• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Gordon Smith on "This Morning" now.

Azrael 5

Philosopher
Azrael 5
Joined
Sep 19, 2003
Messages
6,106
What a week we're having!
Chris French on also,hopefully putting things right! :D

Edit:Oh they are having a viewers poll now!! "Do you believe in paranormal?"
 
What a load of old toss.... that simpleton girl seeing a red indian at the end of her bed..:boggled:

Gordon Smith so smug and creepy..

Chris French seemed to holding back slightly..oh joy, we have a phone in to look foward to as well..lovely
 
princesspoppy said:
What a load of old toss.... that simpleton girl seeing a red indian at the end of her bed..:boggled:

Gordon Smith so smug and creepy..

Chris French seemed to holding back slightly..oh joy, we have a phone in to look foward to as well..lovely
Click to expand...

Oh is that why she was there?! Missed first few minutes.Hopefully French will trip Smith up later.
Astro physicist(?) on at moment laughs at "Do you believe in psychic powers?" shakes his head vigourously!!
 
Azrael 5 said:
Oh is that why she was there?! Missed first few minutes.Hopefully French will trip Smith up later.
Astro physicist(?) on at moment laughs at "Do you believe in psychic powers?" shakes his head vigourously!!
Click to expand...

Yeah!..that was a relief to have the voice of reason!.. Gordon Smiths weird pointy boots.....:boggled: ick
 
This is actually annoying me now...... I knew that it would be one sided..
How dare G.S make such all knowing statements?.. What a tosser..isnt he creepy?
 
"Governing body of Spiritualist church will make sure there are no charlatans"
G.S.
Sure.:rolleyes:
 
Really annoyed me all the way through that..Fern Britton really is dim sometimes.. It was like Chris French was under scrutiny and the burden of proof was on him to explain why he didnt believe..as opposed to questioning the bonkers barber..

And what a shower of freaks they had calling in..
That woman drawing out that story about a man saying "god bless" in the street, and oohh her nan used to say that to her... I genuinely couldnt believe that was the end of the story

ggrr:mad:
 
Chris did well,but why couldnt Smith be put under pressure,"why won't you take a scientific test of your abilities Gordon,settle this matter once and for all."
Squirm,wriggle,lie,avoid. :D
 
Azrael 5 said:
Chris did well,but why couldnt Smith be put under pressure,"why won't you take a scientific test of your abilities Gordon,settle this matter once and for all."
Squirm,wriggle,lie,avoid. :D
Click to expand...

That approach doesn't achieve anything. It simply makes skeptics look confrontational and does nothing to educate viewers.

If a medium tells someone things they couldn't possibly have known then saying that the reading is bogus because the medium hasn't passed a 'test' will do nothing to change the person's mind - their experience will override lack of scientific proof.

It's far better to acknowledge the fact that people's experiences are real (because they are) and then explain that although people tend to jump to the paranormal to explain them, there are actually other explanations available.

Unless people have an alternative explanation to the paranormal one they will always accept the paranormal hypothesis as they trust their own experience above test results.
 
drfrank said:
I hope to the FSM and all his noodley pixies that the figure of 98% is not representative of the UK as a whole :(
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure it's not representative of the UK as a whole, but I could easily be convinced that it's representative of the people who watch daytime TV and would bother to take part in a phone-in on psychic powers :D

The remaining two percent I put down to hungover students.
 
John Jackson said:
That approach doesn't achieve anything. It simply makes skeptics look confrontational and does nothing to educate viewers.

If a medium tells someone things they couldn't possibly have known then saying that the reading is bogus because the medium hasn't passed a 'test' will do nothing to change the person's mind - their experience will override lack of scientific proof.

It's far better to acknowledge the fact that people's experiences are real (because they are) and then explain that although people tend to jump to the paranormal to explain them, there are actually other explanations available.

Unless people have an alternative explanation to the paranormal one they will always accept the paranormal hypothesis as they trust their own experience above test results.
Click to expand...

Whilst you are correct in what you say John,how are mediums to be exposed if not put on the spot or ask to provide proof of what they claim?
 
Azrael 5 said:
Chris did well,but why couldnt Smith be put under pressure,"why won't you take a scientific test of your abilities Gordon,settle this matter once and for all."
Squirm,wriggle,lie,avoid. :D
Click to expand...

The usual response to this is "I am [currently being tested/ arranging to be tested] by Prof Archie Roy of the University of Glasgow."


Incidentally, Chris was on GMTV a couple of weeks ago with Tony Stockwell in a similar 'Are You Psychic?' segment. This Morning, GMTV and LK Today frequently share similiar themes and guests with many of their features taken from the tabloids. FYI, another morning prog which regularly features quackery is The Wright Stuff.
 
Maybe This Morning are having a theme of wackos this week.Could be another on tomorrow.

Archie Roy *sigh*
Incidentally why was Smith even on there this morning,was he plugging anything?
 
Azrael 5 said:
Whilst you are correct in what you say John,how are mediums to be exposed if not put on the spot or ask to provide proof of what they claim?
Click to expand...
Well that presupposes that exposing mediums has any impact on the general public. I don’t think that it does; as soon as one medium is exposed there’s another waiting to fill the vacuum (should one exist – look at Acorah for example).

Asking for reliable scientific evidence makes a lot of sense to skeptics as we know its value; however, we have to understand the target audience. The average This Morning viewer is an 18-35 year old female; a demographic that will not likely be swayed by a skeptic dismissing anything a psychic says because they haven’t agreed to be ‘tested’: they see the TV demonstration with their own eyes and believe it (!)

In effect, it’s about how we market our message. We can only be effective if we understand the target audience and provide information that is appealing to them.
 
John Jackson said:
In effect, it’s about how we market our message. We can only be effective if we understand the target audience and provide information that is appealing to them.
Click to expand...

This annoys me.
Not you, John, or the point you are making. More the reason your point exists at all.

The target market should include me, and people like me. I see arguments all the time about how the media are providing what people want, to justify all the programs promoting the paranormal. However, if they put on more programs showing a more balanced view, they could judge better what percentage of the population would like to see these. Even when I was a believer in woo stuff, I still enjoyed critical programs that examined claims and identified rational reasons. It gave me the illusion that I was being treated as an intelligent person who can handle information and process it to a sensible conclusion.

Mythbusters is a great program -they don't all have to be stuffy scientific types. In the UK we have Brainiacs, but it could be better, IMHO. Why don't they do a serious study into the ratings of 'busting' shows, or programs that examine both sides equally, and THEN decide what the viewing population wants? I don't think they do.
 
chillzero said:
Mythbusters is a great program -they don't all have to be stuffy scientific types. In the UK we have Brainiacs, but it could be better, IMHO. Why don't they do a serious study into the ratings of 'busting' shows, or programs that examine both sides equally, and THEN decide what the viewing population wants? I don't think they do.
Click to expand...

Shows aren't commissioned that way. They will look at ratings for overseas shows and commission similar shows (or just import the original) until they reach a saturation point and say "too many, let's do X next", but that only really applies to very high ratings, for example Friends.

The public are surveyed to find out if a particular type of show is being exhausted (e.g. reality TV), I can't imagine many people say "I'd really like to see more funny science shows!"

The projected popularity of shows with advertisers (for commercial channels) is also a factor. Although technically an advertiser is not allowed to choose which shows to advertise during, it does happen. A lot.

Unfortunately, many TV channels no longer commission original work from a brief - you have to make a show and sell it to them.

TV reflects current modes of popular thought, and at present, the paranormal is super popular.

My personal opinion is that many people dislike busting shows because they simply don't like finding out they have been wrong about something for years.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom