Why can't a medium PROVE the ability exists?

MrJonDonnis · 08-04-2011 01:00PM

Oryx wrote: »

And I shall reply skeptically if you do, and dismiss any further statements you make without backing them up.

So you cant prove he isn't a millionaire, therefore by woo logic he is, and I win.

Oryx · 08-04-2011 01:12PM

MrJonDonnis wrote: »

So you cant prove he isn't a millionaire, therefore by woo logic he is, and I win.

If thats the standard of your debate, Jon, I can see why you closed down your site.

MrJonDonnis · 08-04-2011 01:14PM

Oryx wrote: »

If thats the standard of your debate, Jon, I can see why you closed down your site.

I see irony and sarcasm is a bit beyond you.
Oh well.

Oryx · 08-04-2011 01:24PM

MrJonDonnis wrote: »

I see irony and sarcasm is a bit beyond you.
Oh well.

Not at all, in the right circumstances. I think its a bit cheap of you to use sarcasm to sidestep a genuine question. I wanted to know if you knew the financial situation of Gordon Smith (or any medium), or whether it a throwaway and unfounded remark just to make a point.

The requirement of proof in any debate goes both ways.

MrJonDonnis · 08-04-2011 01:31PM

Oryx wrote: »

Not at all, in the right circumstances. I think its a bit cheap of you to use sarcasm to sidestep a genuine question. I wanted to know if you knew the financial situation of Gordon Smith (or any medium), or whether it a throwaway and unfounded remark just to make a point.

The requirement of proof in any debate goes both ways.

Yet believers always fail to provide any proof.

Again can you prove that Gordon isn't a millionaire?

I do not represent any skeptical group, anything I say is basically worthless anyway, I am a nobody. So whether I was to provide a scan of his bank statement, or his tax return does not really matter.

All that really matters here is whether or not he can communicate with the dead.

It is my assertion that he cannot as it is impossible.

Oryx · 08-04-2011 01:41PM

MrJonDonnis wrote: »

Yet believers always fail to provide any proof.

Again can you prove that Gordon isn't a millionaire?

Im not the one who said he was. Im just trying to get you to uphold the high standards of behaviour and proof of claims you demand from other people. Im not really interested in the millionaire thing, it sounded like a cheap shot and it turns out it was.

All that really matters here is whether or not he can communicate with the dead.

Well then stick to the facts of the matter.

It is my assertion that he cannot as it is impossible.

And you are quite entitled to that assertion.

MrJonDonnis · 08-04-2011 03:27PM

Oryx wrote: »

Im not the one who said he was. Im just trying to get you to uphold the high standards of behaviour and proof of claims you demand from other people. Im not really interested in the millionaire thing, it sounded like a cheap shot and it turns out it was.

I do not claim to demand anything of the sort any more.
Now I couldn't care less.
I am just a numpty on a forum with a big mouth.

Well then stick to the facts of the matter.
And you are quite entitled to that assertion.

Actually I should have stated that mediumship was an impossibility and that is a fact.

Standman · 08-04-2011 03:45PM

Jon your posts are a bit all over the place. I'm not sure what point you're trying to make but you're not making it very well.

MrJonDonnis · 08-04-2011 03:51PM

Standman wrote: »

Jon your posts are a bit all over the place. I'm not sure what point you're trying to make but you're not making it very well.

Just my sense of humour now I am retired

Zombrex · 09-04-2011 01:45AM

MrJonDonnis wrote: »

I never said it was a requirement.
My point is that it is easy for someone to sit on their backside and just attack believers, it is easy for someone to say "oh thats rubbish" or "prove it".

It is very easy. It is also really good as well. The point of skepticism is that all asserts about reality must be back-up.

If a skeptic did nothing but say 'prove it' (demonstrate it is probably more accurate since technically you can't prove anything in science) all day long he would be doing a bang up job.

MrJonDonnis wrote: »

But to understand why someone has that belief then you must experience it.

Why do you think the skeptic is interested in understanding why someone has that belief? That might be utterly irrelevant to them.

Again the point of skepticism is that accepted beliefs and knowledge has passed standards.

