I visited a psychic

[Zaira]

I visited a psychic a few years ago and she told me some amazing things, stuff no one could know about. How do they do it?

[Jocky]

I visited a psychic a few years ago and she told me some amazing things, stuff no one could know about. How do they do it?

Hi Zaira,

Good question! Many people are so baffled by the apparent "accuracy" of psychic readings that they find themselves assuming there must be something in it.

In fact, there is absolutely no good evidence for the existence of paranormal psychic powers: OTOH, there is a great deal of evidence for the mundane techniques which are used (both knowingly and unknowingly) by those who claim such abilities.

There are others here who know more about this that I do, but allow me to point you in the direction of a good place to start (http://skepdic.com/psychic.html) in exploring this issue. This page will introduce you to the history of psychic claims, the main techniques which are used and some of the reasons why those who claim to have scientific evidence for the existence of psychic powers are mistaken.

Here's a key quote to start you off:


the accuracy of psychic predictions is grossly overrated [because] many people do not understand how psychics use techniques such as hot and cold reading. The accuracy of premonitions and prophecies is also grossly exaggerated because of lack of understanding of confirmation bias and the law of truly large numbers; their accuracy is also exaggerated because of ignorance about how memory works, especially about how dreams and premonitions are often filled in after the fact.

Happy reading! If further questions occur to you, please feel free to post them.

Jocky

[Julia]

I strongly recommend "The Psychology of the Psychic" by D Marks and R Kammann (published by Prometheus Books). It's a real eye-opener.

[Melanie]

UK stock of this book is currently Nil (I work for the Prometheus distributor here).

I'll ask the publisher if it's still in print (published 2000) and if it is, make sure they send some stock and then I'll add it to the UKS Bookstore.

[Zaira]

I’m still in ore. One time I asked for a reading for my husband and I took something of his along. She told me stuff about him that was amazing. Other stuff I didn’t know but when I asked him he confirmed most of it. Places he had visited that I didn’t know about. She told me she saw him riding and bumping around in a jeep, he had spent some time in Africa riding on rough ‘B’ roads in a jeep. On a lighter note she also told me that he was very well endowed. She said “I mean very well endowed.” and she had a smile on her face. I was a little embarrassed. Lol

She told one friend of mine to keep an eye on her husband because he was a ‘player’. They are divorced. She told another friend that her husband would fall off a ladder at work and have a heart attack. And he did.

If not psychic, how can they know these things?

Thanks for the links. I’m going to check them out later.

[Admin]

She told me she saw him riding and bumping around in a jeep, he had spent some time in Africa riding on rough ‘B’ roads in a jeep.

That's true for me as well.

Not Africa but then again, she never mentioned where or when. Some things can fit many people.


On a lighter note she also told me that he was very well endowed. She said “I mean very well endowed.”

That's true for me as well.


If not psychic, how can they know these things?

We don't know that she did. If you have a tape recording of a reading then it could be analysed but when it's just done from memory then we can't be sure it's reliable information.

In fact, our inability to accurately recall a lot of information given in a short time is one of the reasons that psychic readings 'work'.

[Jocky]

I do not know exactly how your 'psychic' pulled off every trick, although I can hazard some good guesses and I furnish you with these below. Please read some of this information and think about it properly.


One time I asked for a reading for my husband ... She told me stuff about him that was amazing ... Places he had visited that I didn’t know about

Exactly how many placenames did she reel off in the reading? What was her percentage hit rate?

Shotgunning (http://skepdic.com/shotgun.html)


She told me she saw him riding and bumping around in a jeep

I've been to both Africa and South America. That description would apply equally to virtually every journey I took enywhere on both continents.

Barnum Effect (http://skepdic.com/barnum.html)


On a lighter note she also told me that he was very well endowed. She said “I mean very well endowed.” and she had a smile on her face. I was a little embarrassed. Lol

Did you blush?

Cold reading (http://skepdic.com/coldread.html)


She told one friend of mine to keep an eye on her husband because he was a ‘player’. They are divorced.

Do you know how many marriages and in divorce because of adultery? A very large percentage.

Subjective validation (http://skepdic.com/subjectivevalidation.html)


She told another friend that her husband would fall off a ladder at work and have a heart attack. And he did.

Is that exactly what the psychic said - is there a recording?

Selective thinking (http://skepdic.com/selectiv.html)


If not psychic, how can they know these things?

Don't be fooled - they do not 'know' these things. They simply guess and infer them, and then act it up a bit in order to impress the client.

Note that if some of my guesses are wrong, that does not follow that the psychic possesses paranormal powers. That is a far, far less likely explanation than some form of trickery. There is no positive evidence at all for the existence of any form of psychic powers.

I am prepared to put my money where my mouth is. We at UKS are willing to organise proper tests for claimants of psychic ability, conducted according to mutually pre-agreed protocols. If you think you know someone who has such powers, please put them in touch with us!

ETA: John and I cross-posted there, but with very similar responses. We are of course psychic twins - and he's the Evil one >:D

[Araneus]

Did you blush?

Cold reading (http://skepdic.com/coldread.html)


Plus a lot of room for subjective interpretation as well. Who the hell is going to respond with "No, actually my husband is hung like a gerbil!"

[Zaira]

Jocky,

I was born in Glasgow and I believe Glaswegians are naturally sceptical. I arranged to see this particular psychic with some friends it was supposed to be for a laugh but needless to say it backfired. I am still very sceptical but also very curious. I was very quite, not answering or nodding, or affirming any of her 'guesses' and yet she still mentioned things that no one could know but me. I never went to see another one after that. But I haven't forgotten what she said and I just wondered if anyone had any answers for me. It's no big deal really - just curiosity.

[Jocky]

I was born in Glasgow and I believe Glaswegians are naturally sceptical.

As a Glaswegian myself I can only agree :smiley:


I am still very sceptical but also very curious ... I haven't forgotten what she said and I just wondered if anyone had any answers for me

I hope you find some of my answers thought-provoking.

Just one thing to bear in mind: human perception is extremely easy to fool. Every time you see a successful conjuring trick, your senses are fooled in this way, but you aren't confused by it because it does not purport to be anything other than a trick. We all want to trust our fellow man, and when somebody does a trick but claims that it's for real, there is a very strong inclination to believe without evidence.

Stay skeptical, not just about psychics but about many things - and it will reap benefits!


It's no big deal really - just curiosity

Sorry, I don't mean to jump down your throat. There is a tendancy to get strident about people about 'psychic' powers because it is such nonsense and there is so much of it about. You wouldn't believe some of the muppets we get coming through here!

[Zaira]

"Sorry, I don't mean to jump down your throat. There is a tendency to get strident about people about 'psychic' powers because it is such nonsense and there is so much of it about. You wouldn't believe some of the Muppets we get coming through here!"

Throat fine, honest. No Muppets here, just a wee Scottish woman with much curiosity and many questions. Lol

What is your take on the belief that we create our own reality?

[Jocky]

What is your take on the belief that we create our own reality?

Depends what you mean by "reality". What are you getting at, exactly?

If you mean "Can our past actions affect our future" then this is obviously true in a general sense.

If you mean "Our internal subjective beliefs can have a measurable effect on physical reality", this is an invalid hypothesis.

[Admin]

What is your take on the belief that we create our own reality?

It tends to get used by people who want to believe in things that are not real.

Things can't be real for some people and not real for others. This just leads to the logical absurdity that things can be both true and false at the same time.

There's more on this fallacy here: Relativism (http://www.ukskeptics.com/article.php?dir=articles&article=is_science_another_religion.php).

[Zaira]

“Things can't be real for some people and not real for others.”

Forgive me but this doesn’t make sense. Isn’t this what this forum is about…….. The things some people think are real and others do not?

[Zaira]

The reality I speak of is that which we create from the thoughts we entertain. The Law Of Attraction. Is it true that the quality of our life will depend on the quality of our thoughts?

[Jocky]

Isn’t this what this forum is about…….. The things some people think are real and others do not?

Not quite. Much of this forum is about things some people think are real, but the evidence (or lack of it) shows that they are mistaken.

The disagreement comes not because of a clash between beliefs (as 'believers' often mistakenly assume) but due to the dissonance between subjective belief and objective reality.

For instance I do not "believe" that there is no such thing as psychic ability. I take that position on the logical basis that there is no evidence for it despite many attempts to locate some.

Were the balance of evidence to change in future, I would reassess that position. That is not at all the same thing as 'belief'.

Reality is what it is - not what humans would like it to be.

[Jocky]

The reality I speak of is that which we create from the thoughts we entertain. The Law Of Attraction. Is it true that the quality of our life will depend on the quality of our thoughts?

"Quality of life" is a subjective notion, and therefore this could be subjectively true for individuals. But that's not what I understand as the Law of Attraction (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_Attraction).

This "law" claims that your thoughts can materially change reality, and this, I'm afraid, is nonsense.

[Zaira]

What are you getting at, exactly?

I'm not sure I can say exactly. But it's a bit like this.........

Thought is creative. All thought good and bad is creative and tends to become a material thing. I believe I am creating my own reality from the thoughts I entertain. I choose to cultivate positive thinking because I know the quality of my life will depend on the quality of my thoughts. I awake every morning and think about all the souls in my reality and I say, "I love you all. Have a great day."

[Admin]

“Things can't be real for some people and not real for others.”

Forgive me but this doesn’t make sense. Isn’t this what this forum is about…….. The things some people think are real and others do not?

No, things cannot be true and false at the same time (!)

Skeptics aim to find out what is real from what is not - and that's not just a matter of opinion.

Have a read of What is Skepticism? (http://www.ukskeptics.com/article.php?dir=articles&article=what_is_skepticism.php) for an overview of how we approach things. The whole point is that whenever we adopt a position on some matter that we can justify that position. That means backing it up with evidence.

[Admin]

What are you getting at, exactly?

I'm not sure I can say exactly. But it's a bit like this.........

Thought is creative. All thought good and bad is creative and tends to become a material thing. I believe I am creating my own reality from the thoughts I entertain. I choose to cultivate positive thinking because I know the quality of my life will depend on the quality of my thoughts. I awake every morning and think about all the souls in my reality and I say, "I love you all. Have a great day."

From a psychology point of view it's true that we all construct our own version of reality. Our past experiences, our culture, personality type etc., all contribute to how we view the world.

That doesn't mean that what we believe to be true necessarily is true however. People can develop and hold false beliefs.

Some people believe they talk to, and have a relationship with, angels for example. Their belief in angels may be uplifting to them and help them cope with life in general but it doesn't make angels real.

And false belief, however nice it may appear, can also be harmful. People who believe in alternative medicines, for example, can end up dead if they develop cancer and stick with the alternatives to real treatment.

Believing that Reiki can cure cancer does not mean that Reiki can cure cancer - that's very important to understand.

[Zaira]

"Have a read of What is Skepticism? for an overview of how we approach things. The whole point is that whenever we adopt a position on some matter that we can justify that position. That means backing it up with evidence."

Does this exclude open-mindedness?

[Jocky]

All thought good and bad is creative and tends to become a material thing.

Thoughts are not material things (except in a biochemical sense which is not relevant here). I think you are confused between the literal and metaphorical meanings of the word "creative".


I believe I am creating my own reality from the thoughts I entertain. I choose to cultivate positive thinking because I know the quality of my life will depend on the quality of my thoughts. I awake every morning and think about all the souls in my reality and I say, "I love you all. Have a great day."

Fine, if that is a way of approaching life which works for you. But it has nothing to do with physical reality. It is subjective.

Do you understand the distinction I draw between subjective thoughts and physiscal reality?

[Jocky]

"Have a read of What is Skepticism? for an overview of how we approach things. The whole point is that whenever we adopt a position on some matter that we can justify that position. That means backing it up with evidence."

Does this exclude open-mindedness?

Not at all - it's the very essence of open-mindedness!

'Belief' takes a dogmatic approach of assuming that certain things are true and then continuing to assert them regardless of the evidence. This is an inflexible, closed-minsed world view, allowing no possiblitiy of deviation from a pre-determined position.

