The Magic Café
Username:
Password:
[ Lost Password ]
  [ Forgot Username ]
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Penny for your thoughts » » Fake Tarot and Palm Readers - Interesting worldwide (3 Likes) Printer Friendly Version

 Go to page [Previous]  1~2~3~4..14~15~16 [Next]
Slim King
View Profile
Eternal Order
Orlando
17570 Posts

Profile of Slim King
100%. PSEUDO-SKEPTICS have bilked close minded followers out of 10's of millions In donations to Fake Skeptic Groups. The coin has two side.. Fate Magazine exposed the skeptics back in the 80's... They play the same game now.
THE MAN THE SKEPTICS REFUSE TO TEST FOR ONE MILLION DOLLARS.. The Worlds Foremost Authority on Houdini's Life after Death.....
Jon_Thompson
View Profile
Inner circle
Darkest Cheshire
2404 Posts

Profile of Jon_Thompson
I'm probably going to regret this, but what the heck is a pseudo-sceptic when it's at home? Is it just a lazy term of abuse or is there a real definition?
Mind Guerrilla
View Profile
Inner circle
Queens, NY
2659 Posts

Profile of Mind Guerrilla
Quote:
On 2012-03-08 12:54, tboehnlein wrote:
MG sorry I will decry your psychic healing if all your selling is hope if that is the case then place yourself along side the Benny Hinns of the world.

I don't only sell hope. I also sell Miracle Salve and slivers of wood from the "true" cross.

I'll take your remark as a compliment. I always liked the part where Benny would hit the little old bald man on the head and also those chase scenes where everyone would run around real fast to that catchy music.
Simon (Ted) Edwards
View Profile
Inner circle
London
1524 Posts

Profile of Simon (Ted) Edwards
Quote:
On 2012-03-09 12:24, Jon_Thompson wrote:
I'm probably going to regret this, but what the heck is a pseudo-sceptic when it's at home? Is it just a lazy term of abuse or is there a real definition?


My guess is that it's someone who is either not sceptical or who is but doesn't care much about it. My understanding is that these people go around somehow scamming real sceptics. It's all very complicated and verging on the conspiracy theory, if you ask me.
T.
mastermindreader
View Profile
V.I.P.
Seattle, WA
12589 Posts

Profile of mastermindreader
A true skeptic is skeptical of everything, including his own skepticism. A pseudo-skeptic is selectively skeptical and accepts his own preconceptions as fact.

I am skeptical of my own definition, so don't read too much into it.
Jon_Thompson
View Profile
Inner circle
Darkest Cheshire
2404 Posts

Profile of Jon_Thompson
Quote:
On 2012-03-09 13:15, mastermindreader wrote:
A true skeptic is skeptical of everything, including his own skepticism. A pseudo-skeptic is selectively skeptical and accepts his own preconceptions as fact.

I am skeptical of my own definition, so don't read too much into it.

If you're right, though, I think your definition would it sit comfortably between full scepticism and full belief.

Posted: Mar 10, 2012 5:08am
To say nothing of crypto-scepticism!
Mind Guerrilla
View Profile
Inner circle
Queens, NY
2659 Posts

Profile of Mind Guerrilla
Think of it this way:

If a skeptic says, "I'm a skeptic," it means he's really NOT a skeptic because he is not being skeptical about his skepticism. If, on the other hand, a skeptic says, "I doubt I'm a skeptic," then he really is a skeptic because he's being skeptical about his skepticism.

If a debunker is debunked, he may be a pseudo skeptic which may lead one to believe the debunked debunker is really a believer- a pself-hating psychic, I psuppose.

Psimple!

I'm glad this thread hasn't deteriorated into meaningless jibber-jabber.
Davit Sicseek
View Profile
Inner circle
1818 Posts

Profile of Davit Sicseek
You guys are mixing the philosophical notion of scepticism - of which there are several types - with the the type of investigative scepticism practiced by the likes of Randi or Shermer.

If you want to be a radical skeptic in the philisophical sense of the word you may as well give up thinking, discussion and any notion of truth - or what is 'real'. You can't be sure of any of it - apart from maybe the existence of yourself.

All this criticism of sceptics is a real diversionary tactic used by woo-woo peddlers. It effectively shuts down any form of meaningful debate.

If someone is simply sceptical of the existence of ghosts, points to the lack of evidence for ghosts, how there are many explanations that can explain away the anecdotal evidence for their existence - it is a very weak retort of the pro-ghost movement to simply say - ah he's not a true sceptic, because he isn't practising radical scepticism by questioning the basic assumptions that virtually all humans are agreed upon. We don't see many people questioning the reality of a fast moving bus by stepping in front of it after all.

