Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > Off Topic  >      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 NarcissusTemple
Joined: 4/23/2009
Msg: 69
Psychics - your views?Page 3 of 9    (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9)
It's the one where they try to disprove or prove certain claims, theories, etc.... What was that called?

Myth Busters.

The speed of gravity might change

Speed of gravity??

they don't and cannot disprove the existence of psychic abilities in general.

I'm sorry. I can no longer participate due to my below-average comprehension. I must be too toopid to get your argument.
To be perfectly honest, I rode the short bus to school when i was a kid.
I could never understand that whole gravity/speed /mono-directionality thing, or the difference between proving something versus disproving it. (Obviously they're two completely different things that don't interrelate, but, for the life of me, I can't figure it out.)
Again, I do apologize.
 susan_cd
Joined: 5/16/2007
Msg: 70
Psychics - your views?
Posted: 12/14/2010 2:11:07 PM

Psychic phenomena could/might (if it were real) change in strength from individual to individual, and perhaps it has never fully evolved into the strength it could have in an/any individual.


But now you're offering up reasons why the psychic ability can't be proven to exist by testing. This cropped up during some properly conducted ( that is, no chance of the self proclaimed psychic being able to manipulate the test equipment or contact the other participants before hand) scientific testing.

The tests all failed to produce any evidence that the claimed psychic power exists, and the ( alleged ) psychic's explanation was that the powers won't work if there are peopl with sceptical thoughts around.

All claimed psychic ability has so far been explained away as cold reading or sleight of hand that any competent stage magician could duplicate.


I feel there's not enough proof one way or the other


You're forgeting that the people who DON'T believe in psychic ability DON'T have to prove it doesn't exist, they aren't making a claim. The person ( in this case, the psychic) making the claim has to prove it exists.

Anderson Cooper takes on Sylvia Browne pt 2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ts_To4zmEdE

Sylvia Browne dead wrong:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xKX5yB-H2tI

exposing psychic James Hydrick:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QlfMsZwr8rc

debunking a faith healer:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q7BQKu0YP8Y

how to fake psychic powers:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vJQBljC5RIo

to see what cold reading is go to:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vwy4yB8cSwE

how to do cold reading: how to be a fraudster:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0iBwhgbFvnw
 christ on a crutch
Joined: 2/1/2009
Msg: 71
view profile
History
Psychics - your views?
Posted: 12/14/2010 2:15:08 PM
I don't believe in any god, but I also don't think that disproving the types of miracles that people use to defend the existence of god generally disproves a god exists.

true, it just proves christians (or jews or whomever) are willing to believe hooey.

but you're comparing apples and oranges here. the one is a debate about the existence of the being exercising the abilities. the other is a debate about just the abilities. to say the former is logically unsound has no bearing on the latter.

i don't know all the terms of the randi prize, but it's not asking that EVERY person who claims psychic ability prove it. it's asking for just one. if not even one person can come forward to do for a million bux what they're already doing for far less, you can only conclude they're not doing it.
 MichelleRenee1234
Joined: 10/19/2009
Msg: 72
Psychics - your views?
Posted: 12/14/2010 2:44:13 PM

But now you're offering up reasons why the psychic ability can't be proven to exist by testing.


No, I'm saying that perhaps the tests we have now aren't effective at truly assessing it. If you don't know how to do math, then it would be hard to test claims that 2+2=4. Since even psychics (or those claiming to be psychic) can't offer up how, exactly, their skill works, how are we to assess it if we don't either? The tests are based on a presumption that a+b=c.


if not even one person can come forward to do for a million bux what they're already doing for far less, you can only conclude they're not doing it.