Scientific skepticism assesses claims on the basis of the available evidence, and arrives at a conclusion on that basis. Consequently, if the evidence changes, so could the conclusion.

Next little bit of reading for you: The Open Mind (http://www.skeptics.org.uk/article.php?dir=articles&article=the_open_mind.php)

[Zaira]

Someone is innocent until proved guilty.

Some people choose to simply believe something, even without much evidence, until it‘s proved otherwise.

Some of us have faith until we believe and then we believe until we know - one way or the other.

[Araneus]

Some people choose to simply believe something, even without much evidence, until it‘s proved otherwise.

Some of us have faith until we believe and then we believe until we know - one way or the other.

Faith is believing without evidence. There is no meaningful distinction between these two statements.

[Jocky]

Someone is innocent until proved guilty

True, but it's a false analogy. the legal system is a man-made structure: reality was there long before we evolved and will still be around when we're long extinct.


Some people choose to simply believe something, even without much evidence, until it‘s proved otherwise.

Unfortunately, this does not make sense because you cannot "prove otherwise". It is a logical impossiblity to "prove" that something does not exist. To do this, it would be necessary to examine the whole of reality, and that is obviously impossible.

The only logical way to assess belief against reality is to suspend judgement on things (i.e. be skeptical) unless there is positive evidence for it (which is subtly different from "proof", BTW).

[Zaira]

"What is an open-minded person? An open-minded person is someone who is willing to consider ideas, opinions and arguments purely on their merit. If an idea can be shown to be correct then an open-minded person will alter, or add to, their world-view with this new-found knowledge. If the new idea does not stand up to scrutiny however, it will be rejected. Having an open-mind does not mean embracing all kinds of weird ideas and uncritically accepting them no matter how bizarre or unsupported by evidence they are. The actual word used to describe a person who will believe in absolutely anything is: credulous."

I read it. Thanks. I think that's the problem. I thought being open minded was about believing in something until someone convinced you - with proof - otherwise. I have always thought of myself as being open-minded... I read a lot, took a lot onboard, and only dropped certain theories once it has been explained to me why such and such can't be true or can't work. I also have lots of questions - the sign of a really open-minded person. I suspect the problem here is that we are coming from different directions but heading for the same place. You (skeptics) come from the direction that it is not true or won't work until someone convinces you otherwise.

Is it a simple case of optimist and pessimist? Skeptics being the pessimists - waiting for proof. And believers the optimists?

I'm actually more of a pessimist - but I am an optimistic pessimist!

[Jocky]

I read it. Thanks. I think that's the problem. I thought being open minded was about believing in something until someone convinced you - with proof - otherwise. I have always thought of myself as being open-minded... I read a lot, took a lot onboard, and only dropped certain theories once it has been explained to me why such and such can't be true or can't work.

You're welcome. However, assessing reality that way round does not work - hence my point about it not being possible to prove negatives


I also have lots of questions.

You sure do!! This is a good thing, happy to help you find answers.


You (skeptics) come from the direction that it is not true or won't work until someone convinces you otherwise.

That's sort of it. The way I would put it is that we proceed on the assumption that something is false unless there is positive evidence to support it. Because one cannot prove a negative, that is the only logical way to proceed.


Is it a simple case of optimist and pessimist? Skeptics being the pessimists - waiting for proof. And believers the optimists?

Kind of - but the trouble is that the "optimistic" route allows you to make up what you want to be true without reference to what actually is true - and on that path lies many pitfalls.


I am an optimistic pessimist!

I'm an open-minded skeptic, for that matter :smiley:

[Admin]

I suspect the problem here is that we are coming from different directions but heading for the same place. You (skeptics) come from the direction that it is not true or won't work until someone convinces you otherwise.

Is it a simple case of optimist and pessimist? Skeptics being the pessimists - waiting for proof. And believers the optimists?

Yes, we do take the initial stance that we don't accept something as being true unless we have a good reason for doing so.

This is not just a simple arbitrary choice however; there are good logical reasons for doing things this way.

If you believe that something is true until it's proven false you're committing the logical fallacy known as the Argument to Ignorance (http://www.ukskeptics.com/article.php?dir=articles&article=argumentum_ad_ignorantiam.php). There's also the burden of proof requirement (as used in a court of law).

One major problem with things that aren't real (a universal negative) is that it's impossible to prove they don't exist. If something doesn't exist then there's no evidence available to prove that it doesn't!

The great thing about skepticism is that it reduces the chances of us believing in things that are false but leaves the way open for us to accept things if they're true.

So if someone says they can do something paranormal, we'll doubt it (suspend judgement) but keep a (truly) open mind and ask them to prove it or provide good evidence for it.

If they can't or won't provide any evidence to back up their claim then we have no good reason for accepting that it's true.

It's not really a pessimist/optimist thing. There are skeptics who would like to believe in the paranormal, for example, but they won't commit until there's robust evidence available.

[Zaira]

Jocky,

Thanks. That made a lot of sense.

"I'm an open-minded skeptic, for that matter."

Glad to hear it. O0

[Zaira]

"If you believe that something is true until it's proven false you're committing the logical fallacy known as the Argument to Ignorance. There's also the burden of proof requirement (as used in a court of law)."

Not exactly what I meant. But I do have a thing, because I'm a seeker and read a lot, I tend to believe that which rings true to a deeper part of me and disregard the rest. It's the stuff I have taken onboard that I now seek your views on.

[Zaira]

"One major problem with things that aren't real (a universal negative) is that it's impossible to prove they don't exist. If something doesn't exist then there's no evidence available to prove that it doesn't!"

I'm just getting this! And it's beginning to make a lot of sense.

[Araneus]

But I do have a thing, because I'm a seeker and read a lot, I tend to believe that which rings true to a deeper part of me and disregard the rest.

That's exactly the problem -- there is no connection between what "feels right" or what you want to be true, and what actually is true.

[Dr B]

See here

http://www.skeptics.org.uk/article.php?dir=articles&article=Seven_fallacies_of_thought_and_reason.php

for an interesting discussion of common everyday fallacy thinking. You might find it helpful. O0

[Cuddles]

The important thing to remember is that skeptics don't just ask for evidence for things that they don't personally believe in, they ask for evidence for everything. The trouble is that many people don't really understand exactly what is meant by "evidence", which then leads to the misunderstanding of the much used phrase "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence".

For example, I could claim that I have a pet cat in my house. I could also claim that I have a pet dinosaur in my house. Contrary to popular belief, both claims actually require exactly the same amount and type of evidence, the difference between them is that one already has lots of evidence. There is plenty of evidence that cats exist and there is plenty of evidence that they can be kept as pets, all that is left is for me to provide a picture of a cat in my house. However, for the dinosaur claim there is no evidence that any dinosaurs exist today and there is no evidence that they would have been able to be kept as pets. Both claims require exactly the same evidence, but in the cat case, most of it already exists and is freely available, while for the dinosaur case you would have to provide all of it in one go before anyone would even look at it seriously.

This is important when it comes to skepticism. It is not just about asking for evidence of something, it is about looking at all the evidence that already exists. For example, the "law of attraction", also commonly refered to at the moment as "the secret", claims that just thinking about something will make it happen. Now, this could be investigated scientifically by conducting double-blind trials and so on. However, there is really not much point. Everyone goes through every day of their life wanting various things, but most of them don't just happen out of the blue. There is therefore lots of evidence that "the secret" doesn't work. On the other hand, if you take a similar hypothesis that if you really want something and work for it you will get it, this is also something that most people do every day, and it seems to hold true. It is therefore far more reasonable to accept the latter claim, in the absence of some pretty extraordinary evidence in favour of the former.

And this also runs into the problem of proving a negative. To go back to the dinosaur example, if I claim that people keep dinosaurs as a pets there is no way for me to disprove it. I would have to check every single house and person in the world and see if they have a dinosaur, and even if I somehow managed that, all I would have proven is that there weren't any pet dinosaurs at that partiular moment in time. However, in order to prove it, all I have to do is show one example of a pet dinosaur. The burden of proof therefore lies with those making the positive claim.

Unfortunately there is also an element of personal experience when evaluating claims like this. For example, if someone claims to have a pet dinosaur the sensible position is for me to assume it doesn't exist until proven otherwise. However, someone claiming to have a pet cat is actually making an identical claim. It is only my knowledge and experience of cats and dinosaurs that allows me to assume that the person claiming the cat is telling the truth, while the one claiming the dinosaur isn't. This isn't much of a problem when dinosaurs are involved, but can be more of an issue with many other paranormal claims.

This is why it is very important to research things rather than just believing what you are told, and is why the default position is one of disbelief (one of the reasons at least). Claims about quantum physics and so on are so far out of the experience of most people that they just can't judge based on their own experience and knowledge, and it is here that many fraudulent claims can exploit people because they don't know enough about the subject themselves. If someone makes a claim, you ask for evidence. If there isn't any evidence then no matter how nice the idea sounds, you should not accept it as a valid claim.

[Zaira]

Cuddles,

Thank you for taking the time to explain that.

[Allo Allo]

The important thing to remember is that skeptics don't just ask for evidence for things that they don't personally believe in, they ask for evidence for everything. The trouble is that many people don't really understand exactly what is meant by "evidence", which then leads to the misunderstanding of the much used phrase "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence".....etc...

Nice post! I'm impressed....

[Dr B]

I would like to nominate this delightful contribution from Cuddles...


The important thing to remember is that skeptics don't just ask for evidence for things that they don't personally believe in, they ask for evidence for everything. The trouble is that many people don't really understand exactly what is meant by "evidence", which then leads to the misunderstanding of the much used phrase "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence".

For example, I could claim that I have a pet cat in my house. I could also claim that I have a pet dinosaur in my house. Contrary to popular belief, both claims actually require exactly the same amount and type of evidence, the difference between them is that one already has lots of evidence. There is plenty of evidence that cats exist and there is plenty of evidence that they can be kept as pets, all that is left is for me to provide a picture of a cat in my house. However, for the dinosaur claim there is no evidence that any dinosaurs exist today and there is no evidence that they would have been able to be kept as pets. Both claims require exactly the same evidence, but in the cat case, most of it already exists and is freely available, while for the dinosaur case you would have to provide all of it in one go before anyone would even look at it seriously.

This is important when it comes to skepticism. It is not just about asking for evidence of something, it is about looking at all the evidence that already exists. For example, the "law of attraction", also commonly refered to at the moment as "the secret", claims that just thinking about something will make it happen. Now, this could be investigated scientifically by conducting double-blind trials and so on. However, there is really not much point. Everyone goes through every day of their life wanting various things, but most of them don't just happen out of the blue. There is therefore lots of evidence that "the secret" doesn't work. On the other hand, if you take a similar hypothesis that if you really want something and work for it you will get it, this is also something that most people do every day, and it seems to hold true. It is therefore far more reasonable to accept the latter claim, in the absence of some pretty extraordinary evidence in favour of the former.

And this also runs into the problem of proving a negative. To go back to the dinosaur example, if I claim that people keep dinosaurs as a pets there is no way for me to disprove it. I would have to check every single house and person in the world and see if they have a dinosaur, and even if I somehow managed that, all I would have proven is that there weren't any pet dinosaurs at that partiular moment in time. However, in order to prove it, all I have to do is show one example of a pet dinosaur. The burden of proof therefore lies with those making the positive claim.

Unfortunately there is also an element of personal experience when evaluating claims like this. For example, if someone claims to have a pet dinosaur the sensible position is for me to assume it doesn't exist until proven otherwise. However, someone claiming to have a pet cat is actually making an identical claim. It is only my knowledge and experience of cats and dinosaurs that allows me to assume that the person claiming the cat is telling the truth, while the one claiming the dinosaur isn't. This isn't much of a problem when dinosaurs are involved, but can be more of an issue with many other paranormal claims.

