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/

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

  • 01-06-2008 02:38PM
    #1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 27,856 ✭✭✭✭


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


«13

Comments

  • Subscribers Posts: 19,421 ✭✭✭✭Oryx


    DaveMcG wrote: »
    We've got nothing to talk about :( Anyone wanna invade the Paranormal forum? :D
    Ha. Does that mean we won??:)
    Instead of crashing our party, why not invite us to yours?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,247 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Posts: 5,780 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    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"


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 27,856 ✭✭✭✭Dave!


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


  • Subscribers Posts: 19,421 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 165 ✭✭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.


  • Subscribers Posts: 19,421 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 165 ✭✭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.


  • Subscribers Posts: 19,421 ✭✭✭✭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?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 165 ✭✭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.


  • Advertisement
  • Subscribers Posts: 19,421 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 165 ✭✭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.


  • Subscribers Posts: 19,421 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 165 ✭✭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.


  • Subscribers Posts: 19,421 ✭✭✭✭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.:)


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 165 ✭✭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.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 520 ✭✭✭???


    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.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 6,718 ✭✭✭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.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 165 ✭✭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?


  • Subscribers Posts: 19,421 ✭✭✭✭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?


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 520 ✭✭✭???


    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.


  • Subscribers Posts: 19,421 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 520 ✭✭✭???


    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!!!!


  • Subscribers Posts: 19,421 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 6,718 ✭✭✭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.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 520 ✭✭✭???


    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.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 165 ✭✭johnsix


    069.png


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 520 ✭✭✭???


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


  • Subscribers Posts: 19,421 ✭✭✭✭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. ;)


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 165 ✭✭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.


Advertisement