FSTDT Forums
Community => Religion and Philosophy => Topic started by: Radiation on February 07, 2012, 09:25:40 pm
-
Got this over from another forum. I thought that it was pretty entertaining. A British psychic refuses to go on a show and show off her powers whereas she would gain $1mil, however she decides to sue a news agency for criticizingher.
Last week, Sally Morgan -- a performer who bills herself as "Britain's best-loved psychic" -- sued the publisher of the Daily Mail for £150,000 for printing an article suggesting that she and other self-proclaimed psychics might be using trickery rather than mystical powers when they appear to talk to the dead.
Maybe the Mail's article (by magician and former psychic Paul Zenon) really did damage Sally Morgan's reputation so much that she needs the money. The irony is that just after that article was published, when the allegations that "Psychic Sally" was a cheat were front-page news, our organization along with peer organizations in the UK offered her $1,000,000 and the chance to clear her name, simply by proving her powers were real. Yet, she declined. Why?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dj-grothe/psychic-sally-morgan-sues_b_1244151.html (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dj-grothe/psychic-sally-morgan-sues_b_1244151.html)
-
Maybe she's doing it because she foresaw that no one would believe her?
-
James Randi: Take my free million dollar challenge.
Psychics: Later.
-
I hope she foresaw how unlikely a victory in court is for her. But then again, if she had, she would not be suing* now would she? Way to prove yourself a fraud, moron.
(*edit to fix spelling)
-
I'm just amazed that "psychics" still exist in this day and age. Cold reading is pretty much common knowledge (or at least, I like to think it is).
-
I don't like psychics that are loud about their 'gift'. They're more often than not frauds.
Have fun in court, utreekov.
-
I've yet to come across a psychic who wasn't a fraud.
-
I'm just amazed that "psychics" still exist in this day and age. Cold reading is pretty much common knowledge (or at least, I like to think it is).
There are still people dumb enough in this world to believe these people.
Ironbite-ain't that a shame?
-
On the one hand psychics.
On the other The Daily Mail.
Whatever happens, schadenfreud will ensue.
-
A psychic refusing to prove her powers, even for a million bucks? Who couldn't have seen that coming?
-
James Randi: Take my free million dollar challenge.
Psychics: Later.
Somewhat off topic, but it's always good to see another Homestuck fan on this board.
-
James Randi: Take my free million dollar challenge.
Psychics: Later.
Yep, sounds about right. :D
-
On the one hand psychics.
On the other The Daily Mail.
Whatever happens, schadenfreud will ensue.
Quite. Can't they both lose?
-
I just figured out a perfect way for the psychichs to respond to this "Prove that you are a psychic and get €€€€ or else you are a fake" deal.
Just say that you do not use your abilities to gain money because that would be unethical. Tadaa! Then again I guess that would mean that they have to stop making money by faking to be a psychic...
-
That logic would quickly be shot full of holes because it suggests making money by using a skill is inherently evil.
-
Well, science does tend to have extremely powerful psychic-blocking powers.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QlfMsZwr8rc
-
While I do believe that there are people with "psychic powers" (I actually prefer to call them "sensitives." My mom is a sensitive and I have seen her ability in action.) I do think that it is extremely rare and most that are actual sensitives tend to not want to show off their ability or even gain fame from it. My mom absolutely hates having this ability after an incident that happened long before I was born.
I can't remember the story that well and I will have to ask her about it, that is if she is willing to because it was pretty traumatic for her.
As for people like James Hydrick, Uri Gellar, John Edwards, I think that those people are actual phonies. As for Sylvia Browne, I think she has some sort of ability but I also think that she may have been corrupted by her fame.
-
I can't buy into the idea that there is such thing as psychic powers without any real evidence. Some people can catch extremely subtle cues and respond without even realizing it, but it's not psychic in the sense of a supernatural force/particle/message or whatever that's causing it.
I'd love to be psychic, if only for the ability to make a killing in the stock market and never have to work again.
