Derek Ogilvie "The Baby Mind Reader"

[vbloke]

Derek "The Baby Mind Reader" Ogilvie claims he can divine the thoughts of babies.

He has a Channel 5 series coming out sometime this June and a book, already on shelves in your local bookshop.

He appeared on ITV's LK Today programme on 25th May, together with the mother of a child who has speech difficulties, and a token skeptic (although I didn't recognise him... handsome chap, whoever he was ;)).

The article describing this encounter is available here (http://www.ukskeptics.com/article.php?dir=articles&article=Derek_Ogilvie_on_GMTV.php).

Following on from the programme, Derek has expressed a great interest in taking the JREF $1,000,000 challenge. I have supplied him with the challenge FAQ and application form and am now waiting for his response back.

[John Jackson]

No, I didn't recognise the chap either. Excellent article there though! ;)

I don't know a great deal about Ogilvie but from what I've seen he works in a similar way to 'pet psychics'. He claims to be reading babies' minds but is really doing a cold/hot reading on the parent.

I notice that one of his claims is that he can read the baby's mind even when the baby isn't present. That might be because it has nothing to do with reading the baby's mind and everything to do with getting feedback from the parent.

Of course the only way to be certain is for him to be tested under proper conditions (i.e. not with Gary Schwartz) so that we can know for certain whether he's the real deal or not.

The JREF challenge is the ideal way of doing this.

We'll have to look out for this series. In fact, I feel one of my world famous, legendary commentaries is in order. (OK - I like them :P).

[Dr B]

Mark I see his programme is coming out on channel 5 next week - might be a good press release to re-issue the challenge to him?????

[vbloke]

You're probably right - I'll see what I can do.

I can imagine he'll be busy soon with his PR people, so now is an ideal time.

[John Jackson]

There's a Timesonline article here: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2090-2228543.html

Ogilvie will undergo rigorous scientific testing at the University of Arizona with Gary Schwartz, an academic expert in psychic phenomena. He also aims to take up the challenge offered by leading US sceptic James Randi, who has offered $1,000,000 to anyone who can prove their psychic abilities under scientific conditions.

Gary Schwartz will undoubtedly validate Derek as genuine with his 'rigorous' methods. ;)

Derek says that he aims to take the Randi $1,000,000 challenge. It might be time to get the papers to him Mark!!

[Zendal Darkman]

Looks like some of the believers are getting quite excited.
http://forum.digitalspy.co.uk/board/showthread.php?t=361395

[John Jackson]

Well I'm recording it now ready for my commentary tomorrow.

It will be interesting to see what sort of reaction it gets on forums.

[doubting thomas]

Does Derek Ogilvie claim he can understand the language of babies?

If so how did he learn this amazing feat and why aren't there more people like him, i suppose he's lucky he thought of it first.

[Zendal Darkman]

I suppose he's lucky he thought of it first.

Sure is, I can imagine the earth mothers lapping the whole concept up. I can see him being extremely popular (hopefully for just a short while).

[Mojo]

There's a Timesonline article here: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2090-2228543.html

Ogilvie will undergo rigorous scientific testing at the University of Arizona with Gary Schwartz, an academic expert in psychic phenomena. He also aims to take up the challenge offered by leading US sceptic James Randi, who has offered $1,000,000 to anyone who can prove their psychic abilities under scientific conditions.

Gary Schwartz will undoubtedly validate Derek as genuine with his 'rigorous' methods. ;)

According to this rather credulous piece (http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,,1800681,00.html) from yesterday's Grauniad, Gary is already giving him an 80-90% accuracy rating. ::)

[John Jackson]

My commentary on this TV programme: http://www.ukskeptics.com/commentary_display.php?d=The_baby_mind_reader

It's there to be linked to ;) as well as being found via search engines.

I think the programme has had a rather negative response in general. It was quite exploitative of the people involved but that's a general feature of this type of programme rather than anything to do with claimed psychic ability.

[John Jackson]

Derek Ogilvie.com

Bandwidth Limit Exceeded
The server is temporarily unable to service your request due to the site owner reaching his/her bandwidth limit. Please try again later.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Apache/1.3.34 Server at www.derekogilvie.com Port 80

???

His site must have been a bit busier today and he has crappy webhosting - didn't see that coming did he? ;D (sorry, I know it's obvious).

Or perhaps he's had so much criticism that he's shut it. ;)

Either way it's a bit of a shame that his website is down just as he's getting the exposure he wants. ;D

[chillzero]

Derek Ogilvie.com

Bandwidth Limit Exceeded
The server is temporarily unable to service your request due to the site owner reaching his/her bandwidth limit. Please try again later.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Apache/1.3.34 Server at www.derekogilvie.com Port 80

???

His site must have been a bit busier today and he has crappy webhosting - didn't see that coming did he? ;D (sorry, I know it's obvious).

Or perhaps he's had so much criticism that he's shut it. ;)

Either way it's a bit of a shame that his website is down just as he's getting the exposure he wants. ;D


Well, it's back up. And:
The series has had some great reviews in the press. Thankyou to HEAT and REVEAL magazines for making the show their No1 choice and their 'Pick of the Day' last week. HEAT have also made it their 'Pick of the Day' this week! Thankyou to The Guardian, The Daily Mirror, The Times, The Daily Telegraph and The Daily Mail for making show One their 'Pick of the Day'. There have also been some great features in the TV Times, The Scotsman newspaper, The Daily Star, The Sun and The Daily Mirror as well as most if not all of the TV Magazines. Thankyou. There was a page interview (Scotland only), with yours truly, in The Sunday Times as well as comments about show One in the Culture Section of that newspaper. There were also pieces by Giles Hopper in The Sunday Telegraph and Ilona Amos in the Scotland on Sunday newspaper about the series. Many of Sunday's papers mentioned the series such as The Sunday Mail and featured it as 'one to watch'. Did you manage to see my two page interviews in The Guardian and Daily Express yesterday?
As you've no doubt noticed I've been doing loads of TV, press and radio interviews recently to promote my book and the TV series. Every newspaper and magazine that interviews me usually always asks that I do a baby reading for them so it's been a busy time for me. There are still a few more radio and press interviews to do before next week's second show in the series.

Does anyone have any of these papers or transcripts? I'm thinking that we could look at responding to any if they are not balanced reporting, or taken with a non-biased stance.

[John Jackson]

There's a few links on www.badpsychics.co.uk to some of the news stories.

In the commentary I allude to an embarrassingly silly routine that Derek goes into before entering Emma's flat. Jon Donnis has put up the clip online here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r731ymdNKTY

;D ;D :-X

[Mojo]

Did you manage to see my two page interviews in The Guardian and Daily Express yesterday?
Here's the Grauniad interview: http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,,1800681,00.html

[Mojo]

Thankyou to The Guardian, The Daily Mirror, The Times, The Daily Telegraph and The Daily Mail for making show One their 'Pick of the Day'.

I managed to retrieve the TV pages from Monday's Guardian, Times and Telegraph (we don't take the other two).

The Guardian doesn't have a separate listing for its "Pick of the Day" or equivalent, but it does have a few programme titles in pink, which I assume are its recommendations:

BBC1, 7.30pm: World Cup Match of the Day Live: Spain v Tunisia
BBC2, 10pm: Saxondale
ITV1, 9pm: For One Night Only: City Cowboys
C4, 8pm: The War Of The World
C4, 10pm: The Play's The Thing

That's your lot for the terrestrial channels. The interview appears elsewhere in the same section, and gives the programme time, but no indication that it is one of the Grauniad's "Picks of the Day".

The Times has a "Viewing Guide", separate from the listings, which I assume constitutes their "Pick of the Day":

The War Of The World, Channel 4, 8pm
Still Game, BBC2, 9pm
Saxondale, BBC2, 10pm

The Baby Mind Reader doesn't appear to be in The Times's "Picks of the Day" either.

The Torygraph has a "Today's Highlights" section:

The War Of the World, Channel 4, 8pm
The Baby Mind Reader, Five, 9pm
Saxondale, BBC2, 10pm

Do the Times and Guardian have separate Scottish editions?

ETA: Mystery solved (at least for the Guardian): his show is included in the "Watch This" column for Monday in the weekly TV guide, published with Saturday's paper. Still doesn't quite count as their "Pick of the Day" (singular), as two other programmes are also recommended, but I suppose it's only a minor exaggeration.

I assume it was also recommended in the Times's weekly TV guide.

[chillzero]

Did you manage to see my two page interviews in The Guardian and Daily Express yesterday?
Here's the Grauniad interview: http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,,1800681,00.html




What a disgusting man! From that Guardian interview:

How about ethics? What if a two-year-old told him she was sexually abused by her mother? "That hasn't happened yet," he says. "But a baby did tell me his father wasn't his dad. I said the husband should leave the room but the mother insisted he stayed and heard. In the end, I said, 'You've had an affair and he's not the dad.'" The couple stopped the reading at that point.

I think he's lucky they didn't just punch him! (Maybe they did). We have no information about whether he was correct (and how else he might have deciphered this info), or just so far off the mark that the couple realised he was fake and threw him out.

[John Jackson]

I wonder how this is going to affect parents in similar situations who've been watching it. Many are going to see this and start turning to psychics to 'help' them.

As what they say cannot be verified in any way, all it would take is for a psychic to claim a child is being abused and all sorts of problems could ensue.

I wonder if the makers of this kind of programme ever think about the consequences of what they broadcast.

Anyway. If anyone wishes to complain there's Channel 5:

customerservices@five.tv

and Ofcom:

http://www.ofcom.org.uk/complain/progs/specific/?itemid=286480

I'm going to put something together and complain to Ofcom.

[John Jackson]

Derek's forum has disappeared altogether now!! ???