Why people believe things that have not passed these standards is an entirely different issue, and a skeptic will only be interested in that subject if they are interested in human psychology, which many may not be.

MrJonDonnis wrote: »

Skepticism is riddled with amateur psychologists, everyone thinks they are an expert, and the condescending attitude is the main thing that alienates believers, and stops them from listening to what very well may be a good argument which could otherwise educate them.

Again that is irrelevant to skepticism. It might be relevant to human psychology, but that is a particular field of human biology, and only skeptics interested in human biology will probably care. A skeptic interested in computer science, or astromy, probably won't care all that much why someone believes a paranormal claim they can't support. All they care about is, again, ensuring that accepted knowledge is justified to the required standard.

MrJonDonnis wrote: »

If someone wants to preach about skepticism from an armchair without ever actually looking a psychic in the eye, or without trying it for themselves then fine.

But don't be surprised when a believer doesn't listen to you.

I don't think a skeptic is generally surprised when a believer doesn't listen. But again that is irrelevant. The purpose of skepticism is not to understand believers.

MrJonDonnis wrote: »

Skepticism right now is full of people patting themselves on the back for how smart they are.

Are you saying they aren't smart, or are you saying they shouldn't pat themselves on the back for being smart?

MrJonDonnis wrote: »

Me personally I like to experience things, I like to understand things from all points of view before making my mind up.

Great. Some people are interested in beetles. But that does not define a skeptic. A skeptic is not someone who is interested in explain why believers in the paranormal believes what they do. That is a human psychologist. Not being interested in human psychology does not make you a bad skeptic, any more than not being interested in Egyptian archeology means you are a bad skeptic when you say "can you actually demonstrate that Egyptians had UFOs"

MrJonDonnis wrote: »

I was once told by a medium "how can you call it bull**** when you have never even tried it" and they were right, so I did try it.

You can very easily call it bull**** without trying it. It breaks most notions of physics and biology and the natural explanation explains it far better.

In science the onus is always on the person with the theory or explanation that requires most other theories or explanations to be tossed out the window, to demonstrate they have a case, not for all other scientists to demonstrate they don't have a case.

Same with paranormal explanations. If someone is claiming something that requires most of human biology and a heck of a lot of physics to be tossed out the window then that person has to support that. It is certainly not the responsibility of others to demonstrate it isn't happening as the person claims. If that was the case scientists would spend their entire lives debunking every wild hypothesis anyone can come up with.

MrJonDonnis wrote: »

Now ask yourself, as an armchair skeptic, can you truly understand that feeling, can you understand the trigger that starts the delusion, can you understand what it feels to be a "medium"

Who cares? None of that is relevant to the "skeptic" bit in the "armchair skeptic".

Its like saying can an arm chair football ref (ie a fan who follows football and understands the rules) really understand what it is like for a ref to be going through a painful divorce, have they looked into the eyes of the ref and understood the pain of your wife leaving you? Who cares? All the arm chair football ref might care about is that the goal the ref just awarded was clearly off side. And in doing so they have fulfilled the only obligation you can discern from them being an armchair ref, ie and interest that the rules of the game are followed, not why on this particular occasion the stress of a divorce caused the ref to have a bad day and make poor judgements. That may be an interesting topic for some people, but it is irrelevant to the issue of whether the rules of the game are being followed or not.

A skeptic can be interested in what exactly is happening in the mind of a believer, but those are skeptics who are interested in human psychology. It is in no way a requirement in order to call yourself a skeptic. To call yourself a skeptic all you have to care about is whether claims about the natural world can be supported by evidence and testing to a high standard, often a scientific standard. If that is all you happen to care about you are totally fulfilling any obligation that comes with calling yourself a skeptic. If all you do every day is say "Can you demonstrate that claim to this standard" then you are perfect skeptic.

That is it, its that simple. You care about claims about reality being supported by evidence and testable theories. Right, you are skeptic.

You care about this and why believers believe anyway. Right you are a skeptic who happens to be interested in human psychology.

You care about this why beetles mate in dry valleys. Right you are a skeptic who happens to be interested in beetles.

