Psychic Night Ch4(UK) Sat23rd Aug

Lucianarchy · 18th August 2003, 11:24 AM

20:00 Psychic Night
Living With The Dead
Living with the Dead looks at the spectacular growth in the number of people visiting psychics and those interested in psychic phenomena. The high point of this trend was the attempt earlier this year to contact Princess Diana through a sance, screened on an American pay-per-view channel.
[subtitles]

21:00 Psychic Night
Ultimate Psychic Challenge
For the first time on British television, a well-known, respected psychic goes head-to-head with a professional sceptic in a unique challenge to prove their beliefs. Filmed in front of a live studio audience, Keith Charles, known as the psychic detective, and James Randi, who travels around the States exposing evangelists and psychics whom he believes are frauds, attempt to lay each other's arguments to rest once and for all.
[subtitles]

22:30 Psychic Night:
Top Ten Ways To Contact The Dead
A look at the dos and don'ts for those wishing to commune with the dead - a kind of 'Which Witch'. The methods of contacting the spirit world investigated by the programme include Scrying, Sances, Ouija Boards, Spirit Summoning by White Magic, Past Life Regression, Trance Channelling, Transfiguration, Voodoo, Electronic Voice Phenomena and Afterlife Telegrams.
[subtitles]

http://www.channel4.com/listings/C4/...t=5&position=5

davidhorman · 19th August 2003, 04:57 AM

And the next night, you can watch what could possibly be the strangest piece of reality TV ever, "On Holiday With The Gellers."

Oh, and if anyone missed it, last week Uri was on Celebrity Stars In Their Eyes singing "She" as Charles Aznavour (sp)

David

Lucianarchy · 23rd August 2003, 05:34 AM

.

Lucianarchy · 23rd August 2003, 02:17 PM

Interesting.

44% of the audience were believers in survival before the start of the show, after James Randi did his debunking act the believers grew to 55%!

davidhorman · 23rd August 2003, 02:25 PM

Actually it was directly after Keith Charles' demonstration of his psychic powers - Randi was on much earlier. And overall the amount of nonbelievers increased as well, as less and less people sat on the fence.

Talk about forgetting the misses...

And in the description of how Keith Charles apparently solved a murder in America, they missed the part where they drove him past the murder scene three times and he never picked up any vibes.

David

23rd August 2003, 02:27 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by davidhorman
Actually it was directly after Keith Charles' demonstration of his psychic powers - Randi was on much earlier. And overall the amount of nonbelievers increased as well, as less and less people sat on the fence.

Talk about forgetting the misses...

And in the description of how Keith Charles apparently solved a murder in America, they missed the part where they drove him past the murder scene three times and he never picked up any vibes.

David

Proof he's a fake!

Mendor · 23rd August 2003, 02:41 PM

Utter and complete cop-out from Keith Charles on the audience-member-behind-the-screen section. Also notable that the first woman he read gave "no" answers repeatedly towards the end, yet when asked how accurate Charles had been, responded "Totally"!!

how the hell did Randi do that thing with the cards?

23rd August 2003, 03:16 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mendor
[b]Utter and complete cop-out from Keith Charles on the audience-member-behind-the-screen section.

He explained right at the beginning of the programme that he cannot pick and choose which deceased people communicate with him. But the information he received did fit a member of the audience to a significant extent.

Mendor · 23rd August 2003, 03:25 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Interesting Ian

He explained right at the beginning of the programme that he cannot pick and choose which deceased people communicate with him.

I wonder why he tried to do it in the first place then? Assuming he's real, why would he have even attempted to read a specific person of his choosing if he thought that was impossible?

Quote:

But the information he received did fit a member of the audience to a significant extent.

I will admit I missed most of his reading of the member of the audience, so won't comment on its accuracy. (Got it on tape though - I'll have a look it it)

Nevertheless, you must admit that it looks *extremely* like a cop-out for him to suddenly change from a subject who can't give feedback to one who can. Ideally, they should have got that audience member behind the screen.

Peter Morris · 23rd August 2003, 03:49 PM

Quote:

Talk about forgetting the misses

My main objection to Randi is that in his tests he uses fraudulent methods just the same as the subjects he tests. This does NOT mean I believe his subjects, only that I see through Randi's own lies.