I notice there's a message on his entry page to the site which includes this after saying that he's going to be scientifically tested:

Until then a few of those skeptics will undoubtedly try to wind us all up by constantly going on and on and on about me 'cold reading' or using trickery. Don't let them or anything they say bother you. Just stay cool, calm and collected

Hmmm, a psychic instructing his followers not to listen to criticism :o

Surely if what he does is real it should stand up to criticism.

If his claims don't stand up to scrutiny then it may be because they are false. Best not listen to criticism then ;)

[Mojo]

Thankyou to The Guardian, The Daily Mirror, The Times, The Daily Telegraph and The Daily Mail for making show One their 'Pick of the Day'.

I assume it was also recommended in the Times's weekly TV guide.


I've got hold of the Times's weekly TV guide.

In their "TV Choice" panel for Monday, they have:

In its own box at the top of the panel, so presumably their top pick for the day: Saxondale, BBC2 10pm.

Listed below that: The War Of The World, C4, 8pm; Still Game, BBC2, 9pm.

Then, down in the bottom right hand corner, a section called "Best of the rest", where we find Becker, Five, 6.30pm ("A so-so new American sitcom..."); Josephine Baker: The First Black Superstar, BBC2, 7pm;

And finally: The Baby Mind Reader.

OK, it's listed, but it can hardly be described as "Pick of the Day" if it's being touted alongside programmes described as "so-so".

[Sgt Badass]

I was watching Richard and Judy yesterday (errm, because the wife had it on... ::)) and they were giving this guy a hard time. I was stunned - I don't know why but I'd always thought of R&J as leaning towards woo, but they really didn't seem to have time for this chap.

They also mentioned cold reading etc, one of Derek's responses was "how would I know the mother's credit card number?" which just got a derisory grunt from both hosts who have obviously seen a few magic tricks in their life.

[tkingdoll]

The correct response would be "well, how would the baby know its mother's credit card number either?"

[John Jackson]

The correct response would be "well, how would the baby know its mother's credit card number either?"


Yes that would have been great.

Ian Rowland (http://www.ianrowland.com) used to go on the likes of the R&J show and he would demonstrate how a lot of these things can be done by trickery.

I know Ian no longer does this kind of thing as he didn't feel as if it did much good overall, but if his demonstrations left their mark on R&J it did at least do some good.

It's nice to see these psychics challenged now and then by the presenters instead of being given what amounts to free advertising.

[Mr Pycroft]

I wonder how this is going to affect parents in similar situations who've been watching it. Many are going to see this and start turning to psychics to 'help' them.

As what they say cannot be verified in any way, all it would take is for a psychic to claim a child is being abused and all sorts of problems could ensue.

I wonder if the makers of this kind of programme ever think about the consequences of what they broadcast.

Anyway. If anyone wishes to complain there's Channel 5:

customerservices@five.tv

and Ofcom:

http://www.ofcom.org.uk/complain/progs/specific/?itemid=286480

I'm going to put something together and complain to Ofcom.



I was thinking of going down the route of complaining under section 1 of the OFCOM Broadcasting code, specifically 1.19 Exorcism, the occult and the paranormal.

Having not watched the programme (the shame!) Does anyone know whether the "entertainment" disclaimer is shown at the start of the programme? I hope you don't mind me asking, but how are you going to approach this John?

Do you have any other suggestions? I'm particularly disturbed at this kind of programme, which appears to be some kind of cynical response to recent parenting programmes, such as "House of Tiny Tearaways" and "Supernanny", which at least appear to offer the parents skills to bring up their kids. Derek only offers false hope, - which i find worrying. I see a whole new psychic cottage industry appearing as a result of this.

Oops (edited to add) - forgot to say this is my first post on this site - hello all!

[Dr B]

Richard is quite into the paranormal, there is a chance i might be doing something with him later in the year as a media chap who works at one of my cases knows him (I am such a name dropper :D...well if Geller can do it.....). I have been told he is skeptical but has some beliefs - sounds fine and more balanced than some.

I thought he would be too sensationalist - but maybe i need to revise this view.

btw - welcome Mr Pycroft O0

[John Jackson]

Welcome Mr. Pycroft O0

I was waiting to see what sort of claims were being made for the programme and then deciding on which course of action to take.

A few people have complained to Channel 5 and they all get the same reply:

<blockquote>Thank you for your recent enquiry regarding The Baby Mind Reader.

We were sorry to read your comments regarding this programme.

The programme pointed out that Derek "claimed" to be able to read the child's mind; it did not say that he could do so, and the advice which Derek gave was based an a set of facts which he ascertained were true from the parents before he gave it, indeed the parents felt that they benefited from Derek’s input.

Our regulator’s Broadcasting Code permits demonstrations of the paranormal (including mind-reading) which purports to be real after the watershed provided it is treated with due objectivity and does not contain life-changing advice about health, finance, employment, or relationships.

We have logged your comments in the Viewer Enquiries Report, which is circulated throughout the company. Also, your complaint will be noted in the quarterly report to our regulator. Commercial television is regulated in the UK by Ofcom (the Office of Communications).

If there is anything further we can help you with, please do not hesitate to contact us.

Thank you for your interest in Five.</blockquote>

It looks like they're covering themselves by not making any claims of psychic ability at all so even though they are making it look like they're serious they're not prepared to back it up at all.

Hiding behind disclaimers speaks volumes ;)

[tkingdoll]

I would also like to complain to Channel 5. However, I have not seen the programme so it would be dishonest of me to claim to have.

If anyone recorded it and wants to lend me their copy, however, I would be very grateful and would of course return it immediately.

[Nettles]

When it was on, I was going to watch it just to see what kind of nonsense our Heroic Investigator went up against. I couldn't bring myself to change the channel, and I couldn't figure out why. I mean, I can usually watch woo with a good woo-watching attitude. (Gawd, this is Dr Suess country isn't it: Do you too watch the woo as the woo-watchers do?)

I've decided that what really bothers me is the offence against the dignity of the baby, the cheerful collusion of the parents in this offence, and perhaps least responsible the engineering of this offence by Channel 5. It's just filthy.

[John Jackson]

If anyone recorded it and wants to lend me their copy, however, I would be very grateful and would of course return it immediately.


I think I have both of the first 2 programmes on the same DVD - PM me with a delivery address and it shall be put in the post O0

[John Jackson]

I've decided that what really bothers me is the offence against the dignity of the baby, the cheerful collusion of the parents in this offence, and perhaps least responsible the engineering of this offence by Channel 5. It's just filthy.


I have made a few comments (in the commentary funnily enough) about the issue of assuming that it's the baby who is actually at fault in these situations; and also about the potential for psychological damage should anyone believe that babies have the same fears that their parents do.

There is little doubt that people with 'problem children' will watch this series and see psychics as a viable solution to their problems. In fact, I had someone today asking for me to put her in contact with Derek for a private consultation. :-\

Channel 5 are absolving themselves of legal responsibility by hiding behind letter of the law legislation, but there's little doubt that they are grossly irresponsible in promoting this unproven mode of intervention in people's lives.

Derek is obviously good at what he does (even if he's not psychic), but what about all of the copycat psychics that this series will spawn?

There is great potential for harm here, and that's down to channel 5, Derek Ogilvie, and the women who have been used to validate Derek's abilities (even though they are completely unqualified to assess such a claim) in the popular media.

It's an absolute disgrace. Especially when considering the fact that Derek's claimed abilities have never even been properly tested!

[JonDonnis]

I have been emailing Ch5, with my concerns regarding this show.
Lets take a look at thier piss poor complaints dept

_________________________________________________


From: Jon Donnis [mailto:jonnodonnis@yahoo.co.uk]
Sent: 21 June 2006 18:08
To: Customer Services
Subject: Complaint about The Baby Mind Reader

Dear Sir/Madam

I am writing to complain about the show that aired Monday evening on Ch5.

Derek Ogilvie's Baby Mind Reader.

This show was a disgrace.

This person is using known psychological techniques to convince people he is psychic.

To tell a mother that her child is scared that when they grow up they will be raped is a disgrace.

When he said that I was appauled and couldn't believe that Five would dare air such utter rubbish.

Derek Ogilvie was passing off common sense to the young parent, and trying to wrap it up in psychic ability.

The show was a joke, and the bad press it has received has shown the countries contempt.

I will be complaining to Ofcom as well, due to the fact that no sceptical viewpoint was presented during the show.

And no disclaimers either were offered.

At the very least at the end credits they should've offered helplines for people to contact REAL professionals who can deal with the effects of rape and problem children.

People watching this rubbish may be convinced that psychic ability is real, and may become addicted to psychics, and end up paying a fortune.

Will Five be held responsible for the damage caused? I expect not.

One of the most irresponsible tv shows ever to air on UK television.

Jon

_________________________________________________

Dear Jon

Thank you for your recent enquiry regarding The Baby Mind Reader.

We were sorry to read your comments regarding this programme.

The programme pointed out that Derek "claimed" to be able to read the child's mind; it did not say that he could do so, and the advice which Derek gave was based an a set of facts which he ascertained were true from the parents before he gave it, indeed the parents felt that they benefited from Derek’s input.

Our regulator’s Broadcasting Code permits demonstrations of the paranormal (including mind-reading) which purports to be real after the watershed provided it is treated with due objectivity and does not contain life-changing advice about health, finance, employment, or relationships.

We have logged your comments in the Viewer Enquiries Report, which is circulated throughout the company. Also, your complaint will be noted in the quarterly report to our regulator. Commercial television is regulated in the UK by Ofcom (the Office of Communications).

If there is anything further we can help you with, please do not hesitate to contact us.

Thank you for your interest in Five.

Yours sincerely

MARTIN

VIEWER ADVISOR

_________________________________________________

Hello Martin,

I do not appreciate this standard copy and paste reply,

I would've hoped that the complaints department of Channel 5 would atthe very least give me a personal reply.

Firstly your defence is wrong.

Derek Ogilvie has stated many times on various interviews including one on Richard & Judy that he HAS given life changing help to people on the Channel 5 tv show.

