|
|
Go to page [Previous] 1~2~3~4~5~6..14~15~16 [Next] | ||||||||||
mastermindreader 1949 - 2017 Seattle, WA 12586 Posts |
You know what I find interesting? In an earlier post I cited the sTarbaby incident as an example of what I believe to be the problem with pseudo-skepticism. I have posted the link to that matter many times here on the forum, but to date, no one has ever responded with a defense of what CSIOP did in that case.
For those unfamiliar with the case, read the link I posted above. For those who aren't, it's all about a major fraud committed by so called open minded skeptics. (It was one of the main reasons why legitimate skeptic, the late Marcello Truzzi, quit the organization.) Good thoughts, Bob |
|||||||||
Slim King Eternal Order Orlando 18012 Posts |
For the last 12 years I've associated with readers at least 4 days a week. Only one of the dozens I've gotten to know was trained with magicin's tricks. He didn't last long. None of the others were familiar with magicians teaching materials. The actual Spiritualists seem to be the best. The Santoria lady is actually feared by the rest. Friday I abserved the Reader, three sitters and the Henna Artist all in tears.... The three ladies SWORE THEY HAD UNDENIABLY CONTACTED THEIR DECEASED FRIEND! IT WAS SCIENTIFICALL UNEXPLAINABLE.
Posted: Mar 11, 2012 7:47pm My bad.. Scientifically Unexplainable... PARANORMAL.
THE MAN THE SKEPTICS REFUSE TO TEST FOR ONE MILLION DOLLARS.. The Worlds Foremost Authority on Houdini's Life after Death.....
|
|||||||||
Mind Guerrilla Inner circle Queens, NY 2670 Posts |
Quote:
On 2012-03-11 19:30, mastermindreader wrote: We're still reading it! It IS a long article. Some might also say the article is biased because it's written by an interested party with an axe to grind. If you check his entry on Wikipedia, you'll see that this is not the first time Dennis Rawlins has butted heads with his collegaues. Speaking of Wikipedia (and I know it's not a flawless source), I thought extracting some pertinent paragraphs from its article on the Mars Effect might be helpful here as they might be deemed more even-handed http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_effect: The Mars effect is a name often used to refer to a reported statistical correlation between athletic eminence and the position of the planet Mars relative to the horizon at time and place of birth. This controversial finding was first reported by the French psychologist and statistician Michel Gauquelin who, in his book L'influence des astres ("The Influence of the Stars", 1955), the first rigorous study of astrological claims, suggested that a statistically significant number of sports champions were born just after the planet Mars rises or culminates. Gauqelin divided the plane of the ecliptic into twelve sectors, identifying two "key" sectors of statistical significance. Gauquelin's work was accepted by the notable psychologist and statistician Hans Eysenck among others but later attempts to validate the data and replicate the effect have produced uneven results, chiefly owing to disagreements over the selection and analysis of the data set. Since the phenomenon in question depends upon the daily rotation of the Earth, the availability and accuracy of time and place of birth data is crucial to such studies, as is the criterion of "eminence". Later research explains the Mars effect by selection bias, favouring champions who were born in a key sector of Mars and rejecting those who were not from the sample. ... U.S. athletes – CSICOP At the same time CSICOP began a study of U.S. athletes in consultation with Zelen, Abell and Rawlins. The results, published in 1979 showed a negative result. However it emerged that several procedures had contradicted Gauquelin's definition of the effect. His previous experiments had demonstrated that basketball was a sport where there was little or no Mars effect and he therefore suggested that no basketball players be used in the study; yet, 32% of CSICOP's athletes were basketball players. According to Gauquelin, "It is Kurtz himself who