chi/aura

[Werdum]

Hello all,

I've been lurking around the forum for a while trying to find intelligent discussion on debunking alot of the woo I deal with everyday in my life. I have gained some insight into alot of topics but there is one that I really need to pointed in the right direction on. For a little background the people I work for and with, believe in everything woo, from nwo to homeopathy, my secretary is a totally brainwashed christian (Branhamism). Most of the ridiculous things thay say are very easy to debunk or discuss with a little research, but I'm having a problem with the concept of auras or chi. One of the owners believes in the pleaiedians (sp.) and they talk alot about vibrational frequency, wich I consider the same thing (possibly incorrectly), any help would be appreciated.

thx werdum

[dropzone]

Start with the assumption that such things might possibly not exist. Extrapolate from there and ask why, if such like auras or chi actually existed and could be used for positive gain, your secretary still works for you and not the head of the NWO. Sorry, but if you aren't Barack Obama, her powers should land her a better gig.

As for her choice in religions, I'm a Fallen Catholic who landed as a Parttime, Pisspoor Lutheran. At best, she's mistaken. At worst, she's a heretic. Like I said, nothing personal. :D

[arthwollipot]

Well, if someone insists that they can detect a human energy field, how about asking whether they would sit for an Emily Rosa (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emily_Rosa) test?

[Werdum]

Thanks for the thought. I guess me real question is if the is anything tangible to HEF, even according to the quacks, or am I supposed to beleive this on "faith"

[nathan]

Thanks for the thought. I guess me real question is if the is anything tangible to HEF

Yup. How can you tell the difference between a world where HEFs exist and one where they don't?

[Tapio]

Hi! Welcome (officially)!

I think this thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=123885) could be an interesting read. A small journey of a believer having to let go of their belief through/after rigorous testing of their claim. I don't know if you find from there what you're looking for, but I think there's a bunch of useful ideas and discussion regarding your topic...

[HansMustermann]

Start with the assumption that such things might possibly not exist. Extrapolate from there and ask why, if such like auras or chi actually existed and could be used for positive gain, your secretary still works for you and not the head of the NWO. Sorry, but if you aren't Barack Obama, her powers should land her a better gig.

As for her choice in religions, I'm a Fallen Catholic who landed as a Parttime, Pisspoor Lutheran. At best, she's mistaken. At worst, she's a heretic. Like I said, nothing personal. :D

I dunno, man. Forget Obama, if I could see auras, I'd go get Randi's million for a start.

[Ashles]

they talk alot about vibrational frequency,
Ak them what they mean by vibrational frequency.

Explain that your understanding is that this term would usually indicate the rapidity which 'something' moved rhythmically and could be measured.

What is the 'something' to which they are referring and how can it be measured?

If it cannot be measured why would they think it is vibrating? Or that it existed?

They presumably believe this 'something' exists and for them to believe this 'something' exists they presumably believe it has a way of influencing something physical (otherwise how does it exist outside of imagination?).
Ask them to come up with a test. How would they demonstrate this 'something' that is vibrating?

[Isobel]

How can you test for an aura though. It's the person that says they can see it that sees it. No-one else. People could claim to see it but there would be no way you could disprove it, just because they 'see' it.

It's a difficult one that one. I can't see how you could physically test for it.

[Ashles]

How can you test for an aura though. It's the person that says they can see it that sees it. No-one else. People could claim to see it but there would be no way you could disprove it, just because they 'see' it.

It's a difficult one that one. I can't see how you could physically test for it.
Lots of ways.

Is it an aura that surrounds all living things? Or just people? If it is all living things then a test could be easily organised.

Is it claimed to change according to mood/illness etc? Again easy to test for.

Can it be seen through thin material? Clothes? Again we can formulate a test around this.

What we would need is the details of what the person claims to be able to see and what the aura indicates to them.

You would be surprised at how many ways we can create tests IF a claim is clear and unambiguous.
You may also be surprised at how vague claims become when we ask specific questions like these.