Do i need to provide you of a clip of him saying this?

He is directly going into peoples homes and convincing them he knows whats best for THEIR child through the child telepathically communicting with him.

They are then CHANGING THEIR LIVES due to what he says.

This is in DIRECT conflict with the regulators code.

I have complained to Ofcom and I will encourage more people to do so.

Five have been massively irresponsible with this programme, especially as Derek Ogilvie is a known fake.

He has lied on live TV (GMTV) about his knowledge of a family. We have proof of this.

I would at the very least expect a REAL reply from you and no a computer generated response please.

I represent this countries largest and most popular sceptical website, and along with thousands of others am massively disapointed at the total LACK of any objectivity within the show.

Where is the sceptic view? Where is the alternative explanations?

Jon

_________________________________________________

Dear Jon

Thank you for your further e-mail regarding The Baby Mind Reader.

We were sorry to read that you were unhappy with our response to your previous enquiry. Despite advances in technology, it is still necessary to employ human beings in the scripting of all Five responses. We will only use a "standard" response if it exactly answers a viewer's questions. A standard response ensures total accuracy, and enables us to give a more comprehensive answer to the particular points made. There is simply no point in rephrasing the same answer to exactly the same questions as this would mean that it would take months rather than days to respond to the large volume of mail that we receive.

If we were in doubt as to whether any elements of this programme were in breach of the Ofcom Broadcasting Code, we would not have transmitted the series on the channel.

Nevertheless, your further comments have again been noted in our Viewer Enquiries Report. As you are aware, this is circulated throughout the company and will be seen by all relevant personnel.

Thank you for your interest in Five.

Yours sincerely

David

VIEWER ADVISOR

_________________________________________________

Hi
Your claim that your standard response EXACTLY answers viewer enquiries is nonsense.
I have been contacted regarding many people who have complained to you, and who have all received
the exact same reply, despite them addressing very different questions.

I highly doubt that anyone actually reads the complaints at all, instead i guess its very much just one person
sat at a PC, and as soon as they see a complaint, they just copy and paste the same reply without even reading what the complaint is.

I find this level of customer service to be an utter disgrace, and as such brings Five into disrepute.

The FACT that yet again you have totally ignored any comments I made and instead just brushed off the complaint makes the whole complaints dept' of Five a joke.

You say the show does not break the regulators code, well this is bogus. Derek Ogilvie has stated on a number of occasions that he gives life changing advice to people, he has claimed it about The Baby Mind Reader on Ch4's Richard and Judy.

Also the show again breaks the regulators codes by not featuring a balanced viewpoint, ie:No sceptical opinion. The whole show is just a vehicle for Derek Ogilvie to sell his book.

Please be aware that I am keeping a record of all your replies, which I will be including in a report to Jane Lighting and the RTL Group.
As well as a copy sent to Ofcom.

I have found your responses to be totally bogus.

If there is anyone at Five with a bit more responsibility who can answer me, I would appreciate it, as opposed to some tea boy whose only job is to copy and paste standard replies?

Jon

[tkingdoll]

And this is the best way to represent sceptics, is it?

[Jocky]

Hi Jon,

Welcome to UKS :)

You are right about Derek Ogilvie - I agree that when he gives a 'reading' his own opinions masquerade as those of the baby, that this does represent life-changing advice, and that he claims psychic powers which neither he nor anyone else has in fact ever been shown to possess. There is considerable potential for harm in this practice, and it is important that skeptical voices are heard complaining about it.

However, I fear you have got sidetracked into a fight about the quality of Channel 5's customer service, and prior experience tells me that this is a fight you will not win. Large organisations do not engage in real debate with outsiders about their practices - quite the contrary, they employ customer services people to keep the likes of us at arms' length. IMHO, by railing against them so vehemently, you make it less likely that your complaint will be taken seriously.

Good luck with the complaint to Ofcom - you will find many people here who will agree with the thrust of what you say. However, if you don't mind my saying so, I think you should couch it in more measured terms. We all get cross about woo sometimes, especially potentially harmful woo, but IMHO it is important that we are always seen to present our arguments in a measured and logical manner.

Best,

Jocky

[John Jackson]

Hi, Jon. Nice to see you here. O0

I think what the makers of these programmes do is be very careful not to actually break broadcasting rules when taken to the letter, but they present things in a very misleading way.

They know what they're doing and they couldn't give a fig about complaints. It's disgusting but all we can really do is publicly comment the way we have been doing and show those who are inquisitive enough to look what is really going on with series like this one.

[JayUK]

Hmmm this might be a little unpopular :-X so if anyones agrees with me then let me know, but this is how I feel.

Although I hate Derek Ogilvie and think he should be investigated by trading standards for fraud, I also feel that complaining to OFCOM is wrong. I really don't want to live in a nanny state where somebody else decides what I can and cannot watch. If you don't like something on your TV then turn over or turn off, it's your TV it's your choice. My TV is my business, not yours. OK?

Before you bite my head off just think about the following situation:-

A skeptic has his own series. Each week he dedicates 30 minutes to debunking a popular pseudoscientific belief. Cold reading, alternative medicine, ghosts e.t.c. All the believers in this crap complain to OFCOM and the program gets cancelled. You wouldn't like tht would you? Well it's swings and roundabouts I'm afraid.

If you have to write letter then write to a company who makes tv shows (not OFCOM) and suggest that there are a lot of people who would like to see a skeptical point of view of TV and we feel that at the moment the coverage is a bit one sided.

I'd also like to add that amognst the most complained about TV shows are 'Jerry Springer The Opera', 'Derren Brown - Seance' and 'Derren Brown - Russian Roulette' some of the best shows of the past 5 years.

Cheers Jamie

[John Jackson]

Jay,

No problem. In fact I agree with you.

I was initially intending to complain to OFCOM as it looked to me like they were breaking the rules. (I think it's appropriate to complain if rules are being broken).

It turns out that it has all been done very cleverly. They are not breaking rules as they never claim that Derek is for real. That's why I never went ahead with a complaint; there was nothing specific that I could get them on.

So, all we can do is publicly comment in this type of programme and reveal the deception that is behind them.

[JayUK]

Thanks, What rules are you refering to?

[tkingdoll]

Ah, I see John beat me to it!

I was going to say that the case for complaining to OFCOM would be regarding breaches of their own guidelines - for which we have a tenuous case but it can't hurt to try.

I think the 'nanny state' issue is a larger one. As much as you are free to watch what you like, you are also free to complain about it.

If I had a skeptic TV show and there were complaints, I would be glad a framework exists in which people are free to complain. And if I breached broadcasting rules in my show, well then I would deserve to have it taken off the air.

The libertarian viewpoint is an idealistic one, but in reality rules must exist.

[vbloke]

ITC Programme Code 2002


1.10
The Occult and 'Psychic' Practices
1.10(i)
Exorcisms and the Occult
Actual demonstrations of exorcisms and occult practices, such as those involving the purported invocation of unknown spirits of the dead or negative forces, are not acceptable in non-fictional programming except in the context of a legitimate investigation. They should not, in any case, be shown before the watershed.
1.10(ii)
Other Paranormal and related Issues


NB These paragraphs refer only to issues dealt with outside a religious or doctrinal context. Section 7 deals with religious programming and issues.

Demonstrations of clairvoyance, clairaudience, and similar practices are acceptable only when they are clearly and explicitly presented as entertainment, or when they are the subject of legitimate investigation. Programmes should not be included at times when significant numbers of children are expected to be watching: for example, before the watershed on public service channels. When presented for entertainment purposes, measures should include announcements before and at the end of programmes to indicate their nature as entertainment, and appropriate acknowledgement of the existence of differing opinions as to the true nature of clairaudience and clairvoyance. Programmes should not include specific advice to particular contributors or viewers about health or medical matters, the law or personal finance or include specific advice which might significantly influence behaviour in relation to personal relationships. They should not include advice which might be damaging or unduly distressing to those concerned or which might unduly disconcert the likely audience.

Demonstrations of predictive practices, whether ‘psychic’ or otherwise (eg horoscopes, palmistry), are acceptable only when they are presented as entertainment or are the subject of legitimate investigation. They should not include specific advice to particular contributors or viewers about health or medical matters or about personal finance. They should not be included at times when large numbers of children are expected to be watching.

Fiction programmes containing ‘psychic’ or occult phenomena should not normally be scheduled before the watershed, although a fantasy context, for example, may justify such a scheduling.”

[JayUK]

You know what, F**k those rules. I can;t believe critical thinkers like yourselves want to follow some rules set out that tell you what you can and cannot watch. Come on people, even when the rules support our cause they still should be thrown away.

Cheers

Jamie

[tkingdoll]

Critical thinking is not about revolting. Please explain why adhering to broadcasting guidelines has anything to do with skepticism.

The ITC exists because broadcasters are private, profit-making companies and need to be regulated just like any other industry.

Like I say, the libertarian viewpoint is like communism, it works fine in theory but conflicts massively with actual human behaviour. The laws of the land are also just 'rules', perhaps we should throw those out too?

If the rules exist and Derek's show breaks them, then that is a potential way to get him off the air, and that's fine with me.

[JayUK]

The ITC exists because broadcasters are private, profit-making companies and need to be regulated just like any other industry.

The rules have to be justfied though. I don't like football on TV but that isn't enough reason to ban it. but that's the same reason ITC doesn't want to put paranormal stuff on TV. Give me a better reason than I just don't want to see it because like I said before sister you have an off switch on your TV.

If I had a skeptic TV show and there were complaints, I would be glad a framework exists in which people are free to complain. And if I breached broadcasting rules in my show, well then I would deserve to have it taken off the air

Of course you have the right to complain but, OFCOM should not have the right to follow up your complaint with action. If you have to complain then write to the the people who make the show. Stop running to nanny.

Cheers

Jamie

[JayUK]

Critical thinking is not about revolting. Please explain why adhering to broadcasting guidelines has anything to do with skepticism.


