Scientists put psychic's paranormal claims to the test

[pob14]

Originally Posted by Rebochan

I'd heard they were discontinuing the million dollar challenge due to a lack of getting some of the more high-profile fraudsters (like Uri Gellar or Sylvia Brown) to try it. Has Randi changed his mind?

Not yet, that's not why, and no.

The challenge will end March 6, 2010. Randi talks about the issue of the "big names" in another post here.

[Shnoops]

Originally Posted by SoToasty

OK, not Tiger, how about Mozart, Bach etc... Maybe someone who can calculate PI out to 20000 digits, or that has a photographic memory. Should they not make money off of their gifts?

Those are much better examples. If you didn't notice, i am one of the people questioning why mediums couldn't make money off of their gifts.

Psychics are more than happy to separate people from their money. And they do it with their "gift". So using that gift to pick the horses would be far better for society than picking on the gullible.

If they had psychic abilities, then i wouldn't say they were picking on the gullible.

I got to see James Randi at DragonCon last year (I like to pick the really long lines when there's nothing to do to see where they lead). And he did a dowsing test with a random member of the audience. The random audience member did better than most everyone that he'd ever tested.

But, after he explained how the process actually worked, it didn't seem like he was trying to make all of these people fail, it's just that no one's ever passed.

[damian]

Originally Posted by Shnoops

I see what Woods has as a skill, and not a "gift," though many people may call it that because of his achievements. There's nothing special about super models.

Nothing special??? Have you looked at any? They are born with a certain physical quality that earns them a lot of money. Tiger has an ability to put a golf ball in a cup with less hits of his club than anyone else can. He makes a fortune every year. What is the moral problem with a psychic picking the lotto numbers?

Psychics have been around for a very long time.

So have Snake Oil salesmen and witchdoctors. It's only because idiots believe in them that they continue to defraud the gullible.

[Shnoops]

Originally Posted by damian

Nothing special??? Have you looked at any? They are born with a certain physical quality that earns them a lot of money. Tiger has an ability to put a golf ball in a cup with less hits of his club than anyone else can. He makes a fortune every year. What is the moral problem with a psychic picking the lotto numbers?

Sure have. So what certain physical quality do they have that can't be found anywhere else?

They're super models because that's what they chose to do, and they trained for it. It's more than just about physical appearances. Besides, i'm sure people could be bred for looks, so it's not like it's a special gift.

Anybody can play golf. Sure, Woods plays better than anybody else. However, that isn't done without hard work. Just because he has a greater potential than other players doesn't make what he has a gift.

Now can anybody have psychic abilities? Maybe, but it hasn't been shown. That's why psychic abilities might be considered a gift.

Psychics claim is that it is a God given gift that is supposed to be used to benefit others and not themselves. They only charge a fee to support themselves. The question i have is how do they know? Did God tell them they can't use it for their own benefit?

So have Snake Oil salesmen and witchdoctors. It's only because idiots believe in them that they continue to defraud the gullible.

You stated that psychics weren't in the public's notice until now. I pointed out that they have been known for a very long time. If anybody had any supernatural foresight, wouldn't it be found among people claiming to be psychics?

Sure there were frauds that claim to be psychics. Does that mean there weren't any psychics? There were Snake Oil salesmen and witchdoctors, but did that mean there weren't any doctors?

[Hero_Mike]

Originally Posted by Shnoops

Psychics claim is that it is a God given gift that is supposed to be used to benefit others and not themselves. They only charge a fee to support themselves. The question i have is how do they know? Did God tell them they can't use it for their own benefit?

You stated that psychics weren't in the public's notice until now. I pointed out that they have been known for a very long time. If anybody had any supernatural foresight, wouldn't it be found among people claiming to be psychics?

Sure there were frauds that claim to be psychics. Does that mean there weren't any psychics? There were Snake Oil salesmen and witchdoctors, but did that mean there weren't any doctors?

Ah yes, of course, it's a gift from God. Telling people it came from God gives it legitimacy. This fee they charge to "support" themselves - does God tell them how much it should be? Is it not true that many so-called psychics live very well and have made thousands if not millions of dollars? Compensation may depend on the level of "The Gift" but not everyone who has a "gift" (like Cate Blanchett in the movie of that name) is struggling to survive on a few meagre fortunes told every week.

If a psychic were really and truly "gifted" and could predict the future, and they were compelled to only use their gift to help others, would they not perhaps become a politician, and use their influence to make good decisions for people? Never mind winning the lottery yourself - how about being an investment advisor? How about not mentioning it at all and just doing good for people? Nope - apparently the way to use "the gift" is to tell people vague and indirect fortunes, for a small fee.

