So, uh... scepticism, eh???

Dave!

We've got nothing to talk about Anyone wanna invade the Paranormal forum?

Oryx

DaveMcG wrote: »

We've got nothing to talk about Anyone wanna invade the Paranormal forum?

Ha. Does that mean we won??:)
Instead of crashing our party, why not invite us to yours?

6th

The ISS forum died and this forum is might well go the same way (take that as a prediction ), seems skeptics only want to talk when they are jumping into another conversation rather than starting there own.

Shouldnt skeptics have feet on both sides of the fence ?

Maybe the name of this forum should be called "Its not true, there is no proof"

Dave!

Well there aint much to discuss when there's no 'believers' about, unless some skeptics fancy playing devil's advocate....

Oryx

DaveMcG wrote: »

Well there aint much to discuss when there's no 'believers' about, unless some skeptics fancy playing devil's advocate....

In the words of the Monkees, Im a believer. Off you go. Discuss.

johnsix

It's a bit hard to have an actual discussion when you're not allowed use simple Logic on the main forum.

And I'll point out for everyone else that this is NOT a "science only" forum, there is no "burden of proof" required to present an idea for discussion.

2 No demands for proof of paranormal validity.

If no proof is required I could claim to have all manner of powers and no one could say otherwise.

With a ban on asking for proof any discussions would just go round in circles.

Personally I don't see what the big deal is. If there is a paranormal phenomenon why not show proof.

Oryx

I agree that discussions go around in circles. Such is the nature of discussions where either side have such different standpoints.

But, as a for instance: Counsellor A has a therapy which, long term, works for the majority of their clients. Counsellor A has a long list of names and notes to prove this. But because of the nature of counselling/psychotherapy, it wont work for all clients. Say this counsellor comes on here and is asked to prove their therapy works. How do they do that, here? They could try it on you, but if it doesnt work does that dismiss the validity of the cases where it has worked? All they can do is present the evidence they have, within the limits of client confidentiality, and allow you to make up your own mind.

Im just using counselling as a non paranormal example of the difficulties faced in 'proving' anything here. Im not talking about 'it is or it isn't' stuff like purple dragons in your living room, but the more intangible nature of readings. Dismissing it all as cold reading I think is lazy, but I appreciate how impossible it is to do more than that here.

johnsix

The Counsellor could give links to studies indicating her method works, list books and other works to back up her claims, she could show where she got her qualifications.
No, it doesn't prove she has the best method or the only one that works beyond a doubt. However she has evidence to back up her idea.
Thats a lot more than some people on this forum can claim.

Oryx

johnsix wrote: »

The Counsellor could give links to studies indicating her method works, list books and other works to back up her claims, she could show where she got her qualifications.
No, it doesn't prove she has the best method or the only one that works beyond a doubt. However she has evidence to back up her idea.
.

You can study some paranormal aspects, but I doubt you would accept the validity of any qualifications. So you kinda have me there. And there are no studies (that I know of) that you would accept. Which frustrates me no end. Since people such as yourself have decided the whole area is mental illness, delusion, imagination and fraud, its a done deal. Any anomalies that crop up are simply slotted into one of the above categories. Hardly scientific.

So Im back to simply an evidence based claim. Which, to put it back to the counsellor analogy, if the therapy were new, untested, untried, how then would you go about proving a claim of success?

Thats a lot more than some people on this forum can claim

Is it just me or was there a hint of disdain in that comment? Its hard to have a reasonable discussion with someone looking down their nose. I come here with an open mind, to talk without being automatically judged. Can you do the same?

johnsix

Oryx wrote: »

You can study some paranormal aspects, but I doubt you would accept the validity of any qualifications. So you kinda have me there. And there are no studies (that I know of) that you would accept.

If they were properly controlled, show clears results, done be people who know what they are doing and have a back round in relevant fields and of course is peer reviewed then I would accept it.

Oryx wrote: »

Which frustrates me no end. Since people such as yourself have decided the whole area is mental illness, delusion, imagination and fraud, its a done deal. Any anomalies that crop up are simply slotted into one of the above categories. Hardly scientific.

Mental illness, delusion, imagination and fraud are all much, much more likely that anything supernatural and are never ruled out.

What do you mean by anomalies?

Oryx wrote: »

So Im back to simply an evidence based claim. Which, to put it back to the counsellor analogy, if the therapy were new, untested, untried, how then would you go about proving a claim of success?

By conducting controlled experiments, by analysing the data to varify if it is consistant with the theory. Have the theory and evidence peer reviewed and debated. If the theory still holds through debate and experimentation then it is accepted. This is the scientific method.
The idea is to attack and doubt your theory to see if it can withstand it.

Oryx wrote: »

Is it just me or was there a hint of disdain in that comment? Its hard to have a reasonable discussion with someone looking down their nose. I come here with an open mind, to talk without being automatically judged. Can you do the same?

Nothing meant by it. Just an observation that a lot of unsupported theories are thrown around.

Oryx

johnsix wrote: »

What do you mean by anomalies?