Not all people who claim to be psychic use their *powers* for profit. I would think the great many of career psychics are con artists. I cant figure out why they'd put themselves under such scrutiny, in that case, but perhaps they have that much confidence in their conning skills.... much like a magician who likes to put on a show.... and if he/she does it well enough they win a million bucks... And I could see why others who claim to be psychic wouldn't jump at such a test. Perhaps they don't have the confidence in what they claim or believe they can do. Maybe they don't understand the workings of it and don't know if they can just command it at will. Maybe they don't want to be a laughing stock if they can't pass it. I don't know, lol. I'm just saying, I don't necessarily buy that this test is proof of the certainty that all psychic ability claims are cons.
 susan_cd
Joined: 5/16/2007
Msg: 73
Psychics - your views?
Posted: 12/14/2010 3:00:26 PM

Something in my rational mind just doesn't connect to the so-called logic of these tests. In my view, they don't and cannot disprove the existence of psychic abilities in general.


The ones conducting proper tests aren't trying to disprove the existence of psychic abilities in general, they're trying to find proof that the person being tested can do what they claim they're able to do. So farm, under properly controlled test conditions, no one caiming any sort of paranormal ability has been able to produce evidence that their claims are ture.

Proper tests meaning tests that are for the purpose of testing the person's claims, not tests by eople that believe the claim from the start & are looking for corroberating evidence. Such people generally cherry pick the results, don't do properly controlled tests, or constantly tweak the results to get what they claim is evidence.
 Dan99993
Joined: 11/29/2010
Msg: 74
Psychics - your views?
Posted: 12/14/2010 3:20:34 PM
Those of us who've had direct experience with it, or with people who are really capable of this stuff, know it exists.
No use wasting our time with people who don't want to hear anything and are convinced by 'scientific testing'.
The so-called scientific testing doesn't square with experience.

Better do your own research and/or test it yourself.
 susan_cd
Joined: 5/16/2007
Msg: 75
Psychics - your views?
Posted: 12/14/2010 4:30:13 PM

No use wasting our time with people who don't want to hear anything


Don't want to hear anything? I'm sure many people have the same attitude towards psychic phenomena that I do, we're willing to believe in it, but not just on some person's say so. If they want to claim to be psychic, then they shouldn't be surprised if someone says "prove it".


and are convinced by 'scientific testing'.


And what are you convinced by?

So far, every claim (& type of "psychic ability" ) that someone has claimed to possess can be duplicated by a competent magician. Many self proclaimed psychics have said the same thing, and have also said there are lots of charlatans out there who claim to be psychics but they assure people that they aren't charlatans, their abilities ARE real.


people who are really capable of this stuff


Capable of what stuff, exactly? Can you provide some examples?
 IgorFrankensteen
Joined: 6/29/2009
Msg: 76
view profile
History
Psychics - your views?
Posted: 12/14/2010 11:11:31 PM
I have had just enough personal experiences with things that would fall into the "psychic" category to be sure that there is SOMETHING to SOME of this stuff. I have some minor ideas about why some things can't be proven to the degree needed for something like the Randi Prize, but which I think have validity anyway.
For example, Telepathy: it makes sense to me, that if our brains DO have measurable electrical activity that reflects what we are thinking (this HAS been proven), that it COULD be possible for someone to use THEIR brain to interpret the electrical emanations of someone else. Why can't it be proved? Well, I ALSO know that when one DOES actively try to focus one's attention on a task, that one's OWN mind begins generating signals. Chances are, the act of TRYING to "hear" someone else's thoughts, blocks out what ever one might "hear". Hence there IS no way to win the Randi Prize under the conditions Randi has set.
Generally, I stay away from ANYONE who claims unprovable abilities, ESPECIALLY if MONEY is involved. This includes plumbers and heating/cooling contractors. NOTHING makes more "noise" than the desire for money.
And just because someone claims NO to want cash, doesn't mean they aren't on the take. Plenty of people out there will claim all manner of things, from speaking to God, to having been abducted by extraterrestrials, just to get attention. I knew guys in college who claimed to have psychic powers to try to help them get laid.
So basically, though I'm open to possibilities, I stick with proven logical means to run my life. NO "psychic" has ever successfully predicted anything significantly useful (as in actionable), that I know of. I'm sort of glad, in a way, since if the future COULD be predicted reliably, it would imply that it was already SET. I like my freedom of choice and action too much to go for that (unless I could, of course, get the right "numbers").
 susan_cd
Joined: 5/16/2007
Msg: 77
Psychics - your views?
Posted: 12/14/2010 11:20:20 PM

it COULD be possible for someone to use THEIR brain to interpret the electrical emanations of someone else. Why can't it be proved?


