A thread for Hardenbergh to discuss real psychics. [Archive]

Beth

6th March 2006, 02:53 PM

I'm posting here per request to move from original thread.

Oh, yes, there would: Belief in the supernatural is so captivating that it is impossible to relinquish. Almost. We do see examples, but as a rule, people are not willing to abandon their beliefs.

Many people change their beliefs over time. Christians lose faith in God and become atheists, Athiests convert to Christianity or Judiasm, etc. Yes, some people are reluctant to let go of their beliefs, but I do not think that belief in the supernatural is as captivating as you seem to. Perhaps you could provide some evidence to back up this claim?

This isn't just evident in belief in psychics. We see it in all forms of supernatural beliefs: Homeopaths (Dr. MAS and Dr. Sheik), Astrologers (Karen Boesen), Magnetism Healers (Roger Coghill) - you name it: All refuse to provide evidence of their claims, all refuse to have their claims examined, all refuse to give up their false beliefs.

Yes, there are many examples of people who refuse to give up their beliefs. However, this is what is termed 'anecdotal evidence'. I believe you are familiar with the term. I could respond by providing examples of people who have given up such beliefs. Many who post on this forum fit into that category. Better evidence will be required to convince me that you are correct and I am the one who is mistaken.

Sorry, but this psychic is already out in the open. Really? Then why did you ask Hardenbergh to supply the name?

Even if this was not so, the nature of the claim makes it imperative that we investigate it. We are talking about the ability to locate lost children. We simply cannot just let such a claim go untested or unchallenged. You can (and did) point out that without further details, it is just an unverified anecdote and therefore should not be assumed to be true without further corroboration. If Hardenbergh declines to provide such corroboration, why not simply let it go? It's just another unverified anecdote.

If this person can find them, then we can save lives. If this person can not find them, then he has to be stopped from preying on grieving people. By investigating these claims, we have everything to win. If we don't investigate them, we have everything to lose.

One reason that non-professional psychics don't wish to be publically outed is exactly that sort of expectation. First, you would require them to undergo extensive testing of their abilities (presumably not something they are interested in) and if their ability turned out to be real (unlikely but you are allowing for that possibility) you would then obligate that person to spend their lives in pursuit of missing persons. Perhaps that isn't what you meant to imply, but that is what I got out of what you wrote. Believe it or not, for many people, that's a motivation to stay anonymous, not to jump up, proclaim them psychic, and submit to testing.

Excuse me if I get a bit upset about the reality of psychics scamming grieving people. Why did you not address that aspect at all? All you did was protect the scammers.

So by pointing out that your behavior is ineffectual in achieving what I presume to be your goals (furthering discussion of the case and promoting a skeptical look at such folks) I am protecting the scammers? I think not. I think you are trying to protect yourself from criticism by associating criticism of your posting style with aiding and abeting those that you perceive to be the enemy.

JPK

6th March 2006, 02:59 PM

Good afternoon Beth.
Thank's for moving this to this thread. It looked like the other thread could have spun out of control.
JPK

Arkan_Wolfshade

6th March 2006, 03:01 PM

Dangnabbit, I've been to this thread at least half-a-dozen times, and each time, I keep rereading (and later correcting myself) that the title is "...to discuss real physics."

Kelly

6th March 2006, 04:06 PM

Good afternoon Beth.
Thank's for moving this to this thread. It looked like the other thread could have spun out of control.
JPK

I think I'll refer to JPK as the "Spin Control Dr." ;)

Thanks, JPK.

CFLarsen

6th March 2006, 04:19 PM

Many people change their beliefs over time. Christians lose faith in God and become atheists, Athiests convert to Christianity or Judiasm, etc. Yes, some people are reluctant to let go of their beliefs, but I do not think that belief in the supernatural is as captivating as you seem to. Perhaps you could provide some evidence to back up this claim?

...

Yes, there are many examples of people who refuse to give up their beliefs. However, this is what is termed 'anecdotal evidence'. I believe you are familiar with the term. I could respond by providing examples of people who have given up such beliefs. Many who post on this forum fit into that category. Better evidence will be required to convince me that you are correct and I am the one who is mistaken.

There is probably no more convincing evidence that science itself. Nowhere have we found any evidence of any paranormal phenomenon, be it the ability to talk to dead people, dowse, see auras, or bend spoons by using one's mind.

If that isn't convincing, then nothing is.

Really? Then why did you ask Hardenbergh to supply the name?

Because the psychic has been mentioned in the article which we have not seen. Therefore, Hardenbergh's refusal to name the psychic is ridiculous. Hardenbergh knows the identity. The identity has been publicised.

Why can't we know it? Because Hardenbergh knows that we will examine the psychic's claims.

You can (and did) point out that without further details, it is just an unverified anecdote and therefore should not be assumed to be true without further corroboration. If Hardenbergh declines to provide such corroboration, why not simply let it go? It's just another unverified anecdote.

Sure it is. But it is just another unverified anecdote which the believers in psychics feed on. If we can show that this particular anecdote is not what it purports, it will be one less anecdote to fight.

One reason that non-professional psychics don't wish to be publically outed is exactly that sort of expectation. First, you would require them to undergo extensive testing of their abilities (presumably not something they are interested in) and if their ability turned out to be real (unlikely but you are allowing for that possibility) you would then obligate that person to spend their lives in pursuit of missing persons. Perhaps that isn't what you meant to imply, but that is what I got out of what you wrote. Believe it or not, for many people, that's a motivation to stay anonymous, not to jump up, proclaim them psychic, and submit to testing.

Believe it or not, I don't give a flying f**k about your reservations. By allowing them to make these claim behind a curtain of secrecy when it suits them, but allowing them full publicity when it suits them, you are paving a 6-lane highway for these psychic vampires to suck on the grief of people.

If someone makes a paranormal claim, they will be required to be tested. Humanity cannot just sit by and allow false claims to be uncountered.

Do you agree, yes or no?

So by pointing out that your behavior is ineffectual in achieving what I presume to be your goals (furthering discussion of the case and promoting a skeptical look at such folks) I am protecting the scammers? I think not. I think you are trying to protect yourself from criticism by associating criticism of your posting style with aiding and abeting those that you perceive to be the enemy.

You can test my claims all you like. What I am asking is that you allow me to test the psychics' claims as well. Will you, yes or no?

solas

6th March 2006, 05:08 PM

Having to wait two days for my registration to complete, I had the oppertunity to read the related thread. My condolances to KellyJ.
Re the issue of psychic detectives, I've watched several programs on the topic (discovery at it's most boring) and I know of many "psychics" who claim via thier websites to have assisted in police investigation.

When I'm up to 15 posts I'll add the relevant links for discussion.

Beth

6th March 2006, 05:16 PM

There is probably no more convincing evidence that science itself. Nowhere have we found any evidence of any paranormal phenomenon, be it the ability to talk to dead people, dowse, see auras, or bend spoons by using one's mind.

If that isn't convincing, then nothing is.

It's irrelevant to your claim. You said: Belief in the supernatural is so captivating that it is impossible to relinquish. Almost. We do see examples, but as a rule, people are not willing to abandon their beliefs.

Please provide evidence to support that claim.

Because the psychic has been mentioned in the article which we have not seen. Therefore, Hardenbergh's refusal to name the psychic is ridiculous. Hardenbergh knows the identity. The identity has been publicised.

Perhaps. We do not know that the psychic has been mentioned by name. We don't even know that such an article actually exists. Even if the article does exist and does mention the psychic by name, it is a somewhat different circumstance to demand that he name the person here and now in this forum and thus Hardenbergh's refusal is NOT ridiculous. Your demand that s/he produce the article or name the person is reasonable and his/her refusal to do so is adequate grounds to dismiss the anecdote without further discussion. That is all.

Why can't we know it? Because Hardenbergh knows that we will examine the psychic's claims. Perhaps. And perhaps because Hardenbergh is telling us the truth. I do not so easily dismiss the excuse (it is reasonable), only the anecdote.

Sure it is. But it is just another unverified anecdote which the believers in psychics feed on. If we can show that this particular anecdote is not what it purports, it will be one less anecdote to fight. That's my point. I find your continuing harranging of Hardenbergh to be the equivalent of compaining about not being able to examine a particular drop of seawater under your microscope when an entire ocean is available for examination.

Believe it or not, I don't give a flying f**k about your reservations. By allowing them to make these claim behind a curtain of secrecy when it suits them, but allowing them full publicity when it suits them, you are paving a 6-lane highway for these psychic vampires to suck on the grief of people.

If someone makes a paranormal claim, they will be required to be tested. Humanity cannot just sit by and allow false claims to be uncountered.

Do you agree, yes or no? No. We can only test them if they agree to have their claim tested. The rest of us are free to dismiss their claims as unverifiable (and most likely untrue) if they refuse but we should not force testing upon them.

You can test my claims all you like. What I am asking is that you allow me to test the psychics' claims as well. Will you, yes or no?

I wasn't aware that you needed my permission. As far as I am concerned, you may test any claims you like as long as you have the consent of all parties involved.

Ashles

6th March 2006, 05:22 PM

"Belief in the supernatural is so captivating that it is impossible to relinquish. Almost. We do see examples, but as a rule, people are not willing to abandon their beliefs."

Please provide evidence to support that claim.
Beth, do you still believe you possess the ability to move a candle flame using your will alone?

solas

6th March 2006, 05:46 PM

figured I would do it anyway:
from the website of Dr. lauren Thibodeau (google)
re presentation feedback

Dr. Lauren,

I just wanted to drop a note and say thank you for coming to Reading and doing the Applied Intuition Class on May 17, 2005. I reviewed the evaluations from the students and ALL of them were positive and agreed this was a GREAT class. I had personal conversations with some of the students and they were enthusiastic about the class and had extremely positive and complimentary comments about you and the material.
David L. Yoch
Criminal Investigator
Wyomissing Police Department
Wyomissing, PA

and from the site of Kathleen Rhea:
Kathlyn Rhea has been recognized and honored throughout the world for her intutive work with law enforcement agencies and the private sector. She brings over 30 years experience to her clients, applying her detailed psychic focus to a variety of issues, including personal relationships, business, health and crimesolving. She is a member of the Global Intution Network, a Minister in the Church of Life, and an honorary deputy in two California counties.
testimonials
"Enclosed are two photographs ...One is the sketch done per your directions by a police artist, and the other is the mass murderer who confessed to the crime. Your sketch closely resembles him. Thank you very much for your professional assistance." --Investigator, District Attorney's Office

"Against prevailing opinions, I continued searching the area Ms. Rhea specified and found the plane that was missing." -- Colonel, Civil Air Patrol

"I have found Kathlyn to be incredibly accurate in each case I have consulted her on since 1979." -- Police Sgt., Child Abuse and Sexual Crimes Division

:hypnotize

Beth

6th March 2006, 06:04 PM

Beth, do you still believe you possess the ability to move a candle flame using your will alone?

It would be more accurate to say that I still have doubts regarding the conventional wisdom in regard to whether it is possible to do so. I continue to test the hypothesis but do not currently have sufficient evidence to come to a firm conclusion one way or the other. Why do you ask?

Spidey13

6th March 2006, 07:38 PM

figured I would do it anyway:
from the website of Dr. lauren Thibodeau (google)
re presentation feedback

Dr. Lauren,

I just wanted to drop a note and say thank you for coming to Reading and doing the Applied Intuition Class on May 17, 2005. I reviewed the evaluations from the students and ALL of them were positive and agreed this was a GREAT class. I had personal conversations with some of the students and they were enthusiastic about the class and had extremely positive and complimentary comments about you and the material.
David L. Yoch
Criminal Investigator
Wyomissing Police Department
Wyomissing, PA

So they liked the class. And this proves what?

and from the site of Kathleen Rhea:
Kathlyn Rhea has been recognized and honored throughout the world for her intutive work with law enforcement agencies and the private sector. She brings over 30 years experience to her clients, applying her detailed psychic focus to a variety of issues, including personal relationships, business, health and crimesolving. She is a member of the Global Intution Network, a Minister in the Church of Life, and an honorary deputy in two California counties.
It suspiciously doesn't mention which counties. Hmmm.
testimonials
"Enclosed are two photographs ...One is the sketch done per your directions by a police artist, and the other is the mass murderer who confessed to the crime. Your sketch closely resembles him. Thank you very much for your professional assistance." --Investigator, District Attorney's Office

"Against prevailing opinions, I continued searching the area Ms. Rhea specified and found the plane that was missing." -- Colonel, Civil Air Patrol

"I have found Kathlyn to be incredibly accurate in each case I have consulted her on since 1979." -- Police Sgt., Child Abuse and Sexual Crimes Division

:hypnotize

All names/precincts/locations/etc. not given. :rolleyes:

solas

6th March 2006, 10:44 PM

So they liked the class. And this proves what?
well, I've got to first of all assume that the class in "applied intuition" was given on behalf of wyomissing police dept. That could be a very big assumption but if it is what it suggests, then it seems there is an equal effort being exerted to bring "intuition" into play where criminal investigations are concerned. Sounds quite amazing if it's true really.
All names/precincts/locations/etc. not givenyep, no doubt if there were actual identities connected with the testimonies, everyone would want it confirmed personally and those folks phones would become hotlines. Or maybe they're just shy :shy:
It suspiciously doesn't mention which counties. Hmmm.I'll have a look around tomorrow and see if I can find any more info, it would be interesting to know.

solas

6th March 2006, 11:06 PM

wasn't too hard to find: Kathlyn Rhea holds badges from the Sonoma and Calaveras County Sheriff's Departments.
from here: (note can't link yet)

gilroydispatch .com / news /
contentview . asp?c = 137653

Euromutt

7th March 2006, 03:03 AM

wasn't too hard to find:Kathlyn Rhea holds badges from the Sonoma and Calaveras County Sheriff's Departments.
from here: gilroydispatch.com/news/contentview.asp?c=137653(Link modified by me.)

For those of you who can't be bothered to follow the link, the quoted line is a caption to a photo of Rhea holding up a display case containing two police badges. So it's a rather ambiguous statement. But the article does say Rhea's been deputized twice, so it's a reasonable assumption that those were the two sheriff's departments in question.

What it does not say is what she was deputized for. For all I know, Rhea might occupy herself with a number of law enforcement-related activities, with psychic detective work being only one of them. Example:

Gavin de Becker & Associates (http://www.gdbinc.com/home.cfm) is a company which occupies with the "predication and prevention of violence - and the management of fear." De Becker himself is the author of the book The Gift of Fear, which gives advice on dealing with actual and potential assailants, and especially counsels to heed one's fear (though not to allow it to control you), since it is the part of one's intuition which is intended to alert one to threats. On a larger scale, GdB&A. operates MOSAIC (http://www.mosaicsystem.com/), a threat assessment system which the company's website describes as "artificial intuition." De Becker does not want for clients, because he gets results, but despite his emphasis on intuition, there is nothing paranormal about his methods. On the contrary, in The Gift of Fear he emphasizes that intuition is entirely natural, and that "intuition" itself operates by putting together subtle cues of which have (yet) registed fully on our consciousness (e.g. arriving at your front door and hearing a car engine cooling, but not seeing the car in question - why has the driver parked it out of sight?).

It may well be that Rhea operates as a "Gavin de Becker lite" with her "Applied Intuition" courses, and that the attributed plaudits from law enforcement personnel were for these activities, not for any "psychic detective" work.

Thing is, when it comes to "psychic detectives" is that nobody's denying that someone styling themselves a "psychic detective" might make a useful contribution to a case once in a while (though nowhere near as often as claimed); what we're skeptical about is that such contributions are the result of psychic ability, as opposed to mundane skills of detection.

Ersby

7th March 2006, 04:39 AM

In the JSPR issue 64 (2000), O'Keefe and Alison compared psychic detectives and a control group (who'd make guesses) in a paper called "Rhetoric and Psychic Detectives". It's pretty interesting stuff. If anyone wants to read it all, they can PM me an email address.

from the abstract
This study examined the differences between the account-giving styles of psychic detectives compared with a control group. It was hypothesised that psychics would employ many devices commonly associated with known cold reading strategies, a distinct style of account-giving or 'psychic rhetoric'. Eight psychics and twelve controls examined 3 objects from 3 crimes and were asked for their opinions about the likely characteristics of the offender. Although independent <-tests confirmed that psychics were no more accurate than controls, content analysis confirmed the hypothesis that psychics relied more heavily on a variety of rhetorical devices.

