psychics

[Susan Gerbic]

In addition, if I believe that cats are not conscious and self-aware in any way, that means my cat couldn't possibly love me the way I think she does. Who wants to believe that? Unfortunately it's probably true. I'm about 99% sure she's just in it for the catfood.

Say it ain't so!

My point about Occum's razor is that when presented with two choices to explain something you should probably go with the simpler solution. This is something most people can logically understand, getting all technical on EXACTLY what Occums's razor means is over most people's heads and then they tune out of the discussion.

My goal is to help people think about things critically, don't give them what I think it the answer is, but allow them to reason it out on their own. Just give them a few rules or ways of thinking about it.

My favorite quote about Occum's razor is from Dr. Dean Edell who has a radio show. He says when you are walking alone on the street at night and you hear hoofs behind you, think horses not zebras.

Susan

 

[panchov]

You know, I've never really liked the concept of "instict," even as it's used scientifically. It's a description of behavior, rather than explanation. For example, a scientist observes that mammalian babies root about for a nipple mere minutes after birth - when asked how a creature can exhibit a behavior that wasn't learned, they say, "Well, it's instinctual." But that's tautological, and it leads to nonsense like "collective memory."

Really, what scientists should say is that it's encoded into our DNA. It's an evolved behavior.

Don't worry, I didn't take it personally. Maybe you're just to smart for me, I don't know what tautological means (but I just realized that because I read it in a hurry this afternoon). I agree with with what you are saying at least in this message.

My understanding of collective memory is that it's more about sociology than biology. Psychology, myths, things like that. People may need to learn to suckle to survive, but they don't need to have mythologies, yet they do, and many of the mythologies are the same across cultures.

 

[panchov]

In addition, if I believe that cats are not conscious and self-aware in any way, that means my cat couldn't possibly love me the way I think she does. Who wants to believe that? Unfortunately it's probably true. I'm about 99% sure she's just in it for the catfood.

You know what's really funny about that? Scientists are now finding evidence in the brain that love is a function of the brain. For example, if a loving family man receives an injury to a certain part of his brain, he might suddenly become unable to love at all, even those he has had strong relationships into for survival (if you look at the current state of marriage in America, that almost backs up that notion). Who really knows?

Oh ha, another thing the pet psychic said - she gave us that fake Einstein quote about us dying 4 years after the bees. Now I'm no Einstein, but I would say that as soon as scientists manage to whittle down every emotion, habit, belief, practice, feeling, religion or whatever down to nothing more than proof yes or proof no, that's when we die off!

 

[sthomson]

Don't worry, I didn't take it personally. Maybe you're just to smart for me, I don't know what tautological means (but I just realized that because I read it in a hurry this afternoon). I agree with with what you are saying at least in this message.

"Tautological" might not be the right word - really, it's a circular definition. I observe (for example) that puppies who are separated from their parents still know how to dig. Me, being a pre-DNA scientist, can't imagine how puppies could possibly "know" how to dig, so I call it "an instinct" - puppies "have an instinct" to dig. But see, that's a circular definition - I've tried to explain how an animal could know something without learning it by defining a word that means "knowing something without learning it".

My understanding of collective memory is that it's more about sociology than biology. Psychology, myths, things like that. People may need to learn to suckle to survive, but they don't need to have mythologies, yet they do, and many of the mythologies are the same across cultures.

How do you know that these cultures didn't have contact with each other? There is evidence that ancient man traveled extensively for trade and such. Furthermore, isn't the current consensus that the entire species of Homo sapiens originated in eastern Africa, and spread from there? I wouldn't be surprised if the basis for our myths originated in the same place, and traveled with us throughout the world.

This discussion is sort of off the original topic.

 

[panchov]

It's on the topic in the sense that I was trying to explain that I think psychic abilities are really normal human abilities, just that some have them and some don't, and I used the term collective memory to explain it but you don't believe there is such a thing.

I have to admit though, not being Einstein and all that, that I could be wrong about all of it. Maybe pure science is the way to save us. But I still think that if you're going to make claims that certain things don't exist you should hold yourself to the same standard you hold others too and put forth some proof. Or does this fall under the "can't prove a negative thing?"

I'm not yelling at you, I'm stating generally - the collective "you"! Thanks for giving me thoughtful stuff to read all day by the way (work was boring today)!!

 

[Jeff Corey]

It's on the topic in the sense that I was trying to explain that I think psychic abilities are really normal human abilities, just that some have them and some don't...