You care about this and why Python kicks Java's ass. Right you are a skeptic who happens to be interested in computer science.

etc etc

This idea that you are some how a bad skeptic if you are not out there probing and exploring what the heck is going on in the mind of believers is nonsense. If you aren't doing this you are probably a bad human psychologist, but there is absolutely no requirement on skeptics to be good human psychologists or even be interested in human psychology.

Improbable · 09-04-2011 01:48AM

Derren Brown is an awesome guy for showing how some of this stuff is done and none of it is supernatural. 6 videos here with Richard Dawkins.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xswt8B8-UTM

10-04-2011 12:46AM

Wicknight wrote: »

This idea that you are some how a bad skeptic if you are not out there probing and exploring what the heck is going on in the mind of believers is nonsense. If you aren't doing this you are probably a bad human psychologist, but there is absolutely no requirement on skeptics to be good human psychologists or even be interested in human psychology.

I dont think Jon is trying to say that at all. I think what he is trying to say is if you are making claims prove back these claims up, not with books that you have read or other peoples work but your own study into it.
If your not willing to do that , why should any of us listen to you ?

Zombrex · 10-04-2011 01:45AM

Deleted User wrote: »

I dont think Jon is trying to say that at all. I think what he is trying to say is if you are making claims prove back these claims up, not with books that you have read or other peoples work but your own study into it.
If your not willing to do that , why should any of us listen to you ?

That is ridiculous though. If I say to someone say "Well nothing can travel faster than the speed of light" would someone say they wanted to see my work into it not Einstein?

Why would paranormal claims be any different?

10-04-2011 11:45AM

Wicknight wrote: »

That is ridiculous though. If I say to someone say "Well nothing can travel faster than the speed of light" would someone say they wanted to see my work into it not Einstein?

If you had done work into it and you were interested in the subject, sure .

MrJonDonnis · 10-04-2011 12:19PM

Wicknight wrote: »

Why do you think the skeptic is interested in understanding why someone has that belief? That might be utterly irrelevant to them.

Because that is part of self education.
Just being skeptical of things while sat on your backside, and shouting prove it. Is an incredibly boring and unproductive thing.

I am more into learning and educating myself.

If other people don't want to learn and grow as people then fine, thats their decision

I don't think a skeptic is generally surprised when a believer doesn't listen. But again that is irrelevant. The purpose of skepticism is not to understand believers.

I think that is very sad.
I quite like the fact that believers listen to me, I like the fact that I can engage in a deep conversation with someone like Colin Fry or Derek Acorah, and actually find out their motivations and their experiences which have led them to their current point in life.

I think this is why I was so successful as a skeptic without an academic background in that I actually bothered to listen and try to understand.

And is probably one of the reasons that so many skeptics were so very jealous of me.

Are you saying they aren't smart, or are you saying they shouldn't pat themselves on the back for being smart?

What I am saying is that this self flagulatory attitude is ugly, off putting and quite frankly disgusting to someone like me who is purely altruistic and genuine in my approach. The only time I brag about my achievements I do so in a totally ironic manner and to take the p1ss out of the very skeptics i dislike.

You can very easily call it bull**** without trying it. It breaks most notions of physics and biology and the natural explanation explains it far better.

I agree, but again I am coming from a different place than you.
I was not just a random no name know it all skeptic on a forum.
I was the leader and creator of the UK's largest skeptical community looking at psychics.

Its like if Richard Dawkins never bothered to visit faith schools, or speak to religious leaders. Would anyone take him as seriously or respect him as much, if he just sat on his arse and did nothing?

I would suggest that Dawkins has learnt more about religion from actually meeting people than reading books.

The point is that a persons general knowledge and ability to debate with someone is greatly enhanced if they actually have personal knowledge and experience of the very thing they are arguing against.
Otherwise it is all just very boring, and that is why believers moan that they hear the same old stuff from skeptics all the time.

In science the onus is always on the person with the theory or explanation that requires most other theories or explanations to be tossed out the window, to demonstrate they have a case, not for all other scientists to demonstrate they don't have a case.