I have to keep this narrow, and within what I experience. Which I apologise for, Id rather widen it out, but noone else seems willing to talk here. Heres a silly stupid single example for you. Last week my mum jokingly asked me who the hell my brothers' (who was there) new girlfriend was, cos he wasnt saying. It was a joke poking fun at my 'psychic ability'. But a (first) name popped into my head. And it was correct. So was that deluded or a lucky guess? Bearing in mind it was the second time Id done it that with that brother, hence the joking. (And if you believe it was a lucky guess, then see how many goes it takes for you to guess, say, my mums name.:)) Im the first to admit its a very lightweight example. But its one I can volunteer here. And rather than take the easy option and say guesswork, Id love to know if there is another reason this and similiar things happen.

By conducting controlled experiments, by analysing the data to varify if it is consistant with the theory. Have the theory and evidence peer reviewed and debated. If the theory still holds through debate and experimentation then it is accepted. This is the scientific method.
The idea is to attack and doubt your theory to see if it can withstand it.

Right, you already have guessed Im not particularly well read on scientific matters, but how do you do a controlled experiment on counselling or psychotherapy? Which is why I picked that as an example? Peer debate and review I can accept, trouble is, in the paranormal field there is no real peer group for study.

Nothing meant by it. Just an observation that a lot of unsupported theories are thrown around.

Grand. It just came across that way to me. I throw around a lot of unsupported theories I suppose, but thats what we are here for. To find an explanation, or if we cant, to suggest new theories on what is happening.

johnsix

Oryx wrote: »

I have to keep this narrow, and within what I experience. Which I apologise for, Id rather widen it out, but noone else seems willing to talk here. Heres a silly stupid single example for you. Last week my mum jokingly asked me who the hell my brothers' (who was there) new girlfriend was, cos he wasnt saying. It was a joke poking fun at my 'psychic ability'. But a (first) name popped into my head. And it was correct. So was that deluded or a lucky guess? Bearing in mind it was the second time Id done it that with that brother, hence the joking. (And if you believe it was a lucky guess, then see how many goes it takes for you to guess, say, my mums name.:)) Im the first to admit its a very lightweight example. But its one I can volunteer here. And rather than take the easy option and say guesswork, Id love to know if there is another reason this and similiar things happen.

Two lucky guesses are still way more likely than psychic ability.
You can narrow it down by knowing common name in the area, possible friends etc. It unfortunately is not that amazing you guess two names in fairness.
And sure what the hell your mothers name is either Sinead, Maire, or Mary

Oryx wrote: »

Right, you already have guessed Im not particularly well read on scientific matters, but how do you do a controlled experiment on counselling or psychotherapy? Which is why I picked that as an example? Peer debate and review I can accept, trouble is, in the paranormal field there is no real peer group for study.

I'd be lying if I said i knew the particulars of counselling or psychotherapy research. But its safe to assume it's more than anecdotal or subjective evidence.
But the parnormal field does have peer groups, psychologists, biologists, physicists, historians, all would have authority to peer review various paranormal fields.

Oryx wrote: »

Grand. It just came across that way to me. I throw around a lot of unsupported theories I suppose, but thats what we are here for. To find an explanation, or if we cant, to suggest new theories on what is happening.

And non-paranormal explantions are not only as valid but more likely.

Oryx

johnsix wrote: »

Two lucky guesses are still way more likely than psychic ability.
You can narrow it down by knowing common name in the area, possible friends etc. It unfortunately is not that amazing you guess two names in fairness.
And sure what the hell your mothers name is either Sinead, Maire, or Mary

No, none of them. Which illustrates my point. I accept it may have been a lucky guess, hell, I cant say for certain it wasnt, but given that there are, say 20 popular girls names can someone from poker or somewhere work out the odds, just so we know? And can you please, just for a moment allow yourself to even consider anything else, just in the interests of offering another hypothesis? Its the standard response of 'it's that and nothing else and now go away' that stifles discussion here. I dont give a damn what caused the example I gave, id just like ideas other than guesswork. (Next time my bro changes women, ill let you know if I get 3/3, which will improve my standing. )

I'd be lying if I said i knew the particulars of counselling or psychotherapy research. But its safe to assume it's more than anecdotal or subjective evidence.
But the parnormal field does have peer groups, psychologists, biologists, physicists, historians, all would have authority to peer review various paranormal fields.

And non-paranormal explantions are not only as valid but more likely.