This TV show is a case in point.

Randi has often talked about a demonstration he has done to believers in astrology. He selects several volunteers, one for each star sign, gives a profile based on their horoscopes to each volunteer, then asks them how well the profile matched them. Randi claims that all of them always say its a perfect match, then Randi smugly announces that all subjects had exactly the same profile.

Well, on this show he did more or less the same trick. It was 5 subjects, given profiles based on a questionaire, but essentially the same trick.

Hetre's the thing, the presenter said she could see the subjects nodding and smiling as they read their profiles. Then she asked them to put up their hands if they thought it a good match for themselves.

Only one of the five put up his hand.

Then Randi started speaking about how anyone would have agreed to the profile, ignoring the fact that only one did so. The presenter seemed convinced that He'd got 5 out of 5, and Randi carried on exactly as if he had done so.

So, here we have an example of Randi's audience remembering his successes and forgetting the misses. Randi uses the same tricks that the phoney mediums do. Note carefully what I said, that I recognise that mediums use tricks, but also note that Randi uses the same tricks. I see him do similar things in virtually everything he does.

I don't believe in psychic powers, especially not speaking to the dead, but I'm open minded about it. I would like to see alleged psychics given a fair chance to prove their claims. But Randi, IMHO, does not give them a fair chance, he pulls tricks like this.

I wish skeptics would apply a little critical thinking towards Randi.

Peter Morris · 23rd August 2003, 03:53 PM

BTW, is this the same show that was broadcast on the Discovery Channel, and discussed in another thread?

http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showt...threadid=25317

23rd August 2003, 05:00 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Peter Morris
BTW, is this the same show that was broadcast on the Discovery Channel, and discussed in another thread?

http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showt...threadid=25317

Yes

walthrup48 · 23rd August 2003, 05:05 PM

Originally posted by Peter Morris Then she asked them to put up their hands if they thought it a good match for themselves.

No, the participants were asked to put up their hands if they had given the profiles a 5 with "5 being the most accurate, so if you really feel he's got it on the button give him a 5" - not just a 'good match'.

The fact that the presenter said she could see the [other] subjects nodding and smiling as they read their profiles seems, to me at least, to suggest that they too thought the (identical) profiles were accurate. I don't find it unreasonable to accept this as an effective demonstration of the Barnum effect.

Oso · 23rd August 2003, 05:28 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Peter Morris
...
I wish skeptics would apply a little critical thinking towards Randi.

You mean he's NOT psychic? Tell me it's not true!

Peter Morris · 23rd August 2003, 06:08 PM

To JimTheBrit:

Quote:

The fact that the presenter said she could see the [other] subjects nodding and smiling as they read their profiles seems, to me at least, to suggest that they too thought the (identical) profiles were accurate

Yes, but did you actually see them nodding and smiling, or did you just take her word for it? The impression you got was based mostly on her words, not on actual results. Sorry if I didn't make that point clear in my original post.

The results of the test were a lot less impressive than Randi would have you believe.

To Oso:

Quote:

You mean he's NOT psychic? Tell me it's not true!

Crittical thinking should not just be applied to claimed psychics, it should also be applied to their testers.

T'ai Chi · 23rd August 2003, 06:38 PM

It is tv. It is entertainment whether done by psychics or by Randi. I would like, someday, to see serious show present scientific studies.

Yahweh · 23rd August 2003, 09:03 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
Interesting.

44% of the audience were believers in survival before the start of the show, after James Randi did his debunking act the believers grew to 55%!

Questioner Yahweh says "where did this information come from".

Cynical Yawheh says "this is only a demonstration on the gullibility of some folk".

Analytical Yahweh says "these statistics in no way prove the psychics are legitimate, try not to take the meaning of the statistics out of context".

Philosopher Yahweh says "kitties are adorable".

fsol · 24th August 2003, 03:11 AM

Quote:

He explained right at the beginning of the programme that he cannot pick and choose which deceased people communicate with him. But the information he received did fit a member of the audience to a significant extent.

eh? That is not what I saw. Unless having a scar on your left forearm is rare, I don't see where your "significant extent" comes from. He gave out two names neither of which had a connection to the member of the audience. It was just a clear case of him trying to wiggle and save face , given his complete failure on the blind reading.

walthrup48 · 24th August 2003, 04:19 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
He explained right at the beginning of the programme that he cannot pick and choose which deceased people communicate with him.