Snake Oil Salesmen are not doctors. Don't confuse the issue by implying that they are the same. Of course, some doctors are also dishonest, but the methodology of a "snake oil salesman" is to use a rare and expensive "cure all" on everyone regardless of their actual problem. Compare this with a doctor who uses a diagnosis and scientific methods to determine a specific course of action based upon a person's unique symptoms. There is no such thing as the mythological "snake oil", just like there are no psychic powers.

I'm a religious and spiritual person, however, I don't believe that people communicate with angels, demons, spirits, the deceased, or God. I believe that God used to talk to people on earth, but said all that needed to be said and left it up to us to decide how to live our lives. I think that God had a change of heart about humanity, because intervening more directly was even worse. For whatever happens to us now, it's our own fault, and the mechanism of the universe is set just the way it is - and that we have the capacity to understand all of it. I don't believe in psychic powers, and I think that people claiming that they do, are for the most part, doing it to separate the unsuspecting and gullible from their money. It's easy work, and, really, if people were truly gifted, and truly altruistic about it, they'd find a better way to help the world than a $10 palm reading at a time.

[Silas Sparkhammer]

Originally Posted by Shnoops

. . . Anybody can play golf. Sure, Woods plays better than anybody else. However, that isn't done without hard work. Just because he has a greater potential than other players doesn't make what he has a gift. . . .

As with all "nature vs. nurture" debates, I think the only reasonable answer is "somewhere in between." Tiger Woods was better with golf clubs the first time he ever swung them than I could ever be, no matter how much practice I put in. He had a "gift" of very good upper-body/eye coordination.

It's like drawing, or playing a musical instrument, or coding in Fortran: some people are "naturally" much better than other people, and training and practice makes them even better yet. Tiger Woods, without any serious training, would still have been a damn fine duffer: with serious work and discipline, he has made himself a world champion. For most of the rest of us, it would take the same amount of practice simply to become halfway decent divot-munchers.

All men are not created equal. Some people really are gifted.

Silas (anyone who believes that all men are created equal has never taken a shower in the army with thirty other guys)

[Shnoops]

Originally Posted by Hero_Mike

Ah yes, of course, it's a gift from God. Telling people it came from God gives it legitimacy. This fee they charge to "support" themselves - does God tell them how much it should be? Is it not true that many so-called psychics live very well and have made thousands if not millions of dollars? Compensation may depend on the level of "The Gift" but not everyone who has a "gift" (like Cate Blanchett in the movie of that name) is struggling to survive on a few meagre fortunes told every week.

Hey, i'm only repeating the claim i heard. Being a weak agnostic atheist, i'm more likely to believe that it's accessed by the brain's synaptic connections.

If a psychic were really and truly "gifted" and could predict the future, and they were compelled to only use their gift to help others, would they not perhaps become a politician, and use their influence to make good decisions for people? Never mind winning the lottery yourself - how about being an investment advisor? How about not mentioning it at all and just doing good for people? Nope - apparently the way to use "the gift" is to tell people vague and indirect fortunes, for a small fee.

I'm only mildly psychic once in a few blue moons, but if i were to guess why they don't do some of those things is because it's draining.

Snake Oil Salesmen are not doctors. Don't confuse the issue by implying that they are the same. Of course, some doctors are also dishonest, but the methodology of a "snake oil salesman" is to use a rare and expensive "cure all" on everyone regardless of their actual problem. Compare this with a doctor who uses a diagnosis and scientific methods to determine a specific course of action based upon a person's unique symptoms. There is no such thing as the mythological "snake oil", just like there are no psychic powers.

No, i was implying that they were fakes. You seemed to have misinterpreted my post. Just because there were fake psychics didn't mean there couldn't have been real psychics. Just because there were fake doctors (Snake Oil Salesman and witchdoctors) didn't mean there weren't any real doctors.

I'm a religious and spiritual person, however, I don't believe that people communicate with angels, demons, spirits, the deceased, or God. I believe that God used to talk to people on earth, but said all that needed to be said and left it up to us to decide how to live our lives. I think that God had a change of heart about humanity, because intervening more directly was even worse. For whatever happens to us now, it's our own fault, and the mechanism of the universe is set just the way it is - and that we have the capacity to understand all of it. I don't believe in psychic powers, and I think that people claiming that they do, are for the most part, doing it to separate the unsuspecting and gullible from their money. It's easy work, and, really, if people were truly gifted, and truly altruistic about it, they'd find a better way to help the world than a $10 palm reading at a time.

I'm not going to get into a religious discussion. We both know how much fun those can be.

You have a right to not believe in psychics as much as i have a right to my beliefs.

Originally Posted by Silas Sparkhammer

As with all "nature vs. nurture" debates, I think the only reasonable answer is "somewhere in between." Tiger Woods was better with golf clubs the first time he ever swung them than I could ever be, no matter how much practice I put in. He had a "gift" of very good upper-body/eye coordination.