Among the findings were that the psychic detectives' testimony was three times longer than the control group but were no more accurate (to clarify: they had three times more information, but of course, this was from three times as many statements).

from the conclusion
The hypothesis that psychic detectives' reports, despite being no more accurate than those of a control group, would be qualitatively different from those of controls was supported. The precise nature of this variation may lie in the self-projected certainty of the account and may, therefore, relate to processes of self-deception. Alternatively, it may lie in the attempted and deliberate expert manipulation of the listener.
The implications of this and subsequent studies are manifold. In high profile murder and rape cases there is a pressure on the police to follow up any leads, however seemingly obscure. Any information volunteered to the police has to be recorded. The study has implications for assessing the opinions given by psychics and, potentially, other individuals external to the enquiry, particularly if the way in which the account is given is associated with confidence and certainty and/or with convincingness. Of the devices examined, many are associated with methods employed in cold reading—a related set of techniques known to convey convincingness about advice/opinions, though there is no substantive evidence within the account. Whether these processes relate to self or other deception is uncertain, though clarification of their existence and structure may go some way to exploring the distortions that they may present to an enquiry.

Hardenbergh

7th March 2006, 06:03 AM

Why are psychic gifts any less believable than "ghost busters" or exorcisms performed in the Catholic church?

Jekyll

7th March 2006, 06:10 AM

Why are psychic gifts any less believable than "ghost busters" or exorcisms performed in the Catholic church?
They are no less believable.

That is, most people on this forum consider exorcism to be no more than an uniformed response to mental illness and effectively another name for ritualised child abuse.

Edit: However, we are talking about psychics, particularly your experiences of psychic detectives .

Mojo

7th March 2006, 06:13 AM

Why are psychic gifts any less believable than "ghost busters" or exorcisms performed in the Catholic church?Are exorcisms any more believable than psychic gifts? And what has the credibility of another type of mumbo-jumbo got to do with whether real psychic abilities exist?

Why not try presenting some evidence?

Psiload

7th March 2006, 06:13 AM

Why are psychic gifts any less believable than "ghost busters" or exorcisms performed in the Catholic church? Please tell me you're joking.

Hardenbergh

7th March 2006, 06:27 AM

Here's some background on Alex Tanous:

http://www.alextanous.org/research/biography.php

Mojo

7th March 2006, 06:28 AM

Because the psychic has been mentioned in the article which we have not seen. Therefore, Hardenbergh's refusal to name the psychic is ridiculous. Hardenbergh knows the identity. The identity has been publicised.

Why can't we know it? Because Hardenbergh knows that we will examine the psychic's claims. This seems to be fairly standard for believers in psychics: claim that, while many alleged psychics are frauds, they have seen a real one, but then refuse to name them. Remember Jambo, or Janice?

Spidey13

7th March 2006, 06:35 AM

Another note about being an honorary deputy. It really doesn't take much. My friend's father is an honorary deputy in a county here in Kentucky. He is a very wealthy man. How did he become an honorary deputy? He donated a bunch of money to the FOP.

So, being an honorary deputy is not hard to do and is totally meaningless.

JPK

7th March 2006, 06:45 AM

Good morning Hardenbergh, and thanks for discussing this here.
Here's some background on Alex Tanous:

http://www.alextanous.org/research/biography.php

Surely you don't believe in this guys powers simply because there is a website about him? I got the impression from the other thread that you had some first had experiences with psychics. Would you be kind enough to discuss that?
One of the things that could be helpfull to KellyJ would be a detailed report on the type of discussions psychics have with families of the missing. Even though you might be presenting it from the side of someone who believes in psychic abilities, it would be helpfull.
JPK

Psiload

7th March 2006, 07:07 AM

wasn't too hard to find:
Kathlyn Rhea holds badges from the Sonoma and Calaveras County Sheriff's Departments.

Your point? I'll show you police departments that have outfitted their officers with expensive dowsing rods. Police officials are just as susceptible to making foolish decisions as the rest of us.

btw... Kathy Rhea, aside from being the poster girl for botched plastic surgery, was one of the psychics whom Mark Klass directly referred to as "predators" and "vultures". She was involved in the search for Polly Klass. Police reported that she was actually of no help whatever and that they finally solved the mystery with good old-fashioned police work, but that didn't stop her from going on television after the case was solved and claiming "success"... she insisted that her (vague and generic) description of the killer matched the man who was convicted for the crime.

http://www.gilroydispatch.com/content/img/f137653/RHEA-1-JMM.jpg

Warning! Picture not safe for children/people with heart conditions/the faint of heart.

JPK

7th March 2006, 07:20 AM

Good morning Hardenbergh.
Why are psychic gifts any less believable than "ghost busters" or exorcisms performed in the Catholic church?

I'm not sure they are, but I would be interested to hear what you think.
JPK

JPK

7th March 2006, 07:22 AM

Good morning KellyJ
I think I'll refer to JPK as the "Spin Control Dr." ;)

Thanks, JPK.
No problem. All I did was ask. It was the other posters that helped by listening.
JPK

Hardenbergh

7th March 2006, 07:36 AM

Good morning Hardenbergh.

I'm not sure they are, but I would be interested to hear what you think.
JPK

Staying away from people like Maria Duval who send long, soulful, generic letters and prey on desperate people in the guise of getting up close and personal would be a start. These are the ones to stay away from and these are the ones that are giving the "Real McCoy" a bad name.

Maria Duval (http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.stelling.nl/simpos/maria_duval.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.stelling.nl/simpos/maria_duval_clairvoyant.htm&h=250&w=250&sz=12&tbnid=UfYhOv-kXGTQDM:&tbnh=106&tbnw=106&hl=en&start=1&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dmaria%2Bduval%26svnum%3D10%26hl%3Den% 26lr%3D%26sa%3DG)

chillzero

7th March 2006, 07:44 AM

One reason that non-professional psychics don't wish to be publically outed is exactly that sort of expectation. First, you would require them to undergo extensive testing of their abilities (presumably not something they are interested in) and if their ability turned out to be real (unlikely but you are allowing for that possibility) you would then obligate that person to spend their lives in pursuit of missing persons. Perhaps that isn't what you meant to imply, but that is what I got out of what you wrote. Believe it or not, for many people, that's a motivation to stay anonymous, not to jump up, proclaim them psychic, and submit to testing.

I'm sorry, I have to disagree with this.

In most careers you are required to prove you are the best candidate for the job, and you have to show than you can do what you say you can.

Even in non-professional arenas, this is not an unexpected requirement. My main hobbies are writing and photography, and I belong to several forums and sites where I can contribute to the best of my abilities, and have those contributions assessed. If I am useless at it, I will be told so by other users of those sites. This never happens with psychics - they don't even test themselves amongst their peers.

Why is different for the paranormal sector, when every other sector of life can say - 'you claim this? Ok, prove it' ?

If, however, I found I had the ability to find missing people with a mere few minutes 'work', I would indeed feel obligated to make this my life's work as you suggest, but also, I would not find that to be a bad thing. I can't think of a better thing to contribute to the world. Why would I prevent the rescue or murder of one more single person?

I don't find this a valid motivation for anonimity. It's selfish in the extreme.

CFLarsen

7th March 2006, 07:45 AM

It's irrelevant to your claim. You said:

Please provide evidence to support that claim.

Science obviously hasn't convinced people that the supernatural doesn't exist. That means that people, despite a world of scientific explanations of the phenomena, still believe them to be supernatural.

Can you name one paranormal phenomenon that science hasn't explained sufficiently convincing?

Perhaps. We do not know that the psychic has been mentioned by name. We don't even know that such an article actually exists. Even if the article does exist and does mention the psychic by name, it is a somewhat different circumstance to demand that he name the person here and now in this forum and thus Hardenbergh's refusal is NOT ridiculous. Your demand that s/he produce the article or name the person is reasonable and his/her refusal to do so is adequate grounds to dismiss the anecdote without further discussion. That is all.

No, that is not all. You continue to "forget" the grieving families who are scammed by these psychics. The psychics themselves milk every media opportunity they can get to continue their scams.

Perhaps. And perhaps because Hardenbergh is telling us the truth. I do not so easily dismiss the excuse (it is reasonable), only the anecdote.

It is not reasonable, because Hardenbergh tells us, on his own, that this psychic exists and has solved crimes. Boosting paranormal claims without backing them up with evidence means nothing here.

That's my point. I find your continuing harranging of Hardenbergh to be the equivalent of compaining about not being able to examine a particular drop of seawater under your microscope when an entire ocean is available for examination.

Not at all. It is about not being able to examine a particular drop of seawater that Hardenbergh has in his possession. Don't give me this "Oh, but there are so many other things you could look at" excuse. Yeah, there are: And I want to look at this particular part of the ocean. Only, I can't, because Hardenbergh won't let me.

No. We can only test them if they agree to have their claim tested. The rest of us are free to dismiss their claims as unverifiable (and most likely untrue) if they refuse but we should not force testing upon them.

Why not? They sell a product/service, why shouldn't psychics, like all other purveyors of such, document that they can do what they claim?

I wasn't aware that you needed my permission. As far as I am concerned, you may test any claims you like as long as you have the consent of all parties involved.

Then you won't allow me to test psychics. You know damn well that they refuse to be tested - and why.

Mojo

7th March 2006, 07:47 AM

Ossai

7th March 2006, 07:52 AM

The two percent co did an entire week long rant on Alisson DuBois. Since the research has already been done by them Allison DuBois: Debunked! (http://www.twopercentco.com/rants/allison_dubois_week.html)

If you bother actually researching any of the other psychic claims you will invariably find that the explanation does not requiring psychic powers.

Ossai

solas

7th March 2006, 07:55 AM

Your point? I'll show you police departments that have outfitted their officers with expensive dowsing rods. Police officials are just as susceptible to making foolish decisions as the rest of us.The only points I'm raising are the ones which "psychic detectives" themselves have made available via their own admissions, purely for the reasons of discussion this thread has prmpted.
btw... Kathy Rhea, aside from being the poster girl for botched plastic surgery, was one of the psychics whom Mark Klass directly referred to as "predators" and "vultures". She was involved in the search for Polly Klass. Police reported that she was actually of no help whatever and that they finally solved the mystery with good old-fashioned police work, but that didn't stop her from going on television after the case was solved and claiming "success"... she insisted that her (vague and generic) description of the killer matched the man who was convicted for the crime.In my own attempts to find the truth in any situation, I look at what is being presented first, with as little emotionall atachment and objective a mind as I can muster. I noticed mark klass's connection to the story, which is why I find it relative.
Had I known initially the thread was developed only as a tool to question Hardenbergh's personal beliefs, I would have remained watching from the sidelines.

sophia8

7th March 2006, 08:00 AM

JPK

7th March 2006, 08:09 AM

Good morning Hardendergh.
Staying away from people like Maria Duval who send long, soulful, generic letters and prey on desperate people in the guise of getting up close and personal would be a start. These are the ones to stay away from and these are the ones that are giving the "Real McCoy" a bad name.

Maria Duval (http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.stelling.nl/simpos/maria_duval.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.stelling.nl/simpos/maria_duval_clairvoyant.htm&h=250&w=250&sz=12&tbnid=UfYhOv-kXGTQDM:&tbnh=106&tbnw=106&hl=en&start=1&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dmaria%2Bduval%26svnum%3D10%26hl%3Den% 26lr%3D%26sa%3DG) OK. Since you seem to be able to distinguish from the "Real McCoy" and the frauds, would you mind explaining how that's done? For example if a person told you they wanted to help you with something and that they have a "gift" that allows them to gain information that most people are not able to help with. How would you go about determining if this person was real? How much time would you need to invest trying to determine this? Perhaps you can give us some pointers on what to look for, besides for long soulful letters. How would a "real psychic " go about offering assistance.
JPK

Psiload

7th March 2006, 08:28 AM

Staying away from people like Maria Duval who send long, soulful, generic letters and prey on desperate people in the guise of getting up close and personal would be a start. These are the ones to stay away from and these are the ones that are giving the "Real McCoy" a bad name.

Maria Duval (http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.stelling.nl/simpos/maria_duval.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.stelling.nl/simpos/maria_duval_clairvoyant.htm&h=250&w=250&sz=12&tbnid=UfYhOv-kXGTQDM:&tbnh=106&tbnw=106&hl=en&start=1&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dmaria%2Bduval%26svnum%3D10%26hl%3Den% 26lr%3D%26sa%3DG)Do you realize that in any given missing person case, there will be hundreds, maybe thousands of "leads" coming in from people giving their "psychic impressions" and "gut feelings". These are not the odd solicitations from "professional psychic detectives", these are the same types of anonymous nobodies like the people who you refuse to name. How is one to go about finding the "Real McCoy"? You'd think it'd just be a matter of picking the person with the solid track record, but who is that person? How are we to find the odd kernel of wheat hidden in the big pile of chaff?

Here is a case in point:

http://www.global2000.net/suzy/

A college girl missing since 1998. Her parents were on the Oprah Giraldo Montel Jessy Raphael show describing how thay had heard "thousands" of tips from "psychics", all had led nowhere. They went on the show to get help from the great James VanPraagh, and what did they get?

"I see her body near water. I see trees and railroad tracks." and, "Her killer wore a hat."

So much for the "superstar psychic"... now how should the parents go about determining which of the no-name psychics to trust? Which of the thousands of tips are from genuine psychics? How does one spot the "Real McCoy?"

Hardenbergh

7th March 2006, 08:44 AM

Do you realize that in any given missing person case, there will be hundreds, maybe thousands of "leads" coming in from people giving their "psychic impressions" and "gut feelings". These are not the odd solicitations from "professional psychic detectives", these are the same types of anonymous nobodies like the people who you refuse to name. How is one to go about finding the "Real McCoy"? You'd think it'd just be a matter of picking the person with the solid track record, but who is that person? How are we to find the odd kernel of wheat hidden in the big pile of chaff?

Here is a case in point:

http://www.global2000.net/suzy/

A college girl missing since 1998. Her parents were on the Oprah Giraldo Montel Jessy Raphael show describing how thay had heard "thousands" of tips from "psychics", all had led nowhere. They went on the show to get help from the great James VanPraagh, and what did they get?

"I see her body near water. I see trees and railroad tracks." and, "Her killer wore a hat."

So much for the "superstar psychic"... now how should the parents go about determining which of the no-name psychics to trust? Which of the thousands of tips are from genuine psychics? How does one spot the "Real McCoy?"

I think that many psychics have worked with law officials on many cases but they wish to remain anonymous. Otherwise, they wouldn't have time to deal with all the missing person cases. The "Real McCoy" isn't in it for the notoriety. They truly wish to help without any recompense.

Beth

7th March 2006, 08:49 AM

I'm sorry, I have to disagree with this.

In most careers you are required to prove you are the best candidate for the job, and you have to show than you can do what you say you can.

Yes. That's why I specifically said non-professionals

Even in non-professional arenas, this is not an unexpected requirement. My main hobbies are writing and photography, and I belong to several forums and sites where I can contribute to the best of my abilities, and have those contributions assessed. If I am useless at it, I will be told so by other users of those sites. This never happens with psychics - they don't even test themselves amongst their peers.

Why is different for the paranormal sector, when every other sector of life can say - 'you claim this? Ok, prove it' ?

Yes, it's true for many hobbies and for some people regardless of their hobby. But if I take up bird-watching, I don't expect to have prove my abilities to spot the birdies and identify them correctly. And while I realize that even birding can be competitive and assessed, the majority of people who participate aren't doing so for that reason. I know I don't.

If, however, I found I had the ability to find missing people with a mere few minutes 'work', I would indeed feel obligated to make this my life's work as you suggest, but also, I would not find that to be a bad thing. I can't think of a better thing to contribute to the world. Why would I prevent the rescue or murder of one more single person?

I don't find this a valid motivation for anonimity. It's selfish in the extreme.

Okay, you find it selfish. In fact, I'm not sure that there are any altruistic motivations for anomymity. I think it's entirely a selfish desire. But people are allowed to be selfish. If someone wants anomymity (and many people do) they are allowed to seek it. If someone isn't interested in devoting their life to such a pursuit then they are under no obligation to do so.

