Amanda Jayne Hart - Psychic...

[Nasib]

Well if it's in the Daily Maily it must be true huh Nasib?

Whatever about the publication - the credible source is worth some consideration.

Sources in the National Criminal Intelligence Service ...

[NorthernSoul]

Perhaps a new thread is in order so as not to drag this one off track.

http://www.ukskeptics.com/forum/show...3072#post53072

[Unreal]

Unreal,

It seems to me you have a rare insight here.

When did Amanda start claiming psychic powers and what do you think was her motivation?

When Amanda was a child, her grandmother said she had a talent - although I think most people are told things like that, I know I was told on a number of occasions that I "must be psychic". As far as I'm concerned, nobody has ever proven genuine psychic talent, then it doesn't exist. What we are left with is a little girl who one day grew up and realised that there's serious money to be made from something that you don't need proof nor qualification for.

[content removed] For instance, whoever she was trying to delude by talking to flickering halogen downlights in her living room and addressing them as "Grandma" really didn't work on any level - he's a qualified electrician and that's all he's done since leaving school - he installed the lights and told me that they were prone to flickering now and then.

Amanda has very rarely, if ever, passed up on an entrepreneureal get rich quick scheme. She's found one that she's 'good' at (not the psychic part, the convincing vulnerable people part) and stuck at it for a change. If she'd stumbled into a lucrative future in selling ice to Inuits then she'd be doing that instead.

[NorthernSoul]

To clarify, she started claiming these abilities while with her second husband by talking to light bulbs and is simply, in your opinion, motivated by monetary gain?

Do you think she is fully aware that she is taking advantage? Has she justified what she is doing somehow to you or to herself?

[chillzero]

Thank you. I'm fully conversant with the content of that long thread here. I have neither wish nor intention to become involved in that particular 'debate'. Neither am I suggesting you shouldn't 'have your say'.

Perhaps in your venomous and vengeful efforts to discredit your "friend", you might feel that the ends justify the means. Perhaps you fail to realise also that your personally motivated 'means' are glaringly obvious to others who are perfectly capable of 'making up their own minds'. Your motives serve only to place a certain amount of discredit upon yourself.

I think what you overlooked here, is that Unreal stated her personal position on the matter right up front. She made no pretense of a lack of bias. She has given no details about her personal differences with Amanda Hart - merely indicated to us that they exist.

I feel this is more appropriate than hiding any personal issues with someone, when putting together information to let people know that you feel someone is a fraud. It doesn't in any way change any proveable facts.

This has no bearing on the facts of what Amanda Hart does, or claims to do.

[Nasib]

I think what you overlooked here, is that Unreal stated her personal position on the matter right up front. She made no pretense of a lack of bias. She has given no details about her personal differences with Amanda Hart - merely indicated to us that they exist.

I feel this is more appropriate than hiding any personal issues with someone, when putting together information to let people know that you feel someone is a fraud. It doesn't in any way change any proveable facts.

This has no bearing on the facts of what Amanda Hart does, or claims to do.

No, but it places some questionable emphasis on the credibility of the claims that Unreal is making - adding fuel to the already simmering pot. Are they all to be taken at face value simply because they fit in with the general collective desire to defame Amanda Hart?

[chillzero]

No, but it places some questionable emphasis on the credibility of the claims that Unreal is making - adding fuel to the already simmering pot. Are they all to be taken at face value simply because they fit in with the general collective desire to defame Amanda Hart?

Uh ... no... I think you missed the point I made, that Unreal's personal opinion has no bearing on any facts.
If Unreal makes any claims, I won't necessarily take them as credible unless there's some supportive evidence, no matter what her opinion of a person is. Similarly my personal opinion of a person will have no bearing on whether such facts are true or not - no matter how much I like or dislike a person, I'll still try to refrain from judging their actions without evidence.

That's kind of what skepticism is all about.

[Mulder]

I thought anecdotal evidence was good?? You have to experience to believe ...

[chillzero]

Oh, it definitely is ... absolutely .... if you're promoting 'woo'. Anything that doesn't have any evidential credentials.

[Nasib]

Uh ... no... I think you missed the point I made, that Unreal's personal opinion has no bearing on any facts.
If Unreal makes any claims, I won't necessarily take them as credible unless there's some supportive evidence, no matter what her opinion of a person is. Similarly my personal opinion of a person will have no bearing on whether such facts are true or not - no matter how much I like or dislike a person, I'll still try to refrain from judging their actions without evidence.

That's kind of what skepticism is all about.

I'm glad you pointed that out (just as I was trying to do), because the overall impression I got here was that Unreal's [anecdotal] claims were being accepted as 'evidence' without query.

Perhaps I was wrong in that impression.

[chillzero]

Well ... such things happen on both sides. However, I see that Unreal provided some links to support her claims, and much of the responses have been in reaction to things stated at those links, or in other sites or news stories.

[seren]

I personally feel that claims about Amanda's past [reference to personal info removed] would probably have been stamped all over had the situation been reversed.

For example, if someone came here defending a psychic and in their defence said "She pays her bills on time and loves her kids,"
we would have immediately pointed out that is irrelevant, and furthermore is hearsay.

Since we are to assume she is a fraud (since psychic powers do not exist), evidence of prior instances of her acting [reference to personal info removed] is irrelevant.

[Mulder]

... (since psychic powers do not exist),...

Phew, I'm glad we've cleared that up. I've spent decades investigating that claim.

[seren]

And I didn't even show my working out!

I was trying to avoid...oh never mind....

[NorthernSoul]

Since we are to assume she is a fraud (since psychic powers do not exist), evidence of prior instances of her acting [reference to personal info removed] is irrelevant.

Possibly, but it's interesting. There may be some parrallels with other psychics pasts that would be worth a little attention.