The only reason I appealed to the critical thinking side is because it's nomally us on the side of the fence that has to defend our right to speak out. Look at that whole south park thing with scientology or muhammed cartoons or the Jerry Springer Opera. I thought that it's just worth remembering those times we were banned when calling to ban something else.

Cheers

Jamie

[tkingdoll]

I really don't see how any of what you said relates to critical thinking.

1) The 'off' switch on your TV (not mine, I don't receive broadcast channels in my home) has zero effect on broadcasters unless you are one of the research homes that makes up the ratings.

2) The programme makers are going to ignore any complaints they receive as they do not have any tangible effect on the ratings unless you are in a household as per 1).

Therefore, the only way for programme makers to be regulated is via an independent body.

Paranormal 'stuff' on TV because is not regulated because the body 'does not like it', as you seem to think. I'm really not sure where you got that idea from.

If a regulatory body cannot follow up a complaint with action, then it is useless.

If you steal my TV, should I have the right to complain to the police but they not have the right to arrest you?

[John Jackson]

The rules have to be justfied though.

True, and in a case like a TV programme portraying psychic ability as if it were real when in fact Derek Ogilvie's abilities have never been tested or proved, it shows that the rules really need tightening up!

The point is the rules are as they are whether we like them or not. We can only work within the framework that exists.

And rules do serve a useful purpose. Remember, there will be a lot of vulnerable people who will be influenced by this series and they'll end up going to psychics to solve their problems. Not everyone is capable of objectively assessing a programme like this one (!)

[tkingdoll]

Critical thinking is not about revolting. Please explain why adhering to broadcasting guidelines has anything to do with skepticism.


The only reason I appealed to the critical thinking side is because it's nomally us on the side of the fence that has to defend our right to speak out. Look at that whole south park thing with scientology or muhammed cartoons or the Jerry Springer Opera. I thought that it's just worth remembering those times we were banned when calling to ban something else.

Cheers

Jamie


Those are very different situations - people were calling for programmes to be withdrawn when they did not breach any broadcasting guidelines.

[JayUK]

In the interest of not moving this thread into unknown terratory I'll start a new thread. I'll let you know when I'm done.

Cheers

Jamie

[JayUK]

It's in the 'logic' catagory under 'rules and regulations'

[Physiotherapist]

Did anyone see last evenings programme?

[John Jackson]

Did anyone see last evenings programme?


I've been trying to type it up all day but I keep getting sidetracked with more important things plus I don't have a great deal of enthusiasm for it as it wasn't much good anyway.

[John Jackson]

I put this up yesterday: http://www.ukskeptics.com/commentary_display.php?d=The_baby_mind_reader#gal


This commentary has actually started to get a lot of hits O0

I think that's down to it being picked up by Google. I was beginning to wonder whether it was worth doing as it wasn't getting read much but it's suddenly turned into the (currently) most hit document on the site.

In fact hits in general have boomed lately. We're now averaging 900 visitors a day and it's increasing every month.

[tkingdoll]

I've been not-so-subtly linking to pages here on JREF too, and I noticed you have as well. That would account for a lot of traffic I would have thought, there are thousands of readers of that forum O0

[chillzero]

I put this up yesterday: http://www.ukskeptics.com/commentary_display.php?d=The_baby_mind_reader#gal


This commentary has actually started to get a lot of hits O0

I think that's down to it being picked up by Google. I was beginning to wonder whether it was worth doing as it wasn't getting read much but it's suddenly turned into the (currently) most hit document on the site.

In fact hits in general have boomed lately. We're now averaging 900 visitors a day and it's increasing every month.


I got my dad to put it on his blog :D

[John Jackson]

I think the mention on Randi's commentary last week helped raise awareness too.

I hoped initially to get 10,000+ visitors a month. I thought that would be great for a skeptics' website in the UK but we've gone way past that.

The figures are only for the website too - this forum is not included as it would skew the results a lot.

So we're not a high-profile site by any means but it's all going very well. O0

[John Jackson]

I got my dad to put it on his blog :D


Nice one O0

What's it about? ???

Or is it a personal one?

[chillzero]

From: Me!!
Sent: 05 July 2006 12:37
To: Customer Services
Subject:


Hello,

I have been following the interest shown in the new Channel Five series with 'the Baby Mindreader'. I understand that the law regarding psychics and television states that these shows are to be designed as entertainment only - "Demonstrations of predictive practices, whether ‘psychic’ or otherwise (eg horoscopes, palmistry), are acceptable only when they are presented as entertainment or are the subject of legitimate investigation. They should not include specific advice to particular contributors or viewers about health or medical matters or about personal finance." (source - ITC Program Code 2002).

I understand that you have fielded several complaints about this program due to the fact that Derek Ogilvy has issued some very specific advice to parents, and in particular one distressing scene which he discussed the rape of the mother, and how that was affecting her toddler daughter. So far your response has been that: "The programme pointed out that Derek "claimed" to be able to read the child's mind; it did not say that he could do so, and the advice which Derek gave was based on a set of facts which he ascertained were true from the parents before he gave it, indeed the parents felt that they benefited from Derek’s input."

The fact that Derek Ogilvy merely "claims" to have this ability is irrelevant when a nationwide terrestrial tv channel such as Channel Five provide him with support and credibility by airing such a show without first taking steps to provide proof of his claim. Additionally, I believe these types of shows are supposed to be balanced - providing an opposing opinion or viewpoint. This opposing viewpoint seems to be missing from this show as there is no skeptical consultation about the discussions held between Mr Ogilivy and the families involved.

If this show is designed solely and wholely for the purposes of entertainment (as required by the ITC Program Code), I wonder if you could pass a request to the entertainers involved to contact me (bannonc@email.com) and provide me with some feedback and opinion about that fact. By entertainers, I mean the families involved. Could I get some confirmation that this show is not intentionally promoting a man to give out actual advice and information that he is unqualified to give (he is not a psychologist, psychiatrist or even a nutritionist), and that is prohibited by uk programing standards? On the other hand, if you believe him to be genuine, could I get some confirmation of the proof provided of his ability to pass this information from the children concerned? What testing did you require him to pass to convince you to air this program?

I would like to think that Channel Five feels a responsibility to deal with its viewing public as concerned citizens, and address concerns we feel in an appropriate, reassuring manner.

Thank you,

Best Regards,



response

----- Original Message -----
From: "Customer Services"
To: Me!!
Subject: VA/161806/CM/C12F (The Baby Mind-Reader)
Date: Fri, 7 Jul 2006 11:02:09 +0100

Thank you for your recent enquiry regarding The Baby Mind-Reader.

We were sorry to learn that you found cause for complaint with this programme. As you have already read our responses to previous similar complaints, we wish to re-iterate that the programme is acceptable within the OfCom Programme Code. Our previous e-mails have already pointed out that Derek’s advice was as a result of facts that he has ascertained were true from the parents.

Nonetheless, we have logged your comments in the Viewer Enquiries Report, which is circulated throughout the company. Also, your complaint will be noted in the quarterly report to our regulator. Commercial television is regulated in the UK by Ofcom (the Office of Communications).


If there is anything further we can help you with, please do not hesitate to contact us.

Thank you for your interest in Five.

Yours sincerely

Craig

VIEWER ADVISOR



my response


Dear Craig,

Thank you for your response. Thank you for forwarding my complaint to the relevant people.
I understand what you say about complying with regulations, however, I feel this program crosses those boundaries, as well as the boundaries of decency. In last night's program Derek became very loud, used foul language, and was quite violent in his actions, while claiming that the foul language came from the child. He was describing an abusive episode from the mother's past, in a very intimidating manner - there was no sympathy or empathy for how that woman must have been feeling, and he did not let up when she was clearly upset and unable to respond to him. The child was also clearly upset and trying to comfort her mother.
This kind of program is expoitative in the extreme, and I feel it is to channel five's loss to continue to air this. All I wanted in my initial email was some confirmation that the show is designed as entertainment only, but I don't find that this is the case. The show is clearly designed to imply that this man's claims are true, while no effort has been made to test those claims. They are endorsing a fraud in manipulating people in need of help. I do hope that channel five will reconsider their stand on this, and take the program off air until Derek Ogilvy's claims are tested and proven.

Regards,

[chillzero]

I got my dad to put it on his blog :D


Nice one O0

What's it about? ???

Or is it a personal one?


Just his own personal ramblings
http://wind-sand-and-stars.blogspot.com/

[John Jackson]

I think Channel5 know that they're within the rules to the letter of the law. When it comes to moral responsibility however, I would say that have stepped way over the mark.

I even had a mother contact me (well UKS) asking if I could put her in touch with Derek Ogilvie. People will be watching this programme and concluding that everything they are seeing is real and broadcast exactly as it all happened. That's why the deceptive nature of it is so morally repugnant.

I don't think I've seen a complimentary word written about the programme anywhere on the 'net. I don't think it has gone down too well at all; so let's hope that Channel 5 learn a lesson here.

Somehow I doubt it. >:(

[chillzero]

We can always hope.

umm... you know ... combine all that positive energy to direct our requests to the universe and be blessed by Spirit with the outcome we desire. :-\


hmmm... is hope a bad thing? ???
;)

[John Jackson]

Here we go.

Just as I feared. Derek Ogilvie is not just content to 'read' babies' minds, he now wants to start getting involved with reading the minds of the disabled: http://www.sundaymail.co.uk/news/tm_objectid=17350608&method=full&siteid=64736&headline=tv-psychic-in-bid-to-help-jordan-s-son--name_page.html

Now this really is repugnant.

It just shows the depths to which these people will stoop.

[vbloke]

He can "help" only because the poor kid can't talk.

I'll email him again about the challenge - I've had no reply so far.

[tkingdoll]

I'm...speechless.

That is the most attention-grabbing, headline-seeking, fame-desiring, exploitative unscrupulous manipulative greedy thing I have ever heard of.