Hopefully this line of criticism from the anti-sceptic camp can now be seen to be as disingenuous as it is.
Send me the truth: davitsicseek@gmail.com
CarlZen
View Profile
Special user
752 Posts

Profile of CarlZen
Well said Davit.
mastermindreader
View Profile
V.I.P.
Seattle, WA
12589 Posts

Profile of mastermindreader
Quote:
On 2012-03-10 08:45, Davit Sicseek wrote:

Hopefully this line of criticism from the anti-sceptic camp can now be seen to be as disingenuous as it is.


I'm skeptical of the notion that you took my earlier definition seriously. Smile

Although referring to an entire group as "peddlers of woo" does indicate certain preconceived notions.

Good thoughts,

Bob
aligator
View Profile
Inner circle
Canada
2050 Posts

Profile of aligator
I too agree with Tony's analysis. Couldn't have said it any better, so I won't.
dmkraig
View Profile
Inner circle
1949 Posts

Profile of dmkraig
Quote:
On 2012-03-10 08:45, Davit Sicseek wrote:
...All this criticism of sceptics is a real diversionary tactic used by woo-woo peddlers. It effectively shuts down any form of meaningful debate.

If someone is simply sceptical of the existence of ghosts, points to the lack of evidence for ghosts, how there are many explanations that can explain away the anecdotal evidence for their existence - it is a very weak retort of the pro-ghost movement to simply say - ah he's not a true sceptic, because he isn't practising radical scepticism by questioning the basic assumptions that virtually all humans are agreed upon. We don't see many people questioning the reality of a fast moving bus by stepping in front of it after all.

Hopefully this line of criticism from the anti-sceptic camp can now be seen to be as disingenuous as it is.


I respectfully disagree.

What shuts down debate are the pseudo-skeptics claiming they speak for reason, logic, and science and that anyone who dares to stray from the dogma of their materialist religion must be mocked, decried, insulted, and metaphorically destroyed.

I would note, here, that your attempt to manipulate words has failed. You write about someone who is "*simply* skeptical of the existence of ghosts" [emphasis added] and compare that to someone who is part of some mythical "pro-ghost movement," making your imaginary sceptic a lone warrior against an army of "pro-ghosters." In reality, however, the simple skeptic isn't simply skeptical. Rather, he is intent on not letting others believe as they will and insisting that they follow his materialist religion. Heresy to the pseudo-skeptical dogma must be rooted out and crushed. You've also made a false dichotomy of ghost skeptic vs. pro-ghoster. You don't allow for anything in between much as some Christian fundamentalists believe either you're a Christian like they are or you're on the side of the devil. In fact, the pseudo-skeptic dogma also attacks those of real skeptics who aren't "pro-ghosters" but who want more information before they make up their minds.

It is the pseudo-skeptic who is intent on cutting off debate, not the people who are seeking more information. And I would remind you of the words of Herbert Spencer: "There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance—that principle is contempt prior to Investigation."

Finally, what you are calling the "anti-sceptic camp" (it's always good to identify the enemies of a religion as an amorphous group) is actually the group standing up for true skepticism, logic, science, and reason against the pseudo-skeptics (who have hijacked the term "skeptic") who should more accurately be called debunkers with pre-conceived beliefs as strongly held as any member of a fundamentalist religion.

Hamlet Act 1. Scene V:There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.
Mind Guerrilla
View Profile
Inner circle
Queens, NY
2659 Posts

Profile of Mind Guerrilla
Quote:
On 2012-03-10 08:45, Davit Sicseek wrote:
Hopefully this line of criticism from the anti-sceptic camp can now be seen to be as disingenuous as it is.

Sincerity is everything. Once you can fake that, you've got it made.
Quote:
On 2012-03-10 10:42, mastermindreader wrote:
Although referring to an entire group as "peddlers of woo" does indicate certain preconceived notions.

To be fair, he said "peddlers of woo-woo."

Peddling woo is only legal in certain parts of Nevada.
mastermindreader
View Profile
V.I.P.
Seattle, WA
12589 Posts

Profile of mastermindreader
I guess I'm off to Nevada, then.
backinblack
View Profile
Special user
887 Posts

Profile of backinblack
The coolest statement right here was:

"It's doubly sad that some feel the only way to enlighten the public is to "inform them with the truth."

sure - enlightening people is only made with telling them not the truth.. lol
Quote:
On 2012-03-08 00:57, Tony Iacoviello wrote:
What I can say is that I don't (...) take advantage of anyone in what I do. Those who say otherwise are ignorant of my work.
(...)
I am a palm and tarot reader, and I have nothing to (...) hide.