Flo

7th March 2006, 08:55 AM

Nyarlathotep

7th March 2006, 08:59 AM

JPK

7th March 2006, 09:00 AM

Good morning Solas.
The only points I'm raising are the ones which "psychic detectives" themselves have made available via their own admissions, purely for the reasons of discussion this thread has prmpted.
In my own attempts to find the truth in any situation, I look at what is being presented first, with as little emotionall atachment and objective a mind as I can muster. I noticed mark klass's connection to the story, which is why I find it relative.
Had I known initially the thread was developed only as a tool to question Hardenbergh's personal beliefs, I would have remained watching from the sidelines.
Feel free to jump in. I started this thread because of a disscussion going on in another thread that needed it's own place.
And welcome.
JPK

Flo

7th March 2006, 09:02 AM

Yes. That's why I specifically said non-professionals

Yes, it's true for many hobbies and for some people regardless of their hobby. But if I take up bird-watching, I don't expect to have prove my abilities to spot the birdies and identify them correctly. And while I realize that even birding can be competitive and assessed, the majority of people who participate aren't doing so for that reason. I know I don't.

Okay, you find it selfish. In fact, I'm not sure that there are any altruistic motivations for anomymity. I think it's entirely a selfish desire. But people are allowed to be selfish. If someone wants anomymity (and many people do) they are allowed to seek it. If someone isn't interested in devoting their life to such a pursuit then they are under no obligation to do so.

Identifying birds for your own pleasure doesn't necessarily involve other people's safety and feelings. Pretending you can solve crimes and find missing people does. Anonymity for the purpose of avoiding to have your ability tested in this regard is not just selfishness, it is scamming.

Psiload

7th March 2006, 09:02 AM

I think that many psychics have worked with law officials on many cases but they wish to remain anonymous. Otherwise, they wouldn't have time to deal with all the missing person cases. The "Real McCoy" isn't in it for the notoriety. They truly wish to help without any recompense.

So... you're merely making assumptions?

I find it very difficult to believe that not a single one of these "Real McCoys" has ever stepped into the limelight to accept some tiny bit of well-deserved praise and adulation... not once.

Hypothetical situation...

There exists a chosen few doctors that can cure a certain childhood disease that no other doctor is able to cure. All of the big-name, well known specialists are unable to cure this dreaded disease. Yet a chosen few anonymous doctors will quietly sneak in, cure the disease pro bono, and then zoom away in the Doctormobile before the paparizzi arrive. Now, these doctors aren't going to do this for each and every sick kid... I mean, they need to get in a good 18 holes of golf every other day without their beepers going off every ten minutes, and a bunch of distraught parents pestering them...

enough.

It's just silly.

Hardenbergh

7th March 2006, 09:04 AM

What you think is immaterial. All you've offered until now is vague excuses that convey the impression that you can't support any of your allegations with facts.

- who are those "many psychics" who have worked with law officials ?
- what cases have they been working on ?
- where and how can we check on the results and assess which were due to their contribution ?

All the rest is just meaningless drivel used by the deluded to support their delusions, and by scammers to milk the deluded and the grieving.

I never claimed that I had any statistics on the subject.

Bronze Dog

7th March 2006, 09:04 AM

Excellent analogy, Psiload.

CFLarsen

7th March 2006, 09:07 AM

I never claimed that I had any statistics on the subject.
You claimed you had evidence of a psychic solving crimes.

Show your evidence.

Hardenbergh

7th March 2006, 09:09 AM

You claimed you had evidence of a psychic solving crimes.

Show your evidence.

This was a single isolated case. He didn't do it for a living. The only evidence was a newspaper clipping that I read many years ago. I don't have a copy of it myself.

Gr8wight

7th March 2006, 09:11 AM

Gr8wight presents: A Collection Of Quotations By Hardenbergh.

I didn't want to provide too many details...

I assume it was a newspaper in northern Maine...

I'm confident that there are many...

I'm sure that the article was printed with much reluctance on his part...

perhaps he knew the family and wanted to help out...

I never claimed that I had any statistics on the subject....

I think that many psychics...

Not a concrete statement among them. All presumption and supposition.

Attn: Hardenbergh. Unless you have any actual evidence to support your claims, your presence has outlived its entertainment value. You may present evidence now, or you may go.

CFLarsen

7th March 2006, 09:11 AM

This was a single isolated case. He didn't do it for a living. The only evidence was a newspaper clipping that I read many years ago. I don't have a copy of it myself.

No evidence, then.

Do you have any evidence at all about any case?

Beth

7th March 2006, 09:11 AM

Science obviously hasn't convinced people that the supernatural doesn't exist. That means that people, despite a world of scientific explanations of the phenomena, still believe them to be supernatural.

Can you name one paranormal phenomenon that science hasn't explained sufficiently convincing?

That's not evidence for your claim. I didn't make the claim. You did. At this point, I can only presume that you have no evidence to support your original claim or you would have provided it. Ergo, it was not factual, but your opinion. You are entitled to your opinion, but I am also entitled to mine.

No, that is not all. You continue to "forget" the grieving families who are scammed by these psychics. The psychics themselves milk every media opportunity they can get to continue their scams.

I don't forget them, but the psychic under discussion was not a professional and was not getting paid nor running a scam in the instance described.

t is not reasonable, because Hardenbergh tells us, on his own, that this psychic exists and has solved crimes. Boosting paranormal claims without backing them up with evidence means nothing here.

Okay. It means nothing. Just another unverifiable anecdote. That's my point. Why get so wrought up about it?

Not at all. It is about not being able to examine a particular drop of seawater that Hardenbergh has in his possession. Don't give me this "Oh, but there are so many other things you could look at" excuse. Yeah, there are: And I want to look at this particular part of the ocean. Only, I can't, because Hardenbergh won't let me.

Okay. It's in his/her possession and he/she won't let you examine it. That's frustrating and irritating, but not under your control. In the meantime, you're knee deep in an ocean, so why get so wrought up about a single drop? As you, yourself, said "It means nothing".

Why not? They sell a product/service, why shouldn't psychics, like all other purveyors of such, document that they can do what they claim?

We were discussing a case wherein the person was NOT selling a product or service. Professionals can be held to a different set of rules.

Then you won't allow me to test psychics. You know damn well that they refuse to be tested - and why.

You need my permission in order to test someone else against their wishes? Wow, when did I get that sort of power?

Mojo

7th March 2006, 09:13 AM

I think that many psychics have worked with law officials on many cases but they wish to remain anonymous. Why do you think this? Do you have any reliable reports of psychics who wanted to remain anonymous having worked with law officials?

Nyarlathotep

7th March 2006, 09:14 AM

I never claimed that I had any statistics on the subject.

This prompts me to ask again, you base your belief that there are "real psychics" out there anonymously helping the police solve crimes on what exactly?

Beth

7th March 2006, 09:15 AM

Identifying birds for your own pleasure doesn't necessarily involve other people's safety and feelings. Pretending you can solve crimes and find missing people does. Anonymity for the purpose of avoiding to have your ability tested in this regard is not just selfishness, it is scamming.

We don't know anything more about this particular case than what Hardenbergh has revealed - i.e. we don't know that the psychic involved has purported to be able to solve crimes and find missing people, only that in one situation IIRC s/he was able to help locate people they already knew. (That's a key point there IMO.) That's not scamming. If there is more to it, then you may be right, but you are leaping to a conclusion that isn't justified by the little that is known.

CFLarsen

7th March 2006, 09:23 AM

That's not evidence for your claim. I didn't make the claim. You did. At this point, I can only presume that you have no evidence to support your original claim or you would have provided it. Ergo, it was not factual, but your opinion. You are entitled to your opinion, but I am also entitled to mine.

Hmmm. No. It isn't merely my opinion that people still believe in the supernatural. You do, don't you?

I don't forget them, but the psychic under discussion was not a professional and was not getting paid nor running a scam in the instance described.

How do you know it wasn't a scam? You don't need to take people's money to scam them: You can be very powerful, if they believe everything you say.

Do you recognize these poor grieving families become emotional dependent on the psychic?

Okay. It means nothing. Just another unverifiable anecdote. That's my point. Why get so wrought up about it?

Because we have to investigate. We have to demand answers. We can't just leave the possibility of proving a supernatural phenomenon untouched. And we certainly can't just let psychics scam grieving people.

Okay. It's in his/her possession and he/she won't let you examine it. That's frustrating and irritating, but not under your control. In the meantime, you're knee deep in an ocean, so why get so wrought up about a single drop? As you, yourself, said "It means nothing".

What part of the ocean are you thinking about? If not this claim, what claim can I investigate?

We were discussing a case wherein the person was NOT selling a product or service. Professionals can be held to a different set of rules.

They can be held to an extended set of rules, because they take people's money. That doesn't absolve them from all responsibility.

You need my permission in order to test someone else against their wishes? Wow, when did I get that sort of power?

I am talking about you arguing that I should not investigate at all.

Beth

7th March 2006, 09:41 AM

Hmmm. No. It isn't merely my opinion that people still believe in the supernatural. You do, don't you?

Your claim was not that people believe in the supernatural (no argument there) but that "Belief in the supernatural is so captivating that it is impossible to relinquish. Almost. We do see examples, but as a rule, people are not willing to abandon their beliefs."

How do you know it wasn't a scam? You don't need to take people's money to scam them: You can be very powerful, if they believe everything you say. If they aren't taking money, then I don't think it's a scam.

Do you recognize these poor grieving families become emotional dependent on the psychic? Yes. I realize that can happen. Sad, but true.

Because we have to investigate. We have to demand answers. We can't just leave the possibility of proving a supernatural phenomenon untouched.

While the idea of investigating every story bandied about on the internet has it's appeal, I don't think it's possible. Some stories are simply going to remain unverified one way or the other.

And we certainly can't just let psychics scam grieving people. Okay, I agree with this. But the case being discussed was not a scam. The person demanded no money and apparently succeeded in helping them locate the missing person. Why do you percieve that as a scam being played on a grieving family?

What part of the ocean are you thinking about? If not this claim, what claim can I investigate? You can investigate any claim you want. Why do you think you need my permission? You can investigate this one if you can persuade Hardenbergh to supply the details. What you can't do is force Hardenbergh to supply those details.

They can be held to an extended set of rules, because they take people's money. That doesn't absolve them from all responsibility. No it doesn't absolve them of all responsibility, but it absolves them of being scammers.

I am talking about you arguing that I should not investigate at all.
I haven't made that argument. I've only argued that Hardenbergh is acting reasonably in refusing to provide details that you have demanded and labeled ridiculous for refusing.

Ossai

7th March 2006, 10:28 AM

Hardenbergh
I think that many psychics have worked with law officials on many cases but they wish to remain anonymous. Why do you think that? What psychics are you referring to specifically? Why would they wish to remain anonymous? Why would they want to deny their special knowledge to such an extent that they would not want to be tested and confirmed?

Otherwise, they wouldn't have time to deal with all the missing person cases. Do you mean the hundreds of thousands for which they have not helped, or the other thousands where the police have actually said that they have actually hindered investigations (i.e. every one a psychic has given a tip – police have to follow up on them and waste precious time following dead ends)

The "Real McCoy" isn't in it for the notoriety. They truly wish to help without any recompense. One or two people I may buy that answer from, but from the numbers you keep spouting and human nature being what it is, literally hundreds would have stepped forward for fame, money, etc.

Is that why they all try to go for book/tv/radio deals?

Beth
Why is different for the paranormal sector, when every other sector of life can say - 'you claim this? Ok, prove it' ?
Yes, it's true for many hobbies and for some people regardless of their hobby. But if I take up bird-watching, I don't expect to have prove my abilities to spot the birdies and identify them correctly. And while I realize that even birding can be competitive and assessed, the majority of people who participate aren't doing so for that reason. I know I don't. Nice structure, good outline, interesting coloring – too bad it’s all a straw man.
You claim altruistic motives and then claim selfishness in the same post.

Ossai
[edited for missing word]

Bronze Dog

7th March 2006, 10:32 AM

Yes, it's true for many hobbies and for some people regardless of their hobby. But if I take up bird-watching, I don't expect to have prove my abilities to spot the birdies and identify them correctly. And while I realize that even birding can be competitive and assessed, the majority of people who participate aren't doing so for that reason. I know I don't.

When it's only your personal enjoyment at stake, I wouldn't expect too much. When it's police time, money, and a family's sweat and tears on the line, a person had better be able to prove his worth.

Beth

7th March 2006, 10:40 AM

Hardenbergh
Beth
You claim altruistic motives and then claim selfishness in the same

Ossai

What, the same person can't have both motivations? A single person might be moved to help a friend in need (altruistic) but not care to have any publicity about the help they provided (selfish).

Beth

7th March 2006, 10:57 AM

When it's only your personal enjoyment at stake, I wouldn't expect too much. When it's police time, money, and a family's sweat and tears on the line, a person had better be able to prove his worth.

You have a valid point here, but the particular anecdote under discussion does not indicate that that this person ever approached any detectives, law enforcement agencies or bereaved families who were strangers to them. Thus, I see no reason for Hardenbergh not to respect that person's desire to remain anonymous.

CFLarsen

7th March 2006, 11:03 AM

Your claim was not that people believe in the supernatural (no argument there) but that "Belief in the supernatural is so captivating that it is impossible to relinquish. Almost. We do see examples, but as a rule, people are not willing to abandon their beliefs."

Yep. We wouldn't see people believing in the paranormal, if they were willing to abandon their beliefs.

If they aren't taking money, then I don't think it's a scam.

Pardon me if I disagree.

Yes. I realize that can happen. Sad, but true.

What would you call it if a psychic falsely claims to be in touch with a dead child? That's not a scam?

While the idea of investigating every story bandied about on the internet has it's appeal, I don't think it's possible.

We are not investigating every story - just those we hear of. Remember where you are, Beth? The JREF board? Surely, you don't expect us to just sit and gobble such stories up, if they are presented to us?

Some stories are simply going to remain unverified one way or the other.

Yeah. Some cases, we don't have enough information. In others - such as this - we are deliberately denied access to the information.

Okay, I agree with this. But the case being discussed was not a scam. The person demanded no money and apparently succeeded in helping them locate the missing person. Why do you percieve that as a scam being played on a grieving family?

Because they are cheated, that's why. That's a scam.

How can you be so sure there was no money involved?

You can investigate any claim you want. Why do you think you need my permission? You can investigate this one if you can persuade Hardenbergh to supply the details. What you can't do is force Hardenbergh to supply those details.

No, I can't. What I can do is point out the sheer cruelty of making such claims and then backing down from them. It is cruel, because it perpetuates the myth of psychics being able to talk to dead people and continue to scam grieving families.

No it doesn't absolve them of all responsibility, but it absolves them of being scammers.

Rubbish.

I haven't made that argument. I've only argued that Hardenbergh is acting reasonably in refusing to provide details that you have demanded and labeled ridiculous for refusing.

It is not reasonably at all to withhold information that can either help us find missing children or expose crooks.

Beth

7th March 2006, 11:19 AM

Yep. We wouldn't see people believing in the paranormal, if they were willing to abandon their beliefs. Plenty of people on this board once held such beliefs and now don't. Where is your evidence that such beliefs are "impossible to relinquish"?

Pardon me if I disagree. Okay, just as long as you understand that not everyone agrees with your definition.

What would you call it if a psychic falsely claims to be in touch with a dead child? That's not a scam? If they aren't trying to extort money (or other valuables) in exchange for the communication, then no, I don't consider it a scam.

We are not investigating every story - just those we hear of. Remember where you are, Beth? The JREF board? Surely, you don't expect us to just sit and gobble such stories up, if they are presented to us? No, I expect you to assess it as "It means nothing" and move on.

How can you be so sure there was no money involved? I'm not sure. I'm not even sure the story is a true one. However, my recollection (I haven't reread the thread to check) is that Hardenbergh stated that the person did not request or accept any payment.

It is not reasonably at all to withhold information that can either help us find missing children or expose crooks. But would revealing the name of the person on this forum accomplish either of those things? I don't think so. Thus, while I think your original request was reasonable, I also think the choice not to provide such information was reasonable as well. It's just another unverifiable anecdote. Let it go.

Ossai

7th March 2006, 11:52 AM

Beth
What, the same person can't have both motivations? A single person might be moved to help a friend in need (altruistic) but not care to have any publicity about the help they provided (selfish).
I’ve already covered that point in the same post. But since you didn’t pay attention the first time.

