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

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.

??? 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.

??? wrote: »

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!

Im going to throw your own argument back at you. You went to three mediums. Thats anecdotal. Were you scientific, did you conduct the same test on each? Why should I accept what you say when I wasnt there to observe. Answer is I cannot because I wasnt there, same as you say to me.

All I mean is that by the same token I could say I went to three different mediums and blocked cold reading and they were good. Its all just anecdotal which you argue is of no use here. Im arguing with your statement simply to show you how frustrating it is when someone does that to you.

Did you check whether your mediums were actually mediums, or clairvoyants or psychic mediums or snu accredited, or trained in any way? All of which would be very relevant if you are checking this properly.

SkepticOne wrote: »

That makes sense. I would be interested in the results of that. I'm waiting for 6th to respond to my question. I want to pin down what we mean by auras before continuing if possible.

Good luck with getting people to volunteer. Its hard enough getting believers to even comment here.

But if you do get this experiment off the ground, get your subjects to draw the aura they see. Its fixed and unchangeable afterwards. Also, the aura is used to diagnose conditions, either emotional or physical. Get written info on any conditions noted, in case for instance Reader A sees yellow and Reader B see green, but to both it means the same thing in the physical body.

SkepticOne wrote: »

Oryx, it might be worth reading 6th post where he criticises skeptics for not going to see mediums. Damned if you do, damned if you don't...

I am following the thread, and I know how its going. I feel exactly the same about my stance in all of this.

But seriously, if you are going to analyse mediums, you really ought to know all about them, and Im not sure you all do. Perhaps Toys for Big Boys was not the best choice of venue. Im not saying hes wrong, or youll accuse me of saying hes just consistently chosing badly. But his 3 medium test is not conclusive. Nor would my example of 3 good mediums be conclusive. You guys are scientists (or similar) and the example given was anecdotal and not scientific, and cannot be taken as a damnation of all mediumistic ability. If that was so, my positive take could argue the opposite, which you refuse to accept.