Real" psychics seem to polarize people's opinions don't they?

They are either "kind people trying to help" or "devious con artists" out for a quick buck.

My view is that psychics are just people and as such can be good, bad, harmful, helpful or whatever. For every helpful psychic story, there is one of horrible greed and people left broken and distressed. And for every con artist there are friendly people who want to help others be happier.

And that's not even addressing whether these psychics are genuine or not.

One thing that does confuse me is the high number of people who identify themselves as having a genuine psychic ability and yet frequent an online forum that allows you to fake it.

Do you find that mentalist methods allow you greater clarity in your genuine abilities?

Are you worried about being branded a fraud if a client were to find out you could perform miracles through trickery?

How you do reconcile your illusions with your genuine beliefs?

I'm a genuinely interested in people's points of view and I promise that any posts I make will be non judgmental or rude towards your beliefs and attitudes.

Over to you Jimtron !

Howard

It could be…just might be possible that, like so very many other people, some psychics just enjoy magic as a hobby. Does this question apply to all? Should we question Doctors. andLawyers that enjoying doing magic?

Docc Hilford had a great comment in an online interview - along the lines of, if a person really could read minds and perceive thoughts, wouldn't magic be a reasonable hobby for them to be interested in?

If one has experienced the bizarre in one's life, and develops a 'bent' toward such, an interest in magic is not at all unusual.

Steve

There is magic and there is conjuring. One is delusional, can you figure out which?

If a person had a REAL ability, I don't see why they would be interested in a forum where the main topic is how to FAKE having that ability.

--Josh

My psychic ability is my intuition, now I'm not sure that is at all paranormal or if everyone has it and just doesn't use it.

I don't plan to use trickery while doing readings like make a ghost appear under a napkin as someone's dead mother or something as ridiculous. I don't plan to mix the two.

But outside of that, it would be fun to do things I personally can't do, like make a pen fall off the edge of a table using only the power of my mind. Naturally, if I could ACTUALLY do that, I wouldn't be wasting my time on here. Some of you guys have closed minds and are just impossible to deal with, or as some of you would say "skeptics" and "realists", though I would almost bet there was a firm believe in God for some of these same people.

Dear old mother glorpy. How I miss her and her small round plastic head!

:)

Would you do a telekinetic effect in your role as a psychic?

----------------------

I would think that lawyers and doctors different from psychics because this site doesn't help them to take the practice of the law or fake medical treatments. Whereas a mentalism and magic can (and often is) be used by unscrupulous people to fake a psychic ability.

This, of course, does not suggest that ALL psychics on this site are using mentalism to fake their abilities. Just as many art dealers take courses in faking art and computer programmers can learn how to create computer viruses.

That is the

Oh, I dunno...I could imagine a real vampire that enjoyed Chris Lee 'Dracula' movies.

Stop being so assumptive on what people might or might not be interested in; the human mindset is a flexible proposition.

Steve

OK, firstly...

The discussion of "faking" being a psychic is a very, very small part of this forum. Occasionally there is talk of readings but such threads disintegrate rapidly into skeptic vs believer.

I love Magic, I love Mentalism. I also love the Paranormal. I firmly believe in "something" although what that "something" is goes beyond my current understanding of the Universe. My belief that there is something more to being "psychic" other than trickery surely does not deny me the right to indulge in my favourite hobbies?

Quite right. We're on the same page, Bartlewizard.

Steve

Genuine psychic ability is not the same as God-like omniscient powers. There are very few sane psychics who claim to "know all".

At best, skilled psychics are able to catch a brief glimpse of someone's past, present or future...on a good day!

On a bad day, they can always fall back on magic, mentalism and cold reading.

In other words, magic, mentalism and cold reading is plan B. A bit like a pilot pressing the autopilot button now and again. That doesn't mean he can't fly a plane.

I agree.


What's the difference between magic and conjuring? I thought they were synonymous.


Being a skeptic and belief in god are not mutually exclusive. Science requires skepticism, yet many scientists believe in god (I forgot the numbers, but there was a poll taken and I think at least 40 or 50% of scientists said they believe in god).


So someone going to a reader for advice might get cold reading and mentalism effects if the reader is having a bad day? Or please correct me if I misunderstood.

Science does not require skepticism.

Looking the word up:
1. a doctorine that certainty of knowledge can not be attained.
2. a doubting state of mind
3. unbelief in religion

Science is never advanced by doubting things. It is advanced by a belief in something which has not yet been explained. Man did not discover how to fly by doubting that flight was possible.

Psychic abilities will never be discovered by true skeptics as all they are looking for is ways to call such things, if and when they do happen, false. It may well be that psychic abilities do not follow scientific principles. That doesn't mean they don't exist.