One or two people I may buy that answer from, but from the numbers you keep spouting and human nature being what it is, literally hundreds would have stepped forward for fame, money, etc.

Ossai

Hardenbergh

7th March 2006, 12:20 PM

CFLarsen

7th March 2006, 12:36 PM

Plenty of people on this board once held such beliefs and now don't. Where is your evidence that such beliefs are "impossible to relinquish"?

I said "almost".

You picked the wrong person to try those kinds of tricks. Don't try. Don't even think about it, Beth.

Okay, just as long as you understand that not everyone agrees with your definition.

I'm fine with that. Do you understand that we can, in fact, determine - within the boundaries of science - if a psychic is talking to the dead, or if the psychic is using cold reading techniques?

Meaning: It isn't merely opinion, but also fact?

If they aren't trying to extort money (or other valuables) in exchange for the communication, then no, I don't consider it a scam.

You are prime material for these scammers.

No, I expect you to assess it as "It means nothing" and move on.

No, it doesn't mean "nothing". The claim is out there. Let's check it out. Only, we can't.

Now, what? Impasse? No. The claim has been made. The onus is on the claimant. You defend this claim, the onus is also on you.

We "move on" when this claim has been either verified or debunked. We don't just gloss it over and pretend it never happened.

I'm not sure. I'm not even sure the story is a true one. However, my recollection (I haven't reread the thread to check) is that Hardenbergh stated that the person did not request or accept any payment.

You are not sure, yet you jump to the conclusion that the psychic isn't scamming because no money is involved?

But would revealing the name of the person on this forum accomplish either of those things? I don't think so.

Revealing the name of the person would mean we could check the claim. We have skeptics all over the world, especially in the US. We could make inquiries, we could hunt down the investigators, check the court transcripts to see if any of this evidence was used. Anything.

Thus, while I think your original request was reasonable, I also think the choice not to provide such information was reasonable as well. It's just another unverifiable anecdote. Let it go.

No, I won't let it go. What are you going to do about it?

Beth

7th March 2006, 12:37 PM

Beth

7th March 2006, 01:01 PM

I said "almost".

You picked the wrong person to try those kinds of tricks. Don't try. Don't even think about it, Beth. You said (and I've quoted it three times in it's entirety, sorry but I got tired of repeating it ad naseum): ""Belief in the supernatural is so captivating that it is impossible to relinquish. Almost. We do see examples, but as a rule, people are not willing to abandon their beliefs." Please provide evidence for this statement or admit that it's merely your opinion that such beliefs are almost impossible to give up.

Personally, I don't see changing one's opinion on such matters as being all that difficult. The beliefs may be captivating to some, but many people change their opinions about it - going both ways. I don't think it qualifies as being as difficult as say, quitting smoking, and that doesn't qualify as 'almost impossible'. People do it all the time.

I'm fine with that. Do you understand that we can, in fact, determine - within the boundaries of science - if a psychic is talking to the dead, or if the psychic is using cold reading techniques?

Yes, I understand that. Do you understand that when you use the word 'scammer' to describe people that are not trying to take others money that many other people will conclude you are a fanatic who is incapable of distinuishing between true scammers and those who believe in themselves and what they are doing? That you define them all as such is something that I think does your argument more harm than good.

Now, what? Impasse? No. The claim has been made. The onus is on the claimant. You defend this claim, the onus is also on you. Pass. I haven't defended this claim. I know nothing about it other than what's been posted. I've only defended the right of Hardenbergh to decline to provide personal information on this forum.

We "move on" when this claim has been either verified or debunked. We don't just gloss it over and pretend it never happened. You don't have to gloss it over it. You can call it debunked if you want. That's fine. It's the malicious accusations regarding motivations that you originally made that bothers me.

You are not sure, yet you jump to the conclusion that the psychic isn't scamming because no money is involved? Correct. I've already discussed that. If there's no money (or other demands) then it doesn't qualifying as scamming in my opinion.

Revealing the name of the person would mean we could check the claim. We have skeptics all over the world, especially in the US. We could make inquiries, we could hunt down the investigators, check the court transcripts to see if any of this evidence was used. Anything. I can understand why you might want to do this, but that doesn't advance either of your stated goals of " find missing children or expose crooks". It only furthers your own personal goals. As such, Hardenbergh is perfectly justified in keeping the name of the person out of this.

No, I won't let it go. What are you going to do about it? Nothing :) You just confirm my opinion that you are a fanatic and not entirely rational on the subject. When you harrangue others, such as Hardenbergh, when they've responded with a reasonable 'no', I think you damage your own credibility. If you truly wanted to achieve the goals you claim, you would alter your behavior. Since you don't, I think your own motivations are not what you claim them to be. But that's typical fanatic behavior.

JPK

7th March 2006, 01:10 PM

What fame? We're talking about little ol' Millinocket, Maine.
While this may or may not apply to this situation, for some it's about being a big fish in a little pond. In a small community there can be presure to somehow stand out and be important.
Remember most small communities have stories or a haunted house, an old witch that lives alone, and the like. Many also have a village idiot as well.
JPK

CFLarsen

7th March 2006, 01:37 PM

You said (and I've quoted it three times in it's entirety, sorry but I got tired of repeating it ad naseum): ""Belief in the supernatural is so captivating that it is impossible to relinquish. Almost. We do see examples, but as a rule, people are not willing to abandon their beliefs."

You did not quote it in its entirety. You left out the "almost" part. Don't even think you can get away with such dishonesty. Not here. Not with me.

Please provide evidence for this statement or admit that it's merely your opinion that such beliefs are almost impossible to give up.

I have provided evidence, Beth: I have pointed to the existence - which is a fact - of paranormal beliefs, despite - again, fact - that science is able to explain all paranormal phenomena.

Personally, I don't see changing one's opinion on such matters as being all that difficult. The beliefs may be captivating to some, but many people change their opinions about it - going both ways. I don't think it qualifies as being as difficult as say, quitting smoking, and that doesn't qualify as 'almost impossible'. People do it all the time.

Yeah? What paranormal phenomena do you believe in? What will it take for you to stop believing?

Yes, I understand that. Do you understand that when you use the word 'scammer' to describe people that are not trying to take others money that many other people will conclude you are a fanatic who is incapable of distinuishing between true scammers and those who believe in themselves and what they are doing? That you define them all as such is something that I think does your argument more harm than good.

I am completely not interested in what you think of me. All I care about is the claims, the arguments and the evidence.

Pass. I haven't defended this claim. I know nothing about it other than what's been posted. I've only defended the right of Hardenbergh to decline to provide personal information on this forum.

Bull. By demanding that I drop this case, you are defending his claim. You allow people like him to make claims without backing them up with evidence. You condone that psychics exploit vulnerable people.

You don't have to gloss it over it. You can call it debunked if you want. That's fine. It's the malicious accusations regarding motivations that you originally made that bothers me.

Malicious? I am not the one covering up for these emotional vampires, Beth. You are. Hardenbergh is. Don't point your finger at me.

Correct. I've already discussed that. If there's no money (or other demands) then it doesn't qualifying as scamming in my opinion.

How can you jump to that conclusion, if you don't don't if there is money involved?

I can understand why you might want to do this, but that doesn't advance either of your stated goals of " find missing children or expose crooks". It only furthers your own personal goals. As such, Hardenbergh is perfectly justified in keeping the name of the person out of this.

My "personal goals" - if that is how you want to describe them as - are:

1) To seek evidence of proclaimed paranormal phenomena.
2) To expose crooks who exploit people.

Do you have a problem with either of these "personal goals"?

Nothing :) You just confirm my opinion that you are a fanatic and not entirely rational on the subject. When you harrangue others, such as Hardenbergh, when they've responded with a reasonable 'no', I think you damage your own credibility. If you truly wanted to achieve the goals you claim, you would alter your behavior. Since you don't, I think your own motivations are not what you claim them to be. But that's typical fanatic behavior.

Is it? Who is the fanatic here, Beth, you or me? I am perfectly willing - eager, even - to acknowledge the existence of a paranormal phenomenon - I just need to see the evidence.

Are you willing to do the same?

Beth

7th March 2006, 02:17 PM

You did not quote it in its entirety. You left out the "almost" part. Don't even think you can get away with such dishonesty. Not here. Not with me. My apologies. I was not trying to be dishonest. I was only tired of repeating the same quote.

I have provided evidence, Beth: I have pointed to the existence - which is a fact - of paranormal beliefs, despite - again, fact - that science is able to explain all paranormal phenomena. That isn't evidence that supports your claim. You've only shown that many people hold such beliefs. That's not in dispute and it doesn't mean such beliefs are almost impossible to give up. But it's okay. I've accepted that you have no evidence to support your claim.

Yeah? What paranormal phenomena do you believe in? What will it take for you to stop believing? I prefer not to discuss my personal beliefs in this forum. Posters like you are the reason.

Bull. By demanding that I drop this case, you are defending his claim. You allow people like him to make claims without backing them up with evidence. You condone that psychics exploit vulnerable people. I disagree. I think your argument is the argument of a fanatic.

Malicious? I am not the one covering up for these emotional vampires, Beth. You are. Hardenbergh is. Don't point your finger at me. Yes, malicious. You come across to me as mean and vidictive towards anyone who dares post a word of support for any psychic, regardless of the circumstances. That's one reason I categorize you as a fanatic.

Case in point- we've been discussing an account of a psychic who apparently helped solved a missing person case for an acquantance. A psychic which, according to the account given, did not make any demands for money. There is no evidence that this psychic intruded, unasked, into the case. A psychic who not only did NOT try to parlay this apparent success into fame and notoriety, but shies away from publicity about it and you equate this person with the frauds and scammers who claim success when there was none, who intrude into the lives of grief-stricken strangers and demand money for the claims of knowing where a missing child might be. Refusing to distinguish between such different types of people is one reason I think you are a fanatic and also why I think your accusations regarding motivation are malicious.

How can you jump to that conclusion, if you don't don't if there is money involved? My recollection is that Hardenbergy stated that money was not involved, so I'm not jumping to a conclusion. I'm only acknowledging that I cannot be certain the account given was correct.

My "personal goals" - if that is how you want to describe them as - are:

1) To seek evidence of proclaimed paranormal phenomena.
2) To expose crooks who exploit people.

Do you have a problem with either of these "personal goals"?

No I have no problem with those goals. What I have a problem with is you claiming those as your goals when your behavior does not match up with them. That was my point. In my opinion, your posts are detrimental to accomplishing those goals. Another reason I consider you a fanatic. You seem unwilling to change your style to better achieve your stated goals. Apparently, you consider it more important to deride anyone who disagrees with you than to change your style in order to be more effective at achieving your goals.

Is it? Who is the fanatic here, Beth, you or me? I am perfectly willing - eager, even - to acknowledge the existence of a paranormal phenomenon - I just need to see the evidence. I don't believe you in this regard. I've read a lot of your posts, including responses to people who have attempted to provide you with evidence. My opinion (and I know you don't care what I think of you) is that you are a fanatic who would not change their opinion regardless of any amount of evidence provided you.

Are you willing to do the same? Not only am I willing to change my opinion if convincing evidence is presented, but I have. Evidence presented on this forum has convinced me that I was wrong on occasion and I've changed my mind and publically admitted it. Can you say the same?

strathmeyer

7th March 2006, 02:32 PM

JPK

7th March 2006, 02:37 PM

Why is that so hard?

Oooh!!! I know!!! I know!!! Pick me!!!! Pick me!!!!

JPK

Euromutt

7th March 2006, 02:44 PM

If they aren't trying to extort money (or other valuables) in exchange for the communication, then no, I don't consider it a scam.What if we take the modus operandi of someone like Allison DuBois, who claims to accept to perform her public services, such as "consulting" on missing-persons cases and jury selection, pro bono and accepts no financial restitution, but is happy enough to reap the benefits of the attendant publicity to garner clients for "services" for which she does charge (e.g. performing "psychic readings" and acting as a consultant on Medium)? DuBois might not gain any material benefit directly from "consulting" on missing persons cases, but since Medium went on the air, her schedule for private "psychic readings" is reportedly booked solid until 2008, and since she does charge for those services, she is clearly receiving some material gain from her pro bono work, albeit indirectly.

Okay. It's in his/her possession and he/she won't let you examine it. That's frustrating and irritating, but not under your control. In the meantime, you're knee deep in an ocean, so why get so wrought up about a single drop? As you, yourself, said "It means nothing".I'm not sure I follow this metaphor, or if I do, I'm pretty sure it's invalid.

Based on what I can tell, when it comes to psychic ability, we aren't "knee deep in ocean"; we are, in fact, standing in an arid desert with not a drop of water in sight. So when someone like Hardenbergh comes along claiming that we are knee deep in ocean, and he has a drop of salt water he(?) scooped up in his hand to prove it, it's not unreasonable to demand he open his hand and show it. The evidentiary drop, however, appears to have evaporated (assuming it was ever there at all). This would indeed, be no big deal if we were standing knee deep in the ocean, and another drop (out of many) could be readily scooped up and produced, but this is not the case. The first drop was supposed to evidence indicating that there might even be an ocean; how else would a drop of salt water appear in the middle of an arid desert? But there is no drop, and--to overextend the metaphor even further--though there might be traces of salt left behind where the drop supposedly was, these are more likely to have come from Hardenbergh's own sweat.

CFLarsen

7th March 2006, 02:56 PM

My apologies. I was not trying to be dishonest. I was only tired of repeating the same quote.

That is no excuse. You left out the pertinent part of my statement.

That isn't evidence that supports your claim. You've only shown that many people hold such beliefs. That's not in dispute and it doesn't mean such beliefs are almost impossible to give up. But it's okay. I've accepted that you have no evidence to support your claim.

You are rapidly moving from self-delusion to outright fraud. I have shown that, despite the scientific evidence, people are not willing to give up their paranormal beliefs.

Argue against that, and I will call you deluded.

I prefer not to discuss my personal beliefs in this forum. Posters like you are the reason.

Bull. You have previously discussed your personal beliefs in this forum. That you now choose to back down from your previous claims because you discovered that you couldn't provide the evidence you thought you had is not my problem. It is solely yours.

I disagree. I think your argument is the argument of a fanatic.

How can I be a "fanatic", if I accept evidence that will prove me wrong?

Yes, malicious. You come across to me as mean and vidictive towards anyone who dares post a word of support for any psychic, regardless of the circumstances. That's one reason I categorize you as a fanatic.

Forgive me if I am a wee bit apprehensive of these claims of paranormal abilites, especially when it - always - turns out that the claims are unfounded. Forgive me if I think that exploiting emotionally vulnerable people is a bad thing.

You obviously don't.

Case in point- we've been discussing an account of a psychic who apparently helped solved a missing person case for an acquantance.

Yeah. "Apparently". Which is why I ask for evidence. This, you find irrelevant. Even impertinent.

A psychic which, according to the account given, did not make any demands for money.

You don't know that.

There is no evidence that this psychic intruded, unasked, into the case.

How do you know this? Evidence!

A psychic who not only did NOT try to parlay this apparent success into fame and notoriety

Bull. The mere fact that the psychic appeared in the media proves you wrong.

but shies away from publicity about it

Again, you don't know that. You only have Hardenbergh's word. Why do you accept that as evidence?

and you equate this person with the frauds and scammers who claim success when there was none, who intrude into the lives of grief-stricken strangers and demand money for the claims of knowing where a missing child might be. Refusing to distinguish between such different types of people is one reason I think you are a fanatic and also why I think your accusations regarding motivation are malicious.

Tell me why I should distinguish between the bad guys and this one. Tell me how.

My recollection is that Hardenbergy stated that money was not involved, so I'm not jumping to a conclusion. I'm only acknowledging that I cannot be certain the account given was correct.

Bull. You have based your whole argument on the assumption that no money was involved. You can't know this, yet you jump to this psychic's defense.

Why are you so hell-bent on defending psychics you don't even know the identity of?

No I have no problem with those goals. What I have a problem with is you claiming those as your goals when your behavior does not match up with them. That was my point. In my opinion, your posts are detrimental to accomplishing those goals.

Why? Don't just state that they are, show me.

Another reason I consider you a fanatic. You seem unwilling to change your style to better achieve your stated goals. Apparently, you consider it more important to deride anyone who disagrees with you than to change your style in order to be more effective at achieving your goals.