Yet he is confident enough that the correct spirits will contact him at appropriate times, to offer private readings to clients?

"These sessions take place at a relaxed pace when Keith will make contact with your loved one(s) who have left the material world and now dwell in the place he terms Heaven." http://www.keith-charles.com/readings.html

walthrup48 · 24th August 2003, 12:21 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Peter Morris
To JimTheBrit: Yes, but did you actually see them nodding and smiling, or did you just take her word for it? The impression you got was based mostly on her words, not on actual results.

No, my impression was based on more than this - firstly, both Garraway (the presenter) and Randi acknowledged that subjects were nodding in agreement with the profiles and a number of them were shown doing so. Out of the 5 volunteers given profiles, 4 were shown on camera during the experiment, albeit briefly. The man who rated the profile as a 5 score, another man who was nodding enthusiastically, an older woman who gave a nod as she read her profile and a younger girl with glasses who was smiling as she read. I still hold with my opinion.

Hetre's the thing, the presenter said she could see the subjects nodding and smiling as they read their profiles. Then she asked them to put up their hands if they thought it a good match for themselves.

Only one of the five put up his hand.

No, see my previous post. Would you agree that anyone also giving the profile a 4 would also have thought it a good match? I would. Unfortunately we never found out how many 4 scores there were.

Then Randi started speaking about how anyone would have agreed to the profile, ignoring the fact that only one did so. The presenter seemed convinced that He'd got 5 out of 5, and Randi carried on exactly as if he had done so.

No, it wasn't a case of only one person agreeing to the profile, it was a case of only one person giving the profile a score of 5. There's a difference. Again, wouldn't a score of 4 be seen as also agreeing with the profile?

So, here we have an example of Randi's audience remembering his successes and forgetting the misses.

You're assumption is that, because only one person scored 5, all the other volunteers scores can be considered misses. I do not agree with this assumption. I do not think your argument holds.

Regards,
Jim.

Peter Morris · 24th August 2003, 01:39 PM

Quote:

You're assumption is that, because only one person scored 5, all the other volunteers scores can be considered misses.

Totally wrong. I simply point out that you, and others in the audience, assume 5 out of 5 hits without actual evidence of such.

Personally, I don't make assumptions either way. They may have been hits, or they may have been misses. I don't know.

But you are allowing yourself to assume without evidence. Randi is pulling the same trick the phoney psychics do. He showed one hit, and allowed them to assume the rest were hits too.

Captain_Snort · 24th August 2003, 03:38 PM

The thing that got is I started off as a disbeliever and now I believe in psychic powers after this show.

That fat woman psychic who claimed she drew the face of the womans granny (and didn't) was so full of hatred towards our Mr. Randi it was possible to feel it from the screen. Surely this is evidence.

Martin · 24th August 2003, 03:41 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Peter Morris
The results of the test were a lot less impressive than Randi would have you believe

Quote:

Originally posted by Peter Morris
Personally, I don't make assumptions either way. They may have been hits, or they may have been misses. I don't know

Dub · 24th August 2003, 06:41 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by JimTheBrit

Yet he is confident enough that the correct spirits will contact him at appropriate times, to offer private readings to clients?

"These sessions take place at a relaxed pace when Keith will make contact with your loved one(s) who have left the material world and now dwell in the place he terms Heaven." http://www.keith-charles.com/readings.html

This was something I picked up on as well. During the 'experiment' when he was seperated from the other person by a screen and was not allowed to answer back apart from 'yes' or 'no' was a complete flop. He then started 'fishing' the audience by asking whether anyone has a scar on their left arm or hand - quite a sure guess. The connection was supposed to be for Brenda or Barbara - the person in the auidence, who was allowed to talk back to the psychic, replied 'yes' however her 'B' connection was for an aunt 'Beatty'. The medium contiuned with this lady but still did pretty badly. His claim that he couldnt always contact specific people and infact it is difficult for him to do so. Of course he had no such problem with the one-to-one reading he performed for the show - which was not live. With such a poor ability to contact specific people why does he hold one-to-one seissions? Surely most of them will be failures, with him not being able to pick-up the specified person?

