science its self be worth a little name calling?
    (I take a little offense by the way, I am a skeptic and am nothing but civil.)
    Unfortunately there are laws against treating people like lab rats (Damn you human rights, you have foiled me for the last time!). It is true though that the person claimed abillity would be subject to alot of tests but I think it would be worth it for a Nobel prize don't you?


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 343 ✭✭karynp


    The university is Glasgow university.


  • Posts: 25,874 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    karynp wrote: »
    The university is Glasgow university.
    Details? Names? Links? Anything? Or is there some reason you can't say. Because i really would like to look into this.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 457 ✭✭hiorta


    Exactly karynp. Spirit return is not so easy, apparently, but is attempted to try to help their loved ones realise that death is not the finality it might seem to be, but a change in our personal vibration. Communication is motivated by love.
    If it can be realised that no one dies, then hopefully the question of 'how best to live in light of this' will arise.

    It appears that sincere Spirit folk have no interest in 'proving' anything to to anyone, James Randi included. We will all discover the truth of it first hand soon enough.
    There may be natural laws blocking certain aspects of what may be revealed.

    It is all an individual process, with each one evaluating or dismissing the evidence offered.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,208 ✭✭✭fatmammycat


    "It appears that sincere Spirit folk have no interest in 'proving' anything to to anyone, James Randi included. We will all discover the truth of it first hand soon enough."
    LOL, how convenient. Spirit folk, charlatans, one and the same.


  • Posts: 25,874 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    hiorta wrote: »
    Exactly karynp. Spirit return is not so easy, apparently, but is attempted to try to help their loved ones realise that death is not the finality it might seem to be, but a change in our personal vibration. Communication is motivated by love.
    If it can be realised that no one dies, then hopefully the question of 'how best to live in light of this' will arise.

    It appears that sincere Spirit folk have no interest in 'proving' anything to to anyone, James Randi included. We will all discover the truth of it first hand soon enough.
    There may be natural laws blocking certain aspects of what may be revealed.

    It is all an individual process, with each one evaluating or dismissing the evidence offered.

    No you've got it all wrong you're not proving to James Randi or me or any skeptics but to the world. If someone could prove this powers exist it would change how the world works, maybe for the better.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 15,552 ✭✭✭✭GuanYin


    King Mob wrote: »
    well if they do truly have psychic abilities wouldn't changing the way we think and the laws of science its self be worth a little name calling?

    Or maybe they'd like to live a nice quiet life? I guess if you haven't lived in a situation where you don't quite fit in, its hard to make the call.
    (I take a little offense by the way, I am a skeptic and am nothing but civil.)
    Well no offence intended, however as someone who has tried to help form a community, I find that some skeptics dispence with civility in their enthusiasm to be right. I'm sure you're not like that.

    Unfortunately there are laws against treating people like lab rats (Damn you human rights, you have foiled me for the last time!). It is true though that the person claimed abillity would be subject to alot of tests but I think it would be worth it for a Nobel prize don't you?
    It depends on the person, someone living a quiet life in a backwater town doing a trade job, or in a small town in the middle of arizona, may not be so interested as you.

    Human nature makes us expect the world to be viewed as we view it, accepting that is notthe case, is a good start for any skeptic.

    King Mob wrote: »
    Details? Names? Links? Anything? Or is there some reason you can't say. Because i really would like to look into this.

    Some civility wouldn't go astray here, I know you're enthusiastic, but this comes across as demanding. Not even a please. (I'm sure its just reading it wrong in the text).