This is why it is very important to research things rather than just believing what you are told, and is why the default position is one of disbelief (one of the reasons at least). Claims about quantum physics and so on are so far out of the experience of most people that they just can't judge based on their own experience and knowledge, and it is here that many fraudulent claims can exploit people because they don't know enough about the subject themselves. If someone makes a claim, you ask for evidence. If there isn't any evidence then no matter how nice the idea sounds, you should not accept it as a valid claim.

as a kind of 'best post' in the thread type of award (even though we dont have one :cheesy: )

I just hope many of those who should read and reflect on it - actually do.

[bindeweede]

An excellent post from Cuddles - clear and thought-provoking.

[Zaira]

"I just hope many of those who should read and reflect on it - actually do."
- Dr B


Cuddles,

Dr B is right. Just saying thank you for taking the time to explain that doesn't seem to be enough.


"The important thing to remember is that skeptics don't just ask for evidence for things that they don't personally believe in, they ask for evidence for everything."

Perhaps, but my point is that the net is vast, we can become overwhelmed with information, and we don't have the time to seek all the evidence. Some of us are prepared to simply trust our own instincts, intuition and inner knowing. Like you with the cat V dinosaur. You just knew you would be wasting your time researching someone's claim that they had a dinosaur in their house.

"This is important when it comes to skepticism. It is not just about asking for evidence of something, it is about looking at all the evidence that already exists."

Okay. And that's fine for all you science buffs out there but what about ordinary people like me? Again, I don't have the time to research all the evidence, so here I am asking questions. And, it must be said, enjoying the replies.

"Everyone goes through every day of their life wanting various things, but most of them don't just happen out of the blue. There is therefore lots of evidence that "the secret" doesn't work."

Not entirely in agreement. Positive and negative thinking does affect the outcome of events. I didn't like or agree with The Secret. However I do believe the Law Of Attraction works. We do tend to get that which we think or worry about the most. We draw it to us. Think positive and receive positive results. Think negative and receive negative results.

"On the other hand, if you take a similar hypothesis that if you really want something and work for it you will get it, this is also something that most people do every day, and it seems to hold true. It is therefore far more reasonable to accept the latter claim, in the absence of some pretty extraordinary evidence in favour of the former."

Yes I agree. Positive people working hard for something usually get it.

"Unfortunately there is also an element of personal experience when evaluating claims like this. For example, if someone claims to have a pet dinosaur the sensible position is for me to assume it doesn't exist until proven otherwise."

Dinosaurs are easy. Most claims are not that simple to categorize and dismiss. If someone tells me something and I am not sure whether to believe them or not, I am going to be polite and give them the benefit of the doubt - who am I to take away their illusions? If for some reason it catches my attention then I will share it with people like you and hope for it to be explained to my satisfaction, saving me the bother of researching it.

"If someone makes a claim, you ask for evidence. If there isn't any evidence then no matter how nice the idea sounds, you should not accept it as a valid claim."

Ordinary people talk about all sorts of things. I don't expect everyone I talk to, to provide proof of what they are telling me. Sometimes I simply have to weigh up my opinion of the person and their motives and make a decision on whether to believe them or not. If the topic is life important to me then of course I will need proof that what they say is true before I apply it to my particular problem.

Drifted away from the topic of skepticism at times there but I hope you get the point I'm trying to make. It isn't always about having or needing proof. Sometimes it is simply about what we choose to believe without proof or if there is no proof.


Be gentle with me and remember, The fool listens to no one, the wise man listens to everyone even the fool.

Thank you for your patience and understanding.

[Matt]

Here's (http://www.slate.com/id/2166211) athought provoking response to "the Law of Attraction" as promoted Oprah's support of "the Secret"

And below is my submission...



Good afternoon.

I've just read your interesting article on Oprah's promotion of "The Secret" after being referred from James Randi's Swift commentary.

I am one of those pragmatic IT folks you mention but it is a tale of a medical worst-case-scenario that I have to tell.

Simply put, my girlfriend developed the following symptoms: a late period and a one sided pain. Her period was over a week late and the bleeding irregular. She asked a doctor for advice and was told to take a pregnancy test and if it was negative not to worry but if it was positive to contact the GP again straight away.

She asked me why I thought she was being given this advice. My answer was that if she wasn't pregnant then the bleeding was explained as an unusually late period but if she was pregnant then the bleeding was something else and it was important to know what.
Well, the pregnancy test was positive and so she returned to the doctor. I considered the worst case scenario and so looked up the symptoms for an ectopic pregnancy.

This is a pregnancy where the embryo implants outside the uterus. It dooms the embryo and puts the life of the mother at great risk. The most important factor in successful treatment is to catch it early.

As such without wanting to alarm her I asked her to ensure that the GP was aware that she had recently recovered from a yeast infection. That she had had diarrhoea during this time and that although her blood pressure was only slightly below normal she more usually had hypertension. I didn't tell her that these were all symptoms of an ectopic pregnancy - we had lost our first child the year before. (He was still born after choking himself on his own umbilical chord.) So I didn't feel the need to give her any extra worries. The GP thought it was important for her to attend the hospital straight away but when she phoned the hospital to make an appointment she was told that in all likelihood it was just an implantation bleed and given an appontment date over a month away.

I double checked whether she had mentioned the symptoms I'd highlighted and it transpired that she mentioned them to the doctor but not the nurse at the hospital with who she had made the appointment.

I insisted that the contact the hospital again and emphasised the symptoms I'd mentioned and that she was worried about an ectopic pregnancy.

At the time I did not count this as a high probability and so was still going to work as normal and allowing her to make the calls during the day.

The nurse at the hospital stuck to her guns saying that even if it was an ectopic pregnancy it couldn't be detected on ultrasound until 9 weeks and she was only 5 weeks pregnant.

This did not agree with the information I'd looked up on the Internet which suggested that a quantitative hormone test and ultrasound should be done at 5 weeks if ectopic was suspected. Later research revealed that this was because none of the ultrasound machines available to them was under 5 years old and the the hormone test cost £70 a pop to reveal the 1 in 50 cases with similar symptoms that were actually due to ectopic pregnancies.

However we did take comfort from the nurse's insistence that ectopic was unlikely and that we did have an appointment for later in the month.

So we tried to wait it out but over the next few days the bleeding and pain got worse and the diarrhoea and unsettled feeling continued. With no further luck from the hospital in getting our appointment moved forward she returned to the GP. He was shocked that no admission had been made and provided her with a letter demanding an immediate appointment. The excuse that she was only 5 weeks pregnant was apparently medically insufficient. It assumed that the last period was a true menstrual period in the case of many complications this is by no means guaranteed.

This it seems was not enough to sway the nurse in charge of admissions. In fact I began to suspect that the person my girlfriend had described as a nurse may have had no medical training at all and simply be an admissions clerk.

At this point I was furious. As I've mentioned we had already lost one pregnancy and at that time had been told that we would be given extra special care for our next pregnancy. Clearly this was not the case. I took umbrage and called the consultant who had made us this promise. I only got through to his office secretary but it turns out that, this was enough. I explained that we had these symptoms. I explained that these were the symptoms of an ectopic pregnancy as I'd researched on the internet and in that I also recognised that the diagnosis was difficult in such situations but that due to our history we were understandably extra cautious and needed extra reassurance. I explained what treatment and testing I thought we should be having and my frustrations with not having a swift appointment. Having envisioned and researched the worst case scenario I was particularly well informed on the issue and must have been quite convincing as we were admitted that evening. Breaking down in tears probably had something to do with it too.

As mentioned we were quite prepared to be told that our fears were an unnecessary worry, However in actual fact they were 100% accurate. She did have an ectopic pregnancy and by the time the blood tests and ultrasound confirmed this there was little time to act. The various treatment options I'd researched were discussed. Having already prepared ourselves for this decision sped the process up and she went under the knife straight away. I was all too aware that the window of opportunity for medical rather then surgical treatment had passed. A section of her fallopian tube containing the ectopic foetus was removed. Were were later told that it was just about ready to burst and we'd got it just in time.

So from my point of view my worst-case-scenario thinking saved my girlfriends life. From another point of view an admission clerk's positive thinking nearly killed her.

There's another darker interpretation of the message in "The Secret" that suggests that the symptoms didn't have a fixed cause until we started thinking about them. It suggests that my preparedness and consideration of the worst case scenario actually caused that scenario to happen.

Applied to my story the message of "the Secret" is that I killed my child. If anybody wants to repeat that accusation to my face I can assure you that no amount of positive visualisation will lead to a happy outcome for them.

The happy news is that we are pregnant once again and all is going well. All tests and scans show that our little Ronnie will be a happy healthy boy and will be joining us in early September.

I hope my story is of some help to you in your campaign to open Oprah's eyes to the harm that could result from ill conceived mystical nonsense like "The Secret"

[happyanne]

It is almost impossible to provide hard evidence of psychic ability or experiences you can only have probability. To say someone will fall off a ladder and have a heart attack is pretty specific and not the the most likely thing to happen to someone falling off a ladder even if ladder falling was a national pastime. Taken with other specific "hits" that Zaira's psychic came up with it is "probable" that she has true psychic ability. She could, of course, just be lucky or have some inside information. People also have a tendancy to misremember and make something vague fit something specific.
My weirdest experience to date was seeing a breaking news story about the July Bombings the night before it happened! I was wide awake and had just switched to the news and there it was! and then, there it wasn't! I called my husband in but couldn't find the story on any of the news channels. I thought there must be a news blackout on the story because I knew I had seen it. Imagine how I felt when it happened the next day.
What I want to ask is if this had been posted here at the time (night before) and then happened (as it did) would that be considered evidence of a premonition or would a true skeptic think it was more probably a guess or that I was somehow connected to the bombers?

[Admin]

What I want to ask is if this had been posted here at the time (night before) and then happened (as it did) would that be considered evidence of a premonition or would a true skeptic think it was more probably a guess or that I was somehow connected to the bombers?

It would need to be reasonably specific but if it was and it came true then yes, that would be considered as evidence for precognition.

Of course it could be put down to coincidence but the more specific the prediction the better evidence it would be.

Perhaps we should set up a board where people can post such premonitions. Good idea?

Remember, skeptics are looking for evidence for such occurrences. O0

I'll see if we can come up with some guidelines for what a decent prediction would be.

[happyanne]

It would need to be reasonably specific but if it was and it came true then yes, that would be considered as evidence for precognition.

Of course it could be put down to coincidence but the more specific the prediction the better evidence it would be.

Perhaps we should set up a board where people can post such premonitions. Good idea?

Remember, skeptics are looking for evidence for such occurrences. O0

I'll see if we can come up with some guidelines for what a decent prediction would be.

That could be really good. Definately need guidelines though.
No prizes for predicting rain tomorrow!!;D

[Zaira]

Matt,

"Applied to my story the message of "the Secret" is that I killed my child. If anybody wants to repeat that accusation to my face I can assure you that no amount of positive visualisation will lead to a happy outcome for them.

The happy news is that we are pregnant once again and all is going well. All tests and scans show that our little Ronnie will be a happy healthy boy and will be joining us in early September."


Thank you for sharing the above. Please, if I may, I would ask you to indulge this simple woman for a moment.... There is no easy way to ask this...

You saw no connection between your worries and the turn of events. Even though you don't believe in it, are you more aware of your thoughts now, even if you are only vaguely aware of them and even though you would insist there is no connection, do you find yourself monitoring them.. just in case?

It isn't simple curiosity. My only granddaughter was a still birth. I wasn't over fond of my daughter's boyfriend, he was older than her and had daughters with 3 other women! I didn't want her to become a part of that. Then two weeks before the baby was due there was no heartbeat. I can't tell you the pain and the sorrow I felt for myself and my young daughter - and the guilt.

[Araneus]

My only granddaughter was a still birth. I wasn't over fond of my daughter's boyfriend, he was older than her and had daughters with 3 other women! I didn't want her to become a part of that. Then two weeks before the baby was due there was no heartbeat. I can't tell you the pain and the sorrow I felt for myself and my young daughter - and the guilt.

It is perfectly natural to feel guilty if something bad happens to somebody after you have had (what you consider to be) "uncharitable" feelings towards them.