Are you aware of someone who makes such claims about auras?

[Isobel]

I know a couple of people who say they can see auras. The problem is I can't. And I can tell you I've tried.

I still can't figure out how you can test for them though if it is only the person who 'sees' them that 'sees' them?

[Isobel]

BTW the people I know who can see 'aura's see them round people and even trees.

I've held my hand up to the light and squinted my eyes with my fingers spread apart and yes I can see some sort of white line around it but that's just because my eyes are screwed up, it's not something that I consider real, but my eyes working to create it. I have never seen any colours unless I hold my hand up in my bathroom (which at the time was pale blue) and then I saw more of a bluey colouring in it.

So I don't know if it's true or not, but these people think it is so who am I to say it's not:D

[Ashles]

BTW the people I know who can see 'aura's see them round people and even trees.
Okay - there is a claim. They can see auras around plant life.

So they could presumably in theory detect whether a plant was real or artificial then?
Or whether a plant was alive or dead?

Can they still see the aura if the object itself is just obscured?

I have to also add that seeing auras around things can be very normal in certain light conditions, also certain physical conditions (such as migraines and epilepsy for example) will also cause these effects.

Lots of information about auras at skepdic (http://www.skepdic.com/auras.html).

Furthermore, the best aura reader in the West was tested before a live television audience and failed miserably. The Berkeley Psychic Institute (BPI) sent their top aura reader for a chance to win $10,000 if she could prove her powers. She agreed that the devised test was a fair and accurate. The test was televised on a program hosted by Bill Bixby. James Randi put up the $10,000. The psychic was presented with about twenty people on stage and was asked if she could see their auras. She said that she could see the auras, they all had one and they emanated at least a foot or two above each person's head. The twenty aura-wearing people then went offstage. A curtain was lifted, revealing a number of partitions behind which only some of the twenty people were standing. Thus, Bixby and the psychic were looking at twenty partitions but only several of them had a person behind it. The psychic was asked if she could see any auras creeping up above the partitions. She said she could. To get her ten grand all she had to do was correctly identify each partition that had a person behind it. She was to do this by seeing each person's aura above the partition. The audience was given an aerial camera view of the proceeding. Well, the psychic claimed that she saw an aura above all the partitions and that there was a person behind each partition. The partitions were removed, revealing about 6 people behind the partitions. The psychic didn't even seem surprised. She might console herself that 6 out of 20 is not bad in a hostile arena.

[Werdum]

Tapio thanks for the link, that asnwered some of my questions. As seen in that thread the real problem is how slippery the believers are in defining what they mean. From what I can read there is NO evidence that this claim exists no matter what they call it. I have also realized that that little fact will not matter to the people I'm talking to any more than saying there is no "proof" of angels. They seem to define proof quite differently than I do

[nathan]

Okay - there is a claim. They can see auras around plant life.

Be careful. The claim was trees, not any plant life. One can always ask for clarification.

Isobel, the point here is that presuming the claimed ability will work in something similar but not identical to the claimed circumstances is an unfair test. It's like handing someone a motorcycle when they claim to be able to ride a push bike -- they're both bicycles, heck the motorcycle doesn't even need to be pedaled!

[Ashles]

Be careful. The claim was trees, not any plant life. One can always ask for clarification.
Okay trees - you can get artificial trees in pots.

We could test the claim exactly as specified.

If they subsequently introduce a tree size limit... well that's something else.
The claim modification begins.
It doesn't invalidate the claim, but does them no favour with the fence-sitters.

[nathan]

If they subsequently introduce a tree size limit... well that's something else.
The claim modification begins.