Tony Iacoviello

cool.. Smile
Mind Guerrilla
View Profile
Inner circle
Queens, NY
2659 Posts

Profile of Mind Guerrilla
Quote:
On 2012-03-10 13:34, backinblack wrote:
The coolest statement right here was:

"It's doubly sad that some feel the only way to enlighten the public is to "inform them with the truth."

sure - enlightening people is only made with telling them not the truth.. lol


By Jove, I think he's got it!

Please note that my post was FOR ENTERTAINMENT PURPOSES ONLY
Davit Sicseek
View Profile
Inner circle
1818 Posts

Profile of Davit Sicseek
Bob, its not a preconception. Post-conception if you must. I should also add that some don't believe they are peddling woo - but in my view they are. Still, better stop using the word 'woo' - 'they' hate that Smile

dmkraig: I'm afraid I don't find any of your respectful disagreement convincing.

I already explained very clearly that those opposed to the skeptics (in the Shermer sense of the word) regularly point to the absense of radical scepticism in anyone who is incredulous to their beliefs. The result of which is to shut down debate. I can't make it much simpler. If I say - "I am very skeptical that there are ghosts walking around in the forest" and you reply "Call yourself a skeptic? You are a bit selective! You aren't even skeptical about the existence of the forest! How do you KNOW its there? And if you don't KNOW that - how would you know anything at all about ghosts!". It that line of questioning which is already evident in THIS thread, and evident in no doubt hundreds of others elsewhere on the Café - if that isn't shutting down meaningful debate, I don't know what it.

Quote:
What shuts down debate are the pseudo-skeptics claiming they speak for reason, logic, and science and that anyone who dares to stray from the dogma of their materialist religion must be mocked, decried, insulted, and metaphorically destroyed.


Don't see any debate shutting down here. Plenty of scope for disagreement. If you think there are pixies at the bottom of the garden I will mock you. You are free to continue debating me about it. I think the real bone of contention is that most supernatural claims don't hold up well against reason, logic and science. Of course you will no doubt claim that my very working definition of 'science' is misguided - but then we are back to whether the forest is there or not.

You have imagined that I have created a false dichotomy between pro/anti ghosters. Obviously there are people that are undecided and even those that have never given it a moment's thought. There are of course also degrees in the pro and anti camps. Imagined drama eitherway,

Quote:
It is the pseudo-skeptic who is intent on cutting off debate, not the people who are seeking more information. And I would remind you of the words of Herbert Spencer: "There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance—that principle is contempt prior to Investigation."

How much investigation should one do into ghosts before concluding that there is such flimsy evidence for their existence that one should live life as if they don't?

I assume there must be some form of supernatural phenomena that you don't think exists? How would you as a skeptic of that phenomena go about reducing what you consider harmful belief in it? Maybe you can teach the "pseudo-skeptics" a thing or two Smile
Send me the truth: davitsicseek@gmail.com
mastermindreader
View Profile
V.I.P.
Seattle, WA
12589 Posts

Profile of mastermindreader
Davit-

Just to play devil's advocate...

You wrote, "I think the real bone of contention is that most supernatural claims don't hold up well against reason, logic and science."

Are you therefore conceding that there are SOME (but not "most") supernatural claims that DO hold up well against reason, logic and science? And if so, which claims are those?

:eek:
Davit Sicseek
View Profile
Inner circle
1818 Posts

Profile of Davit Sicseek
I'm not conceding that. I suppose I was trying to nuance my language - I don't know the full spectrum of super natural claims after all. I might add however that claims that do hold up well against the above mentioned typically aren't considered supernatural any longer.
Send me the truth: davitsicseek@gmail.com
mastermindreader
View Profile
V.I.P.
Seattle, WA
12589 Posts

Profile of mastermindreader
I understand that. I didn't think you really meant to say that "some" supernatural claims have held up. But for the sake of maintaining clarity I would note that there is a difference between the "paranormal" and the "supernatural." The former is not a synonym for the latter. Supernatural claims are, by definition, beyond the the boundaries of scientific explanation or exploration. Paranormal claims are not.

Good thoughts,

Bob
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Penny for your thoughts » » Fake Tarot and Palm Readers - Interesting worldwide (3 Likes)
 Go to page [Previous]  1~2~3~4..14~15~16 [Next]
[ Top of Page ]
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2020 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved.
This page was created in 0.2 seconds requiring 5 database queries.
The views and comments expressed on The Magic Café
are not necessarily those of The Magic Café, Steve Brooks, or Steve Brooks Magic.
> Privacy Statement <

ROTFL Billions and billions served! ROTFL