I'm not sure anyone has said it can't be proved, only that it hasn't been proven yet. And until it has been proven, anyone's "claim" that they can "read someone else's thoughts" should be considered either a lie or a delusion.


Generally, I stay away from ANYONE who claims unprovable abilities


That'd be all psychics.
 Dan99993
Joined: 11/29/2010
Msg: 78
Psychics - your views?
Posted: 12/15/2010 1:03:05 AM

I'm not sure anyone has said it can't be proved, only that it hasn't been proven yet. And until it has been proven, anyone's "claim" that they can "read someone else's thoughts" should be considered either a lie or a delusion.


And that's one of the many reasons I won't bother arguing with people who think they know it all.

Again, personal experience and what skeptics say don't square. And it's not because we're idiots who can't discern a fun little illusion from something more valid.
Instead of wasting paragraphs arguing about science, physics, and making a case about fraud, I exhort truly interested individuals to do their own research and experiments.

That way you won't have to trust skeptics or those you think are frauds.

But you'll likely find that skeptics' portrayal of the paranormal is more like disinformation, than anything else....
 susan_cd
Joined: 5/16/2007
Msg: 79
Psychics - your views?
Posted: 12/15/2010 1:53:58 AM

But you'll likely find that skeptics' portrayal of the paranormal is more like disinformation, than anything else....


Oh? In what way is their "portrayal of the paranormal " more like "disinformation, than anything else"?

Is it because they ask for proof of someone's paranormal claims?

Or is it because the skeptics are "one-sided" & provide lots of evidence of how the various famous "psychics" are frauds, con artists or ( to be kind) deluded individuals, but the skeptics won't provide lots of evidence of how the various famous "psychics" are actual psychics ( probably because there's no evidence to support the claims)?

Or are the skeptics spreading disinformation because they refuse to accept someone's claim of paranormal ability as being enough proof?

True skeptics won't deny psychic powers exist, they merely say" show us" or "prove it" when someone claims to have psychic abilities, and they won't accept that they exist without evidence ( evidence that can be examined, tested, & reproduced, a "psychic" can't just say after the fact "I knew that was going to happen").
 Dan99993
Joined: 11/29/2010
Msg: 80
Psychics - your views?
Posted: 12/15/2010 2:55:16 AM
^^^O.M.G. here we go again...

listen, you're describing the ideal skeptic. In practice it isn't like that (not saying there's no decent skeptic, but the loudest and most organized groups usually don't do any kind of justice to these phenomenon).

I don't want to argue endlessly, as I've said. If you're so sure of what you think, stick to it. James Randi, who some of you seem to think is credible, is one of the worse examples of a debunker. Check him up, pro and against, online.

I don't have the patience to fight highly prejudiced people who insist I'm (well me or another) deluded and lack critical thinking skills when that's not the case.
My suggestion: get acquainted with it personally.

You might -barring major psychological defenses- realize there's something to it, as igorfrankensteen suggested.
 daffie
Joined: 5/21/2010
Msg: 81
view profile
History
Psychics - your views?
Posted: 12/15/2010 4:29:42 AM
^any chance of a friendly psychic divulging the winning numbers for the $31 million dollar lottery on new years eve...

i'll share the money around, promise!...
 susan_cd
Joined: 5/16/2007
Msg: 82
Psychics - your views?
Posted: 12/15/2010 9:22:48 AM

I don't have the patience to fight highly prejudiced people who insist I'm (well me or another) deluded and lack critical thinking skills when that's not the case.


I haven't said you personally are delusional & lack thinking skills. You've implied you've had personal experiences & these convinced you, fair enough, you aren't ( as fas as I've been able to determine) declared you're a psychic.