Gee, guess I wasn't speechless after all.

[John Jackson]

Well he's had a taste of fame now and a celebrity endorsement is obviously what he's after to boost his image further.

I think the whole 'baby mind reader' idea is a gimmick too far never mind meddling in the lives of the disabled.

It's bloody sick. >:(

[Dr B]

and why will only a famous baby /child do??? (I think we all know....)

If he really wanted to help, he could walk into a hospital an volunteer......why it has be about him all the time is beyond me....(well not really... :D)

Might be worth sending Jordan's agent a letter.... ???

[John Jackson]

Good point. O0

I wonder if Jordan, or Peter Andre, has the sense to see this for what it is?

[vbloke]

I'd like to think that the two of them can afford the best in child care and psychologists to help out with him.

Derek, in saying what he's said, has instantly got his name alongside theirs, and got a rub off of fame from that alone.

If he was truly serious, he'd get back in contact with me and we'd get the JREF challenge underway - after all, parting $1,000,000 from Randi would give him more worldwide publicity than Jordan and her child.

[doubting thomas]

I agree with all of the previous posts on this, but it has to be said that Jordan and Peter Andre are not shy when it comes to publicity of ANY kind to keep them in the public eye.

[tkingdoll]

I agree with all of the previous posts on this, but it has to be said that Jordan and Peter Andre are not shy when it comes to publicity of ANY kind to keep them in the public eye.


I'm going to credit them with more sense than that until shown otherwise. I would hope that she wouldn't sell out her son like that.

[vbloke]

As far as I can remember, she has been very protective of her son due to his disability and this is the sort of thing that I hope she'll respond to with a "fuck off, mate"

[John Jackson]

Programme 4 commentary is up: http://www.ukskeptics.com/commentary_display.php?d=The_baby_mind_reader#top


How's that for quick typing? 8) ;D

[John Jackson]

We're getting loads of hits by people looking for the baby mind reader but I picked up this search term too:
http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=I+want+Derek+Ogilvie+to+help+my+baby&meta=

I want Derek Ogilvie to help my baby :-\

Whoever it was came back to the commentary a couple of times after finding it - I hope it's had some effect.

At least it's there as a balance to the uncritical pap that's online from the credophiles in the media.

[tkingdoll]

Well done John, thanks for supplying the other side of the argument for casual Googlers. Without your work, they may well be duped by him.

Are you sure it wasn't a search for "I want Derek Ogilvie"? :o

[John Jackson]

We had 1196 visitors yesterday so the growth is still ongoing. O0

I hope that these commentaries and articles do have an impact. Well they must considering the hits they get.

The most popular section on the website is the health (http://www.ukskeptics.com/health.php) section; and apart from a couple of snidey comments from pro-alt medicine types it has received a lot of positive feedback, including positive messages from people who have been considering going down the alt.med route for themselves and their children.

The same thing goes for the likes of Derek Ogilvie and all of the copycat psychics that the Channel5 series will inspire. If we can inform people about the reality of these things then at least they are in a better position to make an informed decision.

All we can do is present information as accurately as we can - what people do with it is up to them.

[Jocky]

All we can do is present information as accurately as we can - what people do with it is up to them.

Absolutely - information is the way forward.

Well done on all those hits, John O0 O0 I'm sure people are being helped.

[Nettles]

If I were a gambler, I would open a book on the next Ogilvie project. My money would be on communicating with people in a persistent vegetative state.

And since I'd also be ready to bet that he does vanity searches, I'm wondering whether he'll think of it on his own or read it here.

Is that an experimenter effect?

Good thing I'm not a gambler.

[tkingdoll]

Gah, don't give him ideas! His next show: The Coma Whisperer.

[John Jackson]

And the next logical step is that they'll be talking to the dead!!

Oh hang on..... They've already thought of that one.

[John Jackson]

Wey Hey!!! :D

Oops.. Just got a bit excited as there's no Baby Mind Reader to report on this week. ;D

I quite enjoyed doing the Britain's Psychic Challenge commentary a few months ago but this one quickly became boring.

[Dr B]

I might become the "skeptics mind reader" a great ability to know what your thinking based on your cogent arguments alone.... ;D ;D

[John Jackson]

We seem to be getting a load of hits on the the baby mind reader commentary from people searching for Derek Ogilvie, the baby mind reader, and channel 5.

Has something been announced - like a new series? ???

Or is it coincidence?

There's nothing on his website. Mind you, his forum, which was removed for 'technical reasons', is still not there.

[tkingdoll]

Perhaps his fans are looking for information on where it went to and why. Also known as "they cancelled my favourite show!"

[kath23]

Was it cancelled? I complained about his 'people skills' ;D but channel 5 didn't seem to care how evil and dangerous the things he said were.

My fiance just thought Ogilvie was exploitative, disturbing and cringe-making all at the same time and couldn't physically watch it.
Love
Kath

[vbloke]

I know he's got a new book coming out next year. It's probably been mentioned somewhere.

I never heard anything back from him, despite all the emails.

I haven't heard anything about the filming he was supposed to be doing, or even if there were any volunteers from his site for it.

He's got a live show coming up in Glasgow in November too - do we have any local skeptics who can go along?

[John Jackson]

We're getting a load of hits for it today as well. I can't see any mention of him anywhere else so can't think of any reason why searches for DO have increased. :confused:

It's possible that we were dropped in the last Google shuffle and then just got our link reinstated in the latest 'Google dance' I suppose, so it looks like searches have increased when it was our hits that had dropped.

I thought something had been announced. I hope there's not another series as I don't want to do another commentary on such tripe. :-X

[vbloke]

Can you quantify loads? There may be a reason, but I can't find one apart from the book and live show - his website seems pitifully out of date.

[John Jackson]

It had trickled off to a handful of hits a day as you'd expect for something that's old news then on Thursday it went to 100+ hits. 63 yesterday - 30 so far today. ???

I just wondered if there was a specific reason for it.

[John Jackson]

This is on Derek's site (http://www.derekogilvie.com/):

I have been working on new ideas for the next series of The Baby Mind Reader TV show and I've been filming in London over the past few weeks. Thankyou [sic] to all the parent's [sic] who auditioned.

That may have had something to do with it.

So, it looks like we're getting another series of The Baby Mind Reader. ???

I'd like to know which families failed the auditions and why. I pointed out in the commentary I did on the last series that they pick and choose the families they work with so they can guarantee positive results for broadcast.

[JonDonnis]

I really hoped that Five would've seen sense and canned this show for good.

[kath23]

Loads of people complained from the 'bad psychics' site to the BBC. I complained not because it's fraudulent psychism, but I really didn't like the things he said to people.

Like 'your daughter thinks she is going to be raped at 14 like you were.' :o

5 just said Ogle dosn't claim to be a counsellor and he refers people to counsellors.

But as an ex-tarot reader/ new ager I really think he would benefit from doing a basic counselling course.

Referral to a counsellor could undo any damage Ogle may do with his words but if he had those skills himself he could avoid possibly damaging people in the first place.

[tkingdoll]

kath, that was the comment from him that really set a lot of us against him. I mean, what a dispicable thing to say, and as if a baby has any concept of rape whatsoever. He will have changed that mother's relationship with her child for life, the bastard.

Ugh.

Anyway, bring it on, Five. We'll just double or triple our efforts.

I fully expect that if there is a new series, it will differ greatly from the first. They won't ignore the complaints, I guarantee. Instead, it'll have a slightly different tactic.

[median]

Just been re-reading some of this thread and just an observation from me. ???

I think that if Olgivie does resurface (in, as Teek notes, an albeit different format) then efforts are concentrated at the subject at hand i.e. whether or not he possesses genuine psychic powers. O0

The material featuring allegations of abuse etc. are I agree, morally reprehensible but do deviate from the issue. There could be a risk of an ad hom foul in the making, if we're not careful :-\

[vbloke]

I think we need to be ready for him - if this new series does surface, Five's website should have some basic info on it before it airs which we can use to base our plan of attack on.

[kath23]

Just been re-reading some of this thread and just an observation from me. ???

I think that if Olgivie does resurface (in, as Teek notes, an albeit different format) then efforts are concentrated at the subject at hand i.e. whether or not he possesses genuine psychic powers. O0

The material featuring allegations of abuse etc. are I agree, morally reprehensible but do deviate from the issue. There could be a risk of an ad hom foul in the making, if we're not careful :-\



I don't think it counts as ad. hom. to critique or suggest he could improve his way of communicating. Ad hom. would be more like when my fiance says of Ogle, 'he's a tosser!" ;D

An important feature of both Ogilvie and Colin Fry's technique is their use of the shock factor or manipulating people into extremes of emotion.

For instance, Fry will say someone died horribly and painfully, which makes the person he is reading for cry. He will then repeat a similar statement to ram it home and break them down even more :o

I agree its a different issue than that of the psychism being fraudulent. But I don't think its an ad hom. to suggest they could have a better understanding of modern psychotherapeutic conventions, or that the extremes of their activities could be regulated.

Love
Kath

[John Jackson]

I think we can legitimately challenge Derek on his claims of psychic ability without any need to resorting to attacking his character - even though it may be tempting.

We will be keeping an eye out for the new series and we won't be letting him off the hook. Quite the contrary in fact. ;)

[median]

Kath

I think the usage of ‘ad hom’ can be more subtle than that, perhaps argumentum ad personam would be more appropriate? ???
Your reference of the emotional breaking down of subjects is surely just a form of cold reading, albeit in a modified form?

John

O0

[kath23]

Your reference of the emotional breaking down of subjects is surely just a form of cold reading, albeit in a modified form?

John



Ogilvie et al could do cold reading /psychic readings and guess things about people, and still be sensitive to people and to the position of authority and power they are in while doing that.

At best it should be used as a tool to empower people or summat.

A cold reading can be a real boost, if someone mentions your achievements, strengths etc.

I have had readings from friends and professional readings from tarot or psychic readers, numerologists and astrologers. The context is almost one of counselling or encouragement in life.

I don't see any of this with Fry or Ogle. Mind you, as my other half just said, be interesting to know how much Ogilvie's clients in the Baby Mind Reader got paid for their appearance on the telly?
Love
Kath

[Mojo]

There's a great Charlie Brooker column about psychics in general, and "Channel 5's unbelievably disgusting Baby Mind Reader" in particular, in today's grauniad: they must die alone in windowless cells (http://www.guardian.co.uk/Columnists/Column/0,,1963333,00.html).

His Ignopedia ("a uniquely unreliable resource") is worth checking out as well.

[Jocky]

There's a great Charlie Brooker column about psychics in general

;D Thanks Mojo, enjoyed that one. I'm not sure I'd choose to promulgate the "throw them all in jail" line myself, but there is virtue in rhetorical overstatement ...

[John Jackson]

What a great article. :D

It would have been better if he'd made his point clear instead of beating around the bush like that!! ;D

You know, as skeptics we tend to take a serious stance on issues, but it's great to say just what you really think at times.

Yes, the whole notion of a baby mind reader is absolutely ridiculous; and it does make you wonder how people can actually believe it.

We shouldn't have to be opposing rubbish like that!

[Araneus]

I don't think there is anything ad hom about attacking the irresponsible and insensitive manner in which Ogilvie manipulates his victims and potentially damages the long-term relationship between mother and child. It may not add anything to the debate about paranormal abilities per se, but it is a perfectly legitimate criticism given the publicity involved.

[kath23]

And I see on http://badpsychics.co.uk that OgleV has got away with it and OfCom have found nothing wrong with this series. ::)

I was wondering if anyone knew if the channels/ombudsmen almost always side with the psychics in these cases?

[Araneus]

I suspect they lean more towards "tolerance" and not upholding complaints, rather than specifically psychics. In general I would much rather they took this attitude than the American-style obsession with regulation and "decency".

[Cuddles]

And I see on http://badpsychics.co.uk that OgleV has got away with it and OfCom have found nothing wrong with this series. ::)

I was wondering if anyone knew if the channels/ombudsmen almost always side with the psychics in these cases?

I would guess the problem is that you would have to show proof of harm. It seems almost impossible to prove that he has actually harmed anyone, especially since these are obviously parents that don't have the best relationship with their child, so at worst he could just claim that he didn't help. Even if he did cause lasting problems, it seems unlikely that it would be apparent for many years, by which time it's too late. While it is obvious that he should not be allowed to continue, actually proving that in a legal sense is unlikey to ever happen.

[kath23]

I would guess the problem is that you would have to show proof of harm. It seems almost impossible to prove that he has actually harmed anyone, especially since these are obviously parents that don't have the best relationship with their child, so at worst he could just claim that he didn't help. Even if he did cause lasting problems, it seems unlikely that it would be apparent for many years, by which time it's too late. While it is obvious that he should not be allowed to continue, actually proving that in a legal sense is unlikey to ever happen.


That's the same with real world psychics as well in most cases I suppose, it'd be hard to prove any adverse consequences were due to their advice.

[John Jackson]

The basic tactic Channel 5 used was to shift the burden of proof from themselves to Derek Ogilvie.

They are saying that it was Derek who made the claims of telepathic ability and they were simply reporting that without actually accepting it themselves.

OFCOM fell for it.

It really should not matter whether C5 believed the claims are not - if they're making a documentary type series that portrays psychic ability the broadcasting rules should apply no matter who is making the claim.

As to the harm issue. There is a potential for harm as some people will have watched the series and accepted it all as factual (as that's how it was portrayed) and as such consider psychics' interventions in similar situations as a viable option.

I consider allowing that to happen as grossly irresponsible.

Remember, Ogilvie did not get the information via telepathic means (this was admitted by C5), it was gained by the psychologists etc. involved in the series and then broadcast as if Ogilvie obtained it with psychic power.

In the real world, such psychics will not come equipped with a team of psychologists to make sure that no harm can come to the family.

[sonofajoiner]

There's a great Charlie Brooker column about psychics in general, and "Channel 5's unbelievably disgusting Baby Mind Reader" in particular, in today's grauniad: they must die alone in windowless cells (http://www.guardian.co.uk/Columnists/Column/0,,1963333,00.html).

His Ignopedia ("a uniquely unreliable resource") is worth checking out as well.


This is a great quote taken from Brooker's recent tv show, Screen Wipe. (If it wasn't for the length, it'd make a pretty good sig!)

Now, I’m not saying that Derek (Oglivie) and all the other psychics don’t have special abilities; I’m just saying that if they do, all known laws of science are going to have to be rewritten. But then what’s science anyway eh? I mean, it’s only a rigorously tested peer-reviewed system of knowledge about the way our world works, built up over centuries, that’s all. It’s not a patch on mindless superstition which has been around for far longer and bought us exciting things like ghosts and demons, witch trials and the tooth-fairy. And of course, the baby fucking mind-reader.
;D

[Jocky]

lol

Derek Ogilvie in his rightful place - less credible than the tooth fairy O0

[John Jackson]

Here's a chance for anyone in Belfast to see Derek live:

http://www.bigintobaby.co.uk/2007/index.php?page=ogilvie

[Araneus]

Derek is able to spend time with a child and providing they are receptive to telepathy (according to Derek 9 out of 10 are) he can help to resolve issues such a bad sleep patterns, feeding problems and so on.

Sigh, another credophile moron who doesn't know the meaning of the word "claims".

[vbloke]

not even substantiated claims at that.

[sonofajoiner]

Via the JREF forum (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=71865) comes this potentially amazing news

"Psychic Chases No1 US TV Challenge"

I'll read a child's mind to win $1m

...Baby psychic Derek Ogilvie has the chance to use his powers to win $1MILLION in a TV challenge.

The Scots mind-bender will be tested later this year by US paranormal sceptic James Randi for a Five documentary....

I'd be interested to see if this actually happens though I can't imagine how it would be possible to actually test/prove anything.

[vbloke]

He's "keen to take the challenge" is he?

Considering that when I went on GMTV with him and challenged him to go for the JREF million, he was very keen until he saw the protocol I'd devised and then he suddenly became uncontactable.

I challenged him way back in May 2006, so I wonder why he's taken all this time to decide he wants do do it again?

The protocol he's thinking of using is a bit lame to, it'll need some serious tweaking before it'll be accepted.

[John Jackson]

I wonder what the motivation is here.

It's, apparently, Channel 5 who are supposed to be behind this. They're going to make a programme following Derek applying for the Randi challenge and Derek winning the million. Or not as the case may be.

What's in it for Derek?

Well, he could win the $1million but I doubt it. We've seen just how psychic he is from his appearance on GMTV and of course, The Baby Mind Reader. Channel 5's response to the OFCOM ruling made it absolutely clear that Derek was not using psychic ability in the programme. See: comment here (http://www.ukskeptics.com/commentary_display.php?d=The_baby_mind_reader#ofco m).

This leaves other possible motivations:


He could be getting a nice big salary from Channel 5 so he doesn't mind if he fails the JREF challenge.


Free publicity. If nothing else, this attempt at the JREF challenge is guaranteed to provide a lot of publicity for Derek. Not only in the UK, but all over the world.


Failure will not amount to failure! - To the hoards of psychic believers, failure to win the million will only result in Derek becoming another psychic who has been abused by skeptics (think of the response to the Natasha Demkina test). Coupled to the free publicity, and possible large payment by Channel 5, Derek could actually make a million dollars plus simply by taking the challenge.


Of course, Derek may be wanting to prove his psychic ability (and the JREF challange is not the way to do that), but with clever handling of this attempt by his media people, Derek could well be onto a nice little earner - whether he passes the test devised or not.

[vbloke]

When I met Derek, he seemed to genuinely believe in his abilities.

However, after spending some time with him backstage and watching his "performance" with Tamara it became obvious that he knew exactly what he was doing and even got annoyed whenever I brought up the term "cold reading".

I am of the opinion that he's milking this for everything he can - why else go to Gary Schwartz, the well-known validator of dodgy psychics.

The JREF need to be very careful with how they handle this, otherwise Derek will claim a lot of PR from it unless they can nip it in the bud. Five are also likely not to show Derek failing the test, as they've paid a lot for him and don't want to scupper their star.

Even when he does fail the test, his followers will rationalise the failure away, so we'll essentially be back to square one, except his media appearances may become less.

[Jocky]

with clever handling of this attempt by his media people, Derek could well be onto a nice little earner - whether he passes the test devised or not.

But then again, with clever handling of his attempt by Randi's media people, this irritating effect could be kept to a minimum. I think that Derek's advance acceptance of the protocol should be publicised as widely as possible, in the hope of minimising his wriggle room if he fails.

In particular, if the protocol were to be something which should be incredibly easy for an individual who truly possessed Derek's claimed powers (quite likely), this should be made very obvious.

[John Jackson]

Of course we should keep in mind that Derek would have to pass a preliminary test before advancing onto the main test for the $1million. And as of now, no application to take the challenge has been submitted.

I think all Derek needs to do is to complain about the test: although the protocol was agreed to, it was not quite as planned or there were some problems which prevented him from performing on that day.

Many pro-paranormalists will readily accept this and as there's a lot of resentment from paranormalists towards Randi, the furore surrounding a failed test could still work to Derek's benefit due to the publicity it would generate.

I may be wrong of course, but I'm just looking at the motivation behind Ogilvie taking a highly public test of psychic ability that he is almost certain to fail.

My conjecture is that if he does take the test and fail, he'll take on the 'victim role' and milk it for all it's worth. Which could be as much as winning the $1million anyway.

A win-win situation.

[Jocky]

I think all Derek needs to do is to complain about the test: although the protocol was agreed to, it was not quite as planned or there were some problems which prevented him from performing on that day.

Many pro-paranormalists will readily accept this and as there's a lot of resentment from paranormalists towards Randi, the furore surrounding a failed test could still work to Derek's benefit due to the publicity it would generate.

Of course you're right that post hoc justifications are always raised in this kind of situation, and those with blind faith in the reality of psychic gifts will, as ever, uncritically accept such excuses.

However, I'd hope that it might be possible to spin the true objectivity of the challenge in a way which at the least would put doubt about such feeble excuses in the mind of an uncommitted observer.

If Derek (and Channel 5?) has enough faith in his ability to hang an entire TV series on it working reliably when he turns up in somebody's house with a film crew one day, then why should it just happen to fail in the very day that he attempts a preliminary test? To a neutral observer (i.e. one without a preconcieved belief in psychics) this has to be a strong argument against post hoc justifications for failure. It must be possible to come up with a media strategy which makes sure that this angle gets across ... :ponder:

[Dr B]

I sent John some interesting stuff for a prior commentary which clearly shows that logically, even if you could read a baby's mind, you could not get the information from the baby. Its flawed even if we make the big assumption it can be done.

The reason for this is that the baby-mind cannot represent the nature, form and content of the information of which he talks. Babies take time to learn about objects, physical laws, and the 3-dimensional world and thus they have no conception of 'mummy was raped' 'parents arguing etc'. They have no concept of 'mummy' 'argument' 'rape' etc.......what a fool...

John - why not send it to Randi as I think he should tackle it in his commentary and make the poor argument of Ogilvie so obvious?

[John Jackson]

This is it: http://www.ukskeptics.com/commentary_display.php?d=The_baby_mind_reader#baby smind

We'll have to see if there's any move from Derek/Channel 5 to apply for Randi's challenge but yes, that info would make a good commentary entry for him.

Or, if as seems likely, there's another BMR series, we can send it to Randi then.

[Cuddles]

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=71865 This thread discusses Derek and his "application". It seems that there have been some negotiations between him, or at least a production team, and Randi, but so far the whole procedure can be summed up with this post from Jeff Wagg, who is in charge of applications.

I have no record of his application. As such, the article is in error.

He has not applied for the challenge, he has not agreed a testing protocol and, despite apparent claims to the contrary, the documentary would only count as the preliminary test - he would not win the million. Personally I think it is unlikey that he will ever agree to actually be tested, but we'll have to wait for more information from Jeff or Randi.

[Jocky]

the baby-mind cannot represent the nature, form and content of the information of which he talks. Babies take time to learn about objects, physical laws, and the 3-dimensional world and thus they have no conception of 'mummy was raped' 'parents arguing etc'. They have no concept of 'mummy' 'argument' 'rape'

A side-issue, Doc - can you elucidate what you mean by "no concept of 'mummy' "? My anecdotal experience would suggest that babies can recognise their mother (assuming she has been primary carer), can reliably be observed to react to her differently from their reactions to others from quite a young age (say four or five months old). Does this not connote the existence of a mental concept of that person which could be identified by a BMR, assuming such were to exist? I would have thought that such a concept must certainly predate a baby's first words by some time.

[I completely agree about 'argument' and 'rape', of course ! ]

[Dr B]

Hi Jocky (happy new year 8))

The idea that a Young child has identified where it can get fed etc does not constitute the concept of 'mummy'. The child has no awareness or conception that he / she came from 'mummy' and / or what mummy's role is. The basic relationship between 'thing' and 'food' or comfort does not mean its a complex concept of 'mummy'

Many things can fulfil the role of a caregiver in that respect (though perhaps not as well ;)

Ogilvie comes out with such cognitive high-level tosh (objects / humans / actions / emotional relationships / consequences of social actions / etc) that the child simply would not have the capacity to internalise. Of course, i know what his fudge will be (I can see it coming) - he will claim he receives abstract information and fills in the blanks.... :D This is why he needs to be asked questions about the nature of the information he claims to be receiving to head off this potential fudge.

;)

[Araneus]

The idea that a Young child has identified where it can get fed etc does not constitute the concept of 'mummy'. The child has no awareness or conception that he / she came from 'mummy' and / or what mummy's role is. The basic relationship between 'thing' and 'food' or comfort does not mean its a complex concept of 'mummy'

I think a baby has a more empathic view of its mother than simply a source of food -- although it has no understanding of the reproductive role she played in its creation. Babies do bond emotionally with their mothers, and will for example notice if their mother is upset or angry.

It is true though, that the "thoughts" Ogilvie claims to read from the baby's mind lie well beyond its cognitive capacity.

[Dr B]

To be clear, I stated that the young child has no concept of 'mummy' - in the way Ogilvie claims, which is absolutely true.

Really young children do not seem to have a concept of 'mummy' either - not in the way we do - which is kind of my whole point. At that stage in development coarse associations and gratifications suffice - this rapidly changes of course.... O0

I think we need to be careful not project onto the child what our preconceptions of these definitions and concepts are - we may be filling in the blanks here on behalf of the child! Like akin to a variant of the hindsight bias :o

[Jocky]

And Happy New Year to you too :booze:

The idea that a Young child has identified where it can get fed etc does not constitute the concept of 'mummy'.

Yes, OK - but exactly what does constitute it - many of the children who Derek 'reads' may already have passed that developmental stage.

I think a baby has a more empathic view of its mother than simply a source of food

Agreed. What more (over and above recognising a source of food and comfort) is required to fulfil the definition of "concept"? Is there a formal neurological or psychological definition?

My concern is that saying "Babies have no concept of 'mummy' " may cause misunderstandings - many parents will feel emotionally repelled by that statement (even though you may have perfectly good grounds for saying it), and will prefer any kind of touchy feely woo you like over admitting an argument which makes it sound like their own children don't know who they are.

[Dr B]

And Happy New Year to you too :booze:

The idea that a Young child has identified where it can get fed etc does not constitute the concept of 'mummy'.

Yes, OK - but exactly what does constitute it - many of the children who Derek 'reads' may already have passed that developmental stage.

That may be - but coupled to findings from TOM and false-belief tasks which are very popular at the moment - the child - even the reasonably mature ones (up to around 4-6 which is way outside his range) simply do not display complex understandings of relationships between its own mind and reality, between its own mind and other peoples minds, relationships between other peoples minds per-se, living and non-living animals and objects, and high level conceptual information.

This makes it quantifiably improbable that the child can represent the information claimed - even if such powers were possible. O0

My concern is that saying "Babies have no concept of 'mummy' " may cause misunderstandings - many parents will feel emotionally repelled by that statement (even though you may have perfectly good grounds for saying it), and will prefer any kind of touchy feely woo you like over admitting an argument which makes it sound like their own children don't know who they are.


I totally agree - but as you say, that does not make my comments untrue or incorrect. It can be dressed up in any politically correct manner you like - I would be fine with that. However, sometimes this can also hide the facts as well. I just stuck to the facts O0

I do take your point that people may get offended by these facts.

[Jocky]

findings from TOM and false-belief tasks which are very popular at the moment ... makes it quantifiably improbable that the child can represent the information claimed

I never doubted you'd have the evidence at your fingertips, Doc! O0 Do you happen to know of a reference to a summary of this sort of research which would be digestible for a layman?

It can be dressed up in any politically correct manner you like - I would be fine with that. However, sometimes this can also hide the facts as well. I just stuck to the facts. I do take your point that people may get offended by these facts.

I certainly would not advocate anything which would result in facts being hidden, just in order to avoid people taking offence. However, I think it's wise to express ideas like this carefully and precisely, to minimise misunderstandings which could cause neutral bystanders to jump into the camp of woo for no good reason.

Parenthood is a very emotional business sometimes (it certainly feels like that to me at the moment, for instance) - indeed, this is one of the main reasons why Derek's readings are as 'potent' as they are. Emotions can cloud judgements, and if we want people to take a thoughtful and critical look at Derek's claims we should be careful not to arouse them needlessly. I don't think this is quite the same thing as political correctness - it's about good tactics.

[Dr B]

Do you happen to know of a reference to a summary of this sort of research which would be digestible for a layman?

I have a lot of books on social neuroscience and false-belief but i am not sure how digestible they are to the lay audience. I would suggest you look for books (edited readers with multiple authors are always the best) on 'false-belief' and concepts of 'the self' - give em a google see where it takes you. I will have a look to see if i can find an overview theoretical journal article for you....if i can, i will get it to you O0


I certainly would not advocate anything which would result in facts being hidden, just in order to avoid people taking offence. However, I think it's wise to express ideas like this carefully and precisely,. ...

I totally agree. However, I still think the less embellished the facts are the better the chance of achieving it. If you take my stance to its extreme - yes it would cause offence, if we take your suggestions to the extreme, it would become too contextualised and detail would not be effectively communicated. Balance is the key and I take your point on it (I just dont think my comments, as currently made, represent that extreme, just my opinion of course O0).

I remember years ago reading some scientists views that the unborn child can be seen to be a parasite in the mothers womb. All the problems of pregnancy are because (according to the idea) the child is competing for resources with the mother - even to the point where it might kill the mother in its fight to survive (counterintuitive I know - but its not my argument ;D). I can see how calling a foetus / unborn child a parasite might offend - but those scientists argued it was not a metaphor - it was directly comparable to it and so stuck with the language......not everyone was happy :D

I don't think this is quite the same thing as political correctness - it's about good tactics.

I guess i just have a more optimistic outlook on the intelligence of the general public to be able to digest the facts, as they are. However, i could be entirely wrong on that 8)
Nevertheless - yes good tactics - but that is a subjective concept as, if i wanted to really argue the point, i would say thats exactly what sticking to the clear facts is. Anyway....... O0

[Jocky]

Update:

It looks like James Randi (http://www.randi.org/jr/2007-02/022307sniffex.html#i9) has still heard nothing from Derek about his supposed entry for the $1M challenge. I wonder why? :D

[vbloke]

Somehow that doesn't surprise me.

When I met him back in May last year, he agreed to do the challenge and I gave him a copy of the FAQ and an application form, so he can't say he doesn't have them.

http://badhomeopath.com/derek-ogilvie.html

[Dr B]

I think its a new strategy by woo's - when challenged, agree.....it looks good on telly.....

[John Jackson]

Well after reading Randi's commentary, it's looking exactly like Derek is full of hot air. The "I'd like to work with you in the future" claim is probably made simply to make him look reasonable. He has no intention whatsoever of proving his ability scientifically.

It looks like he's between a rock and a hard place at the moment though. He'll want to have a special show made about him but if the production company are expecting him to apply to take Randi's challenge, as he's claimed he would, then he's got to make an uncomfortable choice.

I hope he goes for it.

[chillzero]

So guys,
Remember how we sent complaints about this progema showing this idiot swearing in front of a child, and cited the protection of children clause?

Well... it's ok for him, but not ok for adverts:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6501439.stm

His language was much stronger, and this ad campaign was complained about by a total of 32 people. Their complaint was upheld, which I find to be astonishing.

I don't find 'bloody hell' to be too drastic in the swearing stakes, and would have had no problem with my daughter hearing/reading this advert when she was younger. At my own ripe age however I was shocked at Derek's outburst in this young girl's home.

There is no consistency in these decisions, and no logic that I can see either.

[Jocky]

Absolutely, chilly - Hypocrisy rules OK!!

From what I remember about my visit to Oz, "Bloody" is not even a mild expletive over there - it's just daily vocabulary, about the equivalent of "Blasted" or something like that. They'll find it hysterically funny over there that a bunch of tight-assed poms have banned these posters.

Some people have nothing better to do with their lives than moan about stuff >: "Bloody" is not even a difficult word to explain to children - it's not like there were posters saying "Where the fuck were you?"

As it happens, I've just been watching a DVD of Penn and Teller's "Bullshit" episode on the subject of swearing - and this is a perfect example of the kind of pointless fuss about nothing which they were targetting.

[Araneus]

That's just pathetic. Even the latest Harry Potter film contains a scene where Ron says "Bloody hell", and that's a film aimed at children.

[John Jackson]

On a related note, the "mastication for the nation" ads have been banned too: http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30000-1257910,00.html

I actually found them funny although I guess they could be taken as racially stereotyping.


I agree though. It's certainly very inconsistent when adverts get banned for having the word 'bloody' in them to protect children and a TV series can promote a self-professed psychic effing and blinding in front of kids.

[chillzero]

That's just pathetic. Even the latest Harry Potter film contains a scene where Ron says "Bloody hell", and that's a film aimed at children.


Exactly - I knew there was a good example that escaped me!

[chillzero]

On a related note, the "mastication for the nation" ads have been banned too: http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30000-1257910,00.html

I actually found them funny although I guess they could be taken as racially stereotyping.


I agree though. It's certainly very inconsistent when adverts get banned for having the word 'bloody' in them to protect children and a TV series can promote a self-professed psychic effing and blinding in front of kids.




and not just that - he claimed those words came from the child herself!

I was considering a rant to the same people who got back to me after complaining about the program, but I tried that already after the intiial response which didn't properly address this to my satisfaction. I don't think there's any point in getting more worked up about it, but it still boils my blood.
>:(

[tablemonkey]

Can I just squeeze in and say the in the first Harry Potter movie, Ron used 'bugger' a lot too.. my nine year old daughter started to use it until I told her it was swearing. I read the books and I'm almost certain the characters didn't swear in them.

As for Derek Ogilvie, ugh, what a nauseating little man he really is. I am disgusted that people are subjected to this and believe in it. I think it's time the media took a bit more responsibility for what they show on television and how it shapes it's viewers! >:(

[tkingdoll]

Equally, it's about time people took responsibility for how they shape themselves and vote with their 'off' buttons.

Not sure there's any evidence linking television with a decline in...whatever you're suggesting by 'shapes its viewers' - moral decline, perhaps?

[Mongrel]

Equally, it's about time people took responsibility for how they shape themselves and vote with their 'off' buttons.

Not sure there's any evidence linking television with a decline in...whatever you're suggesting by 'shapes its viewers' - moral decline, perhaps?


In my experience people would rather moan about it than do something productive (switch off)

[tablemonkey]

I was posting a personal opinion, I apologise.

Is that the sum of the discussion then? If we don't like what we see we can turn the tv off? Isn't that rather like sticking your head in the sand or putting your fingers in your ears and hoping that it all goes away?

I brought my children up not to be afraid of spiders. They mix with children who are afraid of spiders - and what do you know! They become afraid of them!

It is very hard to teach people critical thinking when all around you people are listening and taking in the views of others without thought.

It seems as though we should come to the conclusion that those who think critically and tend to agree, huddle together and mock those that don't. As if in some way their ability to look at things skeptically and laterally should segregate them from others.

I have noticed from many forums some people tend to think that what they are saying is much more valid and important than anyone elses viewpoint. I wonder if they think this because they know of their own intelligence but not of others. So although seeming to be in a discussion they appear to take very little notice of what others are saying in it. Seems rather pointless to me!

[Araneus]

I brought my children up not to be afraid of spiders. They mix with children who are afraid of spiders - and what do you know! They become afraid of them!

At least you tried. I used to work with a girl who was frightened of spiders, and if she saw one in her four-year-old son's room she would wake him up and get him out of the room in order to avoid the spider.

How irresponsible can you get? :o

[John Jackson]

Well the JREF didn't get the application from Derek or Channel5 for the $1,000,000 challenge.

What a surprise.

I think the new rules for the challenge are that the JREF will pursue high-profile media personalities rather than let people apply themselves. I doubt Derek Ogilvie will be high on the list.


p.s. Derek's forum is still down. Those 'technical difficulties' must have been really pesky ones!! ;D

[tkingdoll]

I was posting a personal opinion, I apologise.

Is that the sum of the discussion then? If we don't like what we see we can turn the tv off? Isn't that rather like sticking your head in the sand or putting your fingers in your ears and hoping that it all goes away?

I brought my children up not to be afraid of spiders. They mix with children who are afraid of spiders - and what do you know! They become afraid of them!

It is very hard to teach people critical thinking when all around you people are listening and taking in the views of others without thought.

It seems as though we should come to the conclusion that those who think critically and tend to agree, huddle together and mock those that don't. As if in some way their ability to look at things skeptically and laterally should segregate them from others.

I have noticed from many forums some people tend to think that what they are saying is much more valid and important than anyone elses viewpoint. I wonder if they think this because they know of their own intelligence but not of others. So although seeming to be in a discussion they appear to take very little notice of what others are saying in it. Seems rather pointless to me!


Sigh. The key word in my reply was "equally". Makes your commnt "So although seeming to be in a discussion they appear to take very little notice of what others are saying in it. " look a little silly.

[tablemonkey]

Ah yes, you may be right there.. But I have read other threads and that kind of thing happens in those too. No matter.

[tkingdoll]

Ah yes, you may be right there.. But I have read other threads and that kind of thing happens in those too. No matter.


I think you are right to a certain degree but it depends on the topic and the poster. If I am debating with someone who is, for example, more knowledgeable on a topic than I, then it's reasonable to expect they are unlikely to change their opinion unless I offer new information.

But if it's just an exchange of opinion where the knowledge is the same, then I'm not sure to what degree you can expect someone to change their mind. We're unlikely to do that mid-debate anyway, most people will change their stance after going away and thinking about something for a while rather than immediately upon discovering a new point of view. That's quite natural.

But there are examples, here and in any forum, where someone clearly has a pre-defined opinion and will stick to it regardless of emerging information.

However, another great topic for debate, which we have had (either here or JREF, I forget), is 'are all opinions equal?', and it's hard to swallow but the answer is often 'no'.

[FarSideOfTheMoon]

An interesting update from Randi:

http://www.randi.org/jr/2007-08/082407newton.html#i1


Reader and Forum member Niobe Vorenus, in the Netherlands, reports to us:
As I mentioned in the forums, Derek Ogilvie has gotten a TV show in the Netherlands with RTL that has other superstars like Char Margolis and Robbert van den Broeke. Fortunately for them, psychic abilities know no language barrier, it seems.
Today in the newspaper he claims he already took the JREF test, which he says can't be scientific, because "Randi is an illusionist." He also claims to have been tested by a Dr. Jerry Glock, of which the results he can't disclose, but there will be a documentary. I'm not sure who this Dr. Glock is, but perhaps he's the Gary Schwartz to his Allison DuBois (Why do I keep misspelling this word "Dubious?")
Niobe, we have conclusive signed and witnessed statements from Ogilvie in which he agreed that the conditions for his definitive test with the JREF were fair, binding, and acceptable, in every respect. The UK firm who videoed those tests here in Florida back in early May, have failed to respond to our inquiries about when the program will be aired, but we have continued to observe our agreement with them not to reveal the outcome of the tests, until they give us permission.
Stay tuned. And if anyone can find out who this “Dr. Jerry Glock“ might be, and whether he has any credentials whatsoever, we’d like to hear about it…

[vbloke]

Using my amazing powers of intuition, if his test happened back in May and Randi is still offering the $1 million prize...

[Jocky]

Today in the newspaper he claims he already took the JREF test, which he says can't be scientific, because "Randi is an illusionist."

To support your intuition vbloke, I notice that Derek is starting to get his ad homs in early! Preparing for failure no doubt ...

[FarSideOfTheMoon]

Ad-homs work quite well with the people who are willing to believe in someone like Derek in the first place unfortunately. Although to be honest I really doubt he has that much of a fan base anyway. He is just so unconvincing.

[John Jackson]

I look forward to seeing this programme - should it ever be aired.

The bit where Derek agrees that the test is a fair one which is appropriate for testing his abilities, and where he signs to this before the test is carried out will make an interesting comparison to his post-hoc excuses for failure.