Edited to add: Captain Snort - that is the best avatar i've ever seen!

thaiboxerken · 24th August 2003, 07:10 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
Interesting.

44% of the audience were believers in survival before the start of the show, after James Randi did his debunking act the believers grew to 55%!

This is merely evidence that the majority of people in the world are stupid.

walthrup48 · 25th August 2003, 02:14 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
Interesting.

44% of the audience were believers in survival before the start of the show, after James Randi did his debunking act the believers grew to 55%!

You must have been watching a different show, Luciananarchy.

First poll:
Believers: 44%
Non-believers: 19%
Undecided: 37%

Second poll:
Believers: 43%
Non-believers: 28%
Undecided: 29%

Third poll:
Believers: 44%
Non-believers: 29%
Undecided: 27%

Edited to add:
Having rewatched the show, I found I'd missed the fourth, final poll which shows that Lucianarchy's figures were correct. Apologies all round, especially to Lucianarchy.

Fourth Poll:
Believers: 54%
Non-believers: 24%
Undecided: 22%

walthrup48 · 25th August 2003, 04:19 PM

Bumped to bring to your attention my correction in the above post.

Lucianarchy · 25th August 2003, 04:34 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by JimTheBrit

Edited to add:
Having rewatched the show, I found I'd missed the fourth, final poll which shows that Lucianarchy's figures were correct. Apologies all round, especially to Lucianarchy.

Fourth Poll:
Believers: 54%
Non-believers: 24%
Undecided: 22%

No problem. To be honest I hadn't noticed your post. But thanks anyway.

Did you watch the end of Ch4 Psychic Night? They had Dr Who and Wheel-on Wiseman to do the top 10 ways to talk to the dead. Completely missing the point, that that is not what mediums claim to do! I think it was light hearted though, just so the pseudo-skeptics didn't get nightmares after watching the real mediums at work!

18th August 2003, 11:24 AM	#1
Lucianarchy Banned Join Date: Oct 2001 Posts: 2,158	Psychic Night Ch4(UK) Sat23rd Aug 20:00 Psychic Night Living With The Dead Living with the Dead looks at the spectacular growth in the number of people visiting psychics and those interested in psychic phenomena. The high point of this trend was the attempt earlier this year to contact Princess Diana through a sance, screened on an American pay-per-view channel. [subtitles] 21:00 Psychic Night Ultimate Psychic Challenge For the first time on British television, a well-known, respected psychic goes head-to-head with a professional sceptic in a unique challenge to prove their beliefs. Filmed in front of a live studio audience, Keith Charles, known as the psychic detective, and James Randi, who travels around the States exposing evangelists and psychics whom he believes are frauds, attempt to lay each other's arguments to rest once and for all. [subtitles] 22:30 Psychic Night: Top Ten Ways To Contact The Dead A look at the dos and don'ts for those wishing to commune with the dead - a kind of 'Which Witch'. The methods of contacting the spirit world investigated by the programme include Scrying, Sances, Ouija Boards, Spirit Summoning by White Magic, Past Life Regression, Trance Channelling, Transfiguration, Voodoo, Electronic Voice Phenomena and Afterlife Telegrams. [subtitles] http://www.channel4.com/listings/C4/...t=5&position=5
Lucianarchy Banned Join Date: Oct 2001 Posts: 2,158

19th August 2003, 04:57 AM	#2
davidhorman Muse Join Date: Oct 2001 Posts: 984	And the next night, you can watch what could possibly be the strangest piece of reality TV ever, "On Holiday With The Gellers." Oh, and if anyone missed it, last week Uri was on Celebrity Stars In Their Eyes singing "She" as Charles Aznavour (sp) David
davidhorman Muse Join Date: Oct 2001 Posts: 984

23rd August 2003, 05:34 AM	#3
Lucianarchy Banned Join Date: Oct 2001 Posts: 2,158	.
Lucianarchy Banned Join Date: Oct 2001 Posts: 2,158

