talkmagic.co.uk

reformedarsonist wrote:Wouldn't be anything to do with this, would it?

I think Mark came out of that rather well.

And while I'm here, what's happened? Sudedenly this thread has turned into skeptical half-hour more reminiscent of Magic Bunny than Talk Magic. Of course Gary Mannion is a silly boy and an out and out fraud. But let's not start a round of psychic baiting - particularly when some of the more senior members here actually work as readers.

I must inform the rather ferocious looking young man from Leicester that it takes one to know one..........................

Now naturally I agree with Paul but must confess that his use of the word "senior" hurts a trifle. It is true of course but that it why it hurts.

I'm amazed that people hold Randi up as an idol among skeptics.

Yes, he's a good persuasive speaker, puts his case well and does bring an awful lot of rubbish into perspective.

But he's also someone who preaches to the choir.

The people that love him so much are the ones who already see things his way. They already have a problem with the ideas of psychics, and look to Randi for support for their own beliefs.

It's been seen time and again that people who believe in spiritualism, psychics and new age stuff will believe no matter what evidence is put in front of them. Look at the way debunkers were almost lynched in Victorian seances when they tried to expose a popular medium as a fraud. More recently, Derek Acorah is still popular and working despite Ciaran O Keefe's prank with a Lion, Witch and Wardrobe...

If you debunk a psychic, their fans (the ones that pay them for their services and are, apparently, being fleeced) will step in to provide support and excuses for them. The debunker just puts them on the defensive and makes their belief even more passionate.

It's us against them on both sides. And neither will ever convince the other that they have a monopoly on the truth.

So yes, Randi's choir loves him. But his affect on the actual psychic marketplace is pretty negligable.

Pete

themagicwand wrote:But let's not start a round of psychic baiting - particularly when some of the more senior members here actually work as readers.

Why is this a reason not to discuss psychics/charlatanism? I would have thought that with the proud tradition of magicians debunking nonsense, this would be a hotbed for that sort of thing.

And Randi does largely preach to the choir now, but he really put a dent in Geller and did some excellent work for critical thinking and skepticism back in the 80s and even the 90s. He's an old man now and people like Jon Edwards are never going to take the challenge because they can't win and sadly the media is largely on their side. Luckily, his most famous proteges are taking up his mantel in the US - Penn & Teller: BS is in its sixth season, and it's the same agenda.

And yes, there'll always be "them against us" mentality, but that's no reason for either side to stop, even the side that's blatantly very, very wrong.

It seems to have escaped the notice of sceptics that a skilled psychic can do very good and compassionate work for their clients. I have saved marriages, saved people from suicide, given courage and hope to people and lifted people up from the deepest depression.

I see no reason to apologise to anyone.

It seems to have escaped the notice of sceptics that a skilled psychic can do very good and compassionate work for their clients. I have saved marriages, saved people from suicide, given courage and hope to people and lifted people up from the deepest depression.

I see no reason to apologise to anyone.

mark lewis wrote:It seems to have escaped the notice of sceptics that a skilled psychic can do very good and compassionate work for their clients.

So the means justifies the ends? Thin ice, morally-speaking, I think.

Mark Lewis is so right. A psychic can give real reassurances to people who need it and I don't see why it's morally thin ice. People are very quick to debunk everything but how do you really know that it's all false? Perhaps, just perhaps there is something in it and the psychic really is able to offer genuine advise. And even if not, if the sitter comes away feeling better about themselves and has a more positive mindset then only good can come of that.

Lady of Mystery wrote:I don't see why it's morally thin ice. People are very quick to debunk everything but how do you really know that it's all false? Perhaps, just perhaps there is something in it and the psychic really is able to offer genuine advise. And even if not, if the sitter comes away feeling better about themselves and has a more positive mindset then only good can come of that.

If someone believes 100 per cent that they are psychic (whatever that means), then they do not believe that they are fooling anyone - which is fine, morally-speaking (IMHO).