I can make the same statement regarding ghosts, I had a personal experience which convinced me that at least 1 ghost exists, but I won't claim my personal conviction & my experience as evidence ( except for me personally) that ghosts exist.


listen, you're describing the ideal skeptic. In practice it isn't like that (not saying there's no decent skeptic, but the loudest and most organized groups usually don't do any kind of justice to these phenomenon).


Unfortunately the same can be said of those believers who want others to be open-minded, but seem to believe that being open-minded means you're willing to accept anything someone else believes without question.
 IgorFrankensteen
Joined: 6/29/2009
Msg: 83
view profile
History
Psychics - your views?
Posted: 12/18/2010 10:29:35 AM
The problem plaguing this discussion is common to too many such psychic and supernatural discussions. People involved are wrought up about things OTHER than the immediate things being talked about, and they bring that anger and angst to the background of everything they say.
James Randi is an excellent case in point. He attacks ALL psychic claims, because he is always thinking about the outrageous scammers that have victimized so many people. I applaud the fact that he wants to bring those guys down (though I wish he'd attack the religious versions, they do more victimization these days than others do), he's incredibly careless in how he goes about it. He also has NO interest at all in actually investigating ANYTHING. He attacks EVERYTHING, and believes that if he can think up a "magic" trick that mimics what the psychic claim is, that he has thus proven that the claim is false. If he applied that logic to science, he'd have us believe that because you can FAKE a moon landing with video and special effects, that therefore the moon landings never happened.
My big sticking point, is that I am convinced that SOLID LOGIC is the way to find the BEST answers to anything. Here again, we have extremely EMOTIONAL responses being thrown back and forth, with neither side actually addressing any logical or factual points of the other.
 normaldude
Joined: 3/8/2006
Msg: 85
view profile
History
Psychics - your views?
Posted: 12/18/2010 1:23:46 PM
people will turn to strange things for help. Some are beaten down by life and feel like its a way to gain a bit of control and some have a lot of time/money on their hands. The only experience mentioned to me that made me wonder if it was true or an urban legend was this... A family member said her girlfriends went to a psychic when they were celebrating a 21st bday. The 3 girls had a few drinks and ended up at the spirit shop to basically see what life would hold for each of them. The first got the usual..she would meet a great guy, get married, have kids...so on. The second girl was told she would marry(this was in the early 60,s) move to another country, have 4 kids and one would die. This was bang on as the lady did have 4 kids and one did die. The third girl took her turn. The psychic held her hands and looked deeply at her for a while. Then abruptly said she was past her closing time and would jot down her future in a note and put it in an envelope. She was told to read it tomorrow. The girls grabbed a cab for home.... then the cab crashed and the 3rd girl was killed...now wait for it!!! The friends opened the envelope and the note said she had no future~!
and me I still dont believe in para normal anything!
 SouthBayNative
Joined: 10/15/2010
Msg: 86
Psychics - your views?
Posted: 12/18/2010 1:58:30 PM
Greg Kehn of NY is absolutely amazing. Was 100% (yes, 100%) accurate for me-I still have the 45 min. recording of his reading two years ago. He works with the FBI and local law enforcement. I have a friend who's a police detective in Bakersfield who considers himself psychic (and has told me some things about me I'd rather he not know ) He says the guys laugh about it but some get kinda nasty and lots of them ask his advice. Lots of scammers out there (just like on this dating site) but a few real ones that make up for it.
 IgorFrankensteen
Joined: 6/29/2009
Msg: 87
view profile
History
Psychics - your views?
Posted: 12/18/2010 5:01:46 PM
"I'm not sure anyone has said it can't be proved, only that it hasn't been proven yet. And until it has been proven, anyone's "claim" that they can "read someone else's thoughts" should be considered either a lie or a delusion."
This is incredibly defective reasoning. You are saying that anything that can't be proven is either a lie or a delusion? No other possibilities? That would have ruled out MOST scientific discoveries of the last century.
I am arguing for LOGIC, not for a conclusion as to who is right about things paranormal. The way you have argued so far, including this statement, means you simply are insisting on substituting YOUR prejudices for the believers prejudices.
 susan_cd
Joined: 5/16/2007
Msg: 88
Psychics - your views?
Posted: 12/18/2010 9:13:01 PM

This is incredibly defective reasoning. You are saying that anything that can't be proven is either a lie or a delusion? No other possibilities?