Yes I know, I am not an idiot! You don't need to explain such things to me, lol

Its like saying can an arm chair football ref (ie a fan who follows football and understands the rules) really understand what it is like for a ref to be going through a painful divorce, have they looked into the eyes of the ref and understood the pain of your wife leaving you?

But you could also argue that the armchair football ref, could not actually go on the pitch and refferee a match, despite knowing all the rules and so on.
Practice is much different to theory. But you dont know that because I doubt you have ever actually bothered to try anything

This idea that you are some how a bad skeptic if you are not out there probing and exploring what the heck is going on in the mind of believers is nonsense. If you aren't doing this you are probably a bad human psychologist, but there is absolutely no requirement on skeptics to be good human psychologists or even be interested in human psychology

I never actually said someone is a bad skeptic if they dont get out there, (i dont think i said that anyway) what I am saying is that the very people you would like to listen to you, and learn from you will never do so if you are a lazy skeptic.

You can argue about definitions and be pedantic all you like.

The point is that skepticism right now is in the toilet and the community is starting to currupt just like the psychic industry.

As the person who founded a skeptics in the pub group, I have seen this first hand. What i started years ago has now evolved into something i really dislike.

Anyway this discussion is getting slightly pointless.

We are different people, I prefer to get out and experience and try to understand.
You prefer not to, thats up to you.

I am not calling you a bad skeptic, you can do what you want.

My thinking for myself is always what difference can you make. 1 year after closing down my site, i am still talked about daily all over the web, from skeptic forums like this to psychics on their facebook page to believer and woo forums and websites.

I like my brand of skepticism as it has made more of a difference worldwide than the average armchair skeptic on a forum.

And from a personal viewpoint I know first hand how many people I have helped, I have educated and so on.

Zombrex · 10-04-2011 03:53PM

Deleted User wrote: »

If you had done work into it and you were interested in the subject, sure .

And if I hadn't? Could I not reference Einstein because it wasn't my work?

MrJonDonnis · 10-04-2011 03:59PM

Wicknight wrote: »

And if I hadn't? Could I not reference Einstein because it wasn't my work?

Of course you can.
In fact I find myself and my site referenced all the time.

The question is would you rather be a leader who speaks from experience, or a follower who just repeats what other people told him, or what you read somewhere?

edwinkane · 10-04-2011 04:15PM

MrJonDonnis wrote: »

Of course you can.
In fact I find myself and my site referenced all the time.

The question is would you rather be a leader who speaks from experience, or a follower who just repeats what other people told him, or what you read somewhere?

Thank goodness its not a case of either/or. Most leaders do both, as do many followers. Lets not forget our "experience" includes what other people tell us, and also includes what we read.

MrJonDonnis · 10-04-2011 04:38PM

edwinkane wrote: »

Thank goodness its not a case of either/or. Most leaders do both, as do many followers. Lets not forget our "experience" includes what other people tell us, and also includes what we read.

Yes it is not either/or

But it is much more fun sitting face to face with a psychic "channelling" some dead sailor while you ask them questions and try and catch them out, than just saying to some stranger on a forum "prove it"

Dave! · 10-04-2011 07:29PM

MrJonDonnis wrote: »

Yes it is not either/or

But it is much more fun sitting face to face with a psychic "channelling" some dead sailor while you ask them questions and try and catch them out, than just saying to some stranger on a forum "prove it"

If that's how you get your kicks then good for you, but most of us here are just interested in determining how the universe actually works, and me sitting down with a psychic will contribute very little to that pursuit. It's a more powerful argument to point to the fact that no psychics are actually able to back up their claims. It says more about mediumship than if I were to sit down with some random psychic and point out that they're talking shít.

MrJonDonnis · 10-04-2011 07:37PM

Dave! wrote: »

but most of us here are just interested in determining how the universe actually works.

And sitting in your bedroom all day in front of a pc trying to act all superior and demeaning believers will really help in determining the universe wont it! lol

I didn't do what I did for the kicks! I did it because when I have a passion for something I do my best to know as much about it as I can.

Just sitting down on a PC and saying to people "it's ****" well thats a bit sad and pathetic, not to mention lonely.

