Which Witch - 6/22 Swift

[ShowerComic]

From 6/22 Swift:

"There has to be criteria or you're going to get garbage coming here," Barbara Szafranski, the owner of Angelica of the Angels, predicted. "Everybody here is a legitimate person who's worked for years and years… When you do a reading, you hold a person's life right in your hands. We have people come to us who are willing to commit suicide, who won't go to a psychiatrist, so they come to us."

As James Randi told me there is no such thing as a legitimate psychic it's all stage magic to one degree or another. But Szafranski and the the rest of the psychics get rich off of the suffering of others. If I take her at her word, these customers of her's need trained psychiatrists not greedy charlatans willing to steal their hard earned money.

Personally, I have never liked the magicians who pretend what they do is supernatural, and have never been into fortune telling even as a form of entertainment. As a result, I really couldn't say who specifically is doing this for entertainment only, and who is doing it for greed. But that quote about the aura speaks volumes.

[arthwollipot]

I reckon it'd be great to have a certification process to get people to demonstrate that they can do what they say they can do. I don't think it'll ever actually happen though.

[ShowerComic]

I'd have to review the new $1M challenge rules, but just to give you all an idea of the advertising the psychics use -

This is from the web site of one well known Salem area psychic:

[name removed] was born with the gift of psychic vision, something he did not yet understand but would instinctively take advantage of in times of great need.

Hmm, there are magical people in the world who are genetically better than the rest of us. Where have I seen this? 'The X Men ' comics, 'Highlander - the Series' , 'Babylon 5' -- But again that's fiction.

[abelian grape]

Hmm, there are magical people in the world who are genetically better than the rest of us. Where have I seen this? 'The X Men ' comics, 'Highlander - the Series' , 'Babylon 5' -- But again that's fiction.

Good point. To take one of your examples, in X-Men this pre-disposition led to suspicion and bigotry on both sides of the coin. Funny how reality mirrors fiction... (or at least the reality of 'real' psychics).

[Pope130]

I was struck by this portion of the commentary:

"Laurie Cabot, the official witch of Salem, says:

It's become a free-for-all. Anyone who says they're psychic can come into the city. We don't even know where they come from. We don't know their qualifications"

Particularly where a profesional psychic says; "We don't even know where they come from." Shouldn't a psychic know?

Robert

[vexed]

Particularly where a profesional psychic says; "We don't even know where they come from." Shouldn't a psychic know?

Robert

You would think. ;)

[arthwollipot]

There are qualifications? Where can I study to become a psychic?

[TjW]

Well, I think you should have at least a B.S.
Maybe several.
A lot of B.S.

[maatorc]

From 6/22 Swift: As James Randi told me there is no such thing as a legitimate psychic it's all stage magic to one degree or another.
It is impossible for Mr. Randi to know or prove this at the level of stage magic.
It is possible only for Mr. Randi to know that some claims of psychic ability are stage magic.
There are scammers in every field of human activity, so it is not to be expected what is called psychic will be free of it.
The stage magic claims of Mr. Randi, and cold-reading of Mr. Shirmer, are the basis of the modern skeptical movement.
Mind boggling trivia, which explains why the JREF MDC can never be met.

[arthwollipot]

The Challenge can be met, by someone actively demonstrating, under controlled conditions, that they can do what they say they can do.

It really is as simple as that.

[maatorc]

The Challenge can be met, by someone actively demonstrating, under controlled conditions, that they can do what they say they can do. It really is as simple as that.
True, but it need not be paranormal or genuinely psychic, whatever that is, but merely something the JREF states is so without any proof that it is or is not and the claimant can do under the Rules.

[arthwollipot]

True, but it need not be paranormal or genuinely psychic, whatever that is, but merely something the JREF states is so without any proof that it is or is not and the claimant can do under the Rules.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. If they say they can do "x" and can demonstrate under controlled conditions that they can do "x", then they win.

Of course, "x" may not be something that anyone can do normally, like going to to the toilet. Is that what you mean?

[maatorc]

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. If they say they can do "x" and can demonstrate under controlled conditions that they can do "x", then they win. Of course, "x" may not be something that anyone can do normally, like going to to the toilet. Is that what you mean?
There is no way the JREF can prove that whatever the claimant demonstrates is or is not genuinely psychic, supernatural, or occult.
The demonstration, if successful, is merely of something the JREF and the claimant agree to accept, without proof, as psychic, supernatural, or occult under the MDC protocols.
A simplistic example of the essential problem is that although no-one calls a 'thought' psychic, supernatural, or occult, it is impossible for anyone to prove that they held a given thought: Their word is not proof, even though in the ordinary sense we usually accept they did hold the thought.

[arthwollipot]

How would you prove that a given claim is psychic, supernatural or whatever? I would suggest that you cannot. All you can do is eliminate all non-psychic and natural explanations and see if they can still do what they claim they can do. This is what the Challenge does. Do you have a better way?

[maatorc]

How would you prove that a given claim is psychic, supernatural or whatever? I would suggest that you cannot. All you can do is eliminate all non-psychic and natural explanations and see if they can still do what they claim they can do. This is what the Challenge does. Do you have a better way?


You are right:The JREF undertakes to rule on "... anyone who can show ... "
"... evidence of any paranormal, supernatural, or occult power or event ...",
and I agree with you when you say "I would suggest that you cannot."

The JREF MDC is offering to do something it is essentially incapable of doing.

[quixotecoyote]

The JREF MDC can declare acts paranormal by fiat for the purposes of the challenges, regardless of semantic disagreements.

[SezMe]

There are qualifications? Where can I study to become a psychic?

At your service, sir:

Certified Psychic (http://www.certifiedpsychics.com/psychic-certification.html) ® is a Registered Certification Mark of the American Association of Professional Psychics®.

[maatorc]

The JREF MDC can declare acts paranormal by fiat for the purposes of the challenges, regardless of semantic disagreements.

Any such fiat does not make any demonstration paranormal, but merely states what the JREF MDC agrees with the claimant to call paranormal, supernatural, or occult: The disagreements are not semantic and address the very essence of the MDC.

There is a clear understanding, in the JREF MDC, that there does not exist any scientific proof that there is any power or event that has been demonstrated to be or not to be a genuinely psychic, supernatural, or occult power or event.

There is no known method to prove or disprove that any power or event is or is not paranormal, supernatural, or occult.

The JREF MDC is not in possession of any known method to prove or disprove that any power or event is or is not paranormal, supernatural, or occult.

The stage magic of Mr. Randi, and the cold reading of Mr. Shirmer, do not even begin to be a basis for determining what can or cannot be a paranormal, supernatural, or occult power or event.

[arthwollipot]

But if something (spoon bending for example) can be shown to be done by non-paranormal means, it is very convincing evidence that people like Geller are not doing it by paranormal means. Have you read any of the reports of challenge testing? I think some of them will make it clear what we are talking about.

[maatorc]

But if something (spoon bending for example) can be shown to be done by non-paranormal means, it is very convincing evidence that people like Geller are not doing it by paranormal means. Have you read any of the reports of challenge testing? I think some of them will make it clear what we are talking about.

You are correct.
This is an example of the stage magic of Mr. Randi.
However, in the event someone were able to do it by paranormal means, there is no way the JREF MDC can prove or disprove the 'paranormal' nature of the event.
In the case of Mr. Geller, if it can be shown to be stage magic, so be it.
If his demonstration can not be shown to be stage magic, it also can not be shown to be 'paranormal'.
There are no known means to prove or disprove that something that can not be stage magic is or is not 'paranormal'.

[arthwollipot]

The JREF MDC can declare acts paranormal by fiat for the purposes of the challenges, regardless of semantic disagreements.

:catfight:

[maatorc]

:catfight:

Originally Posted by quixotecoyote View Post
The JREF MDC can declare acts paranormal by fiat for the purposes of the challenges, regardless of semantic disagreements.


No problem with that as long as the JREF MDC and the Claimant accept that a successful demonstration cannot be proven to be an actual psychic, supernatural, or occult power or event.

There is no known organization or individual that has presented any principle or method whereby such a power or event may be measurably demonstrated.

The JREF is not a known or accepted authority in this matter, so a fiat by it for the purposes of the MDC carries no scientific recognition or credibility and is not binding on anyone outside the MDC protocols which in any case are incapable of proving that a demonstration is actually a psychic, supernatural, or occult power or event outside the MDC declaration by fiat.

What a successful demonstration could do is identify a phenomenon outside of current scientific explanation or proof without burdening it as an unprovable case of a psychic, supernatural, or occult event or power.

[arthwollipot]

Just because something is outside of our current ability to explain does not mean that it's supernatural. I get what you're saying. What I'm still struggling with is why you feel the need to say it. The JREF has never had pretensions about being a recognised scientific institution. Its purpose is to unmask frauds and charlatans and the hopelessly deluded, not to establish new scientific paradigms.

[maatorc]

Just because something is outside of our current ability to explain does not mean that it's supernatural. I get what you're saying. What I'm still struggling with is why you feel the need to say it. The JREF has never had pretensions about being a recognised scientific institution. Its purpose is to unmask frauds and charlatans and the hopelessly deluded, not to establish new scientific paradigms.


The underlying position of the modern skeptical movement through the JREF and Skeptic Society is a direct denial of the psychic, supernatural, and occult.

The JREF MDC is predicated on this fundamental denial.

Unmasking scammers is but an operational corrollary of denial, a feel-good indulgence of an unprovable premise, on which basis people are labelled frauds, charlatans and deluded by those unable to prove or disprove anything about the psychic, supernatural or occult.

Ignorance masquerading as enlightenment is much more dangerous than deception, illusion, or delusion posing as reality.

The MDC cannot prove or disprove the psychic, supernatural, or occult.

[arthwollipot]

Again, I get what you're saying, but I'm still not sure why you're saying it.

We believe that there is sufficient evidence to discount the possibility of super powers. Other people believe that they have super powers, and we ask them to demonstrate what they can do. Under controlled conditions, they unfailingly fail to demonstrate that they have super powers. Every challenge and every test provides more evidence for us that there are no super powers.

But we don't need to prove that there are no super powers, we are just asking people to demonstrate the super powers they claim they have. That's fundamentally different from what you're saying. You're saying that we can't prove that there are no super powers. We are not trying to prove that there are no super powers, we're trying to get people to demonstrate the super powers that they claim they have. There's nothing about "denial" in there. There's nothing about "proof" in there. There's only demonstration. If someone can demonstrate, under controlled conditions that rule out other possible explanations (such as stage magic or whatever), that they have super powers, they win the million. It really is as simple as that.

If you look through the website, you'll see a few references to people who can read while blindfolded. Randi has referred to some of them in his Commentaries. All of them were found to be secretly peeking through gaps in the blindfold. Does this mean that there is no super power that allows people to read while blindfolded? Have we proven that there is no such thing? Of course not. It means that the people who made the claim cannot do what they say they can do and therefore they did not win the million. That's all there is.

[maatorc]

Again, I get what you're saying, but I'm still not sure why you're saying it. We believe that there is sufficient evidence to discount the possibility of super powers. Other people believe that they have super powers, and we ask them to demonstrate what they can do. Under controlled conditions, they unfailingly fail to demonstrate that they have super powers. Every challenge and every test provides more evidence for us that there are no super powers. But we don't need to prove that there are no super powers, we are just asking people to demonstrate the super powers they claim they have. That's fundamentally different from what you're saying. You're saying that we can't prove that there are no super powers. We are not trying to prove that there are no super powers, we're trying to get people to demonstrate the super powers that they claim they have. There's nothing about "denial" in there. There's nothing about "proof" in there. There's only demonstration. If someone can demonstrate, under controlled conditions that rule out other possible explanations (such as stage magic or whatever), that they have super powers, they win the million. It really is as simple as that. If you look through the website, you'll see a few references to people who can read while blindfolded. Randi has referred to some of them in his Commentaries. All of them were found to be secretly peeking through gaps in the blindfold. Does this mean that there is no super power that allows people to read while blindfolded? Have we proven that there is no such thing? Of course not. It means that the people who made the claim cannot do what they say they can do and therefore they did not win the million. That's all there is.

I see what you say.
If someone did demonstrate what was accepted by the JREF MDC as what you call a superpower, the demonstration cannot be proven to be psychic, supernatural, or occult power or event.
It may look good and impressive but will not actually be proof.

[arthwollipot]

Who's asking for proof? Only you.

[maatorc]

Who's asking for proof? Only you.

Thanks for your comments.
Our posts have dealt with the above at length.
NOW, it has become circularly semantic!
Agree to disagree.

[arthwollipot]

Indeed :)

[Luke T.]

The end result was that the city council did pass protectionist measures, but they do not require a test of one's ability to foretell the future. But apparently it was enough to make someone mad. Since the measure passed, the local witches have been finding dead raccoons left on their doorsteps!

Guess the old hex signs and curses weren't working...had to resort to dead raccoons.

I see some Salem witches standing around a boiling kettle complaining about invading out-of-town witches with their black pots.

Or maybe a witch at a town committee meeting in a black peaked hat with red rouge on her cheeks and a red rubber ball on her nose, "We can't let these clowns come here and ruin people's lives!!!"

I could go on all day. :D