Psychic pair fail scientific test

[DF96]

BBC website

No relevance to audio, eh?

[SY]

If you don't have a copy of James Randi's "Flim Flam," run right out etc. Cold reading (and sometimes not-so-cold reading) is an ancient art, yet can be extremely impressive to people not versed in mentalism.

[wintermute]

purely anecdotal and not something I remember myself but have been told by my mum.

When I was 5 we had to go to Sydney during the school week. My Mother had written a letter to the teacher explaining that I would not be in class for the rest of the week. She was thinking to herself (she had not talked to my father about it) that she must ask me to take the letter in and put it on the teachers desk as soon as I got to school in case I forgot.

I came out of my bedroom crying, saying But Mummy we aren't allowed to go into the classroom until after the bell rings.

One I DO remember. We were sitting down playing trivial pursuit My sister asked me the question "what was the name of the actor who played Hutch in Starsky and Hutch. I had no idea. She turned over the card and the instant she read it (to herself) I blurted out "David Soul". After that there was a rule that no one was allowed to read the answer until I had said I give up (I'm pretty sure it wasn't the first time).

I've had quite a few very strong de ja vu experiences over the years as well. I'm generally a sceptic, and I think that most psychics are probably fakes, but I'm not willing to completely tar them all with the same brush

But yes DF96 I can totally see where you are coming from with respect to the audio comment

Tony.

[fas42]

Originally Posted by wintermute

I've had quite a few very strong de ja vu experiences over the years as well. I'm generally a sceptic, and I think that most psychics are probably fakes, but I'm not willing to completely tar them all with the same brush .

I think that's being a bit unfair to most people who "can pick things up", the trouble is that once you have to perform on demand, as a "do it now!" service, for monetary return, etc, then it brings an element of tension into the situation which runs counter to the state of mind that is necessary. A bit like, "You are going to hear someone tell a joke in 30 secs, and you are required to find it funny, and must laugh naturally upon hearing it!".

Which is why virtually every attempt to "scientifically" test this phenomenon is doomed to fail; you might as well say love on sight can't exist: "Scientists organised tens of thousands of single people to meet for a precisely specified period of time, in a random manner; and not a single marriage was the result - no evidence for love on sight was found ... "

Frank

[SY]

Yes, there's always an excuse and a bad analogy.

[fas42]

So what's the excuse of the scientist who can't replicate, or gets different results from other scientists?

Probably, he's just a bad scientist ... or doesn't know the "right form" ...

Frank

[sofaspud]

The psychic stated that she needed face-to-face visual and hearing of the voices. She didn't make anywhere near the excuses... err, claims that are now being presented.
Also, if it can't be attempted "scientifically, how can it be said what state of mind is necessary? Either we're dealing with "the unknown" or we aren't.
IMO, the analogies leave something to be desired, too. Unless it is agreed that the "bit like" is an acting bit, which is done all the time. As is cold reading.

[SY]

Originally Posted by fas42

So what's the excuse of the scientist who can't replicate, or gets different results from other scientists?

There are many ways to deal with that, depending on the nature of the difference in results. Would you like some examples from my own experiences in 35 years as a working scientist?

[fas42]

Yes, a type of human contact is required, which for want of a better word needs to be "natural". If a scientific "approach" requires this to be eliminated then the chances are that failure will be the result. Or, yes, acting if the practitioner was not in the mood for whatever reason, but still felt that some sort of response was necessary in the situation, for all sorts of reasons.

Just imagine if doctors were "tested" in a similar manner: they were presented with a patient with certain symptoms, but were not able to correctly diagnose the problem or prescribe the only medications that were relevant to making him healthy -- I think you would be justified in suspecting them of being quacks ...

Frank

[fas42]

Originally Posted by SY

There are many ways to deal with that, depending on the nature of the difference in results. Would you like some examples from my own experiences in 35 years as a working scientist?

Yes, there are always ways of furthering the situation if everyone takes the situation seriously. Which includes as one result, that the scientist with the different results effectively upends the thinking of all the other scientists.

But, if all are convinced that it's all nonsense, and can never be anything but, then none of those avenues are pursued; everyone laughs uproariously about the farce and heads off to the bar for a beer ...

Frank