That might be, but how come not one so-called psychic has ever proven it to skilled scientists and magicians?
The simpler and more direct (or, parsimonious) explanation might be that nobody has psychic abilities and they are just fooling the people who don't know the tricks.
I know a couple of tricks that fool people. Needle through my arm, no pain, no blood, no scar after.
And now, you think of a card in a usual deck. Really concentrate on it.
Working on it...
























































Three of Clubs.
Was I right?

 

[panchov]

I think you misunderstood me. What I meant was that they are not psychic, they're just good detectives pretending to be psychic. So of course they can't prove it if they're in a controlled situation with no means of detecting anything.

 

[schlitt]

I have to admit though, not being Einstein and all that, that I could be wrong about all of it. Maybe pure science is the way to save us. But I still think that if you're going to make claims that certain things don't exist you should hold yourself to the same standard you hold others too and put forth some proof. Or does this fall under the "can't prove a negative thing?"

The people who are claiming psychic ability are the ones who should be providing the proof.

Skeptics are simply saying "if you give me a good reason to believe you, with evidence that i can see is valid, then i will believe you". This is a good stance to take, it means that you will not be taken in by frauds and false claims.

If someone were to tell you that they could materialise diamonds out of thin air, would you believe them? or would you say to them "Well if you can materialise diamonds, then give me a demonstration" before you believed them?
The person who is making the claim, is the one responsible for providing proof. It would not be up to you to prove that they could not materialise diamonds, it would be a waste of your time, and impossible for you to do.
The best thing for you to do would be to not believe the claim, until they gave you proof.

Every supposed psychic who has been tested under proper scientific conditions has failed to show any psychic ability. Until someone is able to prove psychic ability, then there is no reason to believe it exists.

 

[Rodney]

Every supposed psychic who has been tested under proper scientific conditions has failed to show any psychic ability.

By "proper scientific conditions" you mean as approved by James Randi and his minions? According to statistician Jessica Utts: "Using the standards applied to any other area of science, it is concluded that psychic functioning has been well established." See http://www.stat.ucdavis.edu/~utts/air2.html

 

[fls]

My point about Occum's razor is that when presented with two choices to explain something you should probably go with the simpler solution. This is something most people can logically understand, getting all technical on EXACTLY what Occums's razor means is over most people's heads and then they tune out of the discussion.

Susan

The simpler solution, in this case, is that psychics are able to read minds.

Better?

Linda

 

[panchov]

But see, you're asking them to demand proof before they believe. You don't have to believe, I don't have to believe, but we have no right to tell them they can't. We can sit back and wonder at how and why they believe, but demand proof from them, unless they are somehow forcing me to be involved, I don't think so. Sometimes you just have to let people be.

 

[fls]

By "proper scientific conditions" you mean as approved by James Randi and his minions? According to statistician Jessica Utts: "Using the standards applied to any other area of science, it is concluded that psychic functioning has been well established." See http://www.stat.ucdavis.edu/~utts/air2.html

And yet, it is still only persuasive to those who believe. I know you wish to believe that withholding our consent is unreasonable, but I think Ray Hyman's summary of his analysis done with Jessica Utts' captures why it is yet unconvincing.

Linda

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

By "proper scientific conditions" you mean as approved by James Randi and his minions? According to statistician Jessica Utts: "Using the standards applied to any other area of science, it is concluded that psychic functioning has been well established." See http://www.stat.ucdavis.edu/~utts/air2.html

Then the silly people wanting to be tested shouldn't say that can do what they claim to be able to do should they?

AND IT'S NOT JUST JAMES RANDI THAT YOU HAVE TO CONVINCE. FORGET ABOUT RANDI. WHAT ABOUT THE 99.999% OF THE SCIENTISTS IN THE WORLD WHO ARE ALSO NOT CONVINCED?

 

[schlitt]

By "proper scientific conditions" you mean as approved by James Randi and his minions? According to statistician Jessica Utts: "Using the standards applied to any other area of science, it is concluded that psychic functioning has been well established." See http://www.stat.ucdavis.edu/~utts/air2.html

No, I mean any scientific study that has not been heavily criticized and is accepted by the wider scientific community.

 

[schlitt]

But see, you're asking them to demand proof before they believe. You don't have to believe, I don't have to believe, but we have no right to tell them they can't. We can sit back and wonder at how and why they believe, but demand proof from them, unless they are somehow forcing me to be involved, I don't think so. Sometimes you just have to let people be.

