psychic/medium accuracy

beaushalloe

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.

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.

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.

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.

karynp

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?

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.

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.

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.

karynp

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.

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

PSI: Las Vegas

PSI: Las Vegas wrote: »

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?

karynp

The university is Glasgow university.

karynp

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.

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.

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.

hiorta

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.

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).

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.

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.

karynp

fatmammycat wrote: »

"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.

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.

karynp

fatmammycat wrote: »

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!

PSI: Las Vegas

PSI: Las Vegas wrote: »

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.

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?

fatmammycat

fatmammycat wrote: »

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)

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.

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.

karynp

fatmammycat wrote: »

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?

karynp

Also hahttp://www.newsmonster.co.uk/paranormal-unexplained/psychic-detectives-gordon-smith-the-medium-finds-missing-soldiers-body.html


have a quick read of this while im looking it up

PSI: Las Vegas

PSI: Las Vegas wrote: »

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.

karynp

fatmammycat wrote: »

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.

GuanYin

King Mob wrote: »

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.

Except that your analogy would be better if there had been hundreds of independent claims of large purple dragons in your sitting room, dating back centuries from many isolated cultures across the planet.

There are several reasons too why you can logically argue that there is no large purple dragon in your sitting room.

The same logic cannot be applied to the entire spectrum in claims in paranormal events.

So you see a good skeptic's default postion is there is no supernatural.

Really, so you propose that we make up our minds and then debate and discussion becomes more bringing people around to our way of thinking, rather than being open or receptive to anything ourself.

That is exactly why we've never had any luck in the area.

only after we eliminate all the more likely possibilities can we say something exists or not.

Indeed, and we've failed to do that so now we've shifted the onus on to non-skeptics.

PSI: Las Vegas

PSI: Las Vegas wrote: »

Except that your analogy would be better if there had been hundreds of independent claims of large purple dragons in your sitting room, dating back centuries from many isolated cultures across the planet.

There are several reasons too why you can logically argue that there is no large purple dragon in your sitting room.

The same logic cannot be applied to the entire spectrum in claims in paranormal events.

Really, so you propose that we make up our minds and then debate and discussion becomes more bringing people around to our way of thinking, rather than being open or receptive to anything ourself.

That is exactly why we've never had any luck in the area.

Indeed, and we've failed to do that so now we've shifted the onus on to non-skeptics.

Ah but you see there are many good scientific and more likely explanations for all supernatural phenomenon, trickery, poorly understood natural phenomenon, the placebo effect, the idio-motor reflex, data searching, a simple trick of the light, and the list goes on and on and on.
You see there is no evidence for the paranormal that can't be explained. If there was people would be able to point to it and laugh and dance around it gleefully, but there just isn't. So until some paranormal effect is obversed and studied in detail, the default skeptical position should be and is there is no supernatural phenomenon.

hiorta

Originally Posted by 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.
****************************************************
Aye, it is very convenient indeed.
The medium or the onlooker and even the recipient at times, do not know what would be 'proof' and what might be dross. Agreed?

Evidence is chosen - by what means I do not know - by the communicator who then has to get their loved one(s) to a medium mentally in tune with them (the communicator) No mean feat in itself.

Then they have to try to get a slot, if it's a public demonstration, depend on the medium being sharp and receiving fully on the occasion, then relaying the totality of the desired info without altering it in the slightest.
All done by telepathic means.
Mediums do get tired, hungry, have an off day and may even be tempted to paraphrase and polish a message - thereby ruining it!
The spirit person has to begin all over again, only this time the recipient may not be as open.

Fatmammycat, you might think of yourself as a sceptic, but I'm pretty sure that your level of scepticism could never equal mine - at one time.
I've had exquisite proof time and again, from some great mediums. I have no doubt whatsoever of the truth of eternal life, but my evidence is of no use to anyone else.
If you really want to know without doubt, ask of your loved ones who have gone on, to try to reach you. It is true that if you 'seek and you will find'. It is also true that you will find what you seek. Approach with truth, honesty and sincerity and be patient.

karynp

I have tried to get further into the research but am being blocked as i am not a member of the university.
I will however phone gordon and ask him if he can provide more information for me.
Until then,i wont exhaust myself with this and that proof as i am well aware of the truth,as i see it.
In time,you will understand a bit more,being sceptical of all of this is good,you have more of an interest than you think,otherwise you would not argue the point.Being skeptic will prompt you to delve deeper and find more information until you reach your truth.

karynp

karynp wrote: »

I have tried to get further into the research but am being blocked as i am not a member of the university.
I will however phone gordon and ask him if he can provide more information for me.
Until then,i wont exhaust myself with this and that proof as i am well aware of the truth,as i see it.
In time,you will understand a bit more,being sceptical of all of this is good,you have more of an interest than you think,otherwise you would not argue the point.Being skeptic will prompt you to delve deeper and find more information until you reach your truth.