pointed out to me at our meeting in Buffalo that in my original sample basketball shows the lowest effect among other sports specialties. I was aware of this, of course, and I suggested to Kurtz it would be preferable to avoid basketball in case of a new test in the USA. This would give a better chance to replicate the Mars effect. But Kurtz did exactly the contrary... He chose for his test an entire Who's Who in Basketball." Gauquelin also contended the KZA group clearly demonstrated an overall preference for mediocre athletes and ignored his criteria of eminence. The Lincoln Library of Sports Champions had been discarded as a source for birth data of outstanding athletes when its "yield strongly supported Gauquelin's hypothesis." Furthermore, 8% of CSICOP's sportsmen were born after 1950, contrary to the advice of Dr. Gauquelin who saw the Mars effect disappear in top athletes born after that year (Gauquelin thought this was due to Caesarean sections, forceps assisted births and drug induced births, which began to rise dramatically from the middle of the 20th century and altered the "natural" time of birth). (END OF EXCERPTS) Quote:
For those unfamiliar with the case, read the link I posted above. For those who aren't, it's all about a major fraud committed by so called open minded skeptics. Was it fraud or was it "...disagreements over the selection and analysis of the data set?" |
|||||||||
mastermindreader 1949 - 2017 Seattle, WA 12586 Posts |
Keep in mind the Marcello Truzzi, the original editor of the CSICOP journal "Zetetic" resigned his position in protest over the handling of the investigation and what amounted to the intentional falsification of data.
The bottom line is that the orginal data was in fact CONFIRMED by CSICOP and they refused to publish the positive results. I wouldn't put too much stock in the Wikipedia entry since, as you well know, the articles can be written and freely edited by anyone. Would you think that no CSIOP supporters had a hand in the writing? |
|||||||||
Mind Guerrilla Inner circle Queens, NY 2670 Posts |
According to Wikipedia (Hey, I'm lazy!):
"(Marcello Truzzi) left CSICOP about a year after its founding, after receiving a vote of no confidence from the group's Executive Council. Truzzi wanted to include pro-paranormal people in the organization and pro-paranormal research in the journal, but CSICOP felt that there were already enough organizations and journals dedicated to the paranormal." Without getting into the pros and cons of any one incident, I think it's safe to say that it's difficult to find purity in ANY movement, be it political, spiritual, philosophical, scientific, etc. Ideology and reality don't mix well. I consider myself a skeptic but I am not so naive to think they can all be as noble and fair-minded as I. So how does one sort out the real skeptics from the pseudo skeptics*? Let's use a specific example and get back to the video clip that prompted this thread. Paul Zenon has been labeled a pseudo skeptic by some here. I ask them to present whatever evidence they have for this claim. Once presented, perhaps we can all find some middle ground we can agree on. (What do you mean, "Dream on?") *A phrase coined by Marcello Truzzi (According to Wikipedia anyway) |
|||||||||
mastermindreader 1949 - 2017 Seattle, WA 12586 Posts |
I should point out that Marcello was a very good friend of mine and we discussed what happened often. While he certainly was in favor of having neutral parties and neutral research including in CSICOP, the statement on Wikipedia is misleading and false. Unfortunately, Marcello is not longer alive and cannot speak for himself on this matter.
It was, according to Marcello himself, the sTarbaby incident that prompted his resignation as editor of the Zetetic. Yes, Marcello did coin the phrase "pseudo-skeptic." And it was precisely because of the incident being discussed. |
|||||||||
Slim King Eternal Order Orlando 18012 Posts |
That's very informative Bob! I love the term Pseudo-Skeptic. It is a direct hit! Some of the STARBABIES have revived the con.