Dave! · 10-04-2011 08:30PM

MrJonDonnis wrote: »

And sitting in your bedroom all day in front of a pc trying to act all superior and demeaning believers will really help in determining the universe wont it! lol

I didn't do what I did for the kicks! I did it because when I have a passion for something I do my best to know as much about it as I can.

Just sitting down on a PC and saying to people "it's ****" well thats a bit sad and pathetic, not to mention lonely.

Clearly your fall from grace is making you a bit tempermental there chief

I'd consider sitting down with 200 mediums to try and see what makes them tick to be a rather sad waste of time myself.

I'm not trying to figure out the universe myself, I'll leave that to the scientists, skepticism is just a side interest of little consequence in my life, so I don't devote much time or effort to it

Clearly your misguided attempts at psychoanalysis/scientific investigation/whatever you're doing keeps you busy, so good for you.

If you ask me, psychics don't need anybody chasing them, they can try to prove their abilities any time they want. That they don't do that says plenty for me.

MrJonDonnis · 10-04-2011 09:56PM

Dave! wrote: »

Clearly your fall from grace is making you a bit tempermental there chief I'd consider sitting down with 200 mediums to try and see what makes them tick to be a rather sad waste of time myself.

I'm not trying to figure out the universe myself, I'll leave that to the scientists, skepticism is just a side interest of little consequence in my life, so I don't devote much time or effort to it Clearly your misguided attempts at psychoanalysis/scientific investigation/whatever you're doing keeps you busy, so good for you.

If you ask me, psychics don't need anybody chasing them, they can try to prove their abilities any time they want. That they don't do that says plenty for me.

Me tempermental!! Never

And oh hell yes i agree with you, I definitely wasted my time in that respect, but on the other side I have helped thousands of people learn the truth about psychics, hell i have even "cured" a couple of psychics and they no longer practice!

My only interest was to help people learn the truth about these people.

Mediumship is impossible and that's a fact. My interest is trying to help the vunerable and gullible.

Thats why I did what I did and no other reason.

I am retired now, and really couldn't care less any more if people get conned or not.

Zombrex · 11-04-2011 12:36AM

MrJonDonnis wrote: »

Of course you can.
In fact I find myself and my site referenced all the time.

The question is would you rather be a leader who speaks from experience, or a follower who just repeats what other people told him, or what you read somewhere?

I lead in the specific area I work in, computer science. I follow in regard to all other disciplines.

The vast majority of knowledge I have in all subjects is something I've read some where, because I do not have time to research every subject possible.

That is one of the strengths of post-Enlightenment society, the combination of increase communication and scientific standards. Modern society is a collective knowledge spanning hundreds of disciplines all working to a similar standard, so you can trust as much as one can the information produced by others working in different areas.

That is the issue sceptics have with paranormal claims, that they fail to reach the standard required of them.

I appreciate that you agree will all that. So honestly I'm some what at a lose to your attitude towards scepticism.

MrJonDonnis · 11-04-2011 10:50AM

Wicknight wrote: »

I appreciate that you agree will all that. So honestly I'm some what at a lose to your attitude towards scepticism.

I guess my attitude towards Skepticism is more of a general one and not against any single person or group specifically.

I guess skepticism today is not the same as when I first got involved in 2004.

When I started it was all very grass roots, it was very much about education and helping people. Where as now Skepticism is more about entertainment, it suddenly be came popular and you have all manner of celebs jumping on the bandwagon.

SitP when it started was about normal people coming along and learning about skepticism, learning the truth about certain paranormal claims and so on. Now it is about promoting books, tours, dvds, and entertaining the people who come.

That is fine I guess, its just not what I wanted when I started.

Every speaker at a SitP event now has something to promote, no longer do people do it because it is educational, or helping the average person learn and grow.

There are now very few people doing the SitP circuit who do not have something to promote, in fact I cant think of anyone.

kylith · 11-04-2011 11:24AM

MrJonDonnis, there simply aren't enough hours in the day for all the sceptics to devote their lives to the 'Why?' of mediums. Just the same as each scientist builds on the work of those gone before, each new generation of sceptics will build on the work of those who have gone before them. There is simply no point in each person re-inventing the wheel. Most people on this forum are ordinary people with ordinary jobs who have an interest in making sense of the paranormal; it's not a career.