The last time I saw someone mentioned here who had university credentials who studied the paranormal, people got a bit sniffy about what emeritus meant and questioned the mans affliation to his college. Generally the regular scientific community (which I class you a member of) looks down on those who research paranormal phenomenon. Thats the perception I get, anyway.

johnsix

Oryx wrote: »

No, none of them. Which illustrates my point. I accept it may have been a lucky guess, hell, I cant say for certain it wasnt, but given that there are, say 20 popular girls names can someone from poker or somewhere work out the odds, just so we know? And can you please, just for a moment allow yourself to even consider anything else, just in the interests of offering another hypothesis? Its the standard response of 'it's that and nothing else and now go away' that stifles discussion here. I dont give a damn what caused the example I gave, id just like ideas other than guesswork. (Next time my bro changes women, ill let you know if I get 3/3, which will improve my standing. )

Well from a list of 20 names of which one if correct there is 1 in 20 chance of my guessing correctly not exactly impossble.
However I wager the name you guessed was not foriegn or unusual in anyway.
I'm not saying it's one thing or another though, am I? I'm suggesting that non-paranormal explanations are more likely

Oryx wrote: »

The last time I saw someone mentioned here who had university credentials who studied the paranormal, people got a bit sniffy about what emeritus meant and questioned the mans affliation to his college. Generally the regular scientific community (which I class you a member of) looks down on those who research paranormal phenomenon. Thats the perception I get, anyway.

Usually when scientists look down on ones dong paranormal research it's because they are doing it poorly.
There's a difference between research and peer review.
You don't have to believe in the theory to criticize it or anything.

Oryx

johnsix wrote: »

Well from a list of 20 names of which one if correct there is 1 in 20 chance of my guessing correctly not exactly impossble.
However I wager the name you guessed was not foriegn or unusual in anyway.
I'm not saying it's one thing or another though, am I? I'm suggesting that non-paranormal explanations are more likely

Which is why I used a figure of 20 for the odds, to keep it to popular names. Neither name appears in the top 25 for 2006 or 2000. I just checked.:) And keep guessing my mums name. I want to see how long it takes. In the interests of science, of course. Of course I want to explore all possiblities, Im not fixed on it being paranormal, I just think its worth moving past guesswork to other ideas, anything at all. And the name thing is just an instance, just a random way of illustrating the difficulty of what we are trying do within these confines.

And I can work out the odds of doing it once myself.:) It was twice I was wondering about. Are they the same or do they change?

As for poor research, I would be interested in you putting forward something of interest, (unless nothing in paranormal is of interest!) and suggest how you would test it. I know thats homework, and no problem if you cant be bothered.:)

johnsix

Oryx wrote: »

Which is why I used a figure of 20 for the odds, to keep it to popular names. Neither name appears in the top 25 for 2006 or 2000. I just checked.:) And keep guessing my mums name. I want to see how long it takes. In the interests of science, of course. Of course I want to explore all possiblities, Im not fixed on it being paranormal, I just think its worth moving past guesswork to other ideas, anything at all. And the name thing is just an instance, just a random way of illustrating the difficulty of what we are trying do within these confines.

It's hard not immpossible.
Ann, Sarah, Brigit, Susan, Margret.
Maybe you should start guessing too;)

Oryx wrote: »

And I can work out the odds of doing it once myself.:) It was twice I was wondering about. Are they the same or do they change?

It's the same odds. No difference between the first and second guesses

Oryx wrote: »

As for poor research, I would be interested in you putting forward something of interest, (unless nothing in paranormal is of interest!) and suggest how you would test it. I know thats homework, and no problem if you cant be bothered.:)

Thats the thing though, you need something to test. And for posts on the forum it seems there's few volunteers.
And an experiment would be dependant on the subject.

???

Oryx wrote: »

Which is why I used a figure of 20 for the odds, to keep it to popular names.

Yeah the odds are a lot more complicated than 1 in 20!!! You'd have to find out how many people had each name etc. etc. etc.

In the interests of science, of course. Of course I want to explore all possiblities, Im not fixed on it being paranormal, I just think its worth moving past guesswork to other ideas, anything at all. And the name thing is just an instance, just a random way of illustrating the difficulty of what we are trying do within these confines.

Could you please translate that!!! Sorry just could not follow!!!

As for poor research, I would be interested in you putting forward something of interest, (unless nothing in paranormal is of interest!) and suggest how you would test it. I know thats homework, and no problem if you cant be bothered.:)

Couple of simple ones:

Ouji Board
Blindfold the participants and spin the board. At best they get gibberish.

Spoon Bending and others acomplishable by sleight of hand
Film them from all angles then analyse the replay to see if it bends when they say it is etc.

Psychic Predictions
Get them to repeatedly predict a set event in the future of which the chances of guessing are miniscule like the lottery or even what card you will draw from a fresh, unopened deck.

Remote Viewing
Send someone to an obscure location with a very definite identifying object such as a particular statitue. The rewuirements for success being they draw the unique object.

Mediumship
Contact a specific person and ask them a for a very specific piece of information (name and breed of their first pet or something), repeat!

Astrology
Laugh at them.

Tarot Reading
Get them to identify highly specific events in the past and near future for multiple anonymous people who can block cold reading.

Ghosts
Well if someone would give a proper definition of what they consist of... EM readers, infrared, using cameras are all so busted it's ridiculous.


Tests for eficacy in psychology are interesting. The vast majority of 'real' psychology is drug based in which case large double or tripple blinded studies work as normal.

Anything that cannot be treated with drugs is pretty much always totally subjective. With subjective symptoms the most efficacious thing is just to give them attention whether it's a talk with a shrink or hypnotising them. It's the fundamental principle of the placebo effect. It's the reason things like accupuncture may appear to have efficacy in badly done studies.

