[video] Derren Brown on cold-reading (long interview)

Dave!

Hey,

Just thought some of ye might be interested in this
[url]http://richarddawkins.net/article,3414,Richard-Dawkins-interviews-Derren-Brown,RichardDawkinsnet-Richard-Dawkins-Derren-Brown[/url]

Richard Dawkins interviewed Derren for one of his programmes, and now the full uncut video is online.

Really interesting, I love Derren Brown!

SkepticOne

The spirits are telling me this will be moved to Skeptic's Corner.

stevenmu

With precognition like that, who needs a skeptics corner




(but redirects are always a good way of having it kind of posted in both forums)

stevenmu

While I haven't seen this particular video yet, I have seen Derren discuss it on TV, and I've read his book "A Trick of The Mind" which discusses it a bit. I've always been very impressed by the way he seems to deliberately avoid claiming that the ability of cold reading to replicate the effects of mediums/psychics disproves all mediums/psychics. This seems like good skeptical practice to me.

Otherwise, to claim that paranormal means are false because the same information that can be gained by paranormal means can be gained by cold reading, would be like claiming that because you can read about something on the internet that books don't exist.


(second prophecy for this thread: I'm going to get slammed for that analogy)

Dave!

Wouldn't you invoke occam's razor in that case?

To use the first example that comes into my head based on objects in the room .....................

If I pick up a pen and write something on a piece of paper... it could be that an invisible 'ink spirit' is using its powers to make ink appear on the paper at just the same time as the pen makes contact with the paper.

Or... it could just be the ink in the pen.

Why would it be more likely to be spirits feeding information to a medium, rather than the medium using cold-reading (or other techniques)?

pH

stevenmu wrote: »

Otherwise, to claim that paranormal means are false because the same information that can be gained by paranormal means can be gained by cold reading, would be like claiming that because you can read about something on the internet that books don't exist.

Which is fine (in its way) but is to miss the point, which is most believers say things like "She couldn't possibly know that unless she was psychic" about readings they feel are accurate. They're the ones making a claim, cold reading refutes that.

And on Derren, here's Derren's bit on "cold reading" in Enemies of Reason:

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=hQDf0rj6nXc

Dawkins first gets what is a perfectly good example of a cold reading, then we cut to bits of Derren's "cold reading" from Messiah. (youtube have the entire segment), with Dawkins explaining about cold reading, only there is no way it's a cold read (compare it to Dawkins genuine cold read earlier).

Clearly Dawkins should be a little more skeptical about Derren's claims!

iamhunted

Dave! wrote: »

Wouldn't you invoke occam's razor in that case?

many quote occams razor and not too many understand it, changing his "entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity" to "the simplest solution is best".

Dave!

The point though is that one should make as few assumptions as possible and stick as close as possible to the information available.

Whether that's occam's razor or not, it's surely what you should do?

pH

Dave! wrote: »

The point though is that one should make as few assumptions as possible and stick as close as possible to the information available.

Whether that's occam's razor or not, it's surely what you should do?

No, strictly speaking Occam's razor just says that once you've explained something using A & B, that should be favoured over another explanation using A & B & C.

It's nothing to do with "the simplest explanation being best" or any of the tripe usually trotted out.

This is often paraphrased as "All other things being equal, the simplest solution is the best." In other words, when multiple competing theories are equal in other respects, the principle recommends selecting the theory that introduces the fewest assumptions and postulates the fewest entities. It is in this sense that Occam's razor is usually understood. This is, however, incorrect. Occam's razor is not concerned with the simplicity or complexity of a good explanation as such, it only demands that the explanation be free of elements that have nothing to do with the phenomenon (and the explanation).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occams_razor

iamhunted

Dave! wrote: »

The point though is that one should make as few assumptions as possible and stick as close as possible to the information available.

Whether that's occam's razor or not, it's surely what you should do?

very true - though I think you'll find a lot of people are skeptical about mediums and psychics anyway. You dont need to be a sceptic/skeptic to wonder about them.

pity dawkins can't find other areas of the paranormal to get skeptical about, like people seeing apparitions or class A EVPs or something other than the standard potshot at mediums.

Oryx

[Havent watched the vid which is the topic of this post. (Meant to be at work here, lol)]

iamhunted wrote: »

pity dawkins can't find other areas of the paranormal to get skeptical about, like people seeing apparitions or class A EVPs or something other than the standard potshot at mediums.

Mediums et al get singled out for special treatment as it is an area ripe for scamming people. Whereas apparitions etc would be seen as imagined or whatever, but dont involve payment of hard cash, and are hardly a means to defraud people. (Unless youre selling a vid to the highest bidder or something). Unfortunately the common assumption seems to be automatically: psychic = fraud. (And in fairness Im sure plenty are). But it doesnt help with actually checking it out or researching, if thats your starting point. Thats as much a bias as full on un-questioning belief.

iamhunted

completely agree. I watched the first bit but to be honest, it just got a bit boring - its kinda stating the obvious.

Lucas10101

Occams Razor is always misinterpreted as "Simplest solution is best"...I don't see where the confusion lies, people should think about it more and read it properly.

I watched the whole series, and some parts are repeated i.e What is Cold Reading? Was asked twice/three times.

However for anyone who doesn't know about the techniques used by these fraudsters, then I'd recommend them to watch it. Dawkins series on this is also very good.

iamhunted

it winds me up to be honest to see the likes of dawkins go mad to prove mediums wrong.

we all know theres tons of fake mediums and psychics - its neither new nor interesting. cheap publicity is all that man is after. derren brown proves quite conclusively how its possible to pretend to be a medium and end up being quite a good one at that so I still cant see why 'skeptics' seem to only ever seem able to prove mediums are fake but basically cant help out sorting out any other paranormal issues.

Is EASY to catch out mediums - but mediums do not = the paranormal.

Lucas10101

True Mediums don't mean all the Paranormal, but they are a new fanatical cult that's resulted from Paranormal Theory.

I think I can safely conclude they are all frauds, while some are genuine in that they think they do have an ability; are deluding themselves, but I grant that sometimes a coincidence occurs.

So that's them removed from the argument.

Ghosts etc. can never be disproved unfortunately...I don't think we'll ever escape the idea that they exist either...but until proof from your end comes up, then I'll believe. Until that point, I'll remain a skeptic. Likewise with the rest of Paranormal idiocy.