23rd August 2003, 02:17 PM	#4
Lucianarchy Banned Join Date: Oct 2001 Posts: 2,158	Interesting. 44% of the audience were believers in survival before the start of the show, after James Randi did his debunking act the believers grew to 55%!
Lucianarchy Banned Join Date: Oct 2001 Posts: 2,158

23rd August 2003, 02:25 PM	#5
davidhorman Muse Join Date: Oct 2001 Posts: 984	Actually it was directly after Keith Charles' demonstration of his psychic powers - Randi was on much earlier. And overall the amount of nonbelievers increased as well, as less and less people sat on the fence. Talk about forgetting the misses... And in the description of how Keith Charles apparently solved a murder in America, they missed the part where they drove him past the murder scene three times and he never picked up any vibes. David
davidhorman Muse Join Date: Oct 2001 Posts: 984

23rd August 2003, 02:27 PM	#6
Interesting Ian Guest Posts: n/a	Quote: Originally posted by davidhorman Actually it was directly after Keith Charles' demonstration of his psychic powers - Randi was on much earlier. And overall the amount of nonbelievers increased as well, as less and less people sat on the fence. Talk about forgetting the misses... And in the description of how Keith Charles apparently solved a murder in America, they missed the part where they drove him past the murder scene three times and he never picked up any vibes. David Proof he's a fake!
Interesting Ian Guest Posts: n/a

23rd August 2003, 02:41 PM	#7
Mendor Critical Thinker Join Date: Jan 2003 Posts: 298	Utter and complete cop-out from Keith Charles on the audience-member-behind-the-screen section. Also notable that the first woman he read gave "no" answers repeatedly towards the end, yet when asked how accurate Charles had been, responded "Totally"!! how the hell did Randi do that thing with the cards?
Mendor Critical Thinker Join Date: Jan 2003 Posts: 298	__________________ Member of the Liberati

23rd August 2003, 03:16 PM	#8
Interesting Ian Guest Posts: n/a	Quote: Originally posted by Mendor [b]Utter and complete cop-out from Keith Charles on the audience-member-behind-the-screen section. He explained right at the beginning of the programme that he cannot pick and choose which deceased people communicate with him. But the information he received did fit a member of the audience to a significant extent.
Interesting Ian Guest Posts: n/a

23rd August 2003, 03:25 PM	#9
Mendor Critical Thinker Join Date: Jan 2003 Posts: 298	Quote: Originally posted by Interesting Ian He explained right at the beginning of the programme that he cannot pick and choose which deceased people communicate with him. I wonder why he tried to do it in the first place then? Assuming he's real, why would he have even attempted to read a specific person of his choosing if he thought that was impossible? Quote: But the information he received did fit a member of the audience to a significant extent. I will admit I missed most of his reading of the member of the audience, so won't comment on its accuracy. (Got it on tape though - I'll have a look it it) Nevertheless, you must admit that it looks extremely like a cop-out for him to suddenly change from a subject who can't give feedback to one who can. Ideally, they should have got that audience member behind the screen.
Mendor Critical Thinker Join Date: Jan 2003 Posts: 298	__________________ Member of the Liberati

23rd August 2003, 03:49 PM	#10
Peter Morris Muse Join Date: May 2003 Posts: 939	Quote: Talk about forgetting the misses My main objection to Randi is that in his tests he uses fraudulent methods just the same as the subjects he tests. This does NOT mean I believe his subjects, only that I see through Randi's own lies. This TV show is a case in point. Randi has often talked about a demonstration he has done to believers in astrology. He selects several volunteers, one for each star sign, gives a profile based on their horoscopes to each volunteer, then asks them how well the profile matched them. Randi claims that all of them always say its a perfect match, then Randi smugly announces that all subjects had exactly the same profile. Well, on this show he did more or less the same trick. It was 5 subjects, given profiles based on a questionaire, but essentially the same trick. Hetre's the thing, the presenter said she could see the subjects nodding and smiling as they read their profiles. Then she asked them to put up their hands if they thought it a good match for themselves. Only one of the five put up his hand. Then Randi started speaking about how anyone would have agreed to the profile, ignoring the fact that only one did so. The presenter seemed convinced that He'd got 5 out of 5, and Randi carried on exactly as if he had done so. So, here we have an example of Randi's audience remembering his successes and forgetting the misses. Randi uses the same tricks that the phoney mediums do. Note carefully what I said, that I recognise that mediums use tricks, but also note that Randi uses the same tricks. I see him do similar things in virtually everything he does. I don't believe in psychic powers, especially not speaking to the dead, but I'm open minded about it. I would like to see alleged psychics given a fair chance to prove their claims. But Randi, IMHO, does not give them a fair chance, he pulls tricks like this. I wish skeptics would apply a little critical thinking towards Randi.
Peter Morris Muse Join Date: May 2003 Posts: 939