It's like drawing, or playing a musical instrument, or coding in Fortran: some people are "naturally" much better than other people, and training and practice makes them even better yet. Tiger Woods, without any serious training, would still have been a damn fine duffer: with serious work and discipline, he has made himself a world champion. For most of the rest of us, it would take the same amount of practice simply to become halfway decent divot-munchers.

All men are not created equal. Some people really are gifted.

Silas (anyone who believes that all men are created equal has never taken a shower in the army with thirty other guys)

I looked up his bio. He started golfing at age 2. Though i can't find out how much training he had at that age. I'm still a bit reluctant to believe that it was natural as much as the story wants me to believe.

Our definitions of gifted are not the same. Your definition of gifted is what i see as being more skilled. It is the upper most level in a range of a skill. Mine is more like having an ability that most others don't have. There isn't a range. Either you have it or you don't.

[Majorsam]

Originally Posted by Beachlife!

But, is it really a moral abuse? How is it worse than charging people for information?

As much as I hate putting up a defense for 'psychics' who are little better than frauds, there is a solid rationale for saying that it is a moral abuse to, say, win constantly at the horse races versus charging people for information.

If a psychic really had supernatural powers and used them directly to make money they would have unfair advantage of anyone in the transaction. If you knew the outcome of the race before hand...well, that wouldn't be a contest of chance. It would be cheating. But besides the simple fact that it is cheating...someone would lose money on the deal to pay the psychic. It would be unethical for a psychic who knows full well that the horse is going to win to bet on it. It would be pretty darn close to stealing. Winning the lottery...same thing. If you pick the winning numbers then someone who should have one the whole prize would go away with only half.

Same goes for betting on the stock market. Again, the money doesn't come from no where. If a psychic made a million on the stock market, someone undeservedly would lose money.

In fact, charging money for psychic consultations is really the only ethical choice for the use of these alleged powers that would allow the psychic to eat. In that case, there is a clear contract between the psychic and the one getting their future told. As long as the psychic is telling the truth and the sucker...I mean client...goes into it with a full understanding of what they will get (say, $500 for a 1 hour session) then there is a meeting of the minds and both parties come away with what they need.

Yes, a psychic could do much good with these powers pro bono. But then so could doctors and lawyers and you, for that matter. And while most people do stuff for free all the time, they still gotta eat. I suspect if you're reading this you probably have to work for your bread & butter as well.

Anyway, thus ends my defense of that. However, this doesn't apply to why Sylvia Browne, Uri Geller and their ilk don't take Mr. Randi's challenge since there would be a meeting of the minds and a very formal contract that allows it. Further, Ms. Browne could donate to charity and wipe any stain of inappropriateness from the event.

But she won't. 'Cause she wouldn't win. And she knows it.

[Steve]

Originally Posted by Majorsam

Same goes for betting on the stock market. Again, the money doesn't come from no where. If a psychic made a million on the stock market, someone undeservedly would lose money.

Not really. It's not like the market's a zero sum game. Investing in companies destined to succeed and ignoring the companies destined to fail would actually be fine thing and would increase efficiency. If everyone were to do it, we'd never have bubbles. If I'd been psychic in the late '90s, I'd have made sure that dotcom thing never got out of hand.

[Shnoops]

Originally Posted by Steve

... If I'd been psychic in the late '90s, I'd have made sure that dotcom thing never got out of hand.

If you were psychic, how would you get people to believe you?

[Steve]

Originally Posted by Shnoops

If you were psychic, how would you get people to believe you?

Simple. Once people saw my unbelievable returns from the early nineties, they'd be happy to trust their money with me. I'd able to give better returns than Madoff, without resorting to a Ponzi scheme. Good companies would get lots of investments, bad companies would get few or none, and investors would get wealthy.

I blame all our economic woes on the supposed morality of psychics.

[hambubba]

Originally Posted by Majorsam

In fact, charging money for psychic consultations is really the only ethical choice for the use of these alleged powers that would allow the psychic to eat. In that case, there is a clear contract between the psychic and the one getting their future told. As long as the psychic is telling the truth and the sucker...I mean client...goes into it with a full understanding of what they will get (say, $500 for a 1 hour session) then there is a meeting of the minds and both parties come away with what they need.

Where do they set their percentage of "rightness" with their "failness"? You would think that it would be above what the average guesser could do. Why pay someone if they are less than 100% correct? Their ethics don't allow them to win races, but they sure as shootin' should allow them to actually help customers who pay them.

[Shnoops]

Originally Posted by Steve

Simple. Once people saw my unbelievable returns from the early nineties, they'd be happy to trust their money with me. I'd able to give better returns than Madoff, without resorting to a Ponzi scheme. Good companies would get lots of investments, bad companies would get few or none, and investors would get wealthy.

I blame all our economic woes on the supposed morality of psychics.

That would only show your stock market prowess. It wouldn't make them believe your were psychic.