Well, I'm willing to have a psychic prove my statement is wrong, all they have to do is convince me they have psychic powers.




It's a lie or delusion until they prove otherwise. If I claim I can turn invisible, but only to the human eye & not if anyone is looking at me. That'd be a remarkable claim, but with me unable to produce any evidence of my claim would you think I was lying, delusional, or that my claim merely can't be proven?


That would have ruled out MOST scientific discoveries of the last century.


And many scientific claims were considered lies or delusions...delusions in that the scientist was mistaken in their observation & hence their conclusion, not delusions in that they were insane, I'm sure there are many self proclaimed psychics out there who mistakenly believe they have paranormal abilities ( and also many that are charlatans).


The way you have argued so far, including this statement, means you simply are insisting on substituting YOUR prejudices for the believers prejudices.


When I've been confronted by those that claim paranormal abilities I don't say to them that they're lyind or delusiional; I say "prove it". I'm willing to be convinced but if there is a non-paranormal explanation for thei "ability" then it won't convince me.
 susan_cd
Joined: 5/16/2007
Msg: 89
Psychics - your views?
Posted: 12/18/2010 9:19:58 PM

He works with the FBI and local law enforcement


Oh? In what capacity? Do they contact him or does he contact them & offer to help out? Can you provide links to verify his working with the FBI & local law enforcement.

http://jonbenetramsey.pbworks.com/w/page/11682455/Can-Psychics-Solve-the-JBR-Case


•FBI Prohibits Use of Psychics. The FBI reportedly forbids the use of psychics in its investigations.
•Most Major Police Departments Do Not Use Psychics. A recent story in the Philadelphia Daily News concluded: "Scientific evidence of psychic success in cracking criminal cases is scant. In a 1993 study, almost two-thirds of the nation's 50 largest police departments said they didn't use psychics. None said the information provided by psychics was more useful than that from other sources, and some complained that psychics' predictions even hindered investigations, according to the study by Mark Durm, a psychology professor at Athens State University in Alabama."
 IgorFrankensteen
Joined: 6/29/2009
Msg: 90
view profile
History
Psychics - your views?
Posted: 12/19/2010 10:55:46 AM
"I'm not sure anyone has said it can't be proved, only that it hasn't been proven yet. And until it has been proven, anyone's "claim" that they can "read someone else's thoughts" should be considered either a lie or a delusion."


"When I've been confronted by those that claim paranormal abilities I don't say to them that they're lyind or delusiional; I say "prove it"."

Both of these 180 degree contradictory statements are yours. Again, I'm not arguing FOR belief in the paranormal, only for logical, rationally, and consistently expressed arguments. You are not giving any, you are going back and forth between demanding proof, and declaring that anyone who has not YET proven something to you is a liar, or suffering from delusions. Make up your mind! You want to declare all as yet unproven things to be false? You'll be told you are wrong, by any real scientist, but go ahead and declare that, if you want. If you want to demand proof before accepting paranormal claims as valid, I and most scientists will sign on as well. But that is NOT the same as declaring all paranormal claimants to be "liars or delusional."
 IgorFrankensteen
Joined: 6/29/2009
Msg: 91
view profile
History
Psychics - your views?
Posted: 12/19/2010 11:19:08 AM
"No use wasting our time with people who don't want to hear anything and are convinced by 'scientific testing'.
The so-called scientific testing doesn't square with experience"

