Those who are 'anti-psychic'

Published on July 8, 2005 By ----- In Misc

Recently, I commented on another bloggers article on Sylvia Browne being a fraud, i said, why did you conviently forget all of her correct predictions? Why? Also, these people who are anti-psychic/"strange things happening" are essentially (IMO) people who can't explaing the happenings within their own standards, they prefer to hide withing their shell of a life, bound by boundaries of irrationallity... up to the point where they scoff at any science that proves them wrong... such things as UFO's,etc... UFO's--> What are they, why after so many "advances" in tech/sci. can we not explain them....perhaps they are truly Extraterrestrial transportation... Alien life--> there are skeptics out there who are say such beings are non existant...but why...if we are the only beings in this universe, then somebody made a huge mistake...and, it would be an huge waste of space...what about the incident at Texicoco (SP, i believe this the correct name) which, in the 50's/60's, a space craft crashed, gov't people swarmed the area, and a trucker who delivered a trailer of supplies, just happened to be interested in a warehouse, were he found,to his amazement...(info can be found at coasttocoastam.com) a large space vessel, with non-human, makrings on it...and, a body underneath a white sheet, with an arm sticking out, which was covered in scales...not radiation burns like the gov't alleged....

(rant over...may continue later)

Comments (Page 1)

Shovelheat

on Jul 08, 2005

correct predictions? You know even a broke clock is right twice a day or ,as we say in Texas, even a blind hog will find an acorn ever now and then."

Reality is soooo much better and more interesting by far than this flim-flam stuff. I guess,uh... 'cause it's real...

Draginol

on Jul 08, 2005

If something happens that I don't understand my first reaction isn't to go "Oh, it's magic!". Psychic abilities are just another form of magic. There's no evidence to support it.

Furry Canary

on Jul 08, 2005

It's not so much a case of being 'anti-psychic' as one of being 'pro-rational'. The idea that there are fairies at the bottom of your garden may be more interesting (to you) than more rational explanations for your observation of the flowers growing, but that doesn't make it true ...

Shovelheat

on Jul 08, 2005

Very well said. Here's an Insightful!

Zoologist03

on Jul 08, 2005

Most people who claim to be psychic and do all that TV crap are just plain fakes. They have little techniques to "read" people, they use something called "cold reading" in which they throw things out, nonspecific things, and see if they get a response and go on from that. True, that sometimes they get stuff right...but then again so do normal people. I believe there may be something to psychics...but the ones that sell stuff, nah...that's just marketing on gullible people.

~Zoo

-----

on Jul 09, 2005

perhaps those who truly have "psychic" ability do not "publicize" themselves as much as the "fake"...also, what do you think about those psychics who have correctly predicted where a body of a murder victim was...how do you explain that?

bakerstreet

on Jul 09, 2005

Not to toot my own horn, but toot toot...

I agree wholeheartedly that you can destroy your skepticism by being too disbelievingly biased. There's nothing open-minded and thoughtful about people like the Amazing Randy, or most of the other debunkers.

The day you shift from, "I don't believe in psychics." to "There's no such thing as a psychic.", you should hand in any scientific credentials you have, since you are behaving just as unscientifically as anyone who DOES believe in them.

Furry Canary

on Jul 09, 2005

'There's nothing open-minded and thoughtful about people like the Amazing Randy, or most of the other debunkers.'

But open-minded is exactly what Randi is, BakerStreet. He is a skeptic in the true sense of the word. He is quite prepared to believe in any psychic phenomenon if and when whoever claims the power to use it can demonstrate it successfully under laboratory controlled conditions. He is even offering a million dollars as an incentive. Guess what? No successful takers.

Until such a time as this occurs, Randi remains skeptical, which seems quite reasonable to me. Otherwise (to go back to my previous analogy), until someone comes along to refute it, I should believe that my flowers grow because the fairies at the bottom of the garden sprinkle them with oofle dust every night. Now that's not open-minded, that's credulous.

Incidentally, for those who are interested, you can find plenty of food for thought here:
http://www.randi.org/

-----

on Jul 09, 2005

The day you shift from, "I don't believe in psychics." to "There's no such thing as a psychic.", you should hand in any scientific credentials you have, since you are behaving just as unscientifically as anyone who DOES believe in them

--Agreed, thats kinda what i was trying to get across...

bakerstreet

on Jul 09, 2005

That hasn't been my take on Randi based upon interviews I have seen, Furry. Since I can't link stuff I have seen from him on TV, I can't really back that up, though. From my perspective he's always been not only damning of the people who make claims, but of the possibility of the claims.

Maybe I read to much into him, but the million dollar thing always seemed like a taunt more than a true incentive. Perhaps I am too harsh on Randi, though. If so, my apologies.

Furry Canary

on Jul 09, 2005

'The day you shift from, "I don't believe in psychics." to "There's no such thing as a psychic.", you should hand in any scientific credentials you have, since you are behaving just as unscientifically as anyone who DOES believe in them'

'I don't believe in psychics' is a statement of personal belief, and therefore fails to even enter the bounds of the scientific arena. 'There's no such thing as a psychic' at least purports to be a factual statement. Therefore the former is, if anything, LESS scientific than the latter!

Whoever may have said that "There's no such thing as a psychic" (I'm assuming from your comment above, BS, that James Randi did), why on earth should they have to 'hand in' their scientific credentials? This is no more contentious a statement than saying there's no such thing as a centaur / satyr / yeti / werewolf / vampire / Martian / Vulcan / fairy at the bottom of the garden, as - to the best of our knowledge - there is not a single shred of evidence (and by this I mean EVIDENCE, not anecdotes, hearsay or unaccredited 'findings') to support the existence of any one of them.

bakerstreet

on Jul 09, 2005

"'I don't believe in psychics' is a statement of personal belief, and therefore fails to even enter the bounds of the scientific arena. 'There's no such thing as a psychic' at least purports to be a factual statement. Therefore the former is, if anything, LESS scientific than the latter!"

...waaaas exactly my point.

"This is no more contentious a statement than saying there's no such thing as a centaur / satyr / yeti / werewolf / vampire / Martian / Vulcan / fairy at the bottom of the garden, as - to the best of our knowledge - there is not a single shred of evidence (and by this I mean EVIDENCE, not anecdotes, hearsay or unaccredited 'findings') to support the existence of any one of them."

And that was too. You're being purposely obtuse if you are trying to say that such hard-nosed skeptics don't portray themselves as "scientific", though. In reality, you can't state the non-existance of anything unless you have a complete model of the universe and everything in it at your disposal, which no one does.

Furry Canary

on Jul 09, 2005

'If so, my apologies.'
Absolutely no apology necessary, BS. I am neither related to Randi nor a shareholder in his foundation! Hey, JU should be proud: this is all terrific stuff - robust debate, well-argued, interesting, and - as yet - nobody's saying anything mean about anybody else's mother!

bakerstreet

on Jul 09, 2005

p.s. not that I am saying you're being purposely obtuse, I don't think you are. I think maybe you allow for more implied opinion in the statements some skeptics make than I do.

Furry Canary

on Jul 09, 2005

'...waaaas exactly my point.'
Sorry, but I find it difficult to read it that way.

No, I'm not trying to be obtuse. Nor am I trying to deny that Randi et al claim a scientific basis for their arguments - quite the reverse. We appear to be at cross-purposes.

You're right, one can't state the non-existence of anything with absolute certainty. But my point is this - if we are going to accept the existence of 'psychic phenomena' in the absence of any scientific evidence, we should also be obliged to accept the existence of centaurs, satyrs, werewolves etc.

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!