mediums

Seraphseven

tandraig wrote: »

griff - you say you didnt lie - but if you read back where i have highlighted - you did.

you misled the medium, you lied, you cheated, yet you expected an accurate reading.
you dont understand hun, if you confirm what the medium says if they have it wrong, then they may be misinterpreting the message and you wont get the real monty. hoist with your own petard hun!
as for james randi - no-one will ever get the million, as he is sole judge and jury, and no-one of any repute in the paraspychology world takes him seriously. you obviously havent done enough research!
if you really approached a reading with an open mind, you would answer either yes, no or i dont understand that. most mediums prefer that. the genuine ones dont like you volunteering information. a few sessions in spiritualist church will confirm that.
instead, you decided that all mediums were fakes, read james randi and armed yourself (you think) with knowledge. and went to reading and lied, misled the medium and are now congratulating yourself on being right!
hmmmm
I could go to a doctor and say, i got a tummy ache whats wrong and after asking a series of questions - to which i lie, the doc says - its appendicitis. on which i walk out and call him a quack. ive got asthma!
extreme? maybe, but you are tarring all mediums with the same brush, and calling my religion into disrepute.
by the way, I have seen people who arent here anymore, am told I am a talented tarot reader, and am a reiki master practioner, have spent over 40 years studying the paranormal, human pscychology, and healing arts. and it only took you a few months to conclude we are all charlatans!
didnt take me that long to conclude that shakespeare had it right 'there are more things in heaven and earth horatio.............'

The thing is though Tandraig, The onus is on the person that believes in the pseudo-science/religion to prove that it exists, not on the sceptic to disprove it's existence, to borrow Bertrand Russells analogy:

"If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is an intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time."

Any religion should be as open to criticism as all of science is, just because someone claims a celestial teapot as there religion it doesn't mean that out of fear/misplaced respect those beliefs should not be challenged!

Your assertion that because Griff went into the mediums house already having certain preconceptions about the validity of the "mediums" claims and that this caused the medium to make lots of misses can be equally turned onto your side of the argument, If someone goes in already believing that the medium will be able to speak to spirits and tell them things about themselves then they are much more likely to notice the hits and ignore the misses, A person always puts more emphasis on evidence that supports their belief system than that which puts it into disrepute.

tandraig

yep administered by - guess who?
there have been many people who applied to the foundation. some fakes, some soso. and some who cannot be disproved. but have anyone actually got a million? no.
james randi is in my opinion as much a charlatan as those he claims to unmask. he uses suspect methods and spurious theories.
I particularly like the one that goes. If something can be faked then nothing can be called real. hmmmmmmmmmmm
so - the royal mint turns out banknotes, I can fake them quite well on my printer, therefore, all banknotes are fake!

Emmzi

tandraig,

I believe in science. You believe in other things.

I have looked at the scientific methodology of the JREF and it stacks up to me.

But as you do not appear to share a belief in the scientific method, testing by that means won't work for you.

I'm not saying you are right or you are wrong. Just that we see the world in different ways.

But suggesting someone is a fraud because you don't believe with the fundamental principles of their methodology is in my book inflamatory, closed minded, and libellous.

I do not think ranting will further this debate; and while I usually respect your opinions on these boards, I'm failing to see the logic in your arguements here.

It's ok if we believe different things, surely? In the absence of firm evidence either way neither of us can be proven 'right'.

tandraig

Emmzi wrote: »

tandraig,

I believe in science. You believe in other things.

I have looked at the scientific methodology of the JREF and it stacks up to me.

But as you do not appear to share a belief in the scientific method, testing by that means won't work for you.

your definition of scientific method and mine are obviously totally different.
to me scientists are objective and strive to find the truth of the matter - not to find a different view 'wrong'

I'm not saying you are right or you are wrong. Just that we see the world in different ways.

But suggesting someone is a fraud because you don't believe with the fundamental principles of their methodology is in my book inflamatory, closed minded, and libellous.
Er - where am I closeminded? or inflammatory? or indeed libellous?
did i mention the word fraud in connection with randi?
I am not saying anything that hasnt been said on hundreds if not thousands of websites.
Having studied psychology and the methodology of experiments - I cannot agree with an experiment which has as it basic premise - to disprove a theory. science should be impartial, and take its findings as they come! so to speak. otherwise, the charge of skewing the findings will always be there.