"Style"? Why would style matter, when it comes to evidence? Should people suck up to you, in order to make you provide the evidence you need to provide?

Would you have provided better arguments - better evidence, even - if people had been "nice" to you?

I don't believe you in this regard. I've read a lot of your posts, including responses to people who have attempted to provide you with evidence. My opinion (and I know you don't care what I think of you) is that you are a fanatic who would not change their opinion regardless of any amount of evidence provided you.

Show me the evidence. That's all I ask. Show me. Put me to shame. Let's see it. Evidence. Got any?

Not only am I willing to change my opinion if convincing evidence is presented, but I have. Evidence presented on this forum has convinced me that I was wrong on occasion and I've changed my mind and publically admitted it. Can you say the same?

I have never seen any evidence of any paranormal phenomenon. Do you believe in any paranormal phenomenon? If yes, what?

Beth

7th March 2006, 04:48 PM

What if we take the modus operandi of someone like Allison DuBois, who claims to accept to perform her public services, such as "consulting" on missing-persons cases and jury selection, pro bono and accepts no financial restitution, but is happy enough to reap the benefits of the attendant publicity to garner clients for "services" for which she does charge (e.g. performing "psychic readings" and acting as a consultant on Medium)? DuBois might not gain any material benefit directly from "consulting" on missing persons cases, but since Medium went on the air, her schedule for private "psychic readings" is reportedly booked solid until 2008, and since she does charge for those services, she is clearly receiving some material gain from her pro bono work, albeit indirectly.

An interesting question. I'll think on it.
I'm not sure I follow this metaphor, or if I do, I'm pretty sure it's invalid.

Based on what I can tell, when it comes to psychic ability, we aren't "knee deep in ocean"; we are, in fact, standing in an arid desert with not a drop of water in sight. So when someone like Hardenbergh comes along claiming that we are knee deep in ocean, and he has a drop of salt water he(?) scooped up in his hand to prove it, it's not unreasonable to demand he open his hand and show it. The evidentiary drop, however, appears to have evaporated (assuming it was ever there at all). This would indeed, be no big deal if we were standing knee deep in the ocean, and another drop (out of many) could be readily scooped up and produced, but this is not the case. The first drop was supposed to evidence indicating that there might even be an ocean; how else would a drop of salt water appear in the middle of an arid desert? But there is no drop, and--to overextend the metaphor even further--though there might be traces of salt left behind where the drop supposedly was, these are more likely to have come from Hardenbergh's own sweat.

I meant that we are knee deep in anecdotes with no supporting evidence. Why get all bent out of shape over one more? No supporting evidence? Consider it debunked and move on. There's no reason to make unjustified accusations regarding motivations.

CFlarson: It's been fun to converse with you but I have other things to do now. Bye.

Roadtoad

7th March 2006, 09:59 PM

So far, I've yet to see evidence. Someone PM me when it shows up on this thread.

Euromutt

7th March 2006, 11:00 PM

I meant that we are knee deep in anecdotes with no supporting evidence. Why get all bent out of shape over one more?Ah, I did misunderstand; thanks for clearing that up. As for the getting bent out of shape part, well, Claus has a bit of a pitbull tendency, and isn't inclined to let people make claims without backing them up, and then hang around pretending they didn't utterly fail to follow up.

CFLarsen

7th March 2006, 11:55 PM

CFlarson: It's been fun to converse with you but I have other things to do now. Bye.

No worries. The questions will be here for you when you return:

How can I be a "fanatic", if I accept evidence that will prove me wrong?

How do you know that this psychic didn't intrude, unasked, into the case?

Why do you accept Hardenbergh's word as evidence?

How should I distinguish between the bad guys and this one?

Why are you so hell-bent on defending psychics you don't even know the identity of?

Why are my posts detrimental to accomplishing my goals?

Why would style matter, when it comes to evidence? Should people suck up to you, in order to make you provide the evidence you need to provide?

Do you believe in any paranormal phenomenon? If yes, what?

CFLarsen

7th March 2006, 11:58 PM

Ah, I did misunderstand; thanks for clearing that up. As for the getting bent out of shape part, well, Claus has a bit of a pitbull tendency, and isn't inclined to let people make claims without backing them up, and then hang around pretending they didn't utterly fail to follow up.

I don't take any crap, that's all.

Sasha

8th March 2006, 05:20 AM

Jekyll

8th March 2006, 06:49 AM

What, the same person can't have both motivations? A single person might be moved to help a friend in need (altruistic) but not care to have any publicity about the help they provided (selfish).
You're effectively claiming that all genuine psychics are so concerned for their privacy, that they're willing to refuse to do anything of benifit to themselves or anyone else if it threatens their privacy.

This seems unlikely.

Hardenbergh

8th March 2006, 06:59 AM

Another list of questions as yet another believer wobbles off into the sunset to the sounds of chirping crickets. Funny how they always find better things to do when they realize you won't let go. I admire your tenacity, CF.

Perhaps Beth did have things to do. She said what she wanted to say without saying "Bull" and "Evidence" for emphasis. There is life outside of JREF. Most women don't have the luxury of spending every waking minute in the forums. In the case of CFLarsen, I would consider 22,333 posts evidence (at last count) of spending too much time looking for evidence.

Flo

8th March 2006, 07:05 AM

Ossai

8th March 2006, 07:18 AM

Beth

I’ve already covered that point in the same post. But since you didn’t pay attention the first time.

One or two people I may buy that answer from, but from the numbers you keep spouting and human nature being what it is, literally hundreds would have stepped forward for fame, money, etc.
What numbers are you referring to?
If psychics were real, the number of them that would gladly step forward to prove it would be staggering. As it is, the number of frauds that will not step forward to prove their superpower should be a good indicator that they, in fact, don’t have any superpowers.

Ossai

Sasha

8th March 2006, 07:22 AM

Perhaps Beth did have things to do. She said what she wanted to say without saying "Bull" and "Evidence" for emphasis. There is life outside of JREF. Most women don't have the luxury of spending every waking minute in the forums. In the case of CFLarsen, I would consider 22,333 posts evidence (at last count) of spending too much time looking for evidence.

Right, perhaps she suddenly found things to do after spending every waking moment on the forum telling Claus to just drop it, after making broad assumptions about an incident she admittedly knew little or nothing about.

Finally, I don't understand what qualifies you to make such a smarmy statement about most women and what they do or don't have time to do. As evidenced by this very thread, life outside the JREF forum is rife with unscrupulous people, and one of the reasons for the forum's existence is to educate others about their methods.

Hardenbergh

8th March 2006, 07:49 AM

Right, perhaps she suddenly found things to do after spending every waking moment on the forum telling Claus to just drop it, after making broad assumptions about an incident she admittedly knew little or nothing about.

Finally, I don't understand what qualifies you to make such a smarmy statement about most women and what they do or don't have time to do. As evidenced by this very thread, life outside the JREF forum is rife with unscrupulous people, and one of the reasons for the forum's existence is to educate others about their methods.

I happen to be one of those "most women" and there are countless thousands of men who still think we're living in the 50's when women catered to men asking them to "Bring me my beer."

Roadtoad

8th March 2006, 07:54 AM

I happen to be one of those "most women" and there are countless thousands of men who still think we're living in the 50's when women catered to men asking them to "Bring me my beer."

And the last time I tried that with my wife, she told me to get off my lazy @$$ and get it myself.

I'll repeat something said earlier: when there's solid evidence, not merely anecdotes, PM me.

Flo

8th March 2006, 07:57 AM

:v: I happen to be one of those "most women" and there are countless thousands of men who still think we're living in the 50's when women catered to men asking them to "Bring me my beer."

:v:

Remember: evidence about those "many psychics" ...

petre

8th March 2006, 08:01 AM

I happen to be one of those "most women" and there are countless thousands of men who still think we're living in the 50's when women catered to men asking them to "Bring me my beer."

Step 1: Make a claim
Step 2: Discuss ANYTHING except your claim
Goal: ?????

Mojo

8th March 2006, 08:03 AM

In the case of CFLarsen, I would consider 22,333 posts evidence (at last count) of spending too much time looking for evidence.Not really: I would consider this to be evidence that he may be spending too much time asking other people to provide evidence. ;)

Gr8wight

8th March 2006, 08:03 AM

Perhaps Beth did have things to do. She said what she wanted to say without saying "Bull" and "Evidence" for emphasis. There is life outside of JREF. Most women don't have the luxury of spending every waking minute in the forums. In the case of CFLarsen, I would consider 22,333 posts evidence (at last count) of spending too much time looking for evidence.

Hardenbergh, are you reading impaired, or disingenuous? Sasha was talking about you.

Either provide some evidence to back up your claim that you know a psychic who has successfully aided the police in a case via paranormal means...

...or go away.

Your constant ducking of the main topic of this thread is becoming tedious.

Flo

8th March 2006, 08:03 AM

Step 1: Make a claim
Step 2: Discuss ANYTHING except your claim
Goal: ?????

Martyrdom ?

Gr8wight

8th March 2006, 08:04 AM

Step 1: Make a claim
Step 2: Discuss ANYTHING except your claim
Goal: ?????

Step 3: Profit!!!

Beth

8th March 2006, 08:18 AM

No worries. The questions will be here for you when you return:
Okay, but this will be my last post to you on this thread. I’ve had a bad headache and not been able to attend to other matters very well for that past few days. I’m feeling better today and really must work on other things. Thanks for the conversation while I wasn't feeling well though.

How can I be a "fanatic", if I accept evidence that will prove me wrong?

I’m sorry, but I just don’t believe you in this regard. You may give lip service to the idea that evidence would change your mind, but you come across as a fanatic who would never change his mind. Perhaps I am mistaken, but that’s my opinion based on all the posts I have read from you.

How do you know that this psychic didn't intrude, unasked, into the case?

I don’t, just as you don’t know that they did. That information is not available to us. However, I think Hardenbergh said that the psychic was acquainted with one of the missing people. To me, that means it wasn’t an intrusion on grieving strangers as you would portray it.

Why do you accept Hardenbergh's word as evidence?

It is evidence. I believe it is called ‘hearsay evidence’ in a court of law, though I could be mistaken about the legal terminology. It isn’t particularly good evidence (hearsay evidence is not typically allowed in court), but you might note that I have NOT been claiming the psychic is the real thing. Hardenbergh's word is evidence, but it's not proof.

How should I distinguish between the bad guys and this one?

My personal rule of thumb is to presume people are good until I have evidence otherwise. If they are trying to rip somebody off, then I would consider them a ‘bad guy’. If they are not after money, then there is no reason to classify them as a ‘bad guy’ without some further evidence. In this case, there is no further evidence one way or the other and thus, no reason to presume them a ‘bad guy’.

Why are you so hell-bent on defending psychics you don't even know the identity of?

I haven’t been defending the psychic. I’ve been defending Hardenbergh's right to keep details private without having his/her motives assailed. You can dismiss the anecdote for lack of evidence, but there’s no reason to presume things like this: “You refuse to identify this psychic, not out of concern for him or the grieving family, but because you know damn well that your claim will be torn apart, if you allow skeptics to investigate your claim. You know that these psychics can't talk to the dead.”

In this case, Hardenberg knows who the psychic is (apparently is either acquainted with them or someone close to them). It’s not only reasonable but polite to presume that Hardenbergh is acceding to their wishes. Perhaps the psychic got the information through more normal channels and pretended psychic abilities so as not to betray their source and that’s why they wish to remain anonymous and avoid publicity. But there’s no reason for Hardenbergh to have posted the anecdote knowing what you claim Hardenbergh must know.

It bothers me when others make mean-spirited assumptions about people based on nothing more than a brief anecdote that contains no information to support such assumptions. You hear the word ‘psychic’ and you assume an evil person out to scam others, intruding on grieving families, and providing no real help. That doesn’t seem to be the case here. You were making unjustified assumptions and I called you on it because I had the time and inclination. I’ll stop now. I have other things to do.

Why are my posts detrimental to accomplishing my goals?

Because they come across as mean-spirited and vindictive. I think you drive people away from your extreme position rather than nudging them closer to the center. This, BTW, is a behavior I find typical of fanatics in all areas and is one reason why I classify you as such.

Why would style matter, when it comes to evidence? Should people suck up to you, in order to make you provide the evidence you need to provide?

As the old saying goes, you catch more flies with honey than you do with vinegar. Your posts are more vinegar than honey. You can’t make anybody else do anything. If you want them to do something, such as provide evidence, then you have to ask in manner that will (hopefully) obtain their cooperation. How successful are you, overall, at getting people to provide the evidence they have in order that you may examine it? Do they actually provide such evidence or do they stop dealing with you? Is it because they lack the evidence or is it because you are too unpleasant to make the conversation worthwhile? It seems to me that you drive people off with your attacks and then declare yourself the winner. I don’t see that as a victory for your cause or helpful to your goals.

Do you believe in any paranormal phenomenon? If yes, what?
[/LIST]

I have an open mind on the some areas, but I wouldn’t go so far as to say I believe in any paranormal phenomenon. I have had some experiences that make me inclined to allow the possibility of a paranormal explanations. I do not, however, wish to discuss my experiences here. They are personal.

There, I've answered all of your questions. Now I have one for you: Why are you so angry and hateful towards those who hold different beliefs on the paranormal than you do?

Roadtoad

8th March 2006, 08:31 AM

Sasha

8th March 2006, 08:35 AM

I happen to be one of those "most women" and there are countless thousands of men who still think we're living in the 50's when women catered to men asking them to "Bring me my beer."

:confused:

8th March 2006, 08:39 AM

He doesn't believe in anything he can't lay hands on.

Though, he also believes that it is sensible to kill air marshalls on sight (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=16055).

CFLarsen

8th March 2006, 09:54 AM

Another list of questions as yet another believer wobbles off into the sunset to the sounds of chirping crickets. Funny how they always find better things to do when they realize you won't let go. I admire your tenacity, CF.

Prove it.

;)

Okay, but this will be my last post to you on this thread. I’ve had a bad headache and not been able to attend to other matters very well for that past few days. I’m feeling better today and really must work on other things. Thanks for the conversation while I wasn't feeling well though.

I am not interested in your feeble attempt of provoking sympathy. Nobody is forcing you to post here, you are free to wait until you are well enough.

I’m sorry, but I just don’t believe you in this regard. You may give lip service to the idea that evidence would change your mind, but you come across as a fanatic who would never change his mind. Perhaps I am mistaken, but that’s my opinion based on all the posts I have read from you.

Perhaps all you need to do is provide evidence.

I don’t, just as you don’t know that they did. That information is not available to us. However, I think Hardenbergh said that the psychic was acquainted with one of the missing people. To me, that means it wasn’t an intrusion on grieving strangers as you would portray it.

Get your facts straight: Hardenbergh said that perhaps the psychic knew the family. Now, what? Does that in any way change your opinion on this psychic?

It is evidence. I believe it is called ‘hearsay evidence’ in a court of law, though I could be mistaken about the legal terminology. It isn’t particularly good evidence (hearsay evidence is not typically allowed in court), but you might note that I have NOT been claiming the psychic is the real thing. Hardenbergh's word is evidence, but it's not proof.

Wow. So, you would consider hearsay evidence of people being teleported through their bedroom walls by aliens to be of equal value? That people had been invited on trips to Venus by aliens? That psychic surgeons can remove tumors by paranormal means? That astrologers can foretell the future? That dowsers can find water?

If not, why not?

My personal rule of thumb is to presume people are good until I have evidence otherwise. If they are trying to rip somebody off, then I would consider them a ‘bad guy’. If they are not after money, then there is no reason to classify them as a ‘bad guy’ without some further evidence. In this case, there is no further evidence one way or the other and thus, no reason to presume them a ‘bad guy’.

So, your method is "trust them until you catch them cheating"? Like I said, you are prime material for these scammers.

Do you believe that you cannot be fooled?

I haven’t been defending the psychic. I’ve been defending Hardenbergh's right to keep details private without having his/her motives assailed. You can dismiss the anecdote for lack of evidence, but there’s no reason to presume things like this: “You refuse to identify this psychic, not out of concern for him or the grieving family, but because you know damn well that your claim will be torn apart, if you allow skeptics to investigate your claim. You know that these psychics can't talk to the dead.”