However, there is absolutely zero evidence that having such thoughts or feelings actually brings about the bad event (unless the event was caused by your own behaviour). This would be an example of the Post Hoc Fallacy (http://skepdic.com/posthoc.html).

The "Law of attraction" stuff may have some validity in a psychological context, i.e. by remaining focussed and committed to a goal you are more likely to achieve it through your own actions. There is nothing supernatural about this, and there is certainly no evidence or valid reason to believe that thoughts alone cause actions via some "natural vibrations in the universe".

[Cuddles]

:-\ It was only supposed to be a short post. I got distracted.


Perhaps, but my point is that the net is vast, we can become overwhelmed with information, and we don't have the time to seek all the evidence. Some of us are prepared to simply trust our own instincts, intuition and inner knowing. Like you with the cat V dinosaur. You just knew you would be wasting your time researching someone's claim that they had a dinosaur in their house.

Okay. And that's fine for all you science buffs out there but what about ordinary people like me? Again, I don't have the time to research all the evidence, so here I am asking questions. And, it must be said, enjoying the replies.

Ah, but this is what most people don't realise, intuition is mostly based on evidence. To stick with the dinosaurs, if someone claims to have one you don't need to spend time looking for evidence of their claim, you already know that it isn't true. How? Because you are constantly bombarded by evidence that dinosaurs don't exist.

I think an important part of skepticism is evaluating evidence, it's knowing when such evaluation is actually needed. Most people are fairly comfortable rejecting the notion of pet dinosaurs, but many areas, like psychics for example, don't have as much obvious evidence against them and so people don't reject them out of hand. As you say, most people don't have the time, or inclination, to research every little thing. Critical thinking is not just about the research, but realising when research might be appropriate.

Of course, asking questions is always good, but you still have to be careful about who you believe. Generally, skeptics will try to give evidence for their answers so you can evaluate them yourself, but it is important not to just accept answers from anyone.



Not entirely in agreement. Positive and negative thinking does affect the outcome of events. I didn't like or agree with The Secret. However I do believe the Law Of Attraction works. We do tend to get that which we think or worry about the most. We draw it to us. Think positive and receive positive results. Think negative and receive negative results.


Yes I agree. Positive people working hard for something usually get it.


Ah, but this is thing. Does positive thinking itself get you something, or are positive people more likely to work positively to get something? Could I really get a new car just by thinking about it? Or would really wanting a car encourage me to get a job and buy one, or even just make me have the confidence to get a loan?


Dinosaurs are easy. Most claims are not that simple to categorize and dismiss. If someone tells me something and I am not sure whether to believe them or not, I am going to be polite and give them the benefit of the doubt - who am I to take away their illusions? If for some reason it catches my attention then I will share it with people like you and hope for it to be explained to my satisfaction, saving me the bother of researching it.

This is something that causes many debates, even among skeptics. Are unsupported beliefs really a bad thing? Some say, like yourself, that as long as it doesn't hurt anyone, why should it matter what others believe? Is it really better to force someone to give up beliefs that make them happy? On the other hand, allowing yourself some beliefs can act as a gateway to beliefs that really are harmful. For example, believing homeopathy works for curing a common cold doesn't really hurt anyone (apart from possibly financially), but it is just a small step from there to believing it cures cancer. In a similar vein, if you believe some things on faith then there is a consistency problem. If you take anything on faith, where do you draw the line and demand evidence? How is your beliefs be any different from all the others that you don't believe?

It's a debate that will almost certainly never be resolved. Should we challenge all beliefs, and if not, how do we choose which ones to target? Some of the cleverest and most prominent scientists and skeptics have asked the same questions, but we aren't any closer to reaching a consensus.



Drifted away from the topic of skepticism at times there but I hope you get the point I'm trying to make. It isn't always about having or needing proof. Sometimes it is simply about what we choose to believe without proof or if there is no proof.

Of course, this is where many skeptics will disagree with you. If there isn't any evidence that something exists then the default position is that it doesn't, no matter how nice it sounds. Most reasonable people will agree with your right to believe whatever you like as long as it doesn't hurt anyone, but we will still try to point out the lack of reason to believe in them.


Be gentle with me and remember, The fool listens to no one, the wise man listens to everyone even the fool.


Thank you for your patience and understanding.


Believing in things doesn't make you a fool. Some of the greatest minds that have lived believed in all sorts of things. The only fools are those that refuse to examine their beliefs or proclaim them as the only possible truth.

[Admin]

I think a distinction has to be made between positive thinking and positive action.

Simply thinking about or wishing for something good (or bad) to happen will have no effect. You can't simply will something to happen. This is simply wishful thinking.

However, if you have a positive attitude and take affirmative action in trying to achieve your goals then you're much more likely to succeed than someone who sits back and waits for things to happen.

It's easy to confuse the two things.

Also, it's quite relevant to mention the aspect of guilt. A big danger in thinking that we attract our fate by our thoughts is that we can easily get into a 'blaming the victim (http://www.ukskeptics.com/article.php?dir=articles&article=Blaming_the_victim.php)' mentality where we think that people get what they deserve. i.e. if bad things happen to them, they asked for it. A very silly and unpleasant attitude IMO.

Positive thinking and a positive attitude can lead to positive action but it's the action that makes the difference not the intention.

This idea of a 'law of attraction' is nothing but magical thinking; and not based in reality.

[Dr B]

Hi Happyanne


It is almost impossible to provide hard evidence of psychic ability or experiences....

I think I would disagree. In principle it is very straightforward - if the claims being made are true of course. Parapsychologists have been trying to do this for decades. Some nice protocols now exist - alas the evidence does not. What do you think that means? It is of course impossible to provide positive evidence for the untrue.


Taken with other specific "hits" that Zaira's psychic came up with it is "probable" that she has true psychic ability.

Again, I would disagree. I am not sure how you calculate 'probable' here - probable relative to what and on what grounds? It is far more likely she does not have any ability and far more natural explanations are needed.

For example, as there is no reliable evidence for psychic ability, it cannot compete as an explanation. As chance, coincidence, vagueness effects are well known and demonstrable - i would say these are more probable.

[Zaira]

Araneus,

That was very interesting reading.
I plan to follow it up a bit.
Thank you for the reassurance.

[Admin]

Psychic ability is often compared to the 'you can't prove love exists' argument.

Well, how do you think kidnapping works?

Some things can't be measured directly but they can be measured indirectly by the effects they have on other systems or people.

So yes, psychic ability could be proven, and proven very easily - even if it can't be measured directly.

[happyanne]

Again, I would disagree. I am not sure how you calculate 'probable' here - probable relative to what and on what grounds? It is far more likely she does not have any ability and far more natural explanations are needed.

For example, as there is no reliable evidence for psychic ability, it cannot compete as an explanation. As chance, coincidence, vagueness effects are well known and demonstrable - i would say these are more probable.

Ahhh, you hard-nosed skeptic guys are going to baffle me with science! but i will get my brain out of mothballs and try to keep up!:-\
I mean "probable" as in the probability of someone falling off a ladder and having a heart attack is small therefore the probability of someone forseeing this happening to a specific person, within a given time-frame, without any prior information as to their state of health, occupation etc is tiny. As a stand-alone statement it would be impressive and taken with other "hits", more so. Taken with "misses", less so.

[Araneus]

I mean "probable" as in the probability of someone falling off a ladder and having a heart attack is small therefore the probability of someone forseeing this happening to a specific person, within a given time-frame, without any prior information as to their state of health, occupation etc is tiny.

Only if the premonition was precise. Generally a psychic would not claim that "Jack will fall off a ladder in the next week and suffer a heart attack", but would produce something much more vague like "I sense some darkness in the path of Jack", which will obviously be retrofitted later to whatever happened to Jack (whether it is dying of a heart attack or losing his car keys).

[Jocky]

Only if the premonition was precise ... [it] will obviously be retrofitted later to whatever happened to Jack

Exactly - and since Zaira's original post was only reporting what she thought the psychic had said to a friend, we're getting this so-called "prediction" at three removes from the horse's mouth, and a considerable length of time later. That's a lot of retrofitting potential right there.

My first reaction to the original post was to ask if there was a recording of the session. That would be the only way of assessing how accurate the prediction actually was. Human recollection is notoriously inaccurate at these things.

[Matt]

Matt,
Thank you for sharing the above. Please, if I may, I would ask you to indulge this simple woman for a moment.... There is no easy way to ask this...

You saw no connection between your worries and the turn of events. Even though you don't believe in it, are you more aware of your thoughts now, even if you are only vaguely aware of them and even though you would insist there is no connection, do you find yourself monitoring them.. just in case?


There is obviously a contextual connection between my worries and the turn of events. The question is whether there is a causal connection. The human mind is trained to see such patterns and recognise at least the possibility that what came to pass did so because I imagined it. In the case of the ectopic pregnancy there's no doubt in my mind that if I hadn't had such worries then the outcome would have been far worse and quite possible impacted my fiancé’s reproductive health to the extent that we would have been able to have this baby. She may even have died. There's no reason to suspect that my thoughts could cause an ectopic pregnancy but every reason to see that my concerns ensured as speedy a resolution as possible. The idea that I would monitor my thoughts just in case they caused things to happen through supernatural means is as reasonable as closing my eyes when crossing the road to avoid thinking of the possibility of being hit by a car. There's no reason to suspect this will work and common experience tells me that the actual effect is that it will increase my personal risk. Besides which I only seriously considered the possibility after the first symptoms had begun.



It isn't simple curiosity. My only granddaughter was a still birth. I wasn't over fond of my daughter's boyfriend, he was older than her and had daughters with 3 other women! I didn't want her to become a part of that. Then two weeks before the baby was due there was no heartbeat. I can't tell you the pain and the sorrow I felt for myself and my young daughter - and the guilt.


I can empathise with that more than I'd like to. As I mentioned before our first pregnancy ended with a late term stillbirth. This first pregnancy was planned in the same way as the Iraq war was planned. We knew we wanted to do it and knew how to start the process but once that happened we found we were less than prepared for the consequences. During the early stages when you don't get your hopes up about the pregnancy lasting to term I privately faced such fears with the thought that it might not be such a bad thing if we did have a little more time before starting a family. However as the pregnancy progressed such fears became less real and the reality of impending fatherhood became more apparent. The costs we were worried about were met and the challenges of preparing a nursery overcome. Then disaster struck in the 39th week and baby stopped moving. As I'm sure you know, still birth leads to a peculiar grief. When my mother died I missed the person she was but when my son died it was before I had a chance to get to know him. It was all the things he could have been that I missed. Part of the grieving process of course touched upon those early negative thoughts. In the light of this new perspective such attitudes were abhorrent and of course the emotional response to having entertained them was guilt. However this was guilt for thinking such heatless thoughts. I'm familiar with the idea of tempting fate but grateful that I don't believe in it or I might have felt that I had somehow been responsible.

If you feel that way, that your private thoughts could have been in any way responsible for this tragedy, then all I can say is don't. There's no rational reason to do so. Obviously you will feel a full range of emotions. The sudden shift from expecting a new arrival to having that snatched away from you is especially jarring when it happens at such a late stage, when all the preparations have been made and expectations become more concrete. You go through everything asking yourself if there was anything you should have or could have done differently. You'll naturally want to apportion blame and lash out. You imagine that you may have tempted fate in your thoughts. Rationalising your guilt in such an unhealthy way will hinder you from processing the feelings and moving on. Forgive yourself for your thoughts. I don't know how nasty they were but I do know how the intense introspection after such an experience can magnify their apparent importance. One thing is certain. Thoughts alone cannot affect the world until they lead to action. You can't tempt fate and you have enough on your plate without making up additional worries.

[Zaira]

Jocky,

"My first reaction to the original post was to ask if there was a recording of the session. That would be the only way of assessing how accurate the prediction actually was. Human recollection is notoriously inaccurate at these things."

No there was no tape recording. To make a long story short .. We were allowed to write down what she said, and my friend asked me to write it down for her because she was nervous and I was a fast writer... Obviously I can't remember what she said word for word but I wrote... someone very close, works on a ladder, falls, suffers a heart attack. Hope my first post wasn't too misleading. He did fall from his ladder many times - hazards of the job. He has also had heart by pass surgery. !!