The other thing is that quite a large amount is known about thought and motivation and all that jazz and so the plausibility of most things is easily determined. It is quite possible you could find that if you lead your patients through a intense nursery rhyme session you'd find some efficacy entirely down to the placebo effect because there is no known mechanism as to why reciting Baa baa black sheep (coloured sheep?) will help you.

SkepticOne

Telepathy: Remotely tell which of a series of cards someone in another room is looking at.

Telekinesis: Move an object without physical access.

Most claims of paranormal ability are testable. I can't see why paranormal believers think there's a problem with testing. The only reason I can think of is that deep down they believe that what they are experiencing is not really paranormal, but rather just the subjective feeling of strangeness e.g:

"I was thinking about someone and the phone rang and, sure enough, it was them..."

Everyone has these experiences and most people put it down to coincidence, but if we were to really test whether this is simply just the effect of random chance, the possibility of it being paranormal might go away and many people are drawn to the possibility of something being paranormal.

Another example: "Sometimes I see ghosts in the form of blurred shapes in my visual field. These visions are accompanied by headaches. The headaches seem to be located in the position of my 'third eye'".

I think it unlikely that either of these experiences are paranormal in nature though if one were inclined to paranormal interpretations then many paranormal explanations would be possible. One can, however, understand why someone would choose the paranormal explanation over a more mundane one even though deep down they might suspect that the mundane one is closer to the truth.

johnsix

SkepticOne wrote: »

"I was thinking about someone and the phone rang and, sure enough, it was them..."

This is the best example of selective validation Every experiences this, some even count them. However they seem to neglect the amount of times the don't guess who is ringing. Count the hits and ignore the misses.
Simular thing happened to me just the other day. Me and a friend on the way to the pub where talking about how awesome the movie Predator is. Guess what was on the TV in the pub?

Same idea applies to Oryx's example. Do you commonly guess peoples names before they tell you? Have you ever gotten it wrong?

Oryx

johnsix wrote: »

Same idea applies to Oryx's example. Do you commonly guess peoples names before they tell you? Have you ever gotten it wrong?

No, not something I do at all really. I prefer to ask someones name.;) The example was done as a joke.

I have read about the occurrence of coincidences (like your tv one). And I agree, that so many possible coincidences could happen in a single day, its not surprising some actually do.

It's hard not immpossible.
Ann, Sarah, Brigit, Susan, Margret.
Maybe you should start guessing too

You still didnt get it. Dont worry I just wanted to show guessing aint easy even when you know you are probably talking of an older Irish woman. And I should start guessing? Ah no, I found out what it was years ago.

Could you please translate that!!! Sorry just could not follow!!!

Sorry, there was I thinking I was making sense.
Guess my mums name... In the interests of science, of course.:) Of course I want to explore all possiblities of what might be going on Im not fixed on anything having a paranormal cause, I just think its worth moving past guesswork as a conclusion, to other ideas of what might be the cause. And the name thing is just an example, a way of illustrating the difficulty of discussing, or testing or properly examining anything within the restrictions of a chat forum.

Ouji Board
Blindfold the participants and spin the board. At best they get gibberish.

Why not use a single blindfolded participant. Why should there have to be a group?

Spoon Bending and others acomplishable by sleight of hand
Film them from all angles then analyse the replay to see if it bends when they say it is etc.

Already held as complete bunk by most. Even dyed in the wool woo woo people.

Psychic Predictions
Get them to repeatedly predict a set event in the future of which the chances of guessing are miniscule like the lottery or even what card you will draw from a fresh, unopened deck

Not my forte. If psychics could win the lottery theyd have done it already. It would make JR look like a cheapskate wouldnt it? Could such tests be done if they involved people rather than numbers or objects?

Remote Viewing
Send someone to an obscure location with a very definite identifying object such as a particular statitue. The rewuirements for success being they draw the unique object.

Good idea, but again would it still be deemed a successful test if say the guinea pig psychic was told to maybe describe your house and got not a particular object, but an object very specific to you? (Not volunteering here, but just checking how such tests could be adapted)

Mediumship
Contact a specific person and ask them a for a very specific piece of information (name and breed of their first pet or something), repeat!

Mediums cannot dial up a specific person. If they claim they can, then Id be dubious about them, too. And I dont think asking multiple links for the same info works. You get a set of identifying information for a person, but I couldnt tell you what each one had as a pet, I have no idea if others could.

Astrology
Laugh at them.

Now, now.

Tarot Reading
Get them to identify highly specific events in the past and near future for multiple anonymous people who can block cold reading.

Are the readers allowed to give event that are recognisably specific to the sitter, but not preset, or are they required to find a specific event previously agreed with the testers?

Ghosts
Well if someone would give a proper definition of what they consist of... EM readers, infrared, using cameras are all so busted it's ridiculous.

Well, you are the scientist. If people claim to see them, feel chills etc (all the typical ghosty things) what would you suggest?

???

Oryx wrote: »

Why not use a single blindfolded participant. Why should there have to be a group?

