|
tsherpet -> RE: Are you Psychic and how does this affect your relationships? (9/8/2007 4:22:21 PM)
|
"If i always knew who was calling or even 8 out of 10 times then i'd say maybe i had some psychic abilities at least in that area. Sadly it's not the case."
Ah, the voice of reason. Pity psychics aren't as analytical.
"i've see police shows that are factual based where psychics help solve crimes and they aren't vague on the details at all."
Are they police shows, or are they psychic shows? There are many psychics who play the media and dumb local cops and use the odds to give vague but close information. There are also amny psychic who claims to work with police, but they can't find a single cop who will verify it.
Also remember editing. John Edward looks convincing (kind of) in the edited tv shows.
"Maybe it's a case of the visions being interpreted wrongly."
Maybe, but if we look at what psychic do and their success rate, it is more likely that they simply aren't as good as the psychologists and criminal investigators who have higher success rates following the same clues.
"With all that said i wonder if tsherpet and the others would believe psychic abilities if they actually saw it?"
Well my point the whole way through as been provide proof, live up to their own claims. No I would never believe a psychic, but I would accept evidence which made psychic abilities fact, eliminating the need for belief. But that kind of evidence is highly unlikely due to what we already know so far.
"It is true we tend to hold onto what we want to believe and if they believe. If one believes it is a myth then they are as prone to explain it away as luck as those that believe it is real are to reaching for straws as proof. "
I don't believe it is a myth. All the available evidence says it is a myth. BIG difference.
"The observable reality of people making claims and not being able to live up to them.
Which is a level of abstraction that is far past the hard sciences."
Rubbish. That is the whole point of science. Have an idea, test the idea, and if the idea fails, reject the idea. Psychic got stuck on the have an idea bit and forgot about the testing phase.
"The scientific method is what one uses to test the validity of the hunches and guesswork.
~nods~ "
You are a joke Aswad. What you are nodding at here is what you just said was beyond science.
"People make a claim, money is offered for anyone who can back up such a claim, money is still on offer as all attempts have failed. Where is the fallacy?
The implication that absence of proof constitutes proof of absence is a well-known fallacy. You say you do not want people to leave it at agreeing with you, so why bring up an argument that is only valuable as an element of rhetoric, rather than staying with the logical and pertinent arguments with scientific basis? "
This was just one point I raised. Maybe you should consider the whole thread so you have some idea of what is being discussed and what has been discussed. The whole point of bringing up the money challenges was one self professed psychic said they couldn't prove it because they were too busy and had too many expenses.
Also the challenge is out there. Psychic abilities are claimed to be real. Not suspected, but real. So why hasn't any psychic claimed the prize? No one has given a rational explaination to that question, including you. Or is it that all real psychics are poor and incompetent, and only the frauds ahve any money or inititive?
"Needing to fork over a few million to test a hypothesis in order to gain one million or less is not so much a lack of altruism as a lack of means, I would imagine."
Interesting figures, now how did you come up with them? You're costs seem excessively high?
"Rubbish. The intent is for psychics to get away from heavily edited tv shows and books and anecdotal "evidence" and to back up their own claims.
Such is not the stated intent of the Randi challenge, for instance."
Actually, it is. And there are a few of them.
"And lets not forget the complete absecence of any scientific methodology from the psychics.
I do not dispute that.
I am addressing your argument, not the wish-wash of the new age movement."
So, you have no position and are just arguing for the sake of it? No wonder your arguements aren't making much sense.
How about you address the issues in the thread instead? That way your contribution may even be worthwhile.
"Assuming there was a healer somewhere who could deal with something outside the range of conventional medicine, just for the sake of argument, why would this person want to disclose their identity and address to a bunch of people who are desperate for just such a thing? Not everyone wants to be a celebrity, you know. "
First of all the knowledge of the claimants name exposes the con artists. Even a genuine person would have to acknowledge that as a good thing. Second, celebrity has nothing to do with it. Proving the abilities exist would be such a major event in human understanding that no rational person could justify keeping it quiet. Fear of celebrity is selfish and shortsighted. Also any psychic who could prove their claims would have a willing army of fellow psychics to bodyguard them and protect their private space.
"Besides, disclosing up front is a brilliant way to get yourself into trouble with anything from future employers to mental hospitals,"
LOL, you are preparing for failure. So the conditions of the test do work to make the frauds think twice. Anyone who really believed they are psychic would not be contemplating failure.
"As for the concern that people could make off with money"
Please read. My concern was not about them taking off with the money. My concern was with them quietly failing the test than selling psychic books to the uninformed public, robbing the public.
"Some claims cost more to test than the prize money."
Bullshit. That is an excuse to avoid testing, or a feeble mind that is incapable of constructing experiments. Oh, and plain laziness.
"Most people don't have huge savings to burn on something they're probably not even confident in themselves"
LOL, if they are not confident, then why would they claim they are psychic? Surely they would have done their own home testing before ever making the claim? Lets stick to the ones who are so confident they believe they are psychic.