In this case, Hardenberg knows who the psychic is (apparently is either acquainted with them or someone close to them). It’s not only reasonable but polite to presume that Hardenbergh is acceding to their wishes. Perhaps the psychic got the information through more normal channels and pretended psychic abilities so as not to betray their source and that’s why they wish to remain anonymous and avoid publicity. But there’s no reason for Hardenbergh to have posted the anecdote knowing what you claim Hardenbergh must know.

It bothers me when others make mean-spirited assumptions about people based on nothing more than a brief anecdote that contains no information to support such assumptions. You hear the word ‘psychic’ and you assume an evil person out to scam others, intruding on grieving families, and providing no real help. That doesn’t seem to be the case here. You were making unjustified assumptions and I called you on it because I had the time and inclination. I’ll stop now. I have other things to do.

Yes, I think you do. You should definitely read up on how these scammers work. They do not deserve to be treated with respect, and there are no reasons why we shouldn't try to expose their methods with all our might.

Hardenbergh was very quick to make the claim that real psychics existed, but when she realized that we wouldn't take her word for granted, she backed down and ran away. We have seen this so many times before...

Because they come across as mean-spirited and vindictive. I think you drive people away from your extreme position rather than nudging them closer to the center. This, BTW, is a behavior I find typical of fanatics in all areas and is one reason why I classify you as such.

...

As the old saying goes, you catch more flies with honey than you do with vinegar. Your posts are more vinegar than honey. You can’t make anybody else do anything. If you want them to do something, such as provide evidence, then you have to ask in manner that will (hopefully) obtain their cooperation. How successful are you, overall, at getting people to provide the evidence they have in order that you may examine it? Do they actually provide such evidence or do they stop dealing with you? Is it because they lack the evidence or is it because you are too unpleasant to make the conversation worthwhile? It seems to me that you drive people off with your attacks and then declare yourself the winner. I don’t see that as a victory for your cause or helpful to your goals.

More flies with honey, eh? Show me where anyone has gotten more evidence of the paranormal by being nice. Just show me, and I'll change my way immediately.

I don't think you can. I know you can't. Because we've had people like you coming in here and whining - yes, whining - about how BAAAD some of these skeptics are, and how BAAAD they are to believers. But it doesn't matter how believers are treated, they will never provide any evidence of their beliefs. They will not do it because they simply don't have that evidence. They may think they have it, but when it is examined and turns out to be less strong than they thought, they don't like it one little bit. Then, you shall see some mean-spirited and vindictive behavior! Not from the skeptics, but from these believers.

I have an open mind on the some areas, but I wouldn’t go so far as to say I believe in any paranormal phenomenon. I have had some experiences that make me inclined to allow the possibility of a paranormal explanations. I do not, however, wish to discuss my experiences here. They are personal.

Evasion noted.

There, I've answered all of your questions. Now I have one for you: Why are you so angry and hateful towards those who hold different beliefs on the paranormal than you do?

I am not. It's not that other people hold different beliefs, it's what those beliefs do to us.

What I am very concerned about is the many scammers who cheat vulnerable people. Belief in the paranormal stifles our progress, it keeps us locked in the dark ages of ignorance. When we are not able to distinguish between true and false, we will fall victim of those who seek to dominate and exploit us.

When I see psychics - since that's what we are discussing - use carnival tricks to lure grieving people, that makes me mad. People who have lost their loved ones do not need to be cheated into believing false claims. Their grief is very real, and the last thing they need is for psychics to get rich and powerful by feeding on and increasing their pain.

I am very tenacious when it comes to seeking evidence of these phenomena and abilities. It goes back to my two goals: Either find evidence of paranormal phenomena, thereby fundamentally changing our whole world view. Or, in the absence of this evidence, expose the crooks and scammers who exploit vulnerable people.

Claus is a funny sort. He doesn't have imaginary friends, he likes dealing with real people. He doesn't believe in anything he can't lay hands on. In other words, he's a skeptic. You have to prove something is happening before he accepts that it is. He needs evidence. Otherwise, it's his belief that you're lying to him.

Well, no to the last part. I don't call people liars unless they are actually lying. People who hold false beliefs will be asked to provide evidence for them. If they are outright frauds, I have no problems calling them on it.

Funny thing: Claus is better adjusted than those who believe otherwise. He's a lot happier. More fun to be around. (I know this from experience.) He's a great guy. Ever think there might be something to what he's saying?

Sweet-talking will get you nowhere. Where's that article? Hm? Hm? :)

Though, he also believes that it is sensible to kill air marshalls on sight (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=16055).

No. People with weapons on planes. After personally witnessing 9-11, I kinda think it's a good idea not to have people with weapons on planes. You don't.

But thanks for providing me with a clear example of how people can twist the truth for their own benefit.

Bronze Dog

8th March 2006, 10:01 AM

...whining - yes, whining - about how BAAAD some of these skeptics are, and how BAAAD they are to believers. But it doesn't matter how believers are treated, they will never provide any evidence of their beliefs.

And, in my experience, even if we are nice, they'll reinterpret everything we say in the most negative way possible, simply because we disagree with them.

Beth

8th March 2006, 11:05 AM

You're effectively claiming that all genuine psychics are so concerned for their privacy, that they're willing to refuse to do anything of benifit to themselves or anyone else if it threatens their privacy.

This seems unlikely.

Yes that seems unlikely, but that isn't what I've been claiming.

Beth

8th March 2006, 11:06 AM

Beth

8th March 2006, 11:13 AM

Claus is a funny sort. He doesn't have imaginary friends, he likes dealing with real people. He doesn't believe in anything he can't lay hands on. In other words, he's a skeptic. You have to prove something is happening before he accepts that it is. He needs evidence. Otherwise, it's his belief that you're lying to him.

Funny thing: Claus is better adjusted than those who believe otherwise. He's a lot happier. More fun to be around. (I know this from experience.) He's a great guy. Ever think there might be something to what he's saying?

Claus strikes me as a fanatic. I don't consider fanatics to be rational on the subject they are fanatical about - that's one reason I consider them fanatics. Yes, there might be something to what he's saying. My point has been that the way he's saying it leads many people (including me) to discount what he has to say. As far as what he's like to be around, I have no idea. I can only base my opinion of him on his posts. He seems like a fanatic to me, unwilling to consider that opinions different from his own might also have value and automatically assuming the worst of anyone who dares to disagree with him.

You, on the other hand, come across as a really nice caring guy. People like you are why I continue coming to this board. People like Claus are why I stick to discussing other people's anecdotes and not my own personal experiences.

Nyarlathotep

8th March 2006, 11:13 AM

Sweet-talking will get you nowhere. Where's that article? Hm? Hm? :)

Where's Skeptic Report? Hm? Hm? It's been months....

CFLarsen

8th March 2006, 11:35 AM

And, in my experience, even if we are nice, they'll reinterpret everything we say in the most negative way possible, simply because we disagree with them.

Ayup.

Claus strikes me as a fanatic. I don't consider fanatics to be rational on the subject they are fanatical about - that's one reason I consider them fanatics. Yes, there might be something to what he's saying. My point has been that the way he's saying it leads many people (including me) to discount what he has to say. As far as what he's like to be around, I have no idea. I can only base my opinion of him on his posts. He seems like a fanatic to me, unwilling to consider that opinions different from his own might also have value and automatically assuming the worst of anyone who dares to disagree with him.

Your opinion is noted. Now:

Hardenbergh said that perhaps the psychic knew the family. Now, what? Does that in any way change your opinion on this psychic?

Would you consider hearsay evidence of people being teleported through their bedroom walls by aliens to be of equal value? That people had been invited on trips to Venus by aliens? That psychic surgeons can remove tumors by paranormal means? That astrologers can foretell the future? That dowsers can find water?

If not, why not?

Do you believe that you cannot be fooled?

You, on the other hand, come across as a really nice caring guy. People like you are why I continue coming to this board. People like Claus are why I stick to discussing other people's anecdotes and not my own personal experiences.

Can you show me where anyone has gotten more evidence of the paranormal by being nice?

Where's Skeptic Report? Hm? Hm? It's been months....

All good things come to those who wait.

Rasmus

8th March 2006, 11:36 AM

Claus strikes me as a fanatic. I don't consider fanatics to be rational on the subject they are fanatical about - that's one reason I consider them fanatics.

I am not sure if this is circular yet, but it sure as hell doesn't support your opinion that Claus is fanatic.

Perhaps you might want to actually show where he is irrational about something?

Yes, there might be something to what he's saying. My point has been that the way he's saying it leads many people (including me) to discount what he has to say.

That only makes you irrational, not him.

He seems like a fanatic to me, unwilling to consider that opinions different from his own might also have value and automatically assuming the worst of anyone who dares to disagree with him.

Well, this will have to remain guesswork until somebody actually manages to offer some evidence. Until then I think it is rather justified to not hold the purveyors of the paranormal in the highest regard. Their track record permits that we no longer grant the mthe benefit of the doubt. It is outright stupid to expect that this time it might be different and this time it's the real thing.

Until such times that somebody provides some evidence, the only question is if any individual supporter is uninformed, deluded or a genuine fraud.

Rasmus.

CFLarsen

8th March 2006, 11:47 AM

It is outright stupid to expect that this time it might be different and this time it's the real thing.

"The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results."
Benjamin Franklin
...

Beth

9th March 2006, 06:49 AM

I am not sure if this is circular yet, but it sure as hell doesn't support your opinion that Claus is fanatic.

Perhaps you might want to actually show where he is irrational about something?

Well, I wasn't expecting to have to provide evidence for such a clearly subjective matter. However, since you asked, I think the original post he made that I responded to was irrational. For example, he stated "You know that these psychics can't talk to the dead.” when Hardenbergh had said nothing regarding her beliefs on communication with the deceased. Such an unwarranted assumption based on no evidence is irrational. I think he's being irrational when he equates criticism of his posting style with support of people scamming grieving families of money.

In general, I find his inability to distinguish between different levels of support for and against his arguments to be typical of fanatics. He cannot seem to distinguish between people who believe they have psychic abilities but do not attempt to make money from it and people who knowingly fake psychic abilities in order to scam money from others. He cannot seem to distinguish between insufficient evidence (such as media reports, personal experiences and anecdotes) and lables it "no evidence".

Well, this will have to remain guesswork until somebody actually manages to offer some evidence. Here, you make the same fallacy that Claus does. There is a great deal of evidence, but it is all of relatively low quality and does not constitute proof. It certainly justifiable to say the evidence is not convincing. Is is more than reasonable to state that you feel that there is sufficient evidence in the other direction to believe that psychic abilities do not exist. It is irrational and fanatical to say that no evidence for pyschic abilities exists.

Until then I think it is rather justified to not hold the purveyors of the paranormal in the highest regard. Their track record permits that we no longer grant the mthe benefit of the doubt. It is outright stupid to expect that this time it might be different and this time it's the real thing.

Until such times that somebody provides some evidence, the only question is if any individual supporter is uninformed, deluded or a genuine fraud.

We all have our own opinions on the matter. You and Claus are entitled to yours. I'll withdraw from this conversation now.

CFLarsen

9th March 2006, 07:21 AM

Well, I wasn't expecting to have to provide evidence for such a clearly subjective matter. However, since you asked, I think the original post he made that I responded to was irrational. For example, he stated "You know that these psychics can't talk to the dead.” when Hardenbergh had said nothing regarding her beliefs on communication with the deceased.

This is untrue. Here, Hardenbergh clearly states her beliefs that this psychic can talk to the dead:

Alex Tanous, a noted psychic and parapsychologist from Maine (now deceased) helped locate my next door neighbor's daughter and boyfriend many, many years ago. They were teenagers at the time and they had eloped but hadn't been in contact with their families. My neighbors consulted Alex Tanous and he told them where they were. As it turned out, he had been correct and they were both fine.

www.alextanous.org

He was also mentioned in another thread:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=27798

I also know someone who is gifted in this regard but didn't really like to use his abilities except in special cases. Some people find psychic abilities burdensome and they're not particularly comfortable with such gifts. He helped the police locate two young children who were lost in the woods in northern Maine.

Yeah, Beth. I check. I don't go on memory. I check.

Such an unwarranted assumption based on no evidence is irrational. I think he's being irrational when he equates criticism of his posting style with support of people scamming grieving families of money.

But I wasn't doing that. Read again, Beth. Check, because I did. It is not an "unwarranted assumption" when I say that Hardenbergh knows that these psychics can't talk to the dead. If she knew, why not provide that evidence that Hardenbergh (and yourself) claims exist? Just show us, for Chrissakes.

Yet, she doesn't. You don't. Nobody who makes these claims show us that evidence. When we challenge you to provide it, you all back down. You all back down, Beth.

And you all do this, because you know that your much touted "evidence" will not withstand skeptical scrutiny, be it polite or not-so-polite. I don't see you, or anyone else, provide that evidence to those you find to be of a more polite nature. This "polite" issue is nothing but a red herring.

People like you will, however, provide that "evidence" in places where it isn't scrutinized. Where it will be gobbled up, uncritically, by people all too eager to believe, regardless of the quality of evidence.

This isn't a question of my posting "style" vs. psychics scamming grieving families of money and emotional security. (Funny how you left that out) This is solely a question of whether psychics can talk to dead people or not.

You can try to make it the question, but, really - Beth - what is more important here? You liking my "style", or we investigating if psychics can talk to dead people?

You and I know that there are people out there who are scamming grieving people. You and I know that there is a possibility that there are people out there who can actually talk to dead people. Why don't you and I see if we can find them?

In general, I find his inability to distinguish between different levels of support for and against his arguments to be typical of fanatics. He cannot seem to distinguish between people who believe they have psychic abilities but do not attempt to make money from it and people who knowingly fake psychic abilities in order to scam money from others. He cannot seem to distinguish between insufficient evidence (such as media reports, personal experiences and anecdotes) and lables it "no evidence".

Well, yeah. Because either we have evidence or we don't. We do not - at present - have any evidence that psychics can talk to the dead. We do - at present - have plenty of evidence that they cannot.

That aside - since you prefer to talk about anything else but these psychics - I believe the question was: Can you show where I am irrational about something? What is so irrational to challenge people who claim evidence of paranormal phenomena to put up - or shut up? Why should we allow psychics to scam grieving people?

Here, you make the same fallacy that Claus does. There is a great deal of evidence, but it is all of relatively low quality and does not constitute proof. It certainly justifiable to say the evidence is not convincing. Is is more than reasonable to state that you feel that there is sufficient evidence in the other direction to believe that psychic abilities do not exist. It is irrational and fanatical to say that no evidence for pyschic abilities exists.

Then show me. All I want is to see the evidence. Show me what you call evidence. Don't whine about "style". Show that evidence. Show me, Beth.

We all have our own opinions on the matter. You and Claus are entitled to yours. I'll withdraw from this conversation now.

That's fine, just as long as you realize that this is not about opinion. This is about evidence.

The questions will be here when you choose to return.

Jekyll

9th March 2006, 07:33 AM

There is a great deal of evidence, but it is all of relatively low quality and does not constitute proof.
There really needs to be a name for this fallacy

We're talking about the sort of data, which because of the vast amount of cherry picking that goes into preserving anecdotes, is uncompilable. Regardless of how much of this data you collate, you can not use it to make a case towards the paranormal.

It is not evidence of any kind.

Rasmus

9th March 2006, 07:57 AM

Well, I wasn't expecting to have to provide evidence for such a clearly subjective matter.

Well, if you consider your calling other peolpe "fanatics" is a clearly subjective matter, then I need no evidence, of course. Mind you, then I will not take your opinion very seriously.

However, since you asked, I think the original post he made that I responded to was irrational. For example, he stated "You know that these psychics can't talk to the dead.”

Personally, I would understand that as a challenge or an accusation more than anything.

In general, I find his inability to distinguish between different levels of support for and against his arguments to be typical of fanatics. He cannot seem to distinguish between people who believe they have psychic abilities but do not attempt to make money from it and people who knowingly fake psychic abilities in order to scam money from others.

I assume he just sees no reason to distinguish betwene the two - and to be honest: Neither do I. They cause harm and grieve to other people. That only some of them are after the money of the victims barely seems to make a difference. I also don't see why these particualr cases should be conderned with whether the alleged psychics are frauds or deluded: They cause the same amount of harm.

He cannot seem to distinguish between insufficient evidence (such as media reports, personal experiences and anecdotes) and lables it "no evidence".