You can easily. Ouji just seems to be a group activity!!!

Not my forte. If psychics could win the lottery theyd have done it already. It would make JR look like a cheapskate wouldnt it? Could such tests be done if they involved people rather than numbers or objects?

That's a problem most psychics have!!! Some psychic who was on the ISS board claimed she pulled it off for them in a test even though the times showed she posted 20 minutes after the draw!!!

Good idea, but again would it still be deemed a successful test if say the guinea pig psychic was told to maybe describe your house and got not a particular object, but an object very specific to you? (Not volunteering here, but just checking how such tests could be adapted)

You'd have to do a shortlist of five acceptable uncommon items of which they'd have to get three or so.

Mediums cannot dial up a specific person. If they claim they can, then Id be dubious about them, too. And I dont think asking multiple links for the same info works. You get a set of identifying information for a person, but I couldnt tell you what each one had as a pet, I have no idea if others could.

They seem bloody good at contacting those who've died recently in tragic circumstances! Sylvia 'Evil Nutcase' Browne for example does it all the time.

Are the readers allowed to give event that are recognisably specific to the sitter, but not preset, or are they required to find a specific event previously agreed with the testers?

Do up a shortlist of acceptable events as above.

Well, you are the scientist. If people claim to see them, feel chills etc (all the typical ghosty things) what would you suggest?

The problem is that there is no plausible mechanism for the existance of ghosts. Cold spots can be explain by draughts, heat loss and a load of other physicy things!!! There's also good old imagination.

Oryx

??? wrote: »

You can easily. Ouji just seems to be a group activity!!!

It can just as easily be done alone. I did myself once, so (ideomotor or not) I know it works.

That's a problem most psychics have!!! Some psychic who was on the ISS board claimed she pulled it off for them in a test even though the times showed she posted 20 minutes after the draw!!!

Im only making suggestions based on how/why I think these things mightwork. People could have more of an emotional connection than numbers. As I said before, if I could guess the lottery I would, and then I wouldnt have to work 9-5 anymore.

You'd have to do a shortlist of five acceptable uncommon items of which they'd have to get three or so.

Again, Im not making suggestions so that its easy to cheat, even though a cynic might say so. Im making suggestions that would leave it open ended enough for a reader to work in their own way, and still fulfill the requirements of a test. If it was left open-ended and the reader came up with something like... you have a grand piano in your bathroom (and you did) Id imagine that would be concrete and non-guessable enough.

They seem bloody good at contacting those who've died recently in tragic circumstances! Sylvia 'Evil Nutcase' Browne for example does it all the time.

Ok... to qualify what I said. You can try. But noone can guarantee reaching a particular spirit/link/whatever. Those shows where they contact Princess Di or John Lennon are irritating bullshit. And Sylvia Brown I wont comment on.

The problem is that there is no plausible mechanism for the existance of ghosts. Cold spots can be explain by draughts, heat loss and a load of other physicy things!!! There's also good old imagination

I agree, but the curious part for me is when people see ghosts of people that are recognisable. (A grandaddy they never met or something) That piques my interest. Yes you can explain it all away with normality, as you should the majority of the time, no point in getting carried away. I just think theres a small inexplicable element that warrants investigation.

???

Oryx wrote: »

Again, Im not making suggestions so that its easy to cheat, even though a cynic might say so. Im making suggestions that would leave it open ended enough for a reader to work in their own way, and still fulfill the requirements of a test. If it was left open-ended and the reader came up with something like... you have a grand piano in your bathroom (and you did) Id imagine that would be concrete and non-guessable enough.

Open ended criteria is the fundamental problem with 99% of paranormal research. For it to be a valid test it must have a specific thresehold for success. Look at Rupert Sheldrake's psychic dog experiments... That's what results from open ended criteria!!!

Ok... to qualify what I said. You can try. But noone can guarantee reaching a particular spirit/link/whatever. Those shows where they contact Princess Di or John Lennon are irritating bullshit. And Sylvia Brown I wont comment on.

My chief point with Browne is that she's so thoroughly busted yet she still has huge following. Also for psychics to say browne's not a 'real' psychic is a fraud sounds quite like the no true scotsman fallacy

I agree, but the curious part for me is when people see ghosts of people that are recognisable. (A grandaddy they never met or something) That piques my interest. Yes you can explain it all away with normality, as you should the majority of the time, no point in getting carried away. I just think theres a small inexplicable element that warrants investigation.

You can't investigate something unless their is criteria for success and failure. You can't just go anomaly hunting!!!!

Oryx

??? wrote: »

Open ended criteria is the fundamental problem with 99% of paranormal research. For it to be a valid test it must have a specific thresehold for success. Look at Rupert Sheldrake's psychic dog experiments... That's what results from open ended criteria!!!

I have no idea what that is. Can you link?

My chief point with Browne is that she's so thoroughly busted yet she still has huge following. Also for psychics to say browne's not a 'real' psychic is a fraud sounds quite like the no true scotsman fallacy

I dont get your point. To say one of anything bogus so all are bogus is also a fallacy. Isnt it? Can you clarify what you mean?