-
I can't buy into the idea that there is such thing as psychic powers without any real evidence. Some people can catch extremely subtle cues and respond without even realizing it, but it's not psychic in the sense of a supernatural force/particle/message or whatever that's causing it.
I'd love to be psychic, if only for the ability to make a killing in the stock market and never have to work again.
I wouldn't mind being psychic if it also meant I could turn it off. I do not need to know everyone else's every thought and emotion, or to be bombarded with horrifying visions of every possible future. Nobody does.
For me to enjoy a book about people with ESP, at least one of the following has to apply:
1. There are in-universe limits (only one sort of ESP, or telepathy with only one other person, or telepathy works only if you consciously choose to "send" thoughts).
2. The person has learned how to "tune it out."
3. The ability comes and goes randomly, in bits and spurts (like Trelawney's precognition in the Harry Potter books).
4. The character is driven insane by zir powers, especially if zie came by them as an adult instead of having them from birth.
Otherwise, it looks painfully Mary-Sue-ish and makes me wonder if the author has really thought about the implications of psychic abilities at all.
-
I can't buy into the idea that there is such thing as psychic powers without any real evidence. Some people can catch extremely subtle cues and respond without even realizing it, but it's not psychic in the sense of a supernatural force/particle/message or whatever that's causing it.
I'd love to be psychic, if only for the ability to make a killing in the stock market and never have to work again.
<nitpick>
Technically, if the powers do exist, they would in fact be limited and have an explanation that makes it, in fact, not supernatural.
</nitpick>
Sorta like how there's some thought that it's possible for a brain to tune into and give off certain radio waves, which would make something like a hive mind possible for insects and such.
@TheL
You would like Babylon 5 (which is a TV series and not a book, though) The telepaths are anything BUT Mary Sue plot devices, they require line of sight, and the first thing telepaths have to learn is how to block out other people. And sometimes they go insane when their power gets too much.
-
@ Zachski: My roommate keeps trying to get me to watch that... once I have work again, we're buying the box set.
-
As for people like James Hydrick, Uri Gellar, John Edwards, I think that those people are actual phonies. As for Sylvia Browne, I think she has some sort of ability but I also think that she may have been corrupted by her fame.
For a second I misread "phonies" as something else, resulting in an amusing mental image. Also I would love to hear the story if you can get it.
Related: Twitchy twitchy twictha twitch!
-
Maybe she foresaw that the pound was going to do much better than the dollar?
-
Pretty sure the only thing she foresaw was that a lawsuit might lead to money, while the test could never lead to money. And it hardly takes a psychic to see that particular future.
-
I can't buy into the idea that there is such thing as psychic powers without any real evidence. Some people can catch extremely subtle cues and respond without even realizing it, but it's not psychic in the sense of a supernatural force/particle/message or whatever that's causing it.
I'd love to be psychic, if only for the ability to make a killing in the stock market and never have to work again.
<nitpick>
Technically, if the powers do exist, they would in fact be limited and have an explanation that makes it, in fact, not supernatural.
</nitpick>
<counter-nitpick>
The definition of supernatural is not "unexplained". If tomorrow scientists discover there is (say) a fundamental "psychic field" which can only interact directly with human brains and allows direct transmission of thoughts with proper training, that would (if you ask me) fully deserve to be called supernatural, no matter how well explained it is.
To the extent that naturalism is a coherent world-view, the distinction between natural and supernatural has to be different from explained vs unexplained or following natural laws vs not following them. Otherwise, naturalism becomes either trivially false or trivially true.</counter-nitpick>
On topic! I hope she loses so bad she is never taken seriously again even by the craziest new-ager, but also somehow the Daily Mail ends up giving £150,000 to the JREF.
-
Just say that you do not use your abilities to gain money because that would be unethical. Tadaa! Then again I guess that would mean that they have to stop making money by faking to be a psychic...