By the way, I strongly disagree with THIS statement as well. The correct way to deal with scientific testing that you disagree with, is to show scientifically, how the testers erred in their procedures, not to declare that science can't address your claims. If paranormal powers or abilities DO exist, they WILL be found to be a PART of our corrected scientific understanding of the universe, and not "magically" immune to it's laws.
Case in point, again referring back to the infamous Randi: a long while back now, he had a show on TV designed to attack paranormal claims, ostensibly by publicly "testing" them. One item he "tested," was dowsing (if you aren't familiar with it, look it up). The test he arranged, was to set up a sort of course for the dowsers to go through, which contained a series of artificially constructed bridges that went up and over unmarked large boxes. Some of the boxes contained large jugs of water, some didn't. Randi's idea, was that if the dowsers found ALL of the boxes WITH water, and correctly labeled all the empty boxes as empty, that they would have proved their ability.
He left an important step out: to be valid, he would FIRST have had to have all of the dowsers check the entire course, and mark any places they thought they detected water BEFORE the boxes and bridges were erected. By not doing so, he left open the possibility that a dowser who labeled an empty box as having water, could claim that he was detecting water UNDER that box.
I personally have no particular belief in dowsing, even though my own grandfather claimed to be able to do it. Until I can conceive of a scientifically consistent way for dowsing to work, I will continue to treat it skeptically. But if someone wants to prove something is true OR false, they need to do so COMPETENTLY.
 IgorFrankensteen
Joined: 6/29/2009
Msg: 93
view profile
History
Psychics - your views?
Posted: 12/19/2010 12:04:11 PM
Again, I'm not arguing FOR dowsing, but you obviously don't understand what the dowsers CLAIMS are. Since the goal is to prove or disprove their CLAIMS, you have to design an experiment that fits them. Dowsers don't claim to detect ANY water that might be SOMEWHERE, that would be useless. They claim to be able to detect REACHABLE water in quantities sufficient to make drilling a well to reach them worth the effort at the selected location. Thus, if they said there was water under one of the bridges, the fact that it was ten feet lower than the boxes would STILL support their claims. So Randi's experiment being sloppily done, meant he accomplished NOTHING (other than what was perhaps his primary goals, of self-promotion and commercial profit).
 Earthpuppy
Joined: 2/9/2008
Msg: 95
view profile
History
Psychics - your views?
Posted: 12/19/2010 1:23:29 PM
Quantum entanglement might provide a viable theory.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HYwn0c-euYE

I spent a day dowsing some land we were dividing. The master dowser, Nell, a 7th Day Adventist, has been doing it for her whole life having learned from her father. She has always offered a money back guarantee to clients if they did not find water where, and as deep as she told them. She never had to pay her fee back in the course of her 45 years in the business. She did the pendulum method, testing for not only water, the depth and deepness of the pool, but also for iron, sulpher and radioactive breakdown products. I've played with the pendulum since, giving it to absolute skeptics and most being amazed at how it moves without their influence. There is something to it.
 IgorFrankensteen
Joined: 6/29/2009
Msg: 96
view profile
History
Psychics - your views?
Posted: 12/19/2010 1:31:08 PM
Exactly why I don't subscribe to dowsing. As I've been saying, I agree that from what I've seen, dowsing isn't valid.
All I'm trying to do throughout this discussion of things psychic and paranormal, is to point out the difference between verbal attacks without proper grounds, and competent scientific proofs or disproofs. I tried to get this across to the woman who keeps insisting that claimants are all liars or delusional, but she hasn't yet grasped the distinction between making statements of derision and logical reasoning yet.
Part of the reason people DO still get fooled by scammers and others, is because too many of the OPPONENTS of the nonsense of the world fall to name-calling, insults, and angry diatribes, instead of investing in legitimate clear thinking. In the same way that opponents of the use of "recreational drugs" have too often used lies and outrageous exaggerations to try to scare people away from drugs, and thus gave supporters ADDED arguments, people who want to discourage belief in false "magic," have too often tried to dissuade others, NOT by showing them VALID proofs, but by simple angry denial and insult.
Show ALL Forums  > Off Topic  >