THE MAN THE SKEPTICS REFUSE TO TEST FOR ONE MILLION DOLLARS.. The Worlds Foremost Authority on Houdini's Life after Death.....
|
|||||||||
Mind Guerrilla Inner circle Queens, NY 2670 Posts |
Quote:
On 2012-03-11 22:05, mastermindreader wrote: He must have been an interesting person. I first came across his name in Time-Life's "Mysteries of the Unknown" book series on which he acted as consultant. I found a good quote from him too: "The true skeptic takes an agnostic position, one that says the claim is not proved rather than disproved. He asserts that the claimant has not borne the burden of proof and that science must continue to build its cognitive map of reality without incorporating the extraordinary claim as a new 'fact.' Since the true skeptic does not assert a claim, he has no burden to prove anything. He just goes on using the established theories of 'conventional science' as usual. But if a critic asserts that there is evidence for disproof, that he has a negative hypothesis --saying, for instance, that a seeming psi result was actually due to an artifact--he is making a claim and therefore also has to bear a burden of proof." Getting back to the original post: If Paul Zenon had prefaced his remarks with: "I can't speak for all tarot/palm readers but here's how I used to do it...", would everyone be a happy camper? |
|||||||||
dmkraig Inner circle 1949 Posts |
Quote:
On 2012-03-11 20:46, mastermindreader wrote: Actually, Bob, the situation was worse than that. It wasn't that the CSICOP scientists merely confirmed Gauquelin's results and wouldn't print it, they actually faked their data, reducing the size of the sample until they got the results they wanted. This would be like testing a drug on 1,000 people but only reporting on the results of 50 people and ignoring the other 950. When the sTARBABY article was published, it almost destroyed CSICOP. Marcello left and started a new magazine, the Zetetic Scholar. A large percentage of the membership left. The policies of CSICOP changes so that they would never sponsor any other research project. As a side note, one of the CSICOP scientists, UCLA astronomer Prof. George Abell, was my astronomy professor. He was a great teacher, albeit dogmatic, and one of the things everyone remembered about him is that he was able to draw a large and almost perfect circle freehand by using his shoulder as a pivot point. Two years after his cheating was revealed in sTARBABY, at the young age of 56, Professor Abell had a heart attack and died. I don't know if the notoriety that will forever mar his fame as an astronomer caused his heart attack, but it wouldn't surprise me if the stress and shame of his actions contributed to it. Professor Abell was both a brilliant scientist and a strong supporter of the CSICOP pseudo-scientific dogma. To my mind professor Truzzi was a true skeptic. Paul Kurtz dubbed him, "the skeptic's skeptic." The Skeptic's Dictionary said this about him: “Truzzi considered most skeptics to be pseudoskeptics, a term he coined to describe those who assume an occult or paranormal claim is false without bothering to investigate it." |
|||||||||
Slim King Eternal Order Orlando 18012 Posts |
Mg....I'm sure that if you'd get to edit life in such a manner he might appear to smooth this over, but unfortunately he has betrayed his inner thoughts and bias.... so no.
THE MAN THE SKEPTICS REFUSE TO TEST FOR ONE MILLION DOLLARS.. The Worlds Foremost Authority on Houdini's Life after Death.....
|
|||||||||
MDantes Inner circle New Orleans 1435 Posts |
The way eye see it is that how things are seen is all a matter of perception...
To understand what someone is saying is different from agreeing with it. We forget that sometimes...
S.A.N.C.T.U.M Chapter 18
Member 17 |
|||||||||
visionquest Regular user 140 Posts |
I don't want to go too much off topic but I never did get a chance to answer Ian Rowland on another thread. I do apologise to him for that. Here is what he said:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- And I know for a fact that approximately 85% of private readers (as opposed to mediums such as palmists, tarot readers etc;) use no cold reading whatsoever. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- This is a most fascinating assertion, Mr. Visionquest. Since you say you know this for a fact, as opposed to it being mere conjecture, could you be so kind as to provide the source for your statistical data, including the sample size and operating definitions, and show how you have arrived at this intriguing figure of 85%? Thank you. ........................................................................................................................................................ Here is my answer. Ian. I am in the business. You are not. I know what this stuff is about. You don't. Simple as that. |
|||||||||
mastermindreader 1949 - 2017 Seattle, WA 12586 Posts |
Visionquest-
Your name, credentials and background would help. Also please provide supporting evidence for your claim that 85 percent of readers use no cold reading whatsoever. You might also include your definition of cold reading. See, I'm in the business of cold reading. You're not. I know what this stuff is about, you don't. Simple as that. (And equally as meaningless and disrespectful as your response to Ian.) |
|||||||||
visionquest Regular user 140 Posts |
Bob. You are a magician. They are part of the 15% of psychics that use cold reading. Only a tiny part of the psychic community are magicians and I can assure you that the vast majority have not only never heard of cold reading they would be quite horrified if they were accused of deceptive techniques like this. A good psychic doesn't need stuff like that. And I can assure you that not one psychic in a hundred uses a single technique in the Ian Rowland book. They hardly need to. And I have discussed this at length with your old friend Ford Kross and he agreed with every word I said. And he was far more "disrespectful" towards Ian than I have been.