However, if they do not believe that they have psychic gifts then they are knowingly misleading the sitter. This is where the moral question comes in. Even if you do not charge money and are able to make the person feel better, you may have created or affirmed their belief in something that you do not believe in yourself. And this may affect future decisions they make.

So please don't misunderstand me - I am not trying to debunk anything in this discussion. I am simply saying that there are moral responsibilities that need to be shouldered when misleading people on purpose.

To bring this slightly back on track. Young Gary is a "psychic surgeon". His "treatment" is the placebo effect. Now, that's a powerful psychological concept in itself, but when applied to a physical ailment such as a gall stone - as he did in the film - it's clearly inappropriate. The "patient" saw on an ultrasound scan that the stone was still there. The only effect of his treatment was that she felt better in herself. She still requires surgery, but she'll live.

Now, scale that up to cancer. The patient feels better, but the cancer is still spreading. Feeling better, however, she abandons the drugs that actually slow its progress and give her the time to put her affairs in order, do the things she wanted to do, and to say goodbye. The "psychic surgery" robs her of that time. No amount of disclaimers and other weasel words can get that time back.

Tomo wrote:No amount of disclaimers and other weasel words can get that time back.

That is an interesting point that causes me to take back something I wrote earlier - about it being OK if the psychic believes in their own abilities. If their belief is so misguided that it causes someone to give up conventional treatment that has been proven in many cases to extend life then that's a dreadful situation that highlights the responsibilities involved in handling this sort of thing.

I've done alot of crystal healing and colour healing in the past and still often mix up and advise on herbal remedies. It's down to the perseon practicing these therapies to act responsibly. I always make it totally clear that what I offered was in no way an alternative to conventional medicine but could aid in it's effectiveness when they were used side by side (which I do honestly believe, if there's a true effect or if it's just a placebo I don't know for certain but it does work). I'd be very clear that a patient should not give up medicine in favour of what I was doing and have turned away one or two people because they were looking for the miracle cure that I couldn't offer.

I'm always amused when scientists dismiss a 'miracle cure' as being down to a placebo effect, and then drop all interest in the case.

Yes, I agree that a placebo effect is the likely explanation for such things, but surely this in itself deserves some attention.

As I understand it, the placebo effect doesn't work if you tell someone that the pill they're taking is a dummy, filled with gelatine, and won't do anything for them. For anything to happen, there must be a genuine belief that what they're doing will cure their sickness.

So there has to be something psychological happening that sparks up a person's immune system, causing it to focus on an ailment and either cure it or deaden whatever pain is associated with it.

While it's true that placebos only work with a minority of cases, it's still a significant enough minority to merit some investigation into what really goes on at a psychological and physiological level...

Pete

I partly agree with Ted. It IS morally thin ice. However interestingly enough the real shut eye psychics can often do more harm than the fake ones. Some of the worst and most irresponsible "advice" comes from the psychics who believe 100% in their own powers.

So I am afraid Ted is wrong when he states that if the psychic believes in what he or she does they are somehow on better ethical ground than the outright fake.

Of course there are two types of fake psychics. There are the gypsy scam artists who are nothing but criminals and there are the shrewd cold reading types who try to help. The former is far more morally reprehensible than the latter.

And yet the latter is walking an ethical tightrope. I have referred to this in my DVDs on the subject and most notably in my audiotape that was first put out by Martin Breese some years ago. If anyone is interested in this material then they should contact me privately for details.

When you do psychic readings for people you are taking on an awesome responsibility and you should know what you are doing. If you screw up a card trick you just look an idiot but if you screw up a reading you can ruin someone's life. So in that sense Ted is correct.

You need to decide your own ethical boundaries and stick to them. A psychic is often the client's last resort and they are very vulnerable. Treat them gently.

Another point Ted is astray on is the payment side of things. It is ESSENTIAL that the client pays. It is part of the therapy. If you pay