I've sent an email to the guy who did the test one Archie Roy asking for more info as well. If he does get back to me i'll forward the info on to you.

While i believe i understand well enough as it is, perhaps we can argee the the are at least some frauds and that the are doing harm, emotional and scientifically?

hiorta

Karynp, I really don't believe this. I have known Gordon for years, but he has moved so often I no longer have a contact for him.
If you would be so kind as to pass on my regards, I'd be most grateful.

I will PM you my name and details if you will allow me to?
Pretty please? lol.

karynp

hiorta wrote: »

Karynp, I really don't believe this. I have known Gordon for years, but he has moved so often I no longer have a contact for him.
If you would be so kind as to pass on my regards, I'd be most grateful.

I will PM you my name and details if you will allow me to?
Pretty please? lol.

I would most defintley do that for you Hiorta,im sure he will be delighted for a catch up from an old pal.....so you have that lovely scotts accent too.
See,spirit world has given us proof right now of how they work,i didnt want to mention Gordons name here but did and now you come forward and hey presto........or from a sceptics point of view..purely coincidental.

karynp

karynp wrote: »

I would most defintley do that for you Hiorta,im sure he will be delighted for a catch up from an old pal.....so you have that lovely scotts accent too.
See,spirit world has given us proof right now of how they work,i didnt want to mention Gordons name here but did and now you come forward and hey presto........or from a sceptics point of view..purely coincidental.

Yep i second that.
Just coincidence on to which you're placing undue importance. Its not a stretch of logic or anything.

karynp

King Mob wrote: »

Yep i second that.
Just coincidence on to which you're placing undue importance. Its not a stretch of logic or anything.

LOL
i knew youd say that.however we shall wait and see,i can nearly guarantee that Hiortas getting in touch with gordon will be more than productive for them both,perhaps if i am right hiorta will report back to us.

karynp

karynp wrote: »

LOL
i knew youd say that.

Gasp! proof at last?
You could take it as the spirits guiding you or what not or as coincidence.
But thanks to Occam's razor, coincidence is the most likely answer

GuanYin

King Mob wrote: »

You see there is no evidence for the paranormal that can't be explained. If there was people would be able to point to it and laugh and dance around it gleefully, but there just isn't. So until some paranormal effect is obversed and studied in detail, the default skeptical position should be and is there is no supernatural phenomenon.

But thats the rub, as soon as you can explain it, it is no longer paranormal and never was.

My position is, that there is a good chance that many of the phenomenon reported are valid but actually have explanations that are not within our realm of science. They will one day be. The preternatural (the term for this) is often a difficult concept, because what was today the supernatural, when explained scientifically, will become the natural.

Saying that there is no supernatural phenomenon is akin to saying we know all there is to know about how the universe works. On a day to day basis, in disease and illness, I can tell you, that is simply not true and it is naive to believe so.

The concept of the supernatural is that these things exist outside of nature, that in itself is a poor definition and false, because the fact that anything exists means that it exists within nature. Whether or not it works the way we think it does is the real question. That again, is not the same as there being no paranormal.

PSI: Las Vegas

PSI: Las Vegas wrote: »

But thats the rub, as soon as you can explain it, it is no longer paranormal and never was.

My position is, that there is a good chance that many of the phenomenon reported are valid but actually have explanations that are not within our realm of science. They will one day be. The preternatural (the term for this) is often a difficult concept, because what was today the supernatural, when explained scientifically, will become the natural.

Saying that there is no supernatural phenomenon is akin to saying we know all there is to know about how the universe works. On a day to day basis, in disease and illness, I can tell you, that is simply not true and it is naive to believe so.

The concept of the supernatural is that these things exist outside of nature, that in itself is a poor definition and false, because the fact that anything exists means that it exists within nature. Whether or not it works the way we think it does is the real question. That again, is not the same as there being no paranormal.