Cheers,

Tom

Something that doesn't follow scientific principles? I'm shocked! No wait, appalled! O.K. both.

(I do not claim to be a scientist, so please, if there are any scientists on the board, correct me if I'm wrong here)

I read another definition of skepticism, and it's this:

"A methodology based on an assumption of doubt with the aim of acquiring approximate or relative certainty."

In other words..."Show me the evidence." That's the view I hold, and I think it's the prevailing view among most scientists. Indeed, a principle is not considered scientific if it ISN'T falsifiable.

Here's one of my favorite definitions of science:

"Science is both a process of gaining knowledge, and the organized body of knowledge gained by this process. The scientific process is the systematic acquisition of new knowledge about a system. This systematic acquisition is generally the scientific method, and the system is generally nature. Science is also the scientific knowledge that has been systematically acquired by this scientific process."

So to say that science "has never advanced by doubting things" doesn't even make sense. What does that mean? Was science not advanced for doubting Lamarck's theory of evolution in favor of Darwin's? Had Darwin not doubted Lamarck's ideas about heredity, we might not be where we are today in our understanding of evolution.

Also, what do you mean by "[Science] is advanced by a belief in something which has not yet been explained." Science is about coming up with a hypothesis and either proving or disproving it through experimentation. Belief doesn't enter into it.



I respectfully disagree. TRUE skeptics require evidence. However, one MUST look for ways to call something false before accepting it as true. Let's talk about something really extreme for a moment. If I float a playing card in front of you, will you assume that I'm using my mind or an IT reel? One would have to discount the possibility of an IT reel before even entertaining the possibility that the card is being floated using mind power. It's the same for psychic abilities.

I will not argue that psychic powers do not exist. I simply assert that they have yet to be proven scientifically.

One can believe anything one wants, but that's not science...it's faith. I have no problem with that, as faith -- by its very nature -- can not be proven. But one shouldn't argue that psychic abilities have been proven scientifically. They have not, and to argue otherwise is wrong.

Most skeptics I've met hold with the "show me the evidence" school of thought, rather then "I don't believe in anything" approach.

Althought, if you look the word up in the thearuses its not pretty!

"Sagnostic, apostate, atheist, cynic, disbeliever, dissenter, doubter, doubting Thomas, freethinker, heathen, heretic, infidel, materialist, misanthrope, misbeliever, nihilist, pagan, pessimist, profaner, questioner, rationalist, scoffer, carper, caviler, detractor, sneerer, unbeliever"



How is that different from just guessing?

____________________

So far we have

-Those who use it as a "back up" for when their power fail them. (If you did this in a professional setting, wouldn't this be considered fraud?)

-Those who have a general interest in the paranormal which naturally leads them to magic. (A little like an art dealer who enjoys the history of fake art?)

-Those who have a interest in mentalism entirely seperate of their real powers and see no link like an accoutant who plays the guitar. (Aren't their similarities?)



-Couldn't 99% of mentalism we presented as an attempt to fake or represent what true paranormal abilities might be are?

Jerrine,

I would really like to see you contribute to a thread.

I am sure most here would second my desire.

It is easy to make the ***-jesters comments from the side.
It is another to contribute.

Just my opinion.

What do you guys think of the crap this guy has been dropping in the forum?

If he were a dog I would rub his nose in it.

Jack

H.O.A_X

Tom said:


Scientific innovation does require an open mind and a vivid imagination, as well as skepticism. It did take ambition and imagination to create flying machines. But before getting into a contraption that could kill you, you need to question whether it realistically can get off the ground or not. And the Wright brothers probably doubted their naysayers.

It used to be widely believed that sick people were inhabited by evil spirits or demons. If no one doubted that, we would still be treating illness by trying to exorcise the evil spirits. A good scientist must question conventional wisdom; including the wisdom of her fellow scientists. I think many of the most important scientific discoveries involved doubting conventional wisdom. If no one doubted that the earth was flat, science's progress would have been greatly slowed.

If a drug company produces a new drug that is claimed to cure an illness, we should all be skeptical; after all, the drug company stands to make a lot of many from selling the drug (just like makers of homeopathy and other "alternative" remedies). A good drug trial uses double blind studies, where the volunteers as well as the doctors don't know who gets the placebo and who gets the real drug. That's the best way we know of to avoid bias. If the volunteers getting the drug do significantly better than those getting the placebo, it's likely that the drug is effective.

I think we should be quite skeptical of anyone offering healing or cures, especially if there is money involved. I also believe that we should all be open minded, and realize that there might be safe and effective cures that work differently from conventional western medicine. Whatever is safe and truly effective is good, in my view. But I don't want to waste my money on snake oil.