23rd August 2003, 03:53 PM	#11
Peter Morris Muse Join Date: May 2003 Posts: 939	BTW, is this the same show that was broadcast on the Discovery Channel, and discussed in another thread? http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showt...threadid=25317
Peter Morris Muse Join Date: May 2003 Posts: 939

23rd August 2003, 05:00 PM	#12
Interesting Ian Guest Posts: n/a	Quote: Originally posted by Peter Morris BTW, is this the same show that was broadcast on the Discovery Channel, and discussed in another thread? http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showt...threadid=25317 Yes
Interesting Ian Guest Posts: n/a

23rd August 2003, 05:05 PM	#13
walthrup48 Graduate Poster Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 1,079	Originally posted by Peter Morris Then she asked them to put up their hands if they thought it a good match for themselves. No, the participants were asked to put up their hands if they had given the profiles a 5 with "5 being the most accurate, so if you really feel he's got it on the button give him a 5" - not just a 'good match'. The fact that the presenter said she could see the [other] subjects nodding and smiling as they read their profiles seems, to me at least, to suggest that they too thought the (identical) profiles were accurate. I don't find it unreasonable to accept this as an effective demonstration of the Barnum effect.

23rd August 2003, 05:28 PM	#14
Oso Thinker Join Date: Sep 2001 Posts: 170	Quote: Originally posted by Peter Morris ... I wish skeptics would apply a little critical thinking towards Randi. You mean he's NOT psychic? Tell me it's not true!
Oso Thinker Join Date: Sep 2001 Posts: 170

23rd August 2003, 06:08 PM	#15
Peter Morris Muse Join Date: May 2003 Posts: 939	To JimTheBrit: Quote: The fact that the presenter said she could see the [other] subjects nodding and smiling as they read their profiles seems, to me at least, to suggest that they too thought the (identical) profiles were accurate Yes, but did you actually see them nodding and smiling, or did you just take her word for it? The impression you got was based mostly on her words, not on actual results. Sorry if I didn't make that point clear in my original post. The results of the test were a lot less impressive than Randi would have you believe. To Oso: Quote: You mean he's NOT psychic? Tell me it's not true! Crittical thinking should not just be applied to claimed psychics, it should also be applied to their testers.
Peter Morris Muse Join Date: May 2003 Posts: 939

23rd August 2003, 06:38 PM	#16
T'ai Chi Penultimate Amazing Join Date: May 2003 Posts: 11,235	It is tv. It is entertainment whether done by psychics or by Randi. I would like, someday, to see serious show present scientific studies.
	__________________ http://www.statisticool.com

23rd August 2003, 09:03 PM	#17
Yahweh Ayay ashay ayay Join Date: Apr 2003 Posts: 9,029	Quote: Originally posted by Lucianarchy Interesting. 44% of the audience were believers in survival before the start of the show, after James Randi did his debunking act the believers grew to 55%! Questioner Yahweh says "where did this information come from". Cynical Yawheh says "this is only a demonstration on the gullibility of some folk". Analytical Yahweh says "these statistics in no way prove the psychics are legitimate, try not to take the meaning of the statistics out of context". Philosopher Yahweh says "kitties are adorable".
Yahweh Ayay ashay ayay Join Date: Apr 2003 Posts: 9,029