You can't investigate something unless their is criteria for success and failure. You can't just go anomaly hunting!!!!

Im not suggesting you go anomaly hunting. Im saying when one occurs, you should investigate it by whatever means you have. Detectives dont investigate crimes by recreating them in a test tube. They look for evidence.

SkepticOne

Oryx wrote: »

No, not something I do at all really. I prefer to ask someones name.;) The example was done as a joke.

I think you are evading the issue here. You claim to have this ability. Yet when challenged you say that you don't practice it.

I would hazard a guess you would not like this ability to guess names to be tested properly since it may turn out that your abilities are merely delusional.

???

Oryx wrote: »

I have no idea what that is. Can you link?

http://skepdic.com/morphicres.html small bit on it there. Basically he succesfully 'proved' that dogs psychically know when their owners are coming home. He did this by analysing the behaviour of the dogs and if anything behaviourly changed he took that as proof the dogs knew. By applying different criteria for success each time he pretty much faked his results!

I dont get your point. To say one of anything bogus so all are bogus is also a fallacy. Isnt it? Can you clarify what you mean?

'Sylvia Browne's not a true psychic, I am though.' I just find it hypocritical when people who believe in psychic powers criticise the big TV personalities saying their not really psychic.

Yes it would be a fallacy. However, we can use her to highlight techniques often used by psychics and the harm it can do. Also, in experience the best brickys get payed the most, the best actors get paid the most. Surely their would be one real psychic with a high profile if it really existed?

Im not suggesting you go anomaly hunting. Im saying when one occurs, you should investigate it by whatever means you have. Detectives dont investigate crimes by recreating them in a test tube. They look for evidence.

Yes detectives look for evidence but they look for specific evidence. They have a criteria for what to look for whether it's fingerprints or a hair or a bloody dagger. They don't just say 'well there's been a murder, lets all have a looksee then...'

The analogy doesn't hold up because no one has presented a criteria of what to search for with ghosts, if they did it could be given some consideration but untill they do it's just anomaly huntimng which is bad science.

johnsix

???

Yeah Cectic!!!!!!!!!!

Oryx

SkepticOne wrote: »

I think you are evading the issue here. You claim to have this ability. Yet when challenged you say that you don't practice it.

I would hazard a guess you would not like this ability to guess names to be tested properly since it may turn out that your abilities are merely delusional.

I feel that (as with the chess cartoon) you really want to trap me here. I feel like bloody Little Red Riding Hood surrounded by sceptical Big Bad Wolves. Im not evading anything. Read the thread again. I said: Hey I managed to guess correctly an unknown name, twice. Why do you think that might happen? I didnt say: Hey guys Im brilliant I can always guess someones name. Im just as curious as to why it might happen sometimes and not all the time. And I have said above there is a high likelihood of it being chance. And Ive said I wont do test here because honestly, Im nervous as hell. I cant guarantee anything, its an unknown quantity and youre an unforgiving crowd. If I fall flat on my face, which is highly likely, then anything I ever say afterwards is tainted. And if I did happen to actually get something right, it would be put down to a lucky guess. I recognise a battle I cannot win.

Do you commonly guess peoples names before they tell you? Have you ever gotten it wrong?

This was the question. To which I gave an honest answer. The example I gave was a single example of something done as a joke. I dont walk up to people and cross my eyes and concentrate and tell them their names, ever.

My agenda is just to discuss things in a wider way than usually happens. Your agenda seems to be to prove me wrong in anything and everything I say here. Im here in your corner to get your take on things I have heard about or have had happen. If I wanted backup from believers, then Id stay cosily in the main forum where you cannot criticise. No, I never studied science, so no, I dont know the rules.

Im not here to promote myself in any way. If I was this would be a very bad place to do it. Why am I being consistently attacked and asked to prove what I say? Fine, show me where my thinking is warped, but dont accuse me of stuff Im not doing, such as being evasive or fraudulent. This is not about me personally. If you want me to learn the rules, then teach. You are never coming over to my side, and Ill never be one of you either, can you treat this as a learning exercise on both sides, rather than a battle?

'Sylvia Browne's not a true psychic, I am though.' I just find it hypocritical when people who believe in psychic powers criticise the big TV personalities saying their not really psychic.

Again you are leaping ahead and assuming I said something I didnt. I did not criticise her. Others have. I tried to read one of her books and hated it, I thought she had an ego the size of my living room. But I know nothing of her failings so cannot comment. I know of psychics I have a lot of time for, I know of others I think are out and out frauds. Im loath to bring up any names here because then well start batting back and forth opinion and criticism on them too. For that, theres always http://www.badpsychics.com

You really dont understand where Im coming from here. I want to discuss paranormal stuff here, yes, and to get a sceptical take on it. I bring my own experience into it because thats what I understand best. If Im deluded fine, I actually really want to know that. I resent being attacked and being held to account for things I never claimed, and I find it impossible to discuss anything with you if your reason for discussion is to show me up as a fraud, when Im not here to argue what I can or cannot do, but to discuss the possiblity of such things happening at all.