I came to the meeting rather skeptical but left wondering...... This was a few years ago. Never felt the need to go again but have friends who do.

[Zaira]

Matt,

I have lost count of how many times I have used this word today.... Reassurance. Thank you so much, for your reassurance on such a delicate matter. I truly feel like a weight has been lifted of my shoulders.

[happyanne]

It is almost impossible to provide hard evidence of psychic ability or experiences you can only have probability. To say someone will fall off a ladder and have a heart attack is pretty specific and not the the most likely thing to happen to someone falling off a ladder even if ladder falling was a national pastime. Taken with other specific "hits" that Zaira's psychic came up with it is "probable" that she has true psychic ability. She could, of course, just be lucky or have some inside information. People also have a tendancy to misremember and make something vague fit something specific.

I seem to be back where I started!
I don't want to prove or disprove the ability or should I say authenticity of this particular psychic, I just wondered what a skeptic would consider evidence.

[Dr B]

As a stand-alone statement it would be impressive and taken with other "hits", more so. Taken with "misses", less so.

Again I think I would disagree. Probability does not work like that. If someone says something happens 1 in 1000 times - that means we should expect it to happen - at least once! So stand-alone events (as you call them) are predicted by scientific models - not paranormal ones.

A single event, no matter how striking on a perceptual level - is not evidence of anything, as a single occurence of most natural events is predicted.

Please dont feel i am having a pop here - i really am not. I just want to be clear on these points as they can have detrimental effects on how we all reason about these events.O0

[happyanne]

Again I think I would disagree. Probability does not work like that. If someone says something happens 1 in 1000 times - that means we should expect it to happen - at least once! So stand-alone events (as you call them) are predicted by scientific models - not paranormal ones.

A single event, no matter how striking on a perceptual level - is not evidence of anything, as a single occurence of most natural events is predicted.

Please dont feel i am having a pop here - i really am not. I just want to be clear on these points as they can have detrimental effects on how we all reason about these events.O0

Ok, help me out here. A single occurence of most natural events is predicted but where, when and to whom? If I told you that you would win the lottery on Saturday and then be hit on the head with a blue jug would you go buy a ticket and hide the blue jug? or would you think "crazy mare, what are the chances of that happening?"
It's not the fact of it happening it's the fact of someone correctly predicting that it will happen to you. So what is the probability of someone predicting that a 1in a million event will happen to a specific person? 1 in a million?
Don't you like "stand-alone" (dignified and strong!)? I used it to denote an event made up of a number of smaller, single events.:-\

[Dr B]

Ok, help me out here.
will do...O0



A single occurence of most natural events is predicted but where, when and to whom?

it depends on the prediction - but many things impact on probabilities.



If I told you that you would win the lottery on Saturday and then be hit on the head with a blue jug would you go buy a ticket and hide the blue jug? or would you think "crazy mare, what are the chances of that happening?"

It's irrelevant - because psychics never give specific predictions - and there is no eivdence in any of the threads around here for anything like that. So you cannot take a highly improbable event as an argument for a vague and highly probable one (which, in my opinion, is what you are doing). This is a logical fallacy.



It's not the fact of it happening it's the fact of someone correctly predicting that it will happen to you.

It never happens, and dont forget those misses!!!!!



So what is the probability of someone predicting that a 1in a million event will happen to a specific person? 1 in a million?

If you say this to around 1-million people - you would be correct once. But dont forget all the misses. Psychics never predict rare events - only vague and common ones.



Don't you like "stand-alone" (dignified and strong!)? I used it to denote an event made up of a number of smaller, single events.:-\

No - the way you used it showed you were just concentrating on what you saw as a hit - and not a miss. Even significant events need replication because there is a chance of getting a significant event by chance alone. Do you know of type 1 and Type 2 errors? If not - give them a Google and enjoy. O0

If i predict you will get struck by lightning and you do - does that make me psychic? No. What if you found out I had said the same thing to around 14 million other people and was wrong?

Also - with psychics there are 'moving parameters' where they try to post-hoc rationalise their misses as hits which can make such calculations difficult. This is based in their vagueness.

Just look around here for some classic example of self-claimed psychics being vague....O0

[happyanne]

Well I agree about the self-proclaimed psychics on this forum being vague but this is a very small place frequented by some very clever skeptics so maybe a lot of psychics go running for the hills!
Maybe genuine psychics don't feel the need to prove themselves and are just happy with their belief system and others who share it.

I don't think you can say that psychics are never specific, thats just an unfounded generalisation. I was once told some incredibly specific things
by a very brusque, unpleasant psychic who didn't look at me, wouldn't let me speak and wrote stuff all over my hands as he was doing it! He certainly didn't belong to the "dearie" brigade.

Most are fake, either by design or delusion but maybe not all and if all claims are dismissed out of hand we'll never find out. Maybe more enquiring and less belittling would be in order, after all an intuitive is unlikely to be an intellectual and although some of the posts have made me laugh they have sometimes been quite rude and smacked of intellectual snobbery. In general I mean, I'm not having a personal dig although you did suggest I used "stand-alone" because my cognitive processes where out of whack! ;D

[Admin]

Most are fake, either by design or delusion but maybe not all and if all claims are dismissed out of hand we'll never find out. Maybe more enquiring and less belittling would be in order

That is the skeptics' stance (!)

And don't think that we're never on the end 'belittling' - we've had a few examples recently where psychics or those with claimed paranormal abilities come on to this forum and accuse us of closed-mindedness and pouring scorn on what we stand for.

Then we have said, fair enough, if you are prepared to demonstrate your abilities under properly controlled conditions and your abilities prove to be real then we will have to believe you.

The trouble being, that whenever psychics are asked to actually back up their claims they make excuses and will not do it.

What are we to conclude from this?

Make no mistake, we've had half a dozen or more examples of people offering 'proof' to us this year alone but it never materializes. I'm still waiting for an audio tape from 2 different people of psychic readings that prove psychic ability as the psychics came out with amazing things that they couldn't possibly have known.

I suspect that after a short conversation with me and a re-listen to the tape for themselves they realised that the readings were nothing like they remembered them to be and that the information that the psychic came out with was really supplied by themselves - they just didn't realise it until they listened properly. Hence the non-appearance of the tapes.

Skepticism is all about inquiry - but we can't do it unless those who claim paranormal abilities are also prepared to inquire (!)

[Dr B]

Well I agree about the self-proclaimed psychics on this forum being vague but this is a very small place frequented by some very clever skeptics so maybe a lot of psychics go running for the hills!

I know what you mean - but i hope not. This is a friendly Forum (honest :-*) - but every now and then we get what we call a 'troll' - which is usually a self-proclaimed psychic (though not always) who just vomits all over the place in a bid for self-promotion. They are not interested in debate and discussion, or learning anything (as they have already made their minds up). They are even less interested in providing evidence for their claims. We are generally tolerant to a level - but we cannot let claims of scientific truth go unchallenged.


Maybe genuine psychics don't feel the need to prove themselves and are just happy with their belief system and others who share it.

Sounds like special pleading to me. I doubt there is any such thing as a genuine psychic - and one has to wonder why they dont want to prove anything - which would lead to a Nobel prize, and a fundamental re-writing of science. Odd that. :-\ Seems far to easy to me.



I don't think you can say that psychics are never specific, thats just an unfounded generalisation.

Sorry - your comment is a generalisation. I have tested self-claimed psychics for over 20 years - thats why i can say it. I have read the investigations of other researchers as well. Maybe you could provide some specific evidence to the contrary?


I was once told some incredibly specific things
by a very brusque, unpleasant psychic who didn't look at me, wouldn't let me speak and wrote stuff all over my hands as he was doing it! He certainly didn't belong to the "dearie" brigade.
This anedote is not evidence. Sorry.


Most are fake, either by design or delusion but maybe not all and if all claims are dismissed out of hand we'll never find out.

With respect, you are still making the same fallacy here - no one is dismissing anything out of hand. Like I said above - I have researched this for many years, i have considered it at length, tried many times, and so far - nothing. This is not dissmissing anything - I, like others here, are providing alternative explanations.



Maybe more enquiring and less belittling would be in order,

No one is belittling anything and you are again making a fallacy here. You should certainly stop in your belittlling of science. 8)


after all an intuitive is unlikely to be an intellectual

you said it ;D;D:cheesy:


they have sometimes been quite rude and smacked of intellectual snobbery.

But were they correct? Science is not about value judgements - its about facts.



In general I mean, I'm not having a personal dig although you did suggest I used "stand-alone" because my cognitive processes where out of whack! ;D

No worries - i have enjoyed the chat O0 - but you are mistaken in your last comment - i never once claimed that at all. The term 'stand-alone' does not work in the context you used it as a stand alone event does not make psychic ability true. I never once said this point had anything to do with your cognitive processes. Go back and see - its a complete fiction! I think that perception is your own and bears little correspondence with what really was written - which does bring some of your other assessments into question. :cheesy:

Take it easy - my tip is not to try to read too much into what people are saying - concentrate on the argument and not the arguer.8)

[happyanne]

What makes you think I'm not a skeptic?!
No, I do think some people have psychic ability but a lot more seem to think they have or pretend they have. I don't believe it is something that can be learned in a weekend workshop or by buying a pack of tarot cards and I do think there is a direct correlation between their ability and how vociferous they are about it. I think the less talented ones shout more about it, maybe to restore some balance!

I probably veer more to the skeptic side of the fence but I prefer to play devil's advocate because the Skeptics gang is bigger and brainier and you might scare off any sensitive psychics!!>:D

[Dr B]

What makes you think I'm not a skeptic?!

Errrr, your comments above and below - like this one.



No, I do think some people have psychic ability but a lot more seem to think they have or pretend they have.

This is not a skeptical position. It is no more logical than saying everyone is psychic. This is why your comments imply - you are not a skeptic or truly skeptical. I apologise if i misunderstand.



I don't believe it is something that can be learned in a weekend workshop or by buying a pack of tarot cards

Me too, though I assume for different reasons >:D


I probably veer more to the skeptic side of the fence

you need to veer a little more ::)


but I prefer to play devil's advocate because the Skeptics gang is bigger and brainier and you might scare off any sensitive psychics!!<IMG class=inlineimg title=">:D" alt="" src="http://www.ukskeptics.com/forum/images/smilies/evil.gif" border=0 smilieid="22">

But to play that game - you need a cogent argument. As for sensitive psychics....well, i think you know my position on that, unicorns, and my magic beans.

[happyanne]

But to play that game - you need a cogent argument. As for sensitive psychics....well, i think you know my position on that, unicorns, and my magic beans.

I will go away and work on my cogency;D

[Admin]

I will go away and work on my cogency;D

Are you going to fall back on your cogency plan? ;D

[Dr B]

No worries Anne O0

Please stick around - I have enjoyed the chat and look forward to many more.

I just wanted to pick up on one or two common mistakes people often make in these debates - trust me - we have all made them from time to time.

One of the nice things about a Forum like this is that the community should help you think about ideas / views more - they should push you - and you should push them too O0O0

viva debate :cheesy:

[chillzero]

A point I would like to make is that self proclaimed psychics do not always make vague predictions.

I would recommend the following website for a review of a psychic who often makes very precise predictions:

http://www.stopsylviabrowne.com/

And to the points about skeptics assuming a stance of disbelief first - this is not necessarily true either. I came to skepticism from position very much entrenched in belief of the paranormal. Yet, even as I believed, I questioned - which is what I believe is the foundation of skepticism. It is a matter of being willing to challenge your own beliefs, and being honest with yourself when things don't add up.

[Dr B]

Indeed - a combination of hot-reading and post-hoc changing predictions on your own website are ways which will always increase your 'psychic' ability ;D

Poor Sylvia

Edit - when specific predictions are made you increase your probability of being wrong - so claimants tend to steer clear of them.

[Admin]

A point I would like to make is that self proclaimed psychics do not always make vague predictions.

You're right, it's really a generalisation.

