talkmagic.co.uk

I'm sorry Craig, but using Sally Morgan as an example has just lost you any credability to your arguments. Perhaps you don't see as much of her in the USA as we have in the UK, but the times I have seen her it has been laughable.
She was on KAty Price and Peter Andres chat show earlier this year, and the best she could come up with was that Katy liked horses! Anyone who knows who she is knows that, as she has done countless programs (My other half insists we watch them) and even written a kids book about horses. She was then asked to predict the outcome of a competition betwen the two hosts (a 1 out of 3 chance, win lose or draw), and got it wrong.
Then she made the vulgar claim that she predicted Princess Dianas death. Funny how these predictions always come out after the event happens. My question would have been that if you were her personal psychic, why didn't you bleeding well tell her not to get into the car that night. The woman is famous because someone lost her life and she cashed in on it. How low can you get?

Since James Randi's name has already been raised in this thread, should anyone possess Tarot or any other paranormal abilities, You may be only a "click" away from $1,000,000

http://www.randi.org/research/Challenge_Application.pdf

As mentioned in my earlier post, I am certainly not asking those who believe they possess such abilities to argue their case or justify their position. However should someone be prepared to have a go, please give your fellow "Talk Magicers" a heads up... then "go get that million".

Don't let the Randi Haters dampen your enthusiasm by trying to tell you you're wasting your time... go for it! believe in yourself and "bring home the bacon".

an independant study would be better than peer review.

has anyone asked why a psychic would need to have cards tell them whats what? seriously the revelations are so vague and omni-adaptable it just appears to be even worse than astrology

next youll be telling me derek acorah is genuine

I must inform Reverend Browning that I had no idea that Uri and Randi were exchanging healing energy. If this is the case it only confirms that the psychic vibes I was getting had some credence. I am most offended that a fellow reverend would say that I was cheating. I do not consider this to be an outstanding example of inter faith harmony.

I also disagree with wild card that sceptics are not aggressive. If you make a quick visit to the Randi JREF forum you will see that it is populated by juvenile delinquents and horrible nasty people who are no doubt British football hooligans in their spare time.

And it is well known that Australian sceptics for some odd reason are the most aggressive on the face of the earth. No doubt it is because they walk upside down all the time.

I am not referring to any Australians on this forum and do not wish to upset them. They already have a hard enough cross to bear coming from Australia in the first place.

I must also inform cragglecat that my history making discovery about psychic ability is not merely "interesting" but is a most wondrous piece of knowledge and I should be awarded some sort of prize from a great university for it.

Since the prize does not seem to be forthcoming I suppose I had better go back to writing my book which is boring the c*** (not the best) out of me.

also disagree with wild card that sceptics are not aggressive.

Your right Mark, but I meant on this particular thread they haven't been particularly aggressive.

Wild Card wrote:

also disagree with wild card that sceptics are not aggressive.

Your right Mark, but I meant on this particular thread they haven't been particularly aggressive.

true and there has been a little aggression from the pro-side. though if i were someone who did this seriously id defend it too. i see where theyre coming from...

i myself am not what id call a sceptic, who will dismiss it immediately, no matter how convincing the arguement. though nor am i going to accept seemingly outlandish claims, of something which appears impossible without proof. the idea of an open mind is to make it up based on the evidence you see and trust. people on both sides seem to forget this.

fact is this is never going to be solved here, theres not really hard evidence on both sides, its educated guessing and opinion.

remember there are folks who think blaine and brown are really doing magic. just cos this or that happens under less-than-strict conditions (which it almost always seems to be) is not proof that its real.

There has certainly been more aggression from the pro-side, but then again, the skeptics aren't the ones being attacked.

Wild Card wrote:Muhaha, not to worry, it was just a suggestion. One thing I have noticed in this thread, is skeptics, cynics or whatever are nowhere near as aggressive.

I was always told the person who has to raise their voice in an arguement usually knows there in the wrong.

I have my views on Psychic ability which I'll keep to myself for the moment, but I think Tarot has way to many different meanings, uses and different types of reads with clashing belief systems to ever be attacthed to one type of phenemenom(sic)

Have I raised my voice?

I've stressed a couple of points, most of which (oddly enough) echo the perspectives of genuine Skeptics (vs. Cynics) but likewise mirror what "true" mystics and occultists know, believe and work from; it is however a very deep and multi-faceted field that's become exceptionally blurred over the past quarter century as the result of grotesque commercialism and the knack of certain publishing companies allowing dim-wits to introduce material that isn't just pure fantasy but likewise contradictory to the much older and proven "rules" associated with such things.

[... I so miss those times when it took centuries for ideas and even fashion to go out of style...]