The analogy doesn't hold up because no one has presented a criteria of what to search for with ghosts, if they did it could be given some consideration but untill they do it's just anomaly huntimng which is bad science.

So what do you think is the best approach to take if you want to figure out why so many people say they see ghosts and little green men or whatever else is claimed. Do you presume its a mental delusion and set out to prove that? What would be the best way to investigate the mental processes that cause this to happen?

Edit:

Surely their would be one real psychic honest politician with a high profile if it really existed?

Perhaps they started out good, but being in the public eye, rich and famous, taints them.

johnsix

The non-paranormal explaination: You guessed the names by luck, because you believe you are psychic you attributed that luck to you claimed powers.
This explaination is way more like than any supernatural one.

Oryx

johnsix wrote: »

The non-paranormal explaination: You guessed the names by luck, because you believe you are psychic you attributed that luck to you claimed powers.
This explaination is way more like than any supernatural one.

Accepted. We will never reach full consensus on it, but I accept that your viewpoint is pretty inarguable until I can come up with something better than the example above.

And for reference (again) Im not Supergirl. I dont have 'powers'. Thats as much of an anathema to me as the random use of the word energy is to you.

I know you wring your hands at your inability to request proof here. I agree thats a difficulty, but as most paranormal events are anecdotal, and this site is all about anecdotes and the written word, theres not much we can do about that. I think that all we can do here is share experiences and possible explanations for same. That leaves you in a position where you have to accept what is given here as truthful, even if you think its bs. You have to accept that whoever states something believes that it is what occurred. You might find that if you allow people to share and request your opinion without fearing a witchhunt, skeptics corner might not be tumbleweed city.

???

Oryx wrote: »

Again you are leaping ahead and assuming I said something I didnt. I did not criticise her. Others have. I tried to read one of her books and hated it, I thought she had an ego the size of my living room. But I know nothing of her failings so cannot comment. I know of psychics I have a lot of time for, I know of others I think are out and out frauds. Im loath to bring up any names here because then well start batting back and forth opinion and criticism on them too. For that, theres always http://www.badpsychics.com

Apologies. It wasn't a direct attack on you, just a comment on how a lot of psychics treat her. I assumed you were criticising her when you said:

And Sylvia Brown I wont comment on.

I assumed you were doing a 'Don't mention her...'

So what do you think is the best approach to take if you want to figure out why so many people say they see ghosts and little green men or whatever else is claimed. Do you presume its a mental delusion and set out to prove that? What would be the best way to investigate the mental processes that cause this to happen?

Sleep paralysis is a big one for the little green men and also ghosts when you're in bed.

Paradolia is another major one for ghosts. Ever woken up and seem something resembling a human, turning on your light and seen it was a pile of clothes on a chair?

Misremembering the event is another one. Humans are inherrently bad at noticing things and at remembering things they noticed and at recalling the things they do remember accuratly. It's ridiculous how bad peoples memories of events are. It's something magicians often play on, doing something in the open but trusting no one will remark on it and if they do counting on them not really remembering it properly.

I've had a ghost experience. I was lying in bed awake when i was younger and saw a shadowy thing dart accross my room. Don't know what caused it but I don't believe it was a ghost. My current thoughts are a bat or a bird passing between an external light source and casting the shadow that my brain wrongly interpreted as humanoid. I'm also almost certain that what I have typed is not at all how it's happened but in the years since my brains filled in details and the like.

I think that is a fairly typical 'ghost sighting'!!! With a decent explanation...

most paranormal events are anecdotal, and this site is all about anecdotes and the written word

Unfortuneatly the plural of anecdote is anecdotes, not evidence!!!

Oryx

??? wrote: »

Unfortuneatly the plural of anecdote is anecdotes, not evidence!!!

But unless you can come up with a sure fire way of lie detecting everyone who comments here, its all youve got. Storytelling of one kind or another. You get normal people here who have strange experiences they want to discuss. They dont come here armed with theses and data spreadsheets. Ive seen people go on ISS and claim all kinds of metaphysical qualifications, and get torn to shreds when it was proved they were lying, if you do that you are fair game. But Im thinking of the ordinary folk who generally post here in good faith.

I dont know the fancy names such as paradolia. Hats off to your knowledge, but yes Ive had that happen, and I laugh about it when the cold sweat has subsided. Believe me if I saw a ghost (I did once, Ill save that though:)) Id check for that kind of thing before spouting off about it. Mostly things do have a mundane explanation but for me some dont.

As a child, my mum saw a figure in her bedroom. Next morning she went and told her daddy all about it, and he told her to stop talking nonsense. But it was a big deal to her, and when, years later she asked him about it, he said that at the time, she had descibed 'the auld man' his dad, long dead, who she never met. And no cameras... no photos! He fobbed her off because he was shocked and how could you tell a child they saw a dead man? I referred to this earlier, but vaguely, I hope my mum doesnt kill me for bringing it up. Now, you can offer all kinds of rational reasons for this, but for me, its a curiousity. Especially when similar things happen to me.