None of this IS evidence! It is all heresay, claims that the evidence exists somewhere else. And usually, that "evidence" that is said to exist somewhere else isn't evidence, either.

Here, you make the same fallacy that Claus does. There is a great deal of evidence, but it is all of relatively low quality and does not constitute proof.

I am far from commiting a fallacy. I just have a different defintion of evidence than you seem to have. Evidence should point at the explanantion it is supposed to be evidence for. As such, I will only consider something as "evidence" when the explanantion it is asked zto support is somehow more likley to be true than not in light of the proposed evidence.

A patch of oil on my front lawn might have been left behind by a UFO hovering over my house. However, a patch of oil on my front lawn is no evidence for a UFO. No evidence. It is not "evidence of a low quality", it's just no evidence! It could be evidence, if it was a kind of oil that couldn't be bought or produced anywhere on this planet. But as such, it isn't evidence for a UFO.

It certainly justifiable to say the evidence is not convincing. Is is more than reasonable to state that you feel that there is sufficient evidence in the other direction to believe that psychic abilities do not exist. It is irrational and fanatical to say that no evidence for pyschic abilities exists.

No, it's just having a slightly higher standard for "evidence" than you have. Again, you are invited to show the evidence that you have. I beg you to.

We all have our own opinions on the matter. You and Claus are entitled to yours. I'll withdraw from this conversation now.

Yeah... see ya tomorrow, I guess.

Rasmus.

CFLarsen

9th March 2006, 08:12 AM

There really needs to be a name for this falicey

We're talking about the sort of data, which because of the vast amount of cherry picking that goes into preserving anecdotes, is uncompilable. Regardless of how much of this data you collate, you can not use it to make a case towards the paranormal.

It is not evidence of any kind.
It's called "unverifiable anecdote".

Bronze Dog

9th March 2006, 08:21 AM

It's called "unverifiable anecdote".
And probably irreproducible, uncontrolled, and unblinded, too... Then again, that's pretty much implied by the word "anecdote."

Jekyll

9th March 2006, 08:30 AM

It's called "unverifiable anecdote".
I prefer the word story.

And the fallacy is: story=evidence.

Ian seems to be having trouble with it, as well.

CFLarsen

9th March 2006, 08:41 AM

Well, a story can be true. The very nature of an anecdote is that it can't.

If an anecdote is shown to be true, it stops being an anecdote.

Jekyll

9th March 2006, 09:07 AM

Well, a story can be true. The very nature of an anecdote is that it can't.

If an anecdote is shown to be true, it stops being an anecdote.
Certainly if an unverifiable anecdote is shown to be true it stops being unverified. I don't think that all anecdotes have to be unverified though.:p

The point is though, even though some of these stories might be true it doesn't show anything. They are a collection of events that don't usually happen, and because they are unusual they are considered interesting and worth passing on.

If you put all of the true stories together, you just end up with a list of rare events which tells us nothing in itself.

Gr8wight

9th March 2006, 09:13 AM

'Anecdote' is simply a hoity-toity name for 'story'.

alfaniner

9th March 2006, 10:29 AM

There really needs to be a name for this fallacy

We're talking about the sort of data, which because of the vast amount of cherry picking that goes into preserving anecdotes, is uncompilable. Regardless of how much of this data you collate, you can not use it to make a case towards the paranormal.

It is not evidence of any kind.

How about "Argument by Wisp"?

9th March 2006, 10:53 AM

There really needs to be a name for this fallacy.

Except that it is not fallacy.

If person A says that he saw that he saw event B happening, it is evidence that B happened. For hundreds of years eyewittness testimonies like that were practically the only forms of evidence that were used in criminal trials and it still is used in courts.

The quality of the evidence is a completely different question.

An unverified statement is usually quite poor evidence. An unverifiable statement is even poorer. A statement claiming something that we have strong evidence against is the weakest of all.

And the anecdotes about supernatural powers land firmly to the third class: the evidence against the existence of the powers is much stronger than the evidence for them so it is sensible to discard the claims. [At least until someone provides good quality evidence for them, but I'm not holding my breath waiting for it].

In short: if someone says "there is no evidence for paranormal" while meaning "there is no evidence of acceptable quality for paranormal", I agree with him or her, though I would prefer that more exact language to be used. But if someone says "there is no evidence for paranormal" while meaning exactly that, then that someone should think a bit more about the matter.

Rasmus

9th March 2006, 10:59 AM

In short: if someone says "there is no evidence for paranormal" while meaning "there is no evidence of acceptable quality for paranormal", I agree with him or her, though I would prefer that more exact language to be used. But if someone says "there is no evidence for paranormal" while meaning exactly that, then that someone should think a bit more about the matter.

I still object to a definition of "evidence" that boils down to "whatever anyone claims to be the truth, regardless of how insane the claim may be."

If I say I have been abducted by aliens, then it is a claim, or a story. It is not evidence. Evidence would be something in sport of the notion that the story is true.

And, again, by "supporting" I mean "makes it look more likely that the story is true than not".

Rasmus.

9th March 2006, 01:20 PM

I still object to a definition of "evidence" that boils down to "whatever anyone claims to be the truth, regardless of how insane the claim may be."

However, your definition causes problems in itself.

If I say I have been abducted by aliens, then it is a claim, or a story. It is not evidence. Evidence would be something in sport of the notion that the story is true.

And, again, by "supporting" I mean "makes it look more likely that the story is true than not".

You are defining "evidence" to be what I would call "good evidence" or even "excellent evidence" (the "more likely than not" part).

You are, of course, free to define the concept the way you want, but I'd like to point out that your definition makes it impossible to use the old convention of making dual lists of "evidence for" and "evidence against" something since it is not possible that both alternatives look more likely than the other so one of the lists can't contain evidence, by definition. I don't think you really want that.

A person claiming: "I can fly" is so weak evidence for his flying ability that it can be immediately dismissed. However, if the person instead claimed: "I can ride a bicycle", that would be enough evidence to convince me that the person probably really can ride a bicycle. Note that in both cases the claim has exactly the same form. What is different is the body of other evidence related to the matter: there's a great body of evidence suggesting that a man cannot fly while there is also another great body of evidence supporting the notion that there are people who have no trouble handling bicycles.

Rasmus

9th March 2006, 02:20 PM

You are, of course, free to define the concept the way you want, but I'd like to point out that your definition makes it impossible to use the old convention of making dual lists of "evidence for" and "evidence against" something since it is not possible that both alternatives look more likely than the other so one of the lists can't contain evidence, by definition. I don't think you really want that.

I meant for every single piece of evidence, that when I look at it I should be able to say "This piece of potential evidence indicates that the explanantion given is true, more than it pooints to the explanantion given being wrong."

Your "evidence against" list is just the reversion; I don't really see the problem. Thge explanation that the evidence on that second list should support is "not whatever we used for the first list". Seems to be working out great to me.

A person claiming: "I can fly" is so weak evidence for his flying ability that it can be immediately dismissed. However, if the person instead claimed: "I can ride a bicycle", that would be enough evidence to convince me that the person probably really can ride a bicycle.

Suppose I was charged with murder and somehow my alibi relied o nthe fact that I'd be able to ride a bicycle.

Now you hear me claiming that I can ride a bicycle. Would you be happy with the court letting me walk free just on my say so?

My claim that I can ride a bicycle is not evidence at all. It's just a claim I made. I think there's a difference between the two.

Note that in both cases the claim has exactly the same form. What is different is the body of other evidence related to the matter: there's a great body of evidence suggesting that a man cannot fly while there is also another great body of evidence supporting the notion that there are people who have no trouble handling bicycles.

True.

I still don't think it's evidence. That a claim is likely to be true doesn't make it evidence, either. It's just so that evidence tends to make a claim more believable.

Rasmus.

Gr8wight

9th March 2006, 05:52 PM

Let's examine the etymology of the word, shall we? 'Evidence' comes from the Latin evidentia meaning that which is obvious. The word evidence only refers to that which strongly supports the claim it is offered for (makes it obvious). So, by definition, unverified and unverifiable anecdotes do not qualify as evidence.

10th March 2006, 03:24 AM

I meant for every single piece of evidence, that when I look at it I should be able to say "This piece of potential evidence indicates that the explanantion given is true, more than it pooints to the explanantion given being wrong."

So, in the end we have very similar view of evidence. The difference lies in the "indicates that the explanation given is true".

Even though I'm generally hesistant to trying to formalize the real world (tm) outside some specific application domains, I'll try to explain my reasoning more precisely with most non-paranormal example that I can think.

Suppose that you go to a bar and meet there some person that you have never seen before and who wears ordinary clothing without any obvious identification signs.

Now, at this point you can't really say anything certain about the name of the person. You could have some probability distribution for the possible names. For example, a young woman is more likely to be Mary than Abraham. You could think the situation as being that you have some sort of plausibility (I use term plausibility instead of probability since there is no good way to assign exact numeric probabilities here) distribution over statements of the form:

A1 = "The name of the person P is Abraham"
A2 = "The name of the person P is Adam"
...

where every different statement has some varying plausibility but where there is no real reason to consider any of them significantly more certain than any other.

Next, suppose that the person in question says: "My name is Kim". (Name chosen because it occurs with both men and women). This statement would formalize to:

C1 = "The person P says that the statement Ai is true".

where Ai = "The name of the person P is Kim".

This statement changes the plausibility distribution. It is evidence that increases the likelihood that Ai is true and at the same time it lowers the likelihood that any of the other statements Aj is true. If you wanted to deny that C1 is evidence for Ai, you would end up claiming that a person telling his or her name doesn't change your perception of what his or her name is --- this is a completely absurd position.

However, C1 most definitely is not a proof that Ai is true. It is completely possible that a person could lie about his or her name. You could try to obtain other pieces of evidence about the name of P, like a drivers licence or asking other people what they think the name is. If the other evidence agrees, then you become increasingly convinced that Ai is true. In real life it is not possible to proof with absolutely certainty that Ai is true. That's why in common speech "proof" is usually used in the slightly fuzzy sense of "to show enough evidence for a statement that it would be unreasonable to believe otherwise".

Next, change the statements to the form:

B = "Person P can levitate using only his mind power"

and

C2 = "Person P says that the statement B is true".

Note that in this case C2 has exactly the same form as C1 with the only thing differing is the statement vouched in it.

If you are willing to accept C1 as evidence for Ai, you don't have a good reason to say that C2 is not evidence for B.

So, your interpretation of "indicates that the explanation given is true" seems to include a component where the acceptance of the indication depends on the nature of the statement in question. What you are saying amounts to: "C2 is not evidence for B because it is highly improbable that B is true". This is dangerously close to "it is evidence only if it fits the existing framework" and from that it is only a small step to "it is evidence only if I accept it as evidence".

Suppose I was charged with murder and somehow my alibi relied on the fact that I'd be able to ride a bicycle.

Now you hear me claiming that I can ride a bicycle. Would you be happy with the court letting me walk free just on my say so?

My claim that I can ride a bicycle is not evidence at all. It's just a claim I made. I think there's a difference between the two.

Well, in that particular case I'd say that either you are in a poor detective novel or the case against you is so weak that you should be released no matter what your bicycle riding skills are.

But nitpicking aside, the underlying statement that we are trying to establish is: "Rasmus can ride a bicycle". And your claim is the statement "Rasmus says that the statement 'Rasmus can ride a bicycle' is true". And here we again come to the question of quality of evidence, and the quality is dependent on external situation. If a person has a strong motivation to lie, then his sayings have less value in establishing the truth of the statement so some other evidence should be used.

10th March 2006, 03:32 AM

Let's examine the etymology of the word, shall we?

OK, let's look at the etymology. The word that translates to "evidence" in English is "todistuskappale" in The One and the Only Correct Language (Finnish). This is a compound word formed from "todistus" and "kappale". "Todistus" comes from "todistaa" which in turn comes from "tosi", or "truth". A literal meaning of "todistaa" is "to make true". On the other hand "kappale" ment originally a "thing", in particular a "physical thing".

So, "todistuskappale" means literally "a physical thing that makes something true". So, obviously only "evidence" at all are "physical things that make something true".

Or perhaps arguments from etymology are not particularly useful ...

Or one of the words. We have in Finnish separate words for "evidence" as whole and "evidence" as a piece of evidence.

Jekyll

10th March 2006, 04:21 AM

Next, suppose that the person in question says: "My name is Kim". (Name chosen because it occurs with both men and women). This statement would formalize to:

C1 = "The person P says that the statement Ai is true".

where Ai = "The name of the person P is Kim".

This statement changes the plausibility distribution. It is evidence that increases the likelihood that Ai is true and at the same time it lowers the likelihood that any of the other statements Aj is true.
The problem with this is, that because of the way stories are propagated they rapidly converge to:
D1 ="Someone, somewhere, who I don't know, and have never met, once said C1. No, I don't know the name of the person who said that or why they said it."

How would you update your probabilities in accordance with this?

CFLarsen

10th March 2006, 04:35 AM

It all comes down to verification.

10th March 2006, 04:51 AM

D1 ="Someone, somewhere, who I don't know, and have never met, once said C1. No, I don't know the name of the person who said that or why they said it."

How would you update your probabilities in accordance with this?

You note that the quality of the evidence is pretty much worthless so ignoring it is not likely to lead you into error.

CFLarsen

10th March 2006, 05:04 AM

You note that the quality of the evidence is pretty much worthless so ignoring it is not likely to lead you into error.
When do we not ignore it?

Rasmus

10th March 2006, 05:06 AM

So, in the end we have very similar view of evidence.

We certianly do.

If you are willing to accept C1 as evidence for Ai, you don't have a good reason to say that C2 is not evidence for B.

I agree so far. Now the question is, are there sound reasons to call both statements "evidence", or are there reasons to not call either of the two "evidence". I think both positions are reasonable.

What you are saying amounts to: "C2 is not evidence for B because it is highly improbable that B is true". This is dangerously close to "it is evidence only if it fits the existing framework" and from that it is only a small step to "it is evidence only if I accept it as evidence".

I wil ltry to avoid ending up there. But I am also trying to avoid the other extreme: Everything is "evidence" so long as I can find just one person claiming it is.

Neither of the two extremes make "evidence" a very useful word to use to describe something.

But nitpicking aside, the underlying statement that we are trying to establish is: "Rasmus can ride a bicycle". And your claim is the statement "Rasmus says that the statement 'Rasmus can ride a bicycle' is true". And here we again come to the question of quality of evidence, and the quality is dependent on external situation.

But then, whether I say I can ride a bicycle ends up being irrelevant, doesn't it?

Suppose you went into my house; found an expensive and professional racing bike that somehow fits my size; surrounded by medals and cup from various sporting events involving bicycles - some ofg which have my name on them. The walls are plastered with newspaper articles involving me and bicycles.

And there I stand, producing evidence that I cannot ride a bicycle simply by saying I can't?

If a person has a strong motivation to lie, then his sayings have less value in establishing the truth of the statement so some other evidence should be used.

Or some evidence at all ;)

I am not saying that what people say doesn't matter or give us a chance to derive at the truth. I am just hesistant to call it "evidence". In most cases, that wouldn't realyl change my behavior - and I think the entire discussion as it relates to psychics is a bit pointless: Whatever there exists, that some peolpe may call evidence and that I won't accept as such; in the end it only matters what I make from it.

If I accept your definition, then for something being "evidence" just doesn't mean that I could not instantly reject it. We are just debating where the threshold should be.

Rasmus.

Hardenbergh

10th March 2006, 05:56 AM

This is untrue. Here, Hardenbergh clearly states her beliefs that this psychic can talk to the dead:

Yeah, Beth. I check. I don't go on memory. I check.

But I wasn't doing that. Read again, Beth. Check, because I did. It is not an "unwarranted assumption" when I say that Hardenbergh knows that these psychics can't talk to the dead. If she knew, why not provide that evidence that Hardenbergh (and yourself) claims exist? Just show us, for Chrissakes.

Yet, she doesn't. You don't. Nobody who makes these claims show us that evidence. When we challenge you to provide it, you all back down. You all back down, Beth.

And you all do this, because you know that your much touted "evidence" will not withstand skeptical scrutiny, be it polite or not-so-polite. I don't see you, or anyone else, provide that evidence to those you find to be of a more polite nature. This "polite" issue is nothing but a red herring.