I do not think ranting will further this debate; and while I usually respect your opinions on these boards, I'm failing to see the logic in your arguements here.

was I ranting? apologies if I was, but, understand this, I am entitled to defend my religion

It's ok if we believe different things, surely? In the absence of firm evidence either way neither of us can be proven 'right'.[/QUOTE]

well - it seems to me you dont mind me believing in different things as long as i dont say so on here! apparently because I am now officially a weirdo (reiki healer, tarot reader, and sensitive) I cannot also be logical and scientific.
well, I am also a microsoft master of access excel and word. maybe a bit out of date was the last version. but, along with OU studies, I think I understand the acedemic world too.

Emmzi

so you understand that science works on testing theories. however, yes, it absolutely *does* work on disproving theories. You make a theory, you test, the result is prove, disprove, or inconclusive.

So, come up with a methodology that allows reasonable proof of your beliefs.

And you can believe whatever you like, and you can say whatever you like.

But there's a huge difference to me between "I do not agree with the methodology and here is the reason why" and "James Randi is a charlatan and uses spurious theories", without providing evidence in support of that. To me, that's not a scientific claim. It's an inflamatory statement. But, you may see that differently.

And yes, by all means defend your religion - I merely suggest calm reason and logic will see the debate further.

Seraphseven

tandraig wrote: »

Emmzi wrote: »

tandraig,


your definition of scientific method and mine are obviously totally different.
to me scientists are objective and strive to find the truth of the matter - not to find a different view 'wrong'

I'm not saying you are right or you are wrong. Just that we see the world in different ways.

As i said in my post a little higher up Tandraig, the JREF studies are jointly set up by the "practitioner" that is trying to prove their ability and the Randi Foundation, they work together each step of the way to ensure that a) the test is scientifically sound and b) the medium/tarot reader etc etc is happy with how the phenom is being measured.

So what we can draw from this is that the study is actually set up by the medium to try and prove their claims, not set up by the JREF to disprove and none have been successful so far, I will happily change my beliefs when the evidence points toward it being the most logical option supported by the best/strongest evidence.

Seraph

griff2010

So tan what your really saying to me is I should of said to her when she was telling me "the dead person is telling me your job is going really well in the office" I should of told her then no love i don't work in a n office, Why not have another guess, If she was really talking to someone who was dead then surley that person who she was supposedly talking to who knew me better than anyone would be able to tell her things correct. Also i asked the medium could she ask the dead person how she died, and guess what they got that totally wrong too, So in your way again i should of corrected her and made her GUESS again untill she finally got it correct then WAYY HAYYY I could of then believed it was really the dead person who was telling her after a few guesses :rotfl: Wise up and wake up and see that those mediums who rip of people r nothing but con artists and will hopefully be punished for there evil deeds when they eventually pass themselves.

grey_lady

hmmm - I suspect 99% of it is faked - whether that's intentional or not I dont know.

For instance didnt one of the Fox sisters (they had a lot to do with starting the spiritualism church) confess that their mediumship was faked.

If you watch Derren Brown's 'mediumship' on utube then it's pretty identical to what happens in a spiritualism church service.

Yvette Fielding has said that she thought Derek Acorah was faking it on at least one occasion. Similarly Sylvia Browne and John Edwards have been discredited to some extent.

I've personally attended a small group session given by one of the UK's well known medium/authors on this subject and it was total rubbish.

But on the other hand, Gordon Smith has passed scientific tests at Glasgow University, he doesn't charge for his readings either. There's an Irish mystic who has a book out and she's convinced some very intelligent researchers that she's genuine so who I am to say otherwise - maybe there is a 1% that's real, personally I'm not convinced though.

Susan_Frost

Going back to my two Uncle Jacks, and yes Jack (John) was probably a common name - the point I am making is that I was actually saying NO and he was insisting yes. And he was right. If he was a fake then why insist so much ?

There was lots of other things which were right too - but it is the insistance in the face of a no that is important.

flutter_2

I have always thought - as a science minded person - that it is entirely feasible that some people are psychic - in so much as there could exist a `brainwave' and some people could be more sensitive / adapt to receiving it. However, I would see this like telepathy - as only something which can occur between living people...

This possibility could explain a lot of peoples `genuine' experiences - as the medium could simply read their mind and then tell them that their dead relative was passing this info on. You could even potentially explain them knowing things about you family that you `didn't', as perhaps you subconsciously knew - such as the case of the forgotten uncle.

I personally feel it is much less likely that mediums ever talk to dead people, and practically impossible for them to tell the future.

So in effect they are all charlatans if they lead you to believe that they are doing more than regurgitating your own memories - but I suppose this is a service which provides comfort to a lot of people, much like religion so as long as they don't make any harmful assertions - like telling you someone close will die soon - then who really cares.