Yes people have a right to believe whatever they want, regardless if it is truthful or not. However some people have an issue with fraudulent psychics ripping people off, and giving out bogus advice which can have detrimental effects on people’s lives. Asking these frauds to provide proof is a way of exposing them as frauds, with the goal of stopping them from causing more harm.

 

[Amapola]

Hi Panchov - I share your frustration over "pet psychics". Every time I have seen one, they have said things that are not the slightest bit surprising, and that could easily be guessed by someone else with a good working knowledge of that type of animal and who is also a skilled (or not so skilled) cold reader. The rest of it is just nonsense - like the part where the animal says the woman is really the aborted baby of her friend, reincarnated. For crying out loud.

No, the Dog Whisperer guy does not claim to be psychic. He claims to have a good understanding of dog behaviour, and is able to pay attention to the small clues that dogs give as to the types of behaviours they are exhibiting - such as aggression or fear.

I guess a lot of people really wish it was magic and not simply skilled observation. I've often been asked if I am a psychic when I am handling livestock. Uh, NO. However I have spent my life paying close attention to the behaviour of livestock, so as to avoid being kicked, bitten, stomped or gored. This is a *learned skill*. It's not in my genes, or an ancestral memory. It has nothing to do with the paranormal. It has to do with me spending my life on ranches and getting a great deal of experience handling livestock. You kind of learn what's going to happen next when a particular thing happens, you know?

 

[Apology]

By "proper scientific conditions" you mean as approved by James Randi and his minions? According to statistician Jessica Utts: "Using the standards applied to any other area of science, it is concluded that psychic functioning has been well established." See http://www.stat.ucdavis.edu/~utts/air2.html

The problem with this study is that Utts did not gather the data herself. Statisticians don't gather data, they interpret data that is gathered by workers in the field. Utts analyzed the data given to her by SRI and assumed for statistical purposes that they had successes whenever they said they did. The problem is not in the statistical study, but in the data it is based on.

If I told Utts that I was psychic and gave her a list my predictions, including hits or misses, Utts could write a statistical analysis that proved I was psychic too. All she'd have to do is believe me when I said I got a hit, and base her study on my reported successes and failures. I would have still been lying, and fooled her into believing I was psychic.

Statisticians are not supposed to draw conclusions like this; they are there to report the trends that are shown by the data. Often the data comes from laboratory tests and samples rather than from anecdotal evidence, and these types of statistical reports are fairly firm and decisive. Data received from, say, taking a telephone survey or an exit interview at a polling place, is much more unreliable.

 

[Normal Dude]

By "proper scientific conditions" you mean as approved by James Randi and his minions? According to statistician Jessica Utts: "Using the standards applied to any other area of science, it is concluded that psychic functioning has been well established." See http://www.stat.ucdavis.edu/~utts/air2.html

Yep, because a lone statistician has never been wrong before.

 

[panchov]

Yes people have a right to believe whatever they want, regardless if it is truthful or not. However some people have an issue with fraudulent psychics ripping people off, and giving out bogus advice which can have detrimental effects on people’s lives. Asking these frauds to provide proof is a way of exposing them as frauds, with the goal of stopping them from causing more harm.

Yeah I hear you, like the crazy woman and her aborted baby claim. It made me sick to think she might have told that woman that - I really hope she just made it up for dramatic effect. It's a losing battle though, you can prove 15 ways to sundown that John Edward is fraud and he would still have a ton of followers.

I remember Benny Hinn admitting he was faking healings, yet thousands at a time still flock to him FOR HEALINGS. I'm not saying you should stop seeking the truth (I started this whole thing by saying I wanted to do that). Just saying, don't expect much turnover from true believers! And no matter how sad or if I want to be mean and say (dumb!) I think they are, they still have a right to hold on to that if they want to. All anyone can do is give them evidence and let them do with it what they will.

It's like going into the Catholic church and forcing them to prove the host is the body of Christ. Sure the Catholic church has perpetrated some of the worst crimes against humanity since time began, but we can't do that, can we? I'm Catholic by the way - I always have mixed feelings about the whole thing, so according to my mom I should be going to hell. Hope she's off on that one!!

 

[Jeff Corey]

My pet psychic tells me you need not fear going to hell.
And here she is, Molly.


<-------- Molly.