I have associated with hundreds of psychics over a period of a quarter of a century and personally know many of them very well. Many are self-deluded and many are sincere genuine kind hearted compassionate people. But the vast majority of them do not cheat. They do not "cold read" and to be blunt some of them wouldn't be bright enough to know how to do it anyway. I also know quite a few of the fraudulent ones who are disapproved of and ostracised by the psychic community. These are the gypsy type psychics and as crooked as they come. But even THEY don't use cold reading either and have no idea what it is. I repeat. Only magicians and mediums (as opposed to regular psychics) use this technique. My estimate of 85% who don't use it was on the conservative side. I would say the real figure is about 95%. As for my "credentials" I can assure you I have done thousands of readings over a period of a quarter of a century. Believe me or don't believe me. No skin off my nose either way. Ian has admitted publicly that he is not a professional psychic and has no experience doing paid readings. But if you want me to define what cold reading is then I would imagine Ian's book explains it very well. It is a wonderful description. It is just a pity that nobody except magicians actually use any of the the stuff therein. |
|||||||||
The great Gumbini Inner circle 3062 Posts |
Could you imagine if psychic reading and palm reading and tarot cards were real? I don't mean "close hits" or cold reading. I mean 100 percent real! First no one and I mean no one who could really do that would have time to post here on the Café. I know this for a fact because I would be bugging you all day and night---that is a fact. Secondly any country would do it's best to get their hands on you. And thirdly you would be booked on TV Movies and stage so much you would never have any time. You see I know that people would hound you and want to hear and see you. Donald Trump would deliver your breakfast, Pres Obama your lunch and then you would feast on any dinner you would want and have it delivered to you by the head of any State. This is the reward for TRUE psychic ability. But I'm sorry to tell you it is not out there. Do some predictions come true? Yes. Are we able to make a prediction with 100 percent certainty? No. The Bible says that if what a man says will happen happens then that man is a prophet. And if what he says will happen does not then don't listen to that man for he is not a prophet. I think it wise to do the same here. Unless it is for entertainment we would be best to not listen when we see no more than a "chance" record. Do I wish there was such a thing as true psychic ability? Yes and no. To me part (the fun part) about living is you never know what can happen. But then again there are times when I wish I had a crystal ball. But I don't have a crystal ball. But watch what real psychic ability could do. You could not only do the perfect ACAAN but when it is done you could have then take a prediction you handed them prior to the performance and open it themselves and read what you wrote which would be the NAME of the card they selected and the NUMBER they said as well. Wow an ACAAN with a kicker ending! Or as we like to say nowadays---ACAAN on steroids!