Quite.
Here's a bonsai -- hm, doesn't work, I need non-artificially restricted trees
here's a sapling -- hm, doesn't work, its aura hasn't developed yet
there's an oak -- hm, doesn't work, that's because its leaves have fallen off
there's a pine -- hm, doesn't work, that's because the cones have captured its aura
well what? -- a pineapple tree would do. I've had good results with those.
that's not a tree, have a banana you dofus!

| see my sig
V

[Ashles]

| see my sig
V
LOL - I summed it up much better there and then forgot. :)

[Aitch]

chi/aura? Is that anything like Kia-Ora (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5LvLn9PWln8)? :D

[NoZed Avenger]

Some other, random thoughts.

If the aura extands outwards for some distance, could they detect it over a screen that blocked the person/source, but left an opening several inches above or away from him/her/it?

If different people have different auras, but the aura comes through cloth, then fully cover by a blanket draped over a frame (to have the shape identical every time) and have them state whether a person is present, and, if so, which of the subjects.

If the aura will not penetrate cloth, you might be able to aork a similar set up that leaves only a small section of skin visible (say, part of the arm or leg, with all else covered. This is less satiusfactory, as there are too many chances for sensory leakage, but might work for an informal type of test.

Can they see the aura even in the absence of light? If so, it would be easy to have a darkened room and have them identify if anyone is present and, if so, where they are. (say 4 possible positions with 0-4 persons that might or might not be present at randome; repeat 10 times)

[Ashles]

If different people have different auras, but the aura comes through cloth, then fully cover by a blanket draped over a frame (to have the shape identical every time) and have them state whether a person is present, and, if so, which of the subjects.
You could probably do it without the shape. What about a hole cut in a wall/door? A small piece of skin is visible through.
You could ask if they could tell the difference between a real persaon and, say, a good fake hand (obviously you would have to experiment with hole size, quality of model hand etc.). In theory it would be easier for them if it was the edge of a fake hand.

It would also depend on how far away they claimed to be able to see an aura.

[shuttlt]

Regardless of whether they will do a test, the best advise I can give if you want to debunk them is to treat their claims as if they were meaningful statements about a thing that was real and whose properties you were curious to discover. Question them about it. Lead them into analysing what they see in a logical manner.

The question you really want to be able to answer is:

Do their special powers give them access to information that they would not otherwise have, or allow them to do something that they would not ordinarily be able to do.

If not, then it isn't a testable claim and you have to wonder how they can be sure they have special powers. Perhaps it is some kind of neurological/visual phenomenon.

[Erigena]

Hello all,

I've been lurking around the forum for a while trying to find intelligent discussion on debunking alot of the woo I deal with everyday in my life. I have gained some insight into alot of topics but there is one that I really need to pointed in the right direction on. For a little background the people I work for and with, believe in everything woo, from nwo to homeopathy, my secretary is a totally brainwashed christian (Branhamism). Most of the ridiculous things thay say are very easy to debunk or discuss with a little research, but I'm having a problem with the concept of auras or chi. One of the owners believes in the pleaiedians (sp.) and they talk alot about vibrational frequency, wich I consider the same thing (possibly incorrectly), any help would be appreciated.

thx werdum
As most of us know from having discussions with believers it's difficult to get them to consider an alternative logical explanation, but you can try by presenting science that supports the experience as well as debunks it as being paranormal.

This article might help with the argument against auras.

http://www.skepdic.com/auras.html

[Ashles]

http://www.skepdic.com/auras.html


I see you don't read my posts. Harumph. :)

[jasonpatterson]

Randi had a show called James Randi: Psychic Investigator where they investigated an aura reader. Now your people haven't claimed to be able to do what this guy claims, but it seems entirely likely that they would if you asked them. As many have noted, the problem with any of these sorts of claims is that a true believer isn't going to respond to direct confrontation. Things like confirmation bias sustain these beliefs beyond any semblance of reason, if you can pretend that they are reasonable in the first place. ("I knew Jim was coming around the corner because I saw his aura!" when their hunch is right, but nothing at all when they are wrong, for instance.)