People like you will, however, provide that "evidence" in places where it isn't scrutinized. Where it will be gobbled up, uncritically, by people all too eager to believe, regardless of the quality of evidence.

This isn't a question of my posting "style" vs. psychics scamming grieving families of money and emotional security. (Funny how you left that out) This is solely a question of whether psychics can talk to dead people or not.

You can try to make it the question, but, really - Beth - what is more important here? You liking my "style", or we investigating if psychics can talk to dead people?

You and I know that there are people out there who are scamming grieving people. You and I know that there is a possibility that there are people out there who can actually talk to dead people. Why don't you and I see if we can find them?

Well, yeah. Because either we have evidence or we don't. We do not - at present - have any evidence that psychics can talk to the dead. We do - at present - have plenty of evidence that they cannot.

That aside - since you prefer to talk about anything else but these psychics - I believe the question was: Can you show where I am irrational about something? What is so irrational to challenge people who claim evidence of paranormal phenomena to put up - or shut up? Why should we allow psychics to scam grieving people?

Then show me. All I want is to see the evidence. Show me what you call evidence. Don't whine about "style". Show that evidence. Show me, Beth.

That's fine, just as long as you realize that this is not about opinion. This is about evidence.

The questions will be here when you choose to return.

I still don't see where I said anything about anyone talking to the dead.

CFLarsen

10th March 2006, 06:08 AM

I still don't see where I said anything about anyone talking to the dead.

No? Can you explain what this psychic of yours did, if not talk to the dead?

Care to explain this, then?

Staying away from people like Maria Duval who send long, soulful, generic letters and prey on desperate people in the guise of getting up close and personal would be a start. These are the ones to stay away from and these are the ones that are giving the "Real McCoy" a bad name.

Okie doke. No Maria Duvals, then. Just the "Real McCoys". But the "Real McCoys" don't talk to the dead?

Show me what this psychic of yours did.

Hardenbergh

10th March 2006, 06:15 AM

No? Can you explain what this psychic of yours did, if not talk to the dead?

Care to explain this, then?

Okie doke. No Maria Duvals, then. Just the "Real McCoys". But the "Real McCoys" don't talk to the dead?

Show me what this psychic of yours did.

Mediums talk to the dead. I don't think of mediums and psychics as being on the same plane although there are some that play in both courts.

CFLarsen

10th March 2006, 06:22 AM

Mediums talk to the dead. I think of mediums and psychics as being on the same plane although there are some that play in both courts.

That doesn't even begin to answer my questions.

Can you explain what this psychic of yours did, if not talk to the dead?

Do the "Real McCoys" talk to the dead? Yes or no?

Yeah, I want straight answers. I don't want any bull. I don't want any evasive posts. I want straight answers.

You make the claim. You back it up. No bull. Got it?

Hardenbergh

10th March 2006, 06:25 AM

That doesn't even begin to answer my questions.

Can you explain what this psychic of yours did, if not talk to the dead?

Do the "Real McCoys" talk to the dead? Yes or no?

Yeah, I want straight answers. I don't want any bull. I don't want any evasive posts. I want straight answers.

You make the claim. You back it up. No bull. Got it?

Actually, I meant to say that I don't think (edited) that mediums and psychics are on the same plane. Anyway, in a previous post, I talked about Alex Tanous locating some teenagers. Why would he even need to talk to the dead?

The runaway couple were very close friends of mine. The girl involved lived next door. We were in the same class in school. Her mother told my mother about consulting Alex Tanous.

CFLarsen

10th March 2006, 06:34 AM

Actually, I meant to say that I don't think (edited) that mediums and psychics are on the same plane. Anyway, in a previous post, I talked about Alex Tanous locating some teenagers. Why would he even need to talk to the dead?

Then explain what he does, then!

Stop beating around the bush here. Stop f**king around.

Explain.

Gr8wight

10th March 2006, 07:37 AM

OK, let's look at the etymology. The word that translates to "evidence" in English is "todistuskappale" in The One and the Only Correct Language (Finnish). This is a compound word formed from "todistus" and "kappale". "Todistus" comes from "todistaa" which in turn comes from "tosi", or "truth". A literal meaning of "todistaa" is "to make true". On the other hand "kappale" ment originally a "thing", in particular a "physical thing".

So, "todistuskappale" means literally "a physical thing that makes something true". So, obviously only "evidence" at all are "physical things that make something true".

Or perhaps arguments from etymology are not particularly useful ...

Or one of the words. We have in Finnish separate words for "evidence" as whole and "evidence" as a piece of evidence.

As far as I am concerned, your explanation of the word "todistuskappale" agrees 100% with my explanation of the word "evidence." "A physical thing that makes something true" clearly excludes any and all unverified and unverifiable anecdotes from being described as todistuskappale...or evidence.

Hardenbergh

10th March 2006, 07:38 AM

Then explain what he does, then!

Stop beating around the bush here. Stop f**king around.

Explain.

I assume that he used his sixth sense. What else would it be? I don't know every detail. Perhaps he boiled some toads in a cauldron. :rolleyes: This was over 35 years ago.

Rasmus

10th March 2006, 07:49 AM

I assume that he used his sixth sense. What else would it be? I don't know every detail. Perhaps he boiled some toads in a cauldron. :rolleyes: This was over 35 years ago.

So much for taking what other peolpe said as evidence, no matter how small.

What do you know? Do you know that this person used any paranormal means at all, or that he actually helped in solving the case?

How do you know that he wasn't just a personal friend of the family that hung around for moral support and didn't do anything else?

Rasmus.

Roadtoad

10th March 2006, 07:50 AM

I assume that he used his sixth sense. What else would it be? I don't know every detail. Perhaps he boiled some toads in a cauldron. :rolleyes: This was over 35 years ago.

Do you think that maybe, just maybe, he did something truly astonishing, such as look in a phone book?

Hardenbergh

10th March 2006, 07:53 AM

So much for taking what other peolpe said as evidence, no matter how small.

What do you know? Do you know that this person used any paranormal means at all, or that he actually helped in solving the case?

How do you know that he wasn't just a personal friend of the family that hung around for moral support and didn't do anything else?

Rasmus.

I said that Alex Tanous was a friend of the other family in Millinocket. I said that the brother of a very close friend of mine located two children in northern Maine. The brother is not known as a psychic but has psychic abilities. These are two different families I'm talking about. My next door neighbor had never met Alex Tanous prior to consulting him.

Hardenbergh

10th March 2006, 07:57 AM

Do you think that maybe, just maybe, he did something truly astonishing, such as look in a phone book?

Look in a phone book for what?

meg

10th March 2006, 09:13 AM

Hi all, I realize I'm jumping in a bit late, but I'm finding this discussion truly fascinating. I am most interested in the motivation behind Hardenbergh's assertion that there are real psychics and Beth's assertion that Hardenbergh shouldn't have to give any evidence if he doesn't want to.

Hardenbergh, let's look at your two examples of "psychics" helping find missing people. Your first one:

Alex Tanous, a noted psychic and parapsychologist from Maine (now deceased) helped locate my next door neighbor's daughter and boyfriend many, many years ago. They were teenagers at the time and they had eloped but hadn't been in contact with their families. My neighbors consulted Alex Tanous and he told them where they were. As it turned out, he had been correct and they were both fine.

In a later post you added that Mr. Tanous was a friend of this family, also.

Let's see if there is a more reasonable explanation for the above. If a person is a friend of the family (or even if they're not, but they ask the right questions) would they not know that both the girl and her boyfriend went missing at the same time, that perhaps they took some money with them, that perhaps they took some of their clothes (maybe even her wedding dress?) and their toothbrushes with them when they left? Would it really be unreasonable or paranormal to find out these things and say "I believe they are alright. They ran away together." If I knew the couple well, and the area well, I might even be able to say "I think you will find them at the Super8 motel (because it's the least expensive motel in the area) in Haversham county (because there's no waiting to get married in that county).

Would it really take some kind of superpower to make those educated guesses? I would be willing to bet that the police made the same guesses about the whereabouts of the young couple, even though you don't mention that. If they did, would that mean that the police used psychic abilities? Or would it mean they just put two and two together? Is it possible that half the town had a pretty good inkling as to where those two were?

I also know someone who is gifted in this regard but didn't really like to use his abilities except in special cases. Some people find psychic abilities burdensome and they're not particularly comfortable with such gifts. He helped the police locate two young children who were lost in the woods in northern Maine.

Here you don't say how he helped find the children or why this might have been a "special case". Could it be he just helped to search the woods? Could it be he thought they might be near water (or something) because they liked to fish? Or, there in northern Maine, did he get the astounding thought that they "might be in the woods"? If the entire area is forested, is that really so dreadfully amazing?

Neither example you gave includes anything in the least bit amazing, yet you seem to believe that these examples show some kind of evidence that some "psychics" are for real.

If you're going to put forth such an assertion, I think you really need to add more information indicating *why* these examples are proof of real psychic powers.

In my mind, the two examples you gave are not just hearsay, but hearsay squared, maybe even cubed. Not only are you accepting hearsay as to whether the psychic "solved" the case, but you are accepting hearsay that there ever was a "case" to start with, and hearsay that the "psychic" was actually involved in it.

Just my 2 cents.
Meg

Hardenbergh

10th March 2006, 09:27 AM

Hi all, I realize I'm jumping in a bit late, but I'm finding this discussion truly fascinating. I am most interested in the motivation behind Hardenbergh's assertion that there are real psychics and Beth's assertion that Hardenbergh shouldn't have to give any evidence if he doesn't want to.

Hardenbergh, let's look at your two examples of "psychics" helping find missing people. Your first one:

In a later post you added that Mr. Tanous was a friend of this family, also.

Let's see if there is a more reasonable explanation for the above. If a person is a friend of the family (or even if they're not, but they ask the right questions) would they not know that both the girl and her boyfriend went missing at the same time, that perhaps they took some money with them, that perhaps they took some of their clothes (maybe even her wedding dress?) and their toothbrushes with them when they left? Would it really be unreasonable or paranormal to find out these things and say "I believe they are alright. They ran away together." If I knew the couple well, and the area well, I might even be able to say "I think you will find them at the Super8 motel (because it's the least expensive motel in the area) in Haversham county (because there's no waiting to get married in that county).

Would it really take some kind of superpower to make those educated guesses? I would be willing to bet that the police made the same guesses about the whereabouts of the young couple, even though you don't mention that. If they did, would that mean that the police used psychic abilities? Or would it mean they just put two and two together? Is it possible that half the town had a pretty good inkling as to where those two were?

Here you don't say how he helped find the children or why this might have been a "special case". Could it be he just helped to search the woods? Could it be he thought they might be near water (or something) because they liked to fish? Or, there in northern Maine, did he get the astounding thought that they "might be in the woods"? If the entire area is forested, is that really so dreadfully amazing?

Neither example you gave includes anything in the least bit amazing, yet you seem to believe that these examples show some kind of evidence that some "psychics" are for real.

If you're going to put forth such an assertion, I think you really need to add more information indicating *why* these examples are proof of real psychic powers.

In my mind, the two examples you gave are not just hearsay, but hearsay squared, maybe even cubed. Not only are you accepting hearsay as to whether the psychic "solved" the case, but you are accepting hearsay that there ever was a "case" to start with, and hearsay that the "psychic" was actually involved in it.

Just my 2 cents.
Meg

My next door neighbor had no reason to lie about consulting a psychic. As I said, Alex Tanous was completely unknown to the family. The other "unknown psychic" and his family knew Alex and his brother Wakine, an attorney from Millinocket, as they both lived in northern Maine. Alex and Wakine had both been guests in their home. Alex Tanous has written a number of books and has made appearances on various talk shows.

.13.

10th March 2006, 09:38 AM

A person claiming: "I can fly" is so weak evidence for his flying ability that it can be immediately dismissed. However, if the person instead claimed: "I can ride a bicycle", that would be enough evidence to convince me that the person probably really can ride a bicycle. Note that in both cases the claim has exactly the same form. What is different is the body of other evidence related to the matter: there's a great body of evidence suggesting that a man cannot fly while there is also another great body of evidence supporting the notion that there are people who have no trouble handling bicycles.

But nitpicking aside, the underlying statement that we are trying to establish is: "Rasmus can ride a bicycle". And your claim is the statement "Rasmus says that the statement 'Rasmus can ride a bicycle' is true". And here we again come to the question of quality of evidence, and the quality is dependent on external situation. If a person has a strong motivation to lie, then his sayings have less value in establishing the truth of the statement so some other evidence should be used.

Knowing that it is possible for people to ride bicycles doesn't mean that this particular individual can ride one. Ofcourse our knowledge of bikes means that we have less reason to doubt this persons ability to ride a bike than someones ability to talk to the dead.

I agree that if someone has a strong motivation to lie it diminshes even more the value of that persons claims. But you would have to know peoples motivations when you accpet their claims as evidence and it is not possible. In your opinion claiming things is pretty convincing evidence atleast when commonly accepted skills/phenomenon is in question. But what if the person making the claim he can ride a bike is too embarrased to admit that he really can't ride a bike. That would be a pretty strong motivation to lie.

It certainly is not polite to accuse someone of lying in this kind of situation. But still the claim itself is not evidence of this persons abilities.

Hardenbergh

10th March 2006, 09:49 AM

I can't be 100% certain that finding the runaway couple was a direct result of Alex Tanous' extra sensory perception. I don't know if he said that "X marks the spot." My only recollection was that her mother commented that Alex said that they were in the Boston area. I don't know if he provided other details. As I said, this was many, many years ago.

I might have confused a few people when I talked about finding two people. One case involved two teenagers and the other involved two children.

Mojo

10th March 2006, 09:58 AM

Spidey13

10th March 2006, 10:02 AM

I assume that he used his sixth sense. What else would it be? I don't know every detail. Perhaps he boiled some toads in a cauldron. :rolleyes: This was over 35 years ago.

If this was over 35 years ago, how old were you at the time?

CFLarsen

10th March 2006, 10:07 AM

I assume that he used his sixth sense. What else would it be? I don't know every detail. Perhaps he boiled some toads in a cauldron. :rolleyes: This was over 35 years ago.

I see.

You throw a 35-year old anecdote at us which you read in a newspaper clip someone showed you. And you can't remember anything else.

Do you find that convincing yourself?

Hardenbergh

10th March 2006, 10:34 AM

I see.

You throw a 35-year old anecdote at us which you read in a newspaper clip someone showed you. And you can't remember anything else.

Do you find that convincing yourself?

The newspaper clipping was given to me about the other case I was talking about from the brother of the psychic who found the young children in northern Maine--not my neighbor next door.

10th March 2006, 10:36 AM

Neither of the two extremes make "evidence" a very useful word to use to describe something.

I have no problems against using "evidence" as a convenient shortcut for either "evidence of acceptable quality" or "some other independent piece of supporting evidence" as long as you realize that you are doing that (though, it might be a good idea to explain that usage to the person that you are discussing with to prevent misunderstandings). Same way that you can use "proof" in informal sense.

But then, whether I say I can ride a bicycle ends up being irrelevant, doesn't it?

In that context. But a trial is a rather specific situation where the required level of evidence is much greater than in everyday life and persons own words are not strong enough to reach that level. However, if you brought in a defence witness who testifies that you can (or can't) ride a bicycle, it would be better evidence. It still wouldn't be particularly good evidence, but a bit better than your own claims. And that level of reliability would depend on the connections between the witness and you.

If I accept your definition, then for something being "evidence" just doesn't mean that I could not instantly reject it. We are just debating where the threshold should be.

Actually, I perceive there a semantic difference (general note: I don't use 'semantics' as a swear word): You are saying that: "this piece of information is so poor that it doesn't belong in the body of evidence". I am saying that: "this piece of evidence is so poor that it won't affect our conclusions".

I see the existence of evidence and its quality as two separate things. If you issue a cutoff point by saying that it isn't evidence unless it is at least this good, you confuse the separation and make things more complex than necessary. With it the notion of "body of evidence" becomes more vague because whether a thing is evidence or not depends on the context. I'm pretty certain that if we formalized your notion of evidence into mathematics, we could then construct an extremely contrieved example where we wouldn't have a single body of evidence but instead several different sets of evidences each having a different set of conclusions and no way of deciding which one is the correct one. [Whereas with my approach we would end up in a situation with a single body of evidence and no clear conclusions at all].