Apart from what Lithp picked, a lot of the do make lots of money off gullible people.
-
<counter-nitpick>
The definition of supernatural is not "unexplained". If tomorrow scientists discover there is (say) a fundamental "psychic field" which can only interact directly with human brains and allows direct transmission of thoughts with proper training, that would (if you ask me) fully deserve to be called supernatural, no matter how well explained it is.
To the extent that naturalism is a coherent world-view, the distinction between natural and supernatural has to be different from explained vs unexplained or following natural laws vs not following them. Otherwise, naturalism becomes either trivially false or trivially true.</counter-nitpick>
<Counter-counter-nitpick>
I prefer the term "paranormal" to that. Paranormal is perfectly accurate, if not very precise. "Supernatural" implies that it exists beyond nature, which if it can be detected, that's sort of nonsensical. The difference between naturalism & spiritualism isn't "explained vs. unexplained," so much as "do you have an opinion on things outside of nature." If something IS truly supernatural, there shouldn't be anything to explain. If you have a near death experience, precognition, the ability to see ghosts, etc. you have something natural, there just may or may not be more to it than "bullshit or hallucinations." It doesn't really make sense to call your hypothetical psychic field an example of the supernatural just because that's what it would be considered today. If it can be empirically verified, why draw that arbitrary distinction? What makes it different from calling a modern electrical system magic, no matter how well it can be explained? That's what it would have been considered at one time.
In other words, naturalism should always do what it was made to do, which is to study nature. If something can be studied in nature, it is natural. This makes the supernatural inherently unfalsifiable, but hey, that's because most who claim it want it to be that way.
Another way to counter naturalism is the illusion of reality, a la Descartes, so it's not as though there's no theoretical counterpart to it.</counter-counter-nitpick>
-
On the one hand psychics.
On the other The Daily Mail.
Whatever happens, schadenfreud will ensue.
Bullshiters reporting on a bullshiter...BullCeption
-
<counter-nitpick>
The definition of supernatural is not "unexplained". If tomorrow scientists discover there is (say) a fundamental "psychic field" which can only interact directly with human brains and allows direct transmission of thoughts with proper training, that would (if you ask me) fully deserve to be called supernatural, no matter how well explained it is.
To the extent that naturalism is a coherent world-view, the distinction between natural and supernatural has to be different from explained vs unexplained or following natural laws vs not following them. Otherwise, naturalism becomes either trivially false or trivially true.</counter-nitpick>
<Counter-counter-nitpick>
I prefer the term "paranormal" to that. Paranormal is perfectly accurate, if not very precise. "Supernatural" implies that it exists beyond nature, which if it can be detected, that's sort of nonsensical. The difference between naturalism & spiritualism isn't "explained vs. unexplained," so much as "do you have an opinion on things outside of nature." If something IS truly supernatural, there shouldn't be anything to explain. If you have a near death experience, precognition, the ability to see ghosts, etc. you have something natural, there just may or may not be more to it than "bullshit or hallucinations." It doesn't really make sense to call your hypothetical psychic field an example of the supernatural just because that's what it would be considered today. If it can be empirically verified, why draw that arbitrary distinction? What makes it different from calling a modern electrical system magic, no matter how well it can be explained? That's what it would have been considered at one time.
In other words, naturalism should always do what it was made to do, which is to study nature. If something can be studied in nature, it is natural. This makes the supernatural inherently unfalsifiable, but hey, that's because most who claim it want it to be that way.
Another way to counter naturalism is the illusion of reality, a la Descartes, so it's not as though there's no theoretical counterpart to it.</counter-counter-nitpick>
In other words, any sufficiently advanced technology (or any insufficiently explained natural phenomenon) is indistinguishable from magic.
Hell, if people could suddenly learn to make fire just through mental power or manipulating of existing energies, it would probably have a scientific explanation, which would make it not supernatural or magical.
...Though it'd still be called magic just because that's something we've associated the word "magic" with. Or pyrokinesis.