In fact, a good Cold Reading technique is to make one very precise and unlikely prediction but use it in every reading you do. The reason being that if it's done enough times there's a chance that it might just come true for one person. Of course, it's the one time that it does come true that can really help make a reputation.

An example might be to tell clients that someone closely related to them will win the lottery. It's very unlikely to come true for any individual client but the more times it's repeated and the more time passes the better the chance that it will happen to someone.

That someone would be singing the praises of the psychic who predicted this (it might even make the papers) and people would be amazed at the psychic's amazing prediction. But it's not psychic of course, it's just a numbers game - much like the lottery!!

When it comes to general predictions however, it's ironic but being vague actually gives the illusion of being more accurate. ??? That's because of subjective validation. Saying something like "You have an uncle called Tom and he's having a problem with his shoulder at the moment" is highly specific but will not match for just about everyone; but saying "There's someone close to you with a health problem at the moment, perhaps something to do with the back area" could probably be fitted in just about any family.

This is how vagueness 'works'. People subjectively validate (apply personal meaning to vague, generic statements) what psychics say and find a lot of meaning that was never really there.

This is why people come out with the "they told me things they couldn't possibly have known" statement. The truth is that the psychic probably didn't, that's just how the client interpreted it. This is also why getting a tape recording of psychic readings is so important - what was actually said can later be examined.

[Dr B]

But is "someone close to you is going to win the lottery" really that specific? :cheesy:

Would a &#163;10 win count as a hit? To psychics it would through post-hoc evaluations.:-\

The best cold-readers i have seen (including magicians) are still not that accurate as the perception still comes down to the individual. They are skilled at the illusion of precision rather than precision per-se.

[happyanne]

This is, indeed, common practice.
I arranged, with a group of four friends, to visit the same psychic at different times within the same week.
We were all told we would move house (no-one has).
We were all told we would change jobs (two have)
One was told she would have a baby (she has)
One was told she would split with her husband (close, but not yet)
I asked about the health of a terminally ill person and was told that he wasn't as bad as he was making out! I told her he wasn't making out anything as he was dying from a brain tumour and rarely awake.

There are a lot of fakes, this has been proved but that does not prove
that there are no genuine psychics out there. Perpetual inquiry and all that.

[chillzero]

John, I absolutely agree with all of that. To my shame I distinctly recall thinking of a 'prediction', and instead of stating exactly what I had conjured, I made the decision to leave a bit of 'wiggle room' - just in case. I honestly believed at the time that this was ok to do.

That occurred very close to the last reading I ever did, when I realised to my dismay that I changed a reading I was doing based on the reaction of the person I was reading for. Once I recognised the fraud inherent in what was happening, it was no longer subconcious, and I could no longer continue the practice.

[Cuddles]

There are a lot of fakes, this has been proved but that does not prove
that there are no genuine psychics out there. Perpetual inquiry and all that.

This is exactly the fallacy that has been pointed out many times, both by me and others. It's is not possible to prove a negative, and the burden of proof does not lie with those who would wish to do so. The burden of proof lies with those making the claim. In this case, the claim that there are real psychics. So far, not a single psychic has proven to have any kind of ability. The only sensible position is to assume that this is true of all psychics, until you have evidence that there really is something happening.

I can believe in a teapot orbiting Pluto all I like, and no-one can ever prove me wrong. But it seems a little silly to believe something like that when there is absolutely no reason to believe it. Psychics are no different.


But is "someone close to you is going to win the lottery" really that specific? :cheesy:

Would a £10 win count as a hit? To psychics it would through post-hoc evaluations.:-\

According to Brian's supporters not only would this count as a hit, but spending far more money or tickets than you win actually counts as a hit. It's hard to draw a line between simple post-hoc rationalisation and being so desperate to cling to your beliefs that even the opposite result from that predicted still counts as a hit.

[Zaira]

Cuddles,

Sorry my reply is late, the thread got ahead of me.

"...intuition is mostly based on evidence."

I respectfully disagree. I believe intuition is based on experience. We chalk up every single experience we have and this develops into intuition. We can trust our intuition because it was gained from years of personal experience. I refer mainly to trusting certain people, and in making decisions.

I do agree about psychics. I used to think I was one. I was even told that I had the gift. But I know now that what I have is a heightened sense of awareness. I sense people's mood, I pick up on things like money or boyfriend problems. I am one of those people who used to take their colleagues problems home with them because I used to 'feel' for everyone. At times it was very painful. I had to learn to deal with it. I had to learn to shut off. I wonder if this is where psychics are coming from.

"Does positive thinking itself get you something, or are positive people more likely to work positively to get something? Could I really get a new car just by thinking about it? Or would really wanting a car encourage me to get a job and buy one, or even just make me have the confidence to get a loan?"

Honestly? I don't know. But I have experienced getting things I wanted and yet had no control over - no job to work positively at in order to get more money. I could explain but it would be too long a story.

"This is something that causes many debates, even among skeptics. Are unsupported beliefs really a bad thing? Some say, like yourself, that as long as it doesn't hurt anyone, why should it matter what others believe? Is it really better to force someone to give up beliefs that make them happy? On the other hand, allowing yourself some beliefs can act as a gateway to beliefs that really are harmful..........."

I hear you.

"If you take anything on faith, where do you draw the line and demand evidence? How is your beliefs any different from all the others that you don't believe?"

We have faith (take something we like the sound of onboard) until we believe (or disbelieve) it, and we believe until we know (whether it is fact or fiction).

"It's a debate that will almost certainly never be resolved. Should we challenge all beliefs, and if not, how do we choose which ones to target? Some of the cleverest and most prominent scientists and skeptics have asked the same questions, but we aren't any closer to reaching a consensus."

This makes a lot of sense and it's good to hear. I have to admit to having a rather negative view of skeptics, I thought they thought their job was to show the rest of us where we were going wrong.

"Of course, this is where many skeptics will disagree with you. If there isn't any evidence that something exists then the default position is that it doesn't, no matter how nice it sounds. Most reasonable people will agree with your right to believe whatever you like as long as it doesn't hurt anyone, but we will still try to point out the lack of reason to believe in them."

I understand and I can accept that.

"Believing in things doesn't make you a fool. Some of the greatest minds that have lived believed in all sorts of things. The only fools are those that refuse to examine their beliefs or proclaim them as the only possible truth."

Thank you, you are very kind.

[happyanne]

I can believe in a teapot orbiting Pluto all I like, and no-one can ever prove me wrong. But it seems a little silly to believe something like that when there is absolutely no reason to believe it. Psychics are no different.


If there were millions of people, worldwide, believing in this teapot and this belief had persisted for thousands of years and was growing daily,
I might think it would have to be completely disproved before I rejected it as a possibility.

[Dr B]

Hiya Anne

argumentum ad populum. - check it out O0

http://philosophy.lander.edu/logic/popular.html

I am not saying you are stating this - just that you are close to it - so prevention is always better than cure!

[Zaira]

John,

"Simply thinking about or wishing for something good (or bad) to happen will have no effect. You can't simply will something to happen. This is simply wishful thinking."

There is wishful thinking and then there is visualisation which can be taught through relaxation, meditation and affirmation.

We each live in a world of our own making. Thought is creative. All thought, good and bad, is creative and tends to become a material thing. Everything in this material world began as a thought in someone's head. Once we become aware of this, thought can be directed more positively resulting in us getting what we think about the most - make it something positive!

As for the guilt, this is where we need to be realistic. We are creating our own reality....... But then so are they. We can only be responsible for our own thoughts, words and actions - as they are for theirs. This is what is meant by taking full responsibility for your own life.

"This idea of a 'law of attraction' is nothing but magical thinking; and not based in reality."

It may not be based in your reality but it is based in mine.

[Zaira]

Araneus,

"There is nothing supernatural about this....."

I agree one hundred percent....... There is nothing supernatural about any of it. And just for the record, folks, I never said there was.

I still don't know how some psychics do what they do, but I don't believe it is supernatural.

I believe cultivating positive thinking to be a very good thing because I believe the quality of our life will depend on the quality of our thoughts.

[Admin]

John,

"Simply thinking about or wishing for something good (or bad) to happen will have no effect. You can't simply will something to happen. This is simply wishful thinking."

There is wishful thinking and then there is visualisation which can be taught through relaxation, meditation and affirmation.

Yes, but it won't do anything until you take action. I did point out above that we need to separate positive thinking from positive action.


It may not be based in your reality but it is based in mine.

That's a classic case of the Relativist Fallacy (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/relativist-fallacy.html).

Again, I have gone over this. Something cannot be both true and false - it's a logical absurdity.

Yes, we all construct our own perception of reality but that doesn't mean that our individual perception is right. If 2 people have a different take on the reality of something then at least one of them is wrong. Of course they could both be wrong but they can't both be right!

If an animal walked past us and I said it was a dog and you said it was a cat then we can't both be right. It's not a 'dog for me' and a 'cat for you'. It's either a cat or a dog or neither: it can't be both.

Can you see the irrationality in this way of thinking? It's much loved by those who are into the paranormal and mysticism but it's fallacious reasoning. Like I said, wishful thinking - I want it to be true so it is, because this is how I want reality to be.

[Zaira]

John,

"Yes, but it won't do anything until you take action. I did point out above that we need to separate positive thinking from positive action."

Well that depends. I took action to find a new house. I went to the estate agent and told him what size of place I was looking for and how much money I had to spend. Then I set about visualising the type of place I wanted in more detail. Granted I visited two or three before we hit the jackpot. But there were certain aspects of the house I visualised that made it perfect for me.

My belief is that I got just what I wanted.

"Something cannot be both true and false - it's a logical absurdity."

Help me out here because it might just be a case of simple terminology - you sat tamato and I say tomato............ Something can be true to one person and false to another....... Assuming you are not just speaking of scientific proof. Take for example God. Some people believe so it is true and others do not.

"Yes, we all construct our own perception of reality but that doesn't mean that our individual perception is right. If 2 people have a different take on the reality of something then at least one of them is wrong. Of course they could both be wrong but they can't both be right!"

Why not? Doesn't it come down to perception? How we think depends on whether we are an optimist or a pessimist; one differs from the other as night from day and yet both are right, each is right from his own point of view, and this point of view is the determining factor in the life of each. It determines as to whether it will be a life of success or a life of failure.

Personally I guess I would have to say that I am into metaphysics. not magic and not the paranormal. It is quite simply an interest in things beyond the physical. For example, what people believe and why they believe it, as well as why and how it works for them. There are many realities. We each live in a world of our own making. We each have our beliefs, and there is not always a rational or logical explanation for them.

I think what we need here is to clarify just what it is we are debating. I apologise but I seem to have lost track. I began the thread asking about psychics because it seemed like a good place to start. I personally have no interest in them. But I am of the belief that if they believe they can talk to the dead then maybe they can. I believe I am very good at using relaxation, meditation, affirmation and visualisation - whose to say I'm not. OR has the debate changed over to what science can prove? Science like religion and anything else that swears by it's own truth is just another aspect of the world we all live in. There is enough room for all of us and our beliefs.

With respect, pointing out where people are going wrong or being mislead is like telling them that they are a fool and that you know better than them. In the end it says more about you than it does about them.

Don't take that personally, that was not my intention. It's just a bit of speculation.

[Admin]

Well the house example is just self-explanatory - you kept looking until you found the one you liked!

What we need to be clear about is the difference between objective (factual) reality and subjective (value judgements) reality.

Is abortion right or wrong? In this sense we're creating a value judgement and yes, what one person thinks is right ('true for them') someone else may think is wrong (but also 'true for them'). The crucial point is that there's no frame of reference that we can compare the value judgement to.

But, was that animal a cat or a dog? This is an objective question. There is a frame of reference as we all agree what a cat or a dog is - it's empirical: it can be measured in some way (in this case the type of animal would simply be a category).

So, if I said dog and you said cat and then we later double checked and it was a cat then I was wrong and you were right. There's no two ways about it. It couldn't have been a dog for me and a cat for you.

What I find is that people try to be subjective about objective reality (!)