SkepticOne

Oryx wrote: »

I feel that (as with the chess cartoon) you really want to trap me here. I feel like bloody Little Red Riding Hood surrounded by sceptical Big Bad Wolves. Im not evading anything. Read the thread again. I said: Hey I managed to guess correctly an unknown name, twice. Why do you think that might happen? I didnt say: Hey guys Im brilliant I can always guess someones name. Im just as curious as to why it might happen sometimes and not all the time.

If it is just once or twice then it is most likely coincidence. If you can do it with a reliabily better than pure chance (not necessarily all the time) then that can be tested.

6th

How many skeptics here have visited an alledgedly haunted location or consulted with a psychic/medium? How many here have done their own research or debunked a case themselves?

Now how many here based their belief or disbelief on the work of other people i.e. scientists etc?

Imo alot od skeptics have it too easy and that has made them lazy. Its no trouble to sit back and wait for people to make claims and then ask for proof - you know the almost cliche lines that can be used so I wont bother with them. Basically I have more respect for t hose who get off their bums and come t o their position based on experience rather than the hard work of others.

SkepticOne

6th wrote: »

Now how many here based their belief or disbelief on the work of other people i.e. scientists etc?

I have in the past offered to test mind reading ability of those for whom it was claimed. No one has ever come forward. Normally you get the familiar "Oh I don't see why I should have to prove myself to you" reaction. As I have suggested on this this thread, I believe this is because they themselves deep down don't really believe they have this ability, hence the defensiveness.

6th

How about go to see a medium and form an opinion based on personal experience rather than a lack of?

johnsix

Several reasons I can think of. Personal experience is basically ancedotal evidence and prove precisely dick.
You can see mediums at work on youtube.
Some people don't want to waste 60 euro (or don't have it to waste.)

Because I base my belief in work done by scientists, skeptics and philosophers in the past does that make them wrong?


I have been to a supposedly haunted place. Spooky? Yea. Paranormal? No.
Though it really showed how the atmosphere of the place and the attitude of the people with you really play up every shadow and noise.

???

6th wrote: »

How many skeptics here have visited an alledgedly haunted location or consulted with a psychic/medium? How many here have done their own research or debunked a case themselves?

Been to three mediums (never got any names sorry. They were at things like toys for big boys!), blocked cold reading and got my money back each time!

Now how many here based their belief or disbelief on the work of other people i.e. scientists etc?

That's like saying 'why should you believe the Phillipenes' exist if you've only seen maps.

Imo alot od skeptics have it too easy and that has made them lazy. Its no trouble to sit back and wait for people to make claims and then ask for proof - you know the almost cliche lines that can be used so I wont bother with them. Basically I have more respect for t hose who get off their bums and come t o their position based on experience rather than the hard work of others.

Well maybe if the proof was brought to the table in the first place...

SkepticOne

6th wrote: »

How about go to see a medium and form an opinion based on personal experience rather than a lack of?

I believe that offering to test someone's supposed psychic abilities an openness to experience and a willingness to be proved wrong (on my part at least).

One thing I'd like is to test is peoples ability to see auras. I think this would be very easy to test. Any takers?

6th

SkepticOne wrote: »

One thing I'd like is to test is peoples ability to see auras. I think this would be very easy to test. Any takers?

Ok, you've got my attention. How would you test it?

???

A simple test to see if everyone is seeing the same thing would be to record what five different aura readers see when tested indivually. I'd start there before moving on.

johnsix

James Randi devised a simple and effective test.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=39PM03iVbqE

SkepticOne

6th wrote: »

Ok, you've got my attention. How would you test it?

Before I answer that, can you see them? I believe stevenmu claims to see them. The reason I'm asking is I want to make sure we're talking about the same thing.

???

Unfortuneatly that relies on them being able to see them through objects.

6th

SkepticOne wrote: »

Before I answer that, can you see them? I believe stevenmu claims to see them. The reason I'm asking is I want to make sure we're talking about the same thing.

You said it would be easy to test so I'd like to hear what you believe people think they are seeing and how you would test for it? Surely you based you comment on some idea you had?

6th

??? wrote: »

A simple test to see if everyone is seeing the same thing would be to record what five different aura readers see when tested indivually. I'd start there before moving on.

Presuming that an aura is something which changes based on the mood etc of the person who aura is being seen how do you suggest that the person is in the exact same state each time they are viewed? Or do you suggest they all view at once?

???

All view at once without interaction with eachother and record what they see.

A= Aura Reader
S= Subject
|= Screen

|A|A|A|A|A|

S

6th

But they are all getting different angles?

SkepticOne

6th wrote: »

You said it would be easy to test so I'd like to hear what you believe people think they are seeing and how you would test for it? Surely you based you comment on some idea you had?

I have a variety of ideas based on what people report. Since it is a subjective experience it may be necessary to vary the technique according to how it is experienced by the person. If you don't see auras then I'm happy to go with someone else's description but part of the process involves asking these questions. So do you see them? What do you see?