Frank,
I made a simple statement of fact, that "psychics" operate by streaming a narrative while observing their subjects reactions and using those reactions to tune the story to the particular subject. Thus a double blind trial would interrupt the means that "psychics" use to ply their trade. I don't see where your points regarding beliefs and banana skins apply.
Interestingly our politicians use a very similar technique to tune their narratives. Observers of debates are wired to measure their physiological reactions and the politicians tune their messages to those from the debate that elicited the most positive reactions. Like I said, the methodology is common to all con games, but applied with varying levels of sophistication.
I was listening to the Today programme on BBC Radio 4, (a serious news programme), the other morning, and they had a feature on graphology, the current vogue amongst HR types. A presenter gave a sample of handwriting to the guest and the analysis was such a brilliant mix of cold reading and sweeping generalisations I almost spilt my tea I was giggling so much.
I notice a number of people have offered up reasonable explanations as to how it's done. After all, he's a magician, his "job" is to fool you, using any technique he can devise to make it happen.
But mimicing, using trickery, what someone has genuinely done is not demonstrating the genuine article can't be the real deal,
. Let's go to that old chestnut, man has not gone to the moon, it was all faked, etc, etc. If a film studio with all its resources created a new, believable, but different version of the footage of the craft on the moon would that immediately discount the "real" thing as being fake? In fact, if I went the whole hog, and indeed decide to believe that that the moon landing was faked, how would you prove it to me? Every time you offered up documents, and bits of objects, and interviews with people I would exclaim that the US has tremendous financial resources, it has a lot to lose if it's found guilty of fraud, so it will do whatever it takes to make sure that the tracks of its deception are always covered.So how could you finally convince that the moon landing was real ...?
Frank
Last edited:
Simply that you can't keep that big a secret for that long. People always talk. Look at that sunken Soviet sub that the CIA tried to recover with help from Howard Hughes. You just can't keep people quiet.
Some "psychics" who now have a highly profitable lifestyle based on giving a perfomance may use such. And ordinary people with "gifts" who are just trying to help someone in emotional stress may do so to appease that person, in the moment. But it appears that is not how it always works ...
The point is that recognised researchers, in university and similar environments have tackled these issues very seriously, and still have obtained telling results. But this is what is always ignored in these types of discussions; the finger is always pointed at investigations, and silly performance kings, where there are holes a Mack truck could drive through ...
Frank
The two sides of the "answer" now come to the fore ...
Firstly, I could continue to say things such as, the person I asked to confirm this was "got at" by the government and faked the results under pressure, or via monetary incentive. Or, the space agency worked very hard, in secret, to send a simple probe to the moon, covered with reflectors which would do that job. See, the magician's sleight of hand is always capable of going the next step ...
But the second, more important aspect is the real answer: weight of evidence. The sheer volume of material relating to the moon landing is so immense that it boggles the imagination and everything else, that is the "ultimate" answer.
And in the same way, the enormous volume of material relating to parapsychology is quite staggering, it's all there to investigate for those with an open mind. If you only, carefully, pick and choose the bits that are obviously silly then you can only continue to convince yourself it's all nonsense ...
Frank
Sorry, but I've been interested in the subject for years and read widely in the field. As Fox Moulder's office wall poster states "I want to believe". But I can't. Yes, there are a very few cases that have no obvious causes, but even those do not present enough evidence to prove paranormal phenomena.
No, they haven't. Arrogant fools that thought that they can't be tricked have destroyed their own academic careers, but no, not a single solid piece of evidence. Not one.
But hey, Bybee Quantum Purifiers and LP demagnetizers, those are for real!
There will never be "proof" in the normal sense because it operates outside the paradigm of conventional science. If you've read widely you should be aware that there can never be a separation of the subject and the observer (get out of here, you bloody cat!!) in this field: as a simple example, if the "scientist" doesn't believe it's possible to get the result, then he won't! -- the "universe" is very compliant and adjusts to fit the "needs" of the observer, so to speak ...
Frank
So does homeopathy, faith healing and the workings of sub-prime interest deals. If you have yet to see the connection, you are a lost cause.
BTW, there is no alternative to "conventional" science (bar ignorance) so the adjective is superfluous
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.