Morals, ethics, etc. are value judgements and are usually set by the general consensus of the culture to which the person belongs; but objective reality is universal. It cannot be overridden by beliefs nor is it subject to opinion or belief.

If you drink cyanide it will kill you - whether you believe it or not.


With respect, pointing out where people are going wrong or being mislead is like telling them that they are a fool and that you know better than them. In the end it says more about you than it does about them.

Well perhaps those who aren't used to the logical thinking we employ will see it like that, but showing that something is wrong is the correct way to go about it.

In short, if something was right you could never show that it was wrong. So if you can show that something is wrong then it can't be right (!) :cheesy:

It's counter-intuitive in that we don't naturally think that way (we try to confirm things not disprove them) but it's the most logical way to do it. It's the method science uses. O0

[Admin]

Posts moved to here: http://www.ukskeptics.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1137

These posts were moved as they interfered with the smooth running of this thread.

[Zaira]

John,

I wrote -

"With respect, pointing out where people are going wrong or being mislead is like telling them that they are a fool and that you know better than them."

I wrote that after recently having it pointed out to me that by trying to encourage other people to be more positive, I was in fact putting them down and saying that their life looked like crap! It never occurred to me that I was causing people to feel worse about themselves instead of better. It was a bit of an eye opener. I have drawn back and had to rethink almost everything about myself. This may be the reason I'm here asking so many questions. Where I once thought I had a good grasp on things, I thought all the personal and spiritual growth coaching had paid off and I was now in a good place, turns out I'm not as far along the road as I thought. Was I wrong to try to help others to see what I saw to be true?

[Zaira]

John,

I wonder what it is we are actually trying to do here. What are we trying to prove - or disprove? The difference between cats and dogs is obvious in that we all have the same frame of reference. The discussion, I think, is about when there is no frame of reference. If there is no frame of reference does that mean it can't be true.

(Galileo and Plato (and people like them) suffered for their discoveries because they had no frame of reference.

Does the 'feel good factor' come into it anywhere. If I believe something that makes me feel good - it gets me through the day - but there is no proof that it is true. Am I doing something wrong? Example; if I had cancer and I believed I could visualise myself well. Would that be wrong? Should I only deal with what has been proven to be true and within everyone's frame of reference?

[Matt]

Example; if I had cancer and I believed I could visualise myself well. Would that be wrong? Under certain circumstances very wrong. I remind you of this (http://www.slate.com/id/2166211) article I posted earlier and Kim who decided to try "the Law of Attraction" rather than medical and surgical treatment for breast cancer. Even Oprah (http://www.oprah.com/tows/slide/200703/20070326/slide_20070326_350_103.jhtml) was concerned by this despite her promotion of The Secret.

[Allo Allo]

Under certain circumstances very wrong.

Absolutely! I think positive thinking is a good mental attitude to have, I doubt if anyone will disagree. But there is a difference to visualising your illness to "unmanifest" itself. During my life when I was involved with "healing", I met many people who had done all the usual New Age things, visualisation, deep meditation - whatever - but their condition (usually cancer) did not go - the cruel thing was that they blamed themselves and were wracked with guilt and shame because, despite everything they were not "successful". Or, if you look at Matt's story - that he could spend the rest of his life blaming himself! Thankfully, this is not going to happen in this case, because he is not a "believer".

"The Secret" is criticised even by many "spiritual" people - and if you think in those terms, a dissection of how "The Secret" is shallow, even destructive can be found on the 'net if you use advanced Google.

Somewhere on the forum, there is an anecdote by me about my friend who died from cervicle cancer in a completely unnecessary way using all the New Age "healing" techniques. They have a really dangerous allurement of "gentleness", "compassion", "self empowerment", "love", "wholeness", and many many other attractive words - they appeal to our inner desire for perfectness - but I believe one has to consider very carefully the fact that they are another sort of "scam".

I believe that many of us ex-healers have found this when we are BRUTALLY honest with ourselves.

I have been surprised recently to meet some of my previous healer friends who are also veering away from their old ideas - I even noticed they are not wearing dream catcher jewelly and floaty clothing! ;D They all seemed to be requiring "scientific" answers to confirm what they had previously believed. They seemed to be more "grown up" somehow. This pleased me, because I myself have changed so much I have difficulty talking that kind of stuff any more.

[Admin]

John,

I wrote -

"With respect, pointing out where people are going wrong or being mislead is like telling them that they are a fool and that you know better than them."

I wrote that after recently having it pointed out to me that by trying to encourage other people to be more positive, I was in fact putting them down and saying that their life looked like crap! It never occurred to me that I was causing people to feel worse about themselves instead of better. It was a bit of an eye opener. I have drawn back and had to rethink almost everything about myself. This may be the reason I'm here asking so many questions. Where I once thought I had a good grasp on things, I thought all the personal and spiritual growth coaching had paid off and I was now in a good place, turns out I'm not as far along the road as I thought. Was I wrong to try to help others to see what I saw to be true?

Skeptics often find themselves in the same predicament. Do you intervene in someone's life by giving advice they don't like, that may affect their belief system etc.?

I would say:
Don't force your advice on anyone (unless they're putting themselves in danger) unless they ask you for it; and
If you do give advice make sure that you can justify what you say.You can't disagree with someone without it having some negative effect on them. No-one likes to be wrong about anything and realising that your are wrong always causes some emotional discomfort until you re-evaluate your take on things. It's a fundamental problem of human nature.

The point is that it doesn't matter where you're coming from, rationalism or mysticism, for example, it's the challenge to a person's belief system that causes the emotional discomfort.

Those who are into new-agey things like to think they're trying to help people to achieve 'spiritual awakening' etc. whilst those 'nasty skeptics' are trying to take it away from people but both points of view can cause emotional discomfort to people when their current world-view is challenged.

[Admin]

I wonder what it is we are actually trying to do here. What are we trying to prove - or disprove? The difference between cats and dogs is obvious in that we all have the same frame of reference. The discussion, I think, is about when there is no frame of reference. If there is no frame of reference does that mean it can't be true.

Well the point is that some things are objective and others are subjective. The discussion is about realising that there's a difference between the two.

I find that people who subscribe to the 'we all make our own truth' philosophy assume that everything is subjective. That's why they think that things can be false for other people but true for them.

'Subjective truth' is all about belief and opinion, 'Objective truth' is that which is factual (because things are the same no matter who does the observing).

Objective truth is true whether you personally believe it or not, and vice-versa; and, subjective truth is in no sense real. The important point is that a subjective belief does not become an objective truth just because you want it to.


Does the 'feel good factor' come into it anywhere. If I believe something that makes me feel good - it gets me through the day - but there is no proof that it is true. Am I doing something wrong? Example; if I had cancer and I believed I could visualise myself well. Would that be wrong? Should I only deal with what has been proven to be true and within everyone's frame of reference?

This is the crux of the matter. Beliefs can be nice and comforting and help with coping with such a situation but being beliefs they do not affect reality. It's a commonly held notion that if you're diagnosed with cancer that you have to stay positive and this will help you beat it. It's another cold, hard fact though that the optimism/pessimism of the patient has no effect on survival rates - they both have the same survival rate.

So you could visualise yourself as being well, and it would undoubtedly be good for your morale, but it would have no effect on the outcome.

Or would it?

The reason that understanding the objective/subjective difference is so important that when people find themselves in this sort of situation they often turn to their beliefs. Things like belief in alternative medicines etc., rather than real (objective) medicine, are quite common, but those who choose their beliefs over real treatment are more likely to die.

Mistaking subjective values for objective truth is normally referred to as: Wishful Thinking (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wishful_thinking)

It may be nice and comforting but rely on it at your peril (!)

[Allo Allo]

Well the point is that some things are objective and others are subjective. The discussion is about realising that there's a difference between the two.

I find that people who subscribe to the 'we all make our own truth' philosophy assume that everything is subjective. That's why they think that things can be false for other people but true for them.

'Subjective truth' is all about belief and opinion, 'Objective truth' is that which is factual (because things are the same no matter who does the observing).

Objective truth is true whether you personally believe it or not, and vice-versa; and, subjective truth is in no sense real. The important point is that a subjective belief does not become an objective truth just because you want it to.



This is the crux of the matter. Beliefs can be nice and comforting and help with coping with such a situation but being beliefs they do not affect reality. It's a commonly held notion that if you're diagnosed with cancer that you have to stay positive and this will help you beat it. It's another cold, hard fact though that the optimism/pessimism of the patient has no effect on survival rates - they both have the same survival rate.

So you could visualise yourself as being well, and it would undoubtedly be good for your morale, but it would have no effect on the outcome.

Or would it?

The reason that understanding the objective/subjective difference is so important that when people find themselves in this sort of situation they often turn to their beliefs. Things like belief in alternative medicines etc., rather than real (objective) medicine, are quite common, but those who choose their beliefs over real treatment are more likely to die.

Mistaking subjective values for objective truth is normally referred to as: Wishful Thinking (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wishful_thinking)

It may be nice and comforting but rely on it at your peril (!)

This is a nice post John! Very clear!

Just one point - I think I read that especially with Cancer a positive mental attitude is actively encouraged because it does reflect on survival rates. However, this might not have anything to do with "mind over matter", but simply that if you are positive, you are motivated to actually put lifestyle changes in place that are suggested to you by your medical team. If you are negative, there is no desire to do this - you just continue in the same old way...and give up.

[Admin]

This is a nice post John! Very clear!

Just one point - I think I read that especially with Cancer a positive mental attitude is actively encouraged because it does reflect on survival rates. However, this might not have anything to do with "mind over matter", but simply that if you are positive, you are motivated to actually put lifestyle changes in place that are suggested to you by your medical team. If you are negative, there is no desire to do this - you just continue in the same old way...and give up.

I think that it's one of those commonly held, 'common sense', beliefs but it's not borne out by the figures.

I do have some scientific research which shows this (somewhere) but here's a BBC article (not the last word I know) talking about the issue: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/3481605.stm

There's an allusion to the point about people who are so overwhelmed by their diagnosis that they can't stay positive. Remember the point about 'victim blaming'? Well if someone has cancer and it's getting worse then they could end up feeling guilty or even more depressed as they, and those around them, blame the themselves/the victim for not 'thinking positively enough'.

There's always another way of looking at these things.



Added:

Yes, AA - I think there's plenty of evidence also to show that mental state affects physiology. Things like stress etc. can be reduced by a positive mental attitude. This would work on conditions that are exacerbated by stress though, and if some cancers are exacerbated by stress then it could help (I'd like to see evidence for this however). This is an area where alt. therapies are also useful as they can help with stress and anxiety.

[Allo Allo]

There's an allusion to the point about people who are so overwhelmed by their diagnosis that they can't stay positive. Remember the point about 'victim blaming'? Well if someone has cancer and it's getting worse then they could end up feeling guilty or even more depressed as they, and those around them, blame the themselves/the victim for not 'thinking positively enough'.

There's always another way of looking at these things.

Mmmm - now that IS a point! Never thought of that. Nice article too.

[Zaira]

I read the links, Matt.

Quoting this bit. "Everybody respects a good attitude, but no amount of magical thinking will make the universe obey our wishes. Your audience has gotten extremely good at visualizing what it wants. But now it needs your help envisioning the risks, goof-ups, and unintended consequences that accompany life on earth."

Think I'm having an epiphany - "A sudden, intuitive perception of or insight into the reality or essential meaning of something, usually initiated by some simple, homely, or commonplace occurrence or experience."

Like visiting a forum. But don’t worry it didn’t start here it started with someone pointing out what I said in my post to John.

This is going to need some serious meditation. Maybe this will work -

“Epiphany (meditation), a practice of evoking, and engaging with mindful contemplation. Breakthrough or transcendent awareness. Profound realization that seems to engage one's whole being in resonant connection with aspects of truth and insight.”

[Zaira]

I haven't read The Secret but it sounds to me like it was based on a book called The Master Key System by Charles F Haanel. It is a study in personal power and metaphysics. It was claimed that the book was banned by the Church in 1933 and was hidden away for decades. I found this book in my twenties and have read it again and again. I think it would be fair to say that this book is where my belief system comes from.

http://www.psitek.net/pages/PsiTekTMKSContents.html

Now FREE on line - maybe there is a message in that alone.