BACK TO TAROT I say for the second time, could a proficient reader tell me why we use certain spreads? Why The Celtic Cross etc?

Actually the Eileen Connolly books on the Tarot (http://www.amazon.com/Eileen-Connollys-Tarot-Handbook-Master/dp/0878772359?tag=particculturf-20) would probably answer that question for you best in that she not only explains each of the primary (most commonly used) spreads, but also how the positions of each card relates to one another, allowing you a better "view" as it were as to what is influencing what from where and possibly why.

I know of no adept Taroist in the U.S. at least, that does not have all of Eileen's books, most of the time, they are sitting right beside them and obviously well used. When I was working in a New Age bookstore in Reno my books were horribly dog eared and it was not unusual for me to pull one off the shelf and sit side by side with the client, showing them the "Science" of the Tarot, as it were and why I had certain suspicions about certain things within their Reading. This is something I was shown long ago by others whom I viewed as genuine authorities on the art of divination so I took their lead and applied this same practice to my work; there is absolutely nothing wrong with educating the sitter when it comes to the method and meaning of it all.

My biggest problem from within the magic community in particular, is that far too many of us read a couple of dime-store paper-backs on the subject of the Tarot or Astrology, etc. and suddenly believe they have the answers and know why it's all "fake". Of the few who actually do invest themselves into LEARNING the oracle in question both, by wrote and by practice, the majority tend to tame their inner-cynic considerably in that they not only come to understand the more analytical side to it all, but likewise start experiencing the more "miraculous" and unexplainable aspects as well.

I can't count the number of Readings I've had that revealed exceptionally hard and direct hits that, if I were to rely on the typical ploys and explanations offered within the magic society, would never have come about -- accurate time lines on specific occurrences that were dead on! The reveal of information that would be impossible to learn of or even arrange, even if you had every bit of information about your sitter and their life say, over the past five years or so.

I have no doubt that others here have had similar experiences; you can't help but have them IF and when you actually respect both, the Science behind the Oracle employed and your own NATURAL empathy or Intuition; it is the combination of the two that translate into what everyone recognizes as being "Psychic" ability.





FOR THE RECORD... we've gone well over a dozen pages into this discussion before seeing attempts by the more cynical within our ranks, setting forth their typical school yard challenges and armchair expert opinions. I'll assume that many have jumped in on this task because of many of my own statements in that I tend to point out where agreement exists between the genuinely skeptical and the more moderate believer in such... this is something most cynics loathe in that they prefer rigid, black & white "proof" about things; failing to recognize that Science itself don't adhere to such standards, literally leaving room for what is officially referred to as "an occult factor" -- the unseen aspect of influence (also used in courts of law, by the way)

Now, in the past two or three pages, we've seen a growing number of "Prove it to me" posts in which antagonism is the key. After all, most know it's easy to rile this old bear and for more than a few, it's fun to poke me and get me to growl, snarl and even dance a bit.

NOT HAPPENING!

I've retired my dancing shoes when it comes to such school-yard shenanigans. As best I'm able I will point folks to the resources and/or examples -- I'll try to explain things based on what my studies and life experience have revealed, but the pettiness of small minds who need to bully and goad so as to make something an "issue" is something I not only don't understand, it is something I (nor the majority of us I'd say) need to get involved in. It does (and has) devalued an otherwise decent and quite solid conversation such as we WERE having here for over a dozen pages. Now unfortunately, someone's gone and lit the fuse in the hopes of proving that anyone who would sustain the more metaphysical notions of human conscience and spirit, are fools and gullible dolts; forgetting that most of the world's most renown and honored Scholars believed in God (or some form of Divinity)... many even being students of the esoteric arts -- Science is after all, a form of Witchcraft... that is, if you were to roll the clock back a bit, in around the Dark Ages when such thinking would give you the gallows and whip.

My point being, why is it so imperative to the cynical minds amongst us, to not just side-track the original theme of this thread (a discussion on the Tarot) but to likewise plant seeds of general discord that will ultimately bring about the same deterioration of the talk we see time and again; a battle between those of experience in a particular field who bring forth "testimony" vs. the cynic? (most of whom had their minds made up for them by outside sources, vs. their own hands-on acts of study, practice and legitimate research)

I'm still reading and enjoying this thread although I don't really have much to add anymore because the discussion is now out of my depth.

I'm actually quite glad that the initial way I phrased the question was slightly more antagonistic than I intended, because look what a brilliant discussion it provoked!

Craig, you said that you had many very strong hits. What percent of the total amounts of reading you gave did those strong hits take?