You make a good point but I'm saying is there is no evidence of the supernatural.
Using the term "Supernatural" as a catch all term for things such as ghosts psychics mediums healers etc.
Still even for stuff we deem to be possible, say Earth-like exo-solar planets still require proof before they are accepted.
Further more for something to be even concidered possible you have to to prove how it would be possible. (e.g. for exoplanets show how they would form around a star). People who claim supernatural phenomenon(ghost psychic healer etc.) can not even prove theoretically how the thing could occur or even be possible.

GuanYin

King Mob wrote: »

You make a good point but I'm saying is there is no evidence of the supernatural.
Using the term "Supernatural" as a catch all term for things such as ghosts psychics mediums healers etc.

And the preternatural? Would you accept that?

There is an awful lot of research on this at present; Ghosts as hallucination/manifestations of our subconcious mind brought on by EMF, information theory and thermodynamics to explain a soul (syke has a thread about that here somewhere - he knows more about the science of supernatural than I), psychic ability as a result of the 1st law of thermodynamics?

There are two ways to look at things.
1. Lots of people make alot of stuff up, some make the same thing, with the same details at the same time in isolation.

2. Something is causing these phenomenon, or the perception of these phenomenon that we haven't pinned down yet.

PSI: Las Vegas

PSI: Las Vegas wrote: »

And the preternatural? Would you accept that?

There is an awful lot of research on this at present; Ghosts as hallucination/manifestations of our subconcious mind brought on by EMF, information theory and thermodynamics to explain a soul (syke has a thread about that here somewhere - he knows more about the science of supernatural than I), psychic ability as a result of the 1st law of thermodynamics?

There are two ways to look at things.
1. Lots of people make alot of stuff up, some make the same thing, with the same details at the same time in isolation.

2. Something is causing these phenomenon, or the perception of these phenomenon that we haven't pinned down yet.

No not really. because there are already perfectly good rational explanations for it all already ghosts - tricks of the light etc. psychics - trickery etc healers - placebo effect and so on. there is no need to come up with new theories for stuff that is already explained.

GuanYin

King Mob wrote: »

No not really. because there are already perfectly good rational explanations for it all already ghosts - tricks of the light etc. psychics - trickery etc healers - placebo effect and so on. there is no need to come up with new theories for stuff that is already explained.

So again, you've already made up your mind and are just here to "educate" others (metaphorically)?

Also, your argument of explanations, unless applied to each reporting on a case by case basis is flawed.

Nelly is a pink elephant, therefore all elephants are pink.

hiorta

Sure karynp, I'd happily keep in touch.
I have an e address for Trish of The Scottish Society for Psychical Research
(SSPR) the lady you mention in your post. It may be of help in getting the report you mention.

It's a small world, indeed,

PSI: Las Vegas

PSI: Las Vegas wrote: »

So again, you've already made up your mind and are just here to "educate" others (metaphorically)?

Also, your argument of explanations, unless applied to each reporting on a case by case basis is flawed.

Nelly is a pink elephant, therefore all elephants are pink.

Well if someone had no contact with or knowledge of elephants until you prove that they are in fact gray can you blame that person for insisting that all elephants are pink?
You see all instances of supernatural phenomenon that have been investigated seriously have had rational explanations.
You can say there might be evidence to the contrary, and I'll accept there might, however until such evidence is produce and stands up to critical inquiry there is no reason to believe the supernatural exists.

I'm not here to preach but maybe get some people to start thinking more critically.

GuanYin

King Mob wrote: »

You can say there might be evidence to the contrary, and I'll accept there might, however until such evidence is produce and stands up to critical inquiry there is no reason to believe the supernatural exists.

I'm not here to preach but maybe get some people to start thinking more critically.

Ok, thats fair enough. You're more than welcome here. But Skeptics and not cynics is what we're after.

Please, just have a good read of the charter and make sure you post inthe spirit of the forum...so to speak.

karynp

hiorta wrote: »

Sure karynp, I'd happily keep in touch.
I have an e address for Trish of The Scottish Society for Psychical Research
(SSPR) the lady you mention in your post. It may be of help in getting the report you mention.

It's a small world, indeed,

Yes please Hiorta,that would be a great help as it would help people form a more educated opinion on this debate.

http://www.randi.org/jr/043004bad.html
A James Randi article on Gordon Smith mentioning SSPR test.
It should be mentioned other than Archie Roy as a former president SSPR has no offical connection to the University of Glasgow