I'm certainly having a 'back to the drawing board' moment.

[Zaira]

John,

"No-one likes to be wrong about anything and realising that you are wrong always causes some emotional discomfort until you re-evaluate your take on things. It's a fundamental problem of human nature.

The point is that it doesn't matter where you're coming from, rationalism or mysticism, for example, it's the challenge to a person's belief system that causes the emotional discomfort.

Those who are into new-agey things like to think they're trying to help people to achieve 'spiritual awakening' etc. whilst those 'nasty skeptics' are trying to take it away from people but both points of view can cause emotional discomfort to people when their current world-view is challenged."

This makes so much sense and keeps me from beating myself up too much. It is simply more information to take on board and process. Something I have been doing my whole life.

Thank you.

[Zaira]

Just for the record... I'm not dying of cancer and I am not into New Age philosophy. I grew up in Glasgow, a skinny, snot-nosed little red-head, who was battered and abused. My father committed suicide when I was 19 years old, the oldest of five kids. I saw the vicious circle of a life growing up in Glasgow, and I knew I did not want my children (when I had them) to go through what I had. I didn't get much out of school. The one thing I am grateful for is my awareness and insight - things were tough and I knew it didn't have to be like that. I began to read everything I could get my hands on.

It all began with Richard Bach's Jonathan Livingston Seagull 1970 and Illusions: The Adventures of a Reluctant Messiah 1977 given to me by the man I later married.

http://www.fantasticfiction.co.uk/b/richard-bach/

Right or wrong, I needed to get out of that environment and learn to deal with the abusive childhood fall-out. I would have followed Uri Gellar himself back then. I'm alive today, surrounded by family and friends, I must have done something right.

[Zaira]

"This is a nice post John! Very clear!" - Allo Allo

Yes it was. Thank you, John.


"Just one point - I think I read that especially with Cancer a positive mental attitude is actively encouraged because it does reflect on survival rates. However, this might not have anything to do with "mind over matter", but simply that if you are positive, you are motivated to actually put lifestyle changes in place that are suggested to you by your medical team. If you are negative, there is no desire to do this - you just continue in the same old way...and give up." - Allo Allo


Another good point.

Thank you.

[Allo Allo]

Just for the record... I'm not dying of cancer and I am not into New Age philosophy. I grew up in Glasgow, a skinny, snot-nosed little red-head, who was battered and abused. My father committed suicide when I was 19 years old, the oldest of five kids. I saw the vicious circle of a life growing up in Glasgow, and I knew I did not want my children (when I had them) to go through what I had. I didn't get much out of school. The one thing I am grateful for is my awareness and insight - things were tough and I knew it didn't have to be like that. I began to read everything I could get my hands on.

It all began with Richard Bach's Jonathan Livingston Seagull 1970 and Illusions: The Adventures of a Reluctant Messiah 1977 given to me by the man I later married.

http://www.fantasticfiction.co.uk/b/richard-bach/

Right or wrong, I needed to get out of that environment and learn to deal with the abusive childhood fall-out. I would have followed Uri Gellar himself back then. I'm alive today, surrounded by family and friends, I must have done something right.
This is just my own opinion but I have noticed that people who don't have a victim mentality, or a poverty mentality, but have success expectations seem to have success unfold in their lives. My mother was born in 1910 into a family that lost everything in the Depression. When she was about 20 she read a book called Consciously Creating Circumstances by George Winslow Plummer. She followed that way of thinking for the rest of her life. She became a most successful person both academically and financially. But most importantly, to her heirs, she passed on the idea that we could all achieve things if we put our minds to it.

I reckon you've really done something right - and your attitude will probably spill over into everyone around you too. I'd like to think that.

[Zaira]

Thank you. I like to think that too. I have a wonderful family. It's almost like I paid my dues early on. My life is just fine, and I am happier now than I have ever been in my whole life.

[Cuddles]

This is a nice post John! Very clear!

Just one point - I think I read that especially with Cancer a positive mental attitude is actively encouraged because it does reflect on survival rates. However, this might not have anything to do with "mind over matter", but simply that if you are positive, you are motivated to actually put lifestyle changes in place that are suggested to you by your medical team. If you are negative, there is no desire to do this - you just continue in the same old way...and give up.

Just to add to what John has already said. There is an important difference between disease outcome and quality of life. No matter how much you think positively, you will not affect the progression of any disease. However, quality of life, which is measured by basically just asking people how they feel, is likely to be rated a lot higher by people who "think positively". It basically a self-administered placebo.

Sadly, a lot of cancer treatment is simply making people feel better when there is nothing that can be done to cure them. In situations like this positive thinking is almost always encouraged because it will help them feel better, even though it won't actually be doing anything.



I respectfully disagree. I believe intuition is based on experience. We chalk up every single experience we have and this develops into intuition. We can trust our intuition because it was gained from years of personal experience. I refer mainly to trusting certain people, and in making decisions.

Ah, but what is "experience"? It is simply your evidence you have gained over the years. Intuition is simply your brain taking a short cut. Instead of conciously thinking "This person has many charateristics that I have noticed in con-men before so I will be wary about whatever he says", your brain simply spits out the answer "This person looks creepy" without bothering your concious mind with all the troublesome thinking.

The brain does a huge amount more than you are ever aware of, from simple input-processing of the sense to very complex analysis. What you think of as your concious mind is pretty much just the area where all the answers are collected. It is possible to think things through conciously just as it is possible to control your breathing conciously, but if you stop thinking about either breathing or thinking your brain will carry on doing it for you (or your nervous system in general at least). While intuition seems different from logical thought processes, it is actually exactly the same thing, just not usually registered in your concious mind.
In fact, this is similar to how I do maths. In school especially, I was always told off for not showing my workings because I didn't have any, I could just look at a question and give the answer without bothering to write anything down. The answer doesn't just appear out of nowhere, I must still be doing exactly the same maths as everyone else, it's just that my brain seems to do it without bothering to tell me about anything other than the answer. The same is true for all intuition. You're doing the same workings as eveyone else, it's just that your concious brain only gives you the final answer, the workings all happen in your subconcious.

[Melanie]

My experience of playing with tarot cards and the like is that intuition as described above is responsible for much of what a reader says - which information can be as valuable as that from a trained counseller. Intuition does often produce a tangible physical sensation - the oft-quoted 'gut reaction'. Unfortunately, the line between 'intuition' and 'imagination' is very thin, and too many readers let imagination take over instead of trusting their 'gut' feelings.

[Cuddles]

My experience of playing with tarot cards and the like is that intuition as described above is responsible for much of what a reader says - which information can be as valuable as that from a trained counseller. Intuition does often produce a tangible physical sensation - the oft-quoted 'gut reaction'. Unfortunately, the line between 'intuition' and 'imagination' is very thin, and too many readers let imagination take over instead of trusting their 'gut' feelings.

Actually, that's an important point that I forgot to mention. Intuition seems to be your brain working things out without telling you, as I posted above. However, that means that it is just as capable of making mistakes as we are when conciously thinking about things. Optical illusions are a perfect example of this.

Because of this, intuition is really only good as a starting point. OK, so you have a strong feeling that something is buried nearby. How can you tell if this is because there are lots of clues visible that you haven't really noticed or if your brain just threw out a random thought for no apparent reason? You think it through. Maybe there's some freashly dug ground, or some tracks and broken branches or something. However, if you can't see any clues that could be responsible, how can you decide your intuition was right?

This seems to be where psychics get it wrong. Instead of getting a feeling and analysing it to check if it is right, they simply assume that their intuition is correct and announce to the world that there is something buried nearby. Again, this comes to the burden of proof and the null hypothesis. If you don't have any evidence that something is true, the default position is that it is not and the burden of proof is on the claimant. Intuition is not correct until proven wrong, it is wrong until proven correct, or at least until there is something supporting it.

[Melanie]

Good points, Cuddles.

"This seems to be where psychics get it wrong. Instead of getting a feeling and analysing it to check if it is right, they simply assume that their intuition is correct and announce to the world that there is something buried nearby."

I think where they really get it wrong is believing that their 'gut feelings' are messages from Spirit. Therefore they learn to trust their feelings unquestioningly - and then lose the sense of where the boundary is between their intuition and their imagination. They stop checking for the tangible feeling which comes with a strong intuitive hunch. And that's when they start spouting anything that comes into their head, trusting 'Spirit' to speak through them.

(Note the word 'hunch' above.)

I have no doubt that some people are more in touch with their 'intuition' than others - most mediums are female or gay which gives some credence to the common phrase 'female intuition', and I have no doubt that many 'mediums' are full of good intention, but if such people learned that it was a human process rather than other-wordly intervention, and fallible to boot, it would be of more benefit to humankind in general.

[Zaira]

Cuddles,

"In fact, this is similar to how I do maths. In school especially, I was always told off for not showing my workings because I didn't have any, I could just look at a question and give the answer without bothering to write anything down. The answer doesn't just appear out of nowhere, I must still be doing exactly the same maths as everyone else, it's just that my brain seems to do it without bothering to tell me about anything other than the answer. The same is true for all intuition. You're doing the same workings as everyone else, it's just that your conscious brain only gives you the final answer, the workings all happen in your subconscious."

I understand. Could this be what psychics do to some extent? Are they coming up with answers from their own subconscious and yet be unaware of it, and therefore grow to believe the answers come from somewhere out there?

[dalriada]

That kind of idea has been proposed;

Have a look at this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Origin_of_Consciousness_in_the_Breakdown_of_th e_Bicameral_Mind

[Zaira]

"Pursuing the bicameral mind, Jaynes focuses on the corpus callosum, the major inter-connector between the brain's hemispheres. In human brains the corpus callosum can be likened to a small bridge, a band of transverse fibres, only slightly more than one-eighth of an inch in diameter. This bridge "collects from most of the temporal lobe cortex but particularly the middle gyrus of the temporal lobe in Wernicke's area." And it was this bridge that served as the means by which the "gods" who dwelled in one hemisphere of the human brain were able to give "directions" to the other hemisphere. It is like thinking of the "two hemispheres of the brain almost as two individuals." Hence the bicameral mind!"


I do a lot of reading, a lot of research. I feel almost driven to seek out Truth, whatever that may be. While doing that I use the one liner.........

Believe only that which rings true to the deepest part of your soul and simply disregard the rest.

Not very scientific but it works for me.

What I'm getting at is the segment above rings true to a certain extent for me. I have been asked many questions about metaphysics, psychics, Ouija board etc. And my answer has always been "It is you doing it!" I didn't completely understand it or why I believed it, but I couldn't get past it. Perhaps there is something in Julian Jaynes theory.

http://deoxy.org/alephnull/jaynes.htm

[Zaira]

"Jaynes theorizes that ancient consciousness was radically different from modern consciousness. He suggests that ancient human beings had no sense of an interior, directing self. Rather, they accepted commands from what appeared to them to be an externalized agency, which they obeyed blindly, without question. This externalized self was a consequence of the split between the two halves of the brain. Jaynes suggests that the left and right brains were not integrated—"unicameral"—they way they are today. Rather, the ancient brain was "bicameral," with the two brains working essentially independently of each other. The left half of the brain, the logical, language-using half, generated ideas and commands, which the right brain then obeyed. These commands were subjectively perceived by the right brain as coming from "outside"—as if a god was speaking."

It was thought that what psychics do we might all be doing in the future, like it was some new ability evolving. Now it seems that it might simply be left over from ancient times. Instead of being ahead of their time perhaps they are actually behind the times through some genetic misprint. In other words, they often claim we are stuck in the past. What if it is them who are stuck in the past?

Too far fetched?

[Dr B]

I think more plausible insights would come from the field of 'agency' over ones own actions.

Google the following and enjoy

Self-monitoring
Reality-monitoring
Self-agency
The role of agency in action

This may well be where many of the misattributions from psychics come from....I am working on a theoretical account of this at the moment...