You said earlier that you gave tons of readings in your life. With enough reading under your belt, wouldn't some strong matches be expected? If the odds of being right when you guess something wild (or being close enough that it's basically correct) is something like one percent*, then out of a thousand readings, you would get about ten surprisingly accurate readings. Taking into account that you are obtaining information about the sitter while doing the reading, the percentage might be a bit higher since you have some grounds for your guesswork (I'm using guess work since intuition doesn't feel quite right to me in this context ). With your experience in the field, you might be able to gain even more information during the reading thus raising the percentage even more.

With that in mind, do you still think the strong hits were more than educated guesses and probability?

*A Bullsh*t number, I admit- it's just an example.

I would just like to say, just as Richard Dawkins does, it is the job of the Tarot Readers to prove they work, not us skeptics to prove the don't.

I haven't read the whole thread so someone may well have mentioned this but the above quote is bad philosophy/science.

You don't just not believe in something, you believe in something different. If the tarot doesn't work it doesn't work for a reason and if you think this is true you believe that his 'reason' is why the tarot doesn't work. In debate you must prove this 'reason' to be true.

Complicated way of saying the everyone has the job of proving something.

S. Lea wrote:

I would just like to say, just as Richard Dawkins does, it is the job of the Tarot Readers to prove they work, not us skeptics to prove the don't.

I haven't read the whole thread so someone may well have mentioned this but the above quote is bad philosophy/science.

You don't just not believe in something, you believe in something different. If the tarot doesn't work it doesn't work for a reason and if you think this is true you believe that his 'reason' is why the tarot doesn't work. In debate you must prove this 'reason' to be true.

Complicated way of saying the everyone has the job of proving something.

I don't agree with that at all.

I've read Dawkins, seen a documentary he produced and heard him numerous times on TV and radio, and I'm not a very big fan of him at all. Grammatically speaking I don't believe there is such a thing as a "militant atheist" because the term is something of a paradox, but the most commonly understood definition of the term does suit him quite well - basically he goes too far.

However, I don't think you can accurately pull him up on that particular quote. If someone doesn't believe in the Tarot, they don't have to - as you've said they do - believe that there is a "reason" it doesn't work, or isn't real (whatever "real" even means in this context!)

Non-belief in something does not have to be qualified with reason. If I told you I had a thousand legs and was thirty-nine feet tall, you wouldn't need a reason to disbelieve me. It would not be up to you to prove I was not as described, and if I were to suggest you should provide me with one it would be rightfully seen by you as an absurd request.

You wrote "You don't just not believe in something, you believe in something different." but that's just not true, and it's a bizarre label to put on someone based on a lack of belief. For instance, if you lack a belief in God you are called an atheist, but why should you even have that label? Surely if you're an atheist if you don't believe in God then you're also an "a" everything else that can be conceivably dreamed up. If you're Scottish you'd never describe yourself as aEnglish, aWelsh and aIrish, and more importantly you'd probably be rather peeved if anyone attempted to label you so.

Disbelief is a lack of something, not a seperate belief in and of itself. Hence Dawkins - of whom I qualified this argument by making it known I am not a fan - was correct in his observation. It is ridiculous to suggest that it's up to anyone who has a lack of a belief to need to somehow prove a negative before they can carry on not believing it.

we've seen a growing number of "Prove it to me" posts

To be fair though, when such extraordinary claims are made, this is a natural response. It would be far stranger to say 'oh...ok then'.

showing them the "Science" of the Tarot

What exactly is the 'science of the tarot?

As best I'm able I will point folks to the resources and/or examples

I made a post earlier asking for studies, reports, videos/photos etc, and have not had any given (apart from a well known celebrity fraud who does celebrity readings because its easy to just google them. For example: To Bez of the happy monday who is well know for his drug use and trouble with the law..."I see policemen around you".)

To be honest I can't see why the 'prove it' posts are a problem. If I made a claim today that I could fly, why you say 'cool...Well done...I believe you', or would you say 'go on then...fly'?

queen of clubs wrote:

S. Lea wrote:

I haven't read the whole thread so someone may well have mentioned this but the above quote is bad philosophy/science.

You don't just not believe in something, you believe in something different. If the tarot doesn't work it doesn't work for a reason and if you think this is true you believe that his 'reason' is why the tarot doesn't work. In debate you must prove this 'reason' to be true.

Complicated way of saying the everyone has the job of proving something.

I don't agree with that at all.

I

I think S.Lea was alluding to the 'null hypothesis' when framing a hypothesis for testing http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Null_hypothesis note that rejection of the null hypothesis does not automatically mean the alternative hypothesis is correct....

DEAR MODERATING STAFF...

This thread has officially gone done the toilet... all the prove it to me gang has now jumped on the bandwagon and gotten completely off topic.

You boys go ahead and play with yourselves... you do that really well.