"The terms are to discourage every nut from trying, and only those who think they are the real deal. It is also so any famous money making psychics who have a go will be exposed to their victims.
Among other things, yes. Those two points are laudable goals, but not scientific in nature."
Eliminating the moronic claims that will never pass is scientific, but it usually happens early in the process.
And exposing a failed fraud isn't unscientific, and it's good for humanity anyway.
"Rubbish [...] What absolute garbage
Stick to the point, please. "
Well if you post garbage, than calling it garbage is the point. Especially in a thread about psychics.
"Clearly, but you are making my point here. This is a forum, not a proving ground. If anyone here takes a claim here as credible without doing their own research, they're beyond your help."
This is a discussion on psychics. I am discussing the phenomena.
"And the organizations in question are not in the business of research, but in the business of (understandably) undermining the credibility of hucksters, which is laudable enough, but has nothing to do with scientific inquiry into the matter, making their mention in connection with Susan's post rather beside the point. "
You might want to read the thread so you have some idea about context, and you can stop looking so foolish.
And there has been plenty of scientific inquiry which has given us lots of answers. The psychics have not only ignored this, but they actively try to discredit such information. The money challenge is a precaution againast that. Psychics avoided science and played the PR game, the money challenge robs them of their PR and forces the issue back to science.
"I'm not seeking to "do" anything to your arguments."
"I'll address your flawed argument... "
Well you claimed my arguements were flawed, but you failed to prove it. In fact you used your own flawed arguements and you lacked context which led you to make a fool of yourself.
"Perhaps that makes my intentions clearer? "
Nope. What it makes clearer is you have not read the thread. You might have been handy at the beginning, but now you are not helping the discussion or your own credibility.
"You may take my insistence on correct application of science, and the separation of science and rhetoric, as suggesting that I am out of my depth. That would be a quite erroneous assumption"
Your own actions show you are out of your depth. Especially the slanted view you had on why I mentioned the money challenges. You have ignored nearly all of my input into this thread and concentrated on one thing. And you couldn't even properly assess that.
"Mixing science, quotes, logic and rhetoric does nothing to raise public understanding of either.
That is my gripe with your posting. "
First of all science and logic go together. And in any discussion if people have trouble understanding it is a good idea to try different approaches. Also most of the quotes were about thinking, which again is tied to science. Your biggest problem with my posting seems to be the one point you focused on, and missing why that point was raised in the first place.
"ok, this went to you bringing up Verne and DaVinchi, both geniuses in your mind."
No, not geniuses in my mind. Geniuses because of who they were. DaVinci especially, he is almost the benchmark for genuis.
"Scientifically, and empirically neither have been tested (physically) in any current IQ standard testing areas or facilities. So, your judgement, and of others is from 'read' documents/text. "
DaVincis work shows how brilliant he was. While we might not have his exact IQ, it is not needed to see his genius.
"My standpoint is that THAT IQ test also has areas of social adeptness AND common sense evaluation scores. Both, I believe would score miserably low."
You believe, you have no reasoning behind that belief though. Also you have a pretty negative view of intellignet people. To you they are all socially inept nerds who can't tie their own shoes. That is a joke. Especially when you mentioned mensa, as many "average joes" can qualify for mensa.
No rational person would ever suggest DaVinci wasn't a genius. And your own arguements have had very little to do with the person we are discussing.
"So, who knows more? me, you? or the man on the moon? "
Me. The man in the moon does not exist and you are dribbling shit. You've used arguements to try and put down two geniuses, but your arguements didn't match the people being discussed. You have also reduced all intelligent people to cartoon stereotypes. Jealousy appears to be playing a major factor here?
"Certainly not Verne or DaVinchi if measured by today's standards. "
Actually both mens accomplishments put them at the level of genius using todays standards.
"accomplishment = genius? Show me the accurate testing of these two men."
Have a look at what they did. Your ignorance doesn't detract from their genius. Not only do you seem to be ignorant of the people being discussed, but also of the historical context which quite clearly demostrates the level of their genius.
You can choose to think of them any way you want, but you won't find a rational person on the planet who would not call Davinci a genius. And you would struggle to find one who wouldn't call Verne a genius. Both men were so far beyond the average they were geniuses.
"btw, I was tested to have an IQ of 164 at university. I can't tie my shoes either."
I don't doubt shoe tying is a problem for you, just has I have no doubt you are not a genius.
Also, only a moron tries to brag about IQ on an internet forum. We can all claim to have a high IQ, but in places like this it is our actions, not our claims, which matter.
"Questioning psychic claims does not promote ones career [...]
Would you say James Randi's career has not been promoted by questioning psychic claims?
Just wondering about this one point."
Context Aswad. Ever going to bother with it? Or am I doomed to spoon feed you too? The comment was that university lecturers (in general) attack psychics to promote their uni career.
"Health"
Thought (context).
"so was that...."
No, that was a petty insult dressed up as a joke.
|
|
|
|