24th August 2003, 03:11 AM	#18
fsol tinCAN Kiajaroovah Join Date: Nov 2002 Posts: 1,064	Quote: He explained right at the beginning of the programme that he cannot pick and choose which deceased people communicate with him. But the information he received did fit a member of the audience to a significant extent. eh? That is not what I saw. Unless having a scar on your left forearm is rare, I don't see where your "significant extent" comes from. He gave out two names neither of which had a connection to the member of the audience. It was just a clear case of him trying to wiggle and save face , given his complete failure on the blind reading.
fsol tinCAN Kiajaroovah Join Date: Nov 2002 Posts: 1,064

24th August 2003, 04:19 AM	#19
walthrup48 Graduate Poster Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 1,079	Quote: Originally posted by Interesting Ian He explained right at the beginning of the programme that he cannot pick and choose which deceased people communicate with him. Yet he is confident enough that the correct spirits will contact him at appropriate times, to offer private readings to clients? "These sessions take place at a relaxed pace when Keith will make contact with your loved one(s) who have left the material world and now dwell in the place he terms Heaven." http://www.keith-charles.com/readings.html

24th August 2003, 12:21 PM	#20
walthrup48 Graduate Poster Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 1,079	Quote: Originally posted by Peter Morris To JimTheBrit: Yes, but did you actually see them nodding and smiling, or did you just take her word for it? The impression you got was based mostly on her words, not on actual results. No, my impression was based on more than this - firstly, both Garraway (the presenter) and Randi acknowledged that subjects were nodding in agreement with the profiles and a number of them were shown doing so. Out of the 5 volunteers given profiles, 4 were shown on camera during the experiment, albeit briefly. The man who rated the profile as a 5 score, another man who was nodding enthusiastically, an older woman who gave a nod as she read her profile and a younger girl with glasses who was smiling as she read. I still hold with my opinion. Hetre's the thing, the presenter said she could see the subjects nodding and smiling as they read their profiles. Then she asked them to put up their hands if they thought it a good match for themselves. Only one of the five put up his hand. No, see my previous post. Would you agree that anyone also giving the profile a 4 would also have thought it a good match? I would. Unfortunately we never found out how many 4 scores there were. Then Randi started speaking about how anyone would have agreed to the profile, ignoring the fact that only one did so. The presenter seemed convinced that He'd got 5 out of 5, and Randi carried on exactly as if he had done so. No, it wasn't a case of only one person agreeing to the profile, it was a case of only one person giving the profile a score of 5. There's a difference. Again, wouldn't a score of 4 be seen as also agreeing with the profile? So, here we have an example of Randi's audience remembering his successes and forgetting the misses. You're assumption is that, because only one person scored 5, all the other volunteers scores can be considered misses. I do not agree with this assumption. I do not think your argument holds. Regards, Jim.

24th August 2003, 01:39 PM	#21
Peter Morris Muse Join Date: May 2003 Posts: 939	Quote: You're assumption is that, because only one person scored 5, all the other volunteers scores can be considered misses. Totally wrong. I simply point out that you, and others in the audience, assume 5 out of 5 hits without actual evidence of such. Personally, I don't make assumptions either way. They may have been hits, or they may have been misses. I don't know. But you are allowing yourself to assume without evidence. Randi is pulling the same trick the phoney psychics do. He showed one hit, and allowed them to assume the rest were hits too.
Peter Morris Muse Join Date: May 2003 Posts: 939

24th August 2003, 03:38 PM	#22
Captain_Snort Muse Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Scotland Posts: 668	The thing that got is I started off as a disbeliever and now I believe in psychic powers after this show. That fat woman psychic who claimed she drew the face of the womans granny (and didn't) was so full of hatred towards our Mr. Randi it was possible to feel it from the screen. Surely this is evidence.
	__________________ UKLS - 1984-2003, 2007- Girl 6: Besides, it's like he's an absentee landowner... And, I hate slumlords... ;-)

24th August 2003, 03:41 PM	#23
Martin Sceptic Join Date: Feb 2002 Posts: 898	Quote: Originally posted by Peter Morris The results of the test were a lot less impressive than Randi would have you believe Quote: Originally posted by Peter Morris Personally, I don't make assumptions either way. They may have been hits, or they may have been misses. I don't know
Martin Sceptic Join Date: Feb 2002 Posts: 898	__________________ So the Universe is not quite as you thought it was. You had better rearrange your beliefs, then. Because you certainly can't rearrange the Universe. Isaac Asimov and Robert Silverberg, Nightfall