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 343 ✭✭karynp


    Yes is Hiorta,that is the case. As time goes on its becoming easier to prove this to people,plus the spirit world are giving us even more and more help in thinning the veil. I used to think i had to go out of my way to prove to people that what i knew was real,i would get annoyed with them too,but now,i dont feel that way as i know for a fact it is all true but i also understand that people are here for whatever reasons they have choose and those who wish to remember where they came from do,others have choosen not too,and for good reasons too,its for their growth.
    For now,people demand proof of all these things,as they want to believe but have lost there sense of trust or there sense of who they are would fit better,they allow other people to influence there thoughts or actions too much.This will not be the case forever as things are rapidly changing.
    I feel if people did know more about life,death,afterlife then they would be more inclined to make the most of their time on earth and treat it for what it is... a lesson.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,208 ✭✭✭fatmammycat


    It won't happen King Mob. I am an absolute skeptic- I think all this medium, reiki pet telepathy (snort, I can barely even type that without guffawing out loud) is complete hooey. And I think most proponents of this new age guff know fine well their mumbo jumbo is just that. That's why Randi's money is safe, and that's why people like Sylvia Browne and other 'mystics' avoid his perfectly legit challenge.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 343 ✭✭karynp


    "It appears that sincere Spirit folk have no interest in 'proving' anything to to anyone, James Randi included. We will all discover the truth of it first hand soon enough."
    LOL, how convenient. Spirit folk, charlatans, one and the same.

    and where is your proof of ONE AND THE SAME
    define a charlatan and define a spirit folk please so maybe then your opinion can be accepted.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,208 ✭✭✭fatmammycat


    Charlatan, person falsely claiming to have a special knowledge or skill, a quack, fraud.
    Spirit people, people falsely claiming to know hoe to get in touch with the 'spirit world'. There you go.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 343 ✭✭karynp


    It won't happen King Mob. I am an absolute skeptic- I think all this medium, reiki pet telepathy (snort, I can barely even type that without guffawing out loud) is complete hooey. And I think most proponents of this new age guff know fine well their mumbo jumbo is just that. That's why Randi's money is safe, and that's why people like Sylvia Browne and other 'mystics' avoid his perfectly legit challenge.

    Well Sylvia Browne isnt exactly what you would define as a great medium.Do your homework.
    As for this being new age as you say,well spirituality,mediums ect have been around for a lifetime.Have you ever witnessed a good medium,have you ever read historic boks on mediums ability? Or are you just afraid to look more deeply into yourself?
    There are variuos degrees to all of this,each with different abilites,outcomes.Of course there are people who imitate and fake,just as there are skeptics who pretend to be just that,out of fear!


  • Posts: 25,874 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Or maybe they'd like to live a nice quiet life? I guess if you haven't lived in a situation where you don't quite fit in, its hard to make the call.

    Well no offence intended, however as someone who has tried to help form a community, I find that some skeptics dispence with civility in their enthusiasm to be right. I'm sure you're not like that.

    It depends on the person, someone living a quiet life in a backwater town doing a trade job, or in a small town in the middle of arizona, may not be so interested as you.

    Human nature makes us expect the world to be viewed as we view it, accepting that is notthe case, is a good start for any skeptic.


    Some civility wouldn't go astray here, I know you're enthusiastic, but this comes across as demanding. Not even a please. (I'm sure its just reading it wrong in the text).
    i suppose i did come on a little strong. Sorry. But you see a claim like that is pretty easy to look into but a quick google search has turned up very little.

    As for civility in these debates there isn't a divide or anything a believer is just as prone to flying off the handle as any skeptics.

    Surely you can understand why claims like these aren't accepted as science fact, if the only ones that come for for testing are frauds and the real ones are nowhere to be found.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,208 ✭✭✭fatmammycat


    I"d LOVE TO witness a 'good medium' you tell me where one might be and I'll go and pay and keep an open mind. How about that?


  • Posts: 25,874 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    It won't happen King Mob. I am an absolute skeptic- I think all this medium, reiki pet telepathy (snort, I can barely even type that without guffawing out loud) is complete hooey. And I think most proponents of this new age guff know fine well their mumbo jumbo is just that. That's why Randi's money is safe, and that's why people like Sylvia Browne and other 'mystics' avoid his perfectly legit challenge.