I don't have to spend 4 years studying agriculture to be able to identify a pile of manure when I see it.

MrJonDonnis · 11-04-2011 11:28AM

kylith wrote: »

MrJonDonnis, there simply aren't enough hours in the day for all the sceptics to devote their lives to the 'Why?' of mediums. Just the same as each scientist builds on the work of those gone before, each new generation of sceptics will build on the work of those who have gone before them. There is simply no point in each person re-inventing the wheel. Most people on this forum are ordinary people with ordinary jobs who have an interest in making sense of the paranormal; it's not a career.

I don't have to spend 4 years studying agriculture to be able to identify a pile of manure when I see it.

I am not saying for people to devote their lives to anything.
I am just saying that it is a bit sad to just sit at your pc spouting off against believers and psychics when you have never tried to understand why they do what they do and why they believe.

What is the point of coming on forums like this just to act all superior?

Mediumship is impossible. So why do you waste your time on this forum if all you are gonna do is say "prove it" to every nutter with a bullsh1t claim?

If anything you become the idiot for wasting your time in this fashion.

At least the woo type does what they do cause they believe in it, and they think they are doing good.

You just sit on here cause you have nothing better to do.

Now which person is the sad one?

Dave! · 11-04-2011 11:35AM

MrJonDonnis wrote: »

I guess my attitude towards Skepticism is more of a general one and not against any single person or group specifically.

I guess skepticism today is not the same as when I first got involved in 2004.

When I started it was all very grass roots, it was very much about education and helping people. Where as now Skepticism is more about entertainment, it suddenly be came popular and you have all manner of celebs jumping on the bandwagon.

SitP when it started was about normal people coming along and learning about skepticism, learning the truth about certain paranormal claims and so on. Now it is about promoting books, tours, dvds, and entertaining the people who come.

That is fine I guess, its just not what I wanted when I started.

Every speaker at a SitP event now has something to promote, no longer do people do it because it is educational, or helping the average person learn and grow.

There are now very few people doing the SitP circuit who do not have something to promote, in fact I cant think of anyone.

That's bollox tbh, the JREF, Center for Inquiry, and Skeptics Society in the US all contribute alot in terms of education and outreach programs. There's usually things to promote of course, nothing wrong with that. You'll be hard-pressed to find many millionaires in the skeptical community. That the movement is evolving and growing very rapidly is a good thing, and that exposure is increasing with podcasts, blogs, books, DVDs, newspaper articles, etc., is a great thing, because it means that more people are potentially being exposed to the arguments and messages. When Steven Novella appears on national TV to give the skeptical/medical perspective on vaccines causing neurological disorders, or Michael Shermer appears on Larry King to debate UFO believers, and they get plugs for their books or whatever, that's brilliant.

Sorry that your small community of like-minded skeptics in the pub has been compromised, but the movement is doing what it's supposed to be doing: evangelising, and advocating, and growing. Now there are SITP in dozens of cities around the world. Sure, there are entertainment events like TED, which are intended to cater to and energize current skeptics, but they attract new people too by having high-profile skeptics like Adam Savage as speakers.

MrJonDonnis · 11-04-2011 11:51AM

Dave! wrote: »

That's bollox tbh, the JREF, Center for Inquiry, and Skeptics Society in the US all contribute alot in terms of education and outreach programs.

I am UK based so I do not know nor care to know what happens in other countries.

I would suggest however that the millions that Randi has made over the years from his books has perhaps fuelled his interest in the area.

There's usually things to promote of course, nothing wrong with that.

No not really, but I think too many people only get involved BECAUSE they have something to promote.

I am very much for altruistic skepticism, that is what I stand for and always have done.

You'll be hard-pressed to find many millionaires in the skeptical community.

Thats probably true, but so many people are now only taking an interest because it is a career move.
Again there is nothing wrong with this, it is not breaking the law. It is just not what I stand for as a skeptic, nor is it the reason I got into skepticism.