24th August 2003, 06:41 PM	#24
Dub Thinker Join Date: Nov 2001 Posts: 247	Quote: Originally posted by JimTheBrit Yet he is confident enough that the correct spirits will contact him at appropriate times, to offer private readings to clients? "These sessions take place at a relaxed pace when Keith will make contact with your loved one(s) who have left the material world and now dwell in the place he terms Heaven." http://www.keith-charles.com/readings.html This was something I picked up on as well. During the 'experiment' when he was seperated from the other person by a screen and was not allowed to answer back apart from 'yes' or 'no' was a complete flop. He then started 'fishing' the audience by asking whether anyone has a scar on their left arm or hand - quite a sure guess. The connection was supposed to be for Brenda or Barbara - the person in the auidence, who was allowed to talk back to the psychic, replied 'yes' however her 'B' connection was for an aunt 'Beatty'. The medium contiuned with this lady but still did pretty badly. His claim that he couldnt always contact specific people and infact it is difficult for him to do so. Of course he had no such problem with the one-to-one reading he performed for the show - which was not live. With such a poor ability to contact specific people why does he hold one-to-one seissions? Surely most of them will be failures, with him not being able to pick-up the specified person? Edited to add: Captain Snort - that is the best avatar i've ever seen!
Dub Thinker Join Date: Nov 2001 Posts: 247	__________________ "Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing ever happened." Sir Winston Churchill "Faith is the great cop-out, the great excuse to evade the need to think and evaluate evidence. Faith is belief in spite of, even perhaps because of, the lack of evidence." Richard Dawkins "Our ignorance is God; what we know is science." Robert Ingersoll "The meme for blind faith secures its own perpetuation by the simple unconscious expedient of discouraging rational inquiry." Richard Dawkins "Paranormal phenomena have a habit of going away whenever they are tested under rigorous conditions. This is why the $1 million reward of James Randi is safe." Richard Dawkins

24th August 2003, 07:10 PM	#25
thaiboxerken Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Portland, Oregon Posts: 20,970	Quote: Originally posted by Lucianarchy Interesting. 44% of the audience were believers in survival before the start of the show, after James Randi did his debunking act the believers grew to 55%! This is merely evidence that the majority of people in the world are stupid.
	__________________ All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power & profit - Thomas Paine

25th August 2003, 02:14 AM	#26
walthrup48 Graduate Poster Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 1,079	Quote: Originally posted by Lucianarchy Interesting. 44% of the audience were believers in survival before the start of the show, after James Randi did his debunking act the believers grew to 55%! You must have been watching a different show, Luciananarchy. First poll: Believers: 44% Non-believers: 19% Undecided: 37% Second poll: Believers: 43% Non-believers: 28% Undecided: 29% Third poll: Believers: 44% Non-believers: 29% Undecided: 27% Edited to add: Having rewatched the show, I found I'd missed the fourth, final poll which shows that Lucianarchy's figures were correct. Apologies all round, especially to Lucianarchy. Fourth Poll: Believers: 54% Non-believers: 24% Undecided: 22%

25th August 2003, 04:19 PM	#27
walthrup48 Graduate Poster Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 1,079	Bumped to bring to your attention my correction in the above post.

25th August 2003, 04:34 PM	#28
Lucianarchy Banned Join Date: Oct 2001 Posts: 2,158	Quote: Originally posted by JimTheBrit Edited to add: Having rewatched the show, I found I'd missed the fourth, final poll which shows that Lucianarchy's figures were correct. Apologies all round, especially to Lucianarchy. Fourth Poll: Believers: 54% Non-believers: 24% Undecided: 22% No problem. To be honest I hadn't noticed your post. But thanks anyway. Did you watch the end of Ch4 Psychic Night? They had Dr Who and Wheel-on Wiseman to do the top 10 ways to talk to the dead. Completely missing the point, that that is not what mediums claim to do! I think it was light hearted though, just so the pseudo-skeptics didn't get nightmares after watching the real mediums at work!
Lucianarchy Banned Join Date: Oct 2001 Posts: 2,158