39PM03iVbqE

[Erigena]

I see you don't read my posts. Harumph. :)
Oops! I missed it. I read that article a while ago and found it very interesting. How did you stumble upon it?

[Timothy]

Anyone curious about auras should make sure to be familiar with the possible link between auras and emotion-color synesthesia. If the hypothesis is true, then auras are "real" in the sense that the person seeing auras is physically perceiving (not imagining) a colored halo based on the assumed emotional state of the subject. It is, of course, false in the standard sense that there is not a physically identifiable "field" surrounding the subject that can be measured (or perceived by the aurista) when the subject is not visible.

Read the previously posted Skeptic's Dictionary article (http://www.skepdic.com/auras.html) or http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/15148.php for more information.

[arthwollipot]

How common is that? For that matter, in the OP was it only one person who claimed to see auras?

[Cuddles]

I still can't figure out how you can test for them though if it is only the person who 'sees' them that 'sees' them?

But you've already said that you know more than one person that sees them. And there are plenty more who claim to see auras around the place. If it's a real phenomenon, wouldn't you expect them to see the same thing? Barring conditions like colour-blindness, testing a claim to see just about anything else would be very easy to test, so why should auras be different?

Take five people who claim to see auras and get them to look at a few people/plants/whatevers and describe what they see. If they all see the same thing (without any communication allowed between them obviously), maybe there's really something there. If they all see something completely different, that's a fair indication that what they're seeing it not anything to do with what they're looking at and exists solely inside their own head.

[Tricky]

But you've already said that you know more than one person that sees them. And there are plenty more who claim to see auras around the place. If it's a real phenomenon, wouldn't you expect them to see the same thing? Barring conditions like colour-blindness, testing a claim to see just about anything else would be very easy to test, so why should auras be different?

Take five people who claim to see auras and get them to look at a few people/plants/whatevers and describe what they see. If they all see the same thing (without any communication allowed between them obviously), maybe there's really something there. If they all see something completely different, that's a fair indication that what they're seeing it not anything to do with what they're looking at and exists solely inside their own head.
I think that for the first "open" pass, you let the five people converse, although not privately, since they might develop a code. Get them to agree that they are all seeing the same aura on a couple of test subjects. It is possible that you won't get past this point, because they won't agree on the aura, each claiming to have "different sensitivities". It may be that this by itself will display that the detection of "aura" is nothing more than an individual's 'gut feeling'. However, if I know woos, then they will reinforce each other and they will come to agreement on the aura of the test subjects. Let them make a few such identifications to "calibrate" their sensitivity.

At that point, make the subsequent tests blind and see if they are able to reach the same conclusions about the test subjects (as Cuddles has described above.)

[Ashles]

Oops! I missed it. I read that article a while ago and found it very interesting. How did you stumble upon it?
Just searched for it at Skepdic. Skepdic's great. :)

[Erigena]

Just searched for it at Skepdic. Skepdic's great. :)
I was just curious because someone emailed it to me after a conversation we had about how our mind recalls images. For example when I read a book I see the words on the page the way everyone does, but when I remember a quote from it later the words appear in color. Every letter or number has a color associated with it. I never really thought much about it until I had that conversation. I don't profess to see auras either. When I am standing in front of someone, I see them exactly the way they look, but when I think about them, my mind visualizes them with a glowing hue outlining their silhouette. There's nothing paranormal about any of it. It's just the way my memory catalogs information. I guess it's interesting because the color of the hue is associated with the person, not everyone has the same color. So I don't really know if synesthesia is an example of that or not because my eyes aren't seeing the hue or the colors of letters, it's just how I remember stuff.

I think it’s possible that the reason I associate colors with letters and numbers is because my parents taught me to spell using those colorful magnet letters. I don’t really have an explanation for the glowing hue imagery, but I’m sure there’s a logical reason why I remember people and animals that way.

[VisionFromFeeling]

This is relevant, regarding one person's claim of perceiving the aura,
39PM03iVbqE