And that my friends is just ONE thing you could do if you had the TRUE psychic ability. In fact this is my challenge to ANY AND ALL psychics. Hand me an envelope with your prediction. We do ACAAN and if all match I will personally get on here and recant all I've ever said against the subject. We all call the ACAAN the grail of magic. This is something we all know about. No ESP, no cold reading no tests just good old ACAAN. Now that is the fairest open challenge I have ever heard of. No money involved well except for the millions and billions you will make when you complete this. And lets say if you do this without psychic ability---you will have found the perfect ACAAN (ON steroids!) and I'm sure there is at least two of us on here who would be interested in a Pre-order on this one. That's what is known as a "win-win situation". We now have us a real doable no holds barred challenge. A TRUE Challenge for a TRUE Psychic. Come on guys please don't let me down. I want to believe---well kinda. Good magic to all, Eric |
|||||||||
visionquest Regular user 140 Posts |
Eric. That is NOT what psychics do! That is what magicians do. Psychics are NOT magicians! And we don't operate like magicians. You really need to study this stuff to figure out what it is about.And so you can speak from a place of knowledge not conjecture. Psychic ability is not something that you can turn on and off like a tap. If psychics could do what you suggest they could win the lotto. I have seen psychics on the opening day of psychic fairs. They don't know which door to go in, where their booth is, sometimes they don't even know which building they are supposed to be in. They lose stuff and can't find them and have to look up directories for information the same way everyone else does.
Psychic ability is simply heightened intuition and has nothing to do with sealed envelopes and other suchlike tripe. We are ALL psychic and there is nothing supernatural about it. However, some of us have developed this ability to a sharper and clearer extent than others. And we don't use so called "cold reading" or trickery of any sort. Why bother when it isn't necessary? First you have to figure out what "psychic" means. And in order to do that you have to study the subject. And when I say "study" I do not mean studying Annmenan and Corinda. I mean studying the metaphysical arts. Once you do that you won't be issuing challenges because you will realise where this stuff is coming from. |
|||||||||
mastermindreader 1949 - 2017 Seattle, WA 12586 Posts |
Wherever did you get the idea I was a magician? The fact is that I ran psychic fairs for nearly five years during my over forty year career as a mentalist.
And I've studied metaphysics for about the same amount of time. So, once again, could you please provide us with your evidence regarding the percentage of readers who use cold reading. Is is apparent to me that you may have a misconception about what the term actually means. (Hint: Every time a psychic reads for client he/she's never met before, it's a cold reading. It has nothing to do with whether they're any good at it or not.) Good thoughts, Bob Cassidy |
|||||||||
LobowolfXXX Inner circle La Famiglia 1196 Posts |
If someone had real psychic ability, he would play bridge for several hours a day, watch Law and Order reruns, be a vegan, and read Michael Connelly novels as soon as they come out.
I know this for a FACT!
"Torture doesn't work" lol
Guess they forgot to tell Bill Buckley. "...as we reason and love, we are able to hope. And hope enables us to resist those things that would enslave us." |
|||||||||
mastermindreader 1949 - 2017 Seattle, WA 12586 Posts |
Quote:
On 2012-03-12 03:49, LobowolfXXX wrote: Almost true. The true psychic reads Michael Connelly novels BEFORE they come out. |
|||||||||
kinesis Inner circle Scotland, surrounded by 2708 Posts |
VisionQuest - As one who is very knowledgeable on the subject, perhaps you could offer your definition of what a psychic is and what they are capable of. Perhaps you could also share your definition of what cold reading is.
Lastly perhaps you or one of your psychic friends could tell me the first name of my grandmother on my mother's side and how and where she died. If this isn't the sort of thing psychics do (maybe it should be left to mediums) then perhaps you could tell me the sort of challange I could set specifically for a psychic. This isn't intended to insult but rather to bring clarification to the topic being discussed. Derek p.s. Just so you know, I'm a mentalist, I also read Tarot and I also use cold-reading (my definition) but I NEVER use stock lines or Barnum statemente etc. |
|||||||||
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Penny for your thoughts » » Fake Tarot and Palm Readers - Interesting worldwide (3 Likes) | ||||||||||
Go to page [Previous] 1~2~3~4~5~6..14~15~16 [Next] |
[ Top of Page ] |
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2024 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved. This page was created in 0.09 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 < |