[Steve]

Originally Posted by Shnoops

That would only show your stock market prowess. It wouldn't make them believe your were psychic.

Ah, sorry, I misunderstood your question above.

Actually, I never meant that beating the market would vindicate my ESP. I was just responding to someone who thought that using such powers to make money on Wall Street would be immoral.

Beats me how I'd convince people I'm psychic. I guess I'd be so rich, I wouldn't care.

[Majorsam]

Originally Posted by hambubba

Where do they set their percentage of "rightness" with their "failness"? You would think that it would be above what the average guesser could do. Why pay someone if they are less than 100% correct? Their ethics don't allow them to win races, but they sure as shootin' should allow them to actually help customers who pay them.

Why pay a doctor if you aren't 100% healed? Why pay a lawyer if he loses the case? And yet, we do and no one thinks it unethical.

Psychics usually admit they're occasionally wrong just as the one did in OP usually because of strange other-worldly influences or something mundane like the subject was wearing a gown and, of course, if they advise someone and they change their behavior that can result in the outcome of the predicted event.

If I might add...many people go and see a psychologist with little or no results after years...even decades. Is it unethical for them to take money for their services?

Again, I think psychics are either deluded fools or ri-ff artists. But...IF you accept that their abilities are real THEN providing services for money versus wagering is ethical.

[Majorsam]

Originally Posted by Steve

Not really. It's not like the market's a zero sum game. Investing in companies destined to succeed and ignoring the companies destined to fail would actually be fine thing and would increase efficiency. If everyone were to do it, we'd never have bubbles. If I'd been psychic in the late '90s, I'd have made sure that dotcom thing never got out of hand.

You know, you are right. I miss-spoke.

However, it does raise another very real issue why a psychic shouldn't dabble in the Stock Market.

First...it would still be unfair IAW SEC guidelines...really, wouldn't it be akin to insider trading?

Second, I think you are quite wrong in your assumption that simply because you picked winners that would result in no bubbles. Quite the opposite...as soon as Bears, Stearns & Geller started picking a stock and as soon as people realized Uri was suggesting buying Apple...well...Apple's stock would soar. Everyone would jump on the bandwagon until it reached colossal heights and then someone would realize it wasn't going any higher...probably Geller...and a massive sell-off would ensue.

Really, psychics staying out of the market is the most ethical thing they could do. There very presence would destabilize it to no end. Thank goodness they're looking after our best interest.

[Steve]

Originally Posted by Majorsam

First...it would still be unfair IAW SEC guidelines...really, wouldn't it be akin to insider trading?

You know, I just went out to the bank, and while I was standing in line I was thinking the exact same thing. I'm not sure what the rules are on ESP.

Second, I think you are quite wrong in your assumption that simply because you picked winners that would result in no bubbles. Quite the opposite...as soon as Bears, Stearns & Geller started picking a stock and as soon as people realized Uri was suggesting buying Apple...well...Apple's stock would soar. Everyone would jump on the bandwagon until it reached colossal heights and then someone would realize it wasn't going any higher...probably Geller...and a massive sell-off would ensue.

But if you had ESP, you'd sell once the price got too high, and maybe you'd even sell short, which would prevent the price of any stock, and certainly of the whole market, getting out of hand.

Really, psychics staying out of the market is the most ethical thing they could do. There very presence would destabilize it to no end. Thank goodness they're looking after our best interest.

Oh, if only Crossfire were still on the air. You and I could host and debate the really important issues, like whether psychics should invest in the stock market.

[Silas Sparkhammer]

Originally Posted by Shnoops

. . . Our definitions of gifted are not the same. Your definition of gifted is what i see as being more skilled. It is the upper most level in a range of a skill. Mine is more like having an ability that most others don't have. There isn't a range. Either you have it or you don't.

Very few human traits function in such a boolean manner. Nearly everything that anyone does is spread out along a bell curve, although sometimes the curve is heavily skewed to one side. For every top-billed opera singer, there are a few others who are nearly as good, then many more others who are still very good and of a professional level of skill, all the way down to crow-voiced tone-deaf bucketeers like me! I could spend 100% of my waking time practicing, and I would never be able to sing professionally. Leaving aside psychic powers (because we don't agree on them) what kind of thing would you describe as a gift, not coming in a range? A very tall man or woman has an advantage in basketball, for instance, but height definitely conforms to a bell-curve distribution.

Silas

[Blatherskite]

My favourite psychic fail excuse is 'There was too much negative energy'. I think if you're going to come out and admit that your 'power' only works on people who believe in it, you might as well advertise 'Fraudster and chump-baiter' on your business card.

I think even if the use of psychic abilities in gambling purposes in immoral or against some secret psychic code, there should still be psychics doing it. They're still meant to be human, they're still flawed - so why would the psychic population have a smaller percentage of jerks than any other group of people?