    But if it did it would be interesting to say the least.
    (probably won't though)


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 343 ✭✭karynp


    Here is an extract from an interview done with my friend,im just trying to find a better link for you to read more on.His name is Gordon Smith.I know him well and have spent a lot of time in his company.The only reason i didnt mention names ect is simply because im not a name dropper and dont like to be one of those people.

    http://www.saskworld.com/bodymindspirit/edition19/27_interview_gordon.htm

    Q: You've taken part in scientific tests regarding the work you do. Can you tell us anything about these tests?

    A: Yes. The tests I participated in were for two researchers in Scotland -Professor Archie Roy, who is Emeritus Professor of Astronomy at the University of Glasgow , and Ms. Tricia Robertson, a statistician. The tests were conducted most rigorously and kept to very strict scientific protocols, as supervised by both Professor Roy and Ms. Robertson.

    The tests measured the accuracy of the information given by a medium; that is, how much of what is said by a medium could be accepted as more than just generalizations. My score was 98%, which I am told is the highest of any of the mediums they tested. More important, it shows that not all mediums just make generalizations. It's another little nugget to be used against people who would deride my work.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 15,552 ✭✭✭✭GuanYin


    King Mob wrote: »
    i suppose i did come on a little strong. Sorry. But you see a claim like that is pretty easy to look into but a quick google search has turned up very little.

    As for civility in these debates there isn't a divide or anything a believer is just as prone to flying off the handle as any skeptics.

    Surely you can understand why claims like these aren't accepted as science fact, if the only ones that come for for testing are frauds and the real ones are nowhere to be found.

    I'm not claiming anything. I'm a skeptic, or rather, I'm an undecided (which is what a skeptic should be, but as fatmammycat here has shown, what most skeptics fail to be). I do have a good grasp of psychology and human nature and as it happens, I'm also a doctor and scientist and I've yet to be convinced either way.

    Science explains alot of why some things aren't paranormal. Human nature explains alot of why science isn't always right. Absent Proof is not the same as proof to the contrary.

    As for civility, I think fatmammycat (who incidently, is no longer with us in the forum), is an case in point of what I meant. I don't go into an examination room of someone who I can't find anything wrong with immediately claiming they are making it all up.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 343 ✭✭karynp


    I"d LOVE TO witness a 'good medium' you tell me where one might be and I'll go and pay and keep an open mind. How about that?

    Have you ever been to see a medium at all?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 343 ✭✭karynp




  • Posts: 25,874 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Absent Proof is not the same as proof to the contrary.

    was wondering when this argument would crop up.
    You see logicially absent is the as proof to the contrary.
    Take this example.
    I state that there is a large purple dragon in my sitting room.
    A rational default postion for you the inquirer is "no, he doesn't" you would require evidence of said large purple dragon.
    While it is possible that i have a dragon in my living room, there is a much greater chance that i don't and am mistaken.

    So you see a good skeptic's default postion is there is no supernatural.
    only after we eliminate all the more likely possibilities (i.e. I'm mad or it is in fact a large purple iganua ) can we say something exists or not.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 343 ✭✭karynp


    Charlatan, person falsely claiming to have a special knowledge or skill, a quack, fraud.
    Spirit people, people falsely claiming to know hoe to get in touch with the 'spirit world'. There you go.

    LOL,if you insist!!
    In your definition of people who falesly claim to be in touch with the spirit world,where do you get your information from.
    And in that statement are you saying that the millions of people who have had a sitting with a medium who has helped them imensly..are they all wrong,are they imagining the conversations,or let me guess,the medium spends weeks before hand gathering information on their sitter,hee hee

    I totally respect the opinions of a true skeptic,as it happens i would also be sceptical of certain things too,until i have discovered my own truth,but i have to say,i find it hard to respect your opinion as kingmob has at least put out arguments that hold water,you do not.


Advertisement