You know this is just my opinion as the point of view as the former owner of the UK's most successful skeptical network!

That the movement is evolving and growing very rapidly is a good thing, and that exposure is increasing with podcasts, blogs, books, DVDs, newspaper articles, etc., is a great thing, because it means that more people are potentially being exposed to the arguments and messages.

It is a good thing in one sense I agree, but it has widened the gap between sides, and I think that is sad.

And don't get me started on Podcasts! lol

I got into trouble before on that very subject, although I did kind of prove a point when I did my own and it kicked everyone else out of the water! lol

When Steven Novella appears on national TV to give the skeptical/medical perspective on vaccines causing neurological disorders, or Michael Shermer appears on Larry King to debate UFO believers, and they get plugs for their books or whatever, that's brilliant.

People like that are fine, because they already had careers, these are not people I have a problem with.

I like Michael Shermer, I have spoken with him in the past.
I Like people like Richard Wiseman and respect what he does.

I even like and respect James Randi, hell he named me and my site as one of the top skeptical resources on his site a while ago.

Sorry that your small community of like-minded skeptics in the pub has been compromised, but the movement is doing what it's supposed to be doing: evangelising, and advocating, and growing. Now there are SITP in dozens of cities around the world. Sure, there are entertainment events like TED, which are intended to cater to and energize current skeptics, but they attract new people too by having high-profile skeptics like Adam Savage as speakers

Again you need to understand my viewpoint here.
I have no problem with people who already have careers as scientists etc using their knowledge to educate and reach people.

What I am against is the people who ONLY get into skepticism, because it is cool right now, and because they think they can make a career out of it.

Do you have any idea how many TV and radio appearances I have turned down over the years because of my morals?

Not only could I be one of the UK's best mediums right now, I could also be a professional skeptic making a good living on poo pooing other peoples beliefs.

I just don't think it is right to make money from people who are in essence deluded, gullible or vunerable.

A Doctor can help such people that's his job, but to have a job where you make money by attacking and insulting these people I think is very sad.

edwinkane · 11-04-2011 02:12PM

MrJonDonnis wrote: »

I am UK based so I do not know nor care to know what happens in other countries.

I would suggest however that the millions that Randi has made over the years from his books has perhaps fuelled his interest in the area.

No not really, but I think too many people only get involved BECAUSE they have something to promote.

I am very much for altruistic skepticism, that is what I stand for and always have done.

Thats probably true, but so many people are now only taking an interest because it is a career move.
Again there is nothing wrong with this, it is not breaking the law. It is just not what I stand for as a skeptic, nor is it the reason I got into skepticism.

You know this is just my opinion as the point of view as the former owner of the UK's most successful skeptical network!

It is a good thing in one sense I agree, but it has widened the gap between sides, and I think that is sad.

And don't get me started on Podcasts! lol

I got into trouble before on that very subject, although I did kind of prove a point when I did my own and it kicked everyone else out of the water! lol

People like that are fine, because they already had careers, these are not people I have a problem with.

I like Michael Shermer, I have spoken with him in the past.
I Like people like Richard Wiseman and respect what he does.

I even like and respect James Randi, hell he named me and my site as one of the top skeptical resources on his site a while ago.

Again you need to understand my viewpoint here.
I have no problem with people who already have careers as scientists etc using their knowledge to educate and reach people.

What I am against is the people who ONLY get into skepticism, because it is cool right now, and because they think they can make a career out of it.

Do you have any idea how many TV and radio appearances I have turned down over the years because of my morals?

Not only could I be one of the UK's best mediums right now, I could also be a professional skeptic making a good living on poo pooing other peoples beliefs.

I just don't think it is right to make money from people who are in essence deluded, gullible or vunerable.

A Doctor can help such people that's his job, but to have a job where you make money by attacking and insulting these people I think is very sad.

I think we all get that you don't like much of the new sceptic movement by now, and your other exciting views on scepticism. Maybe we could get back on topic. Thanks

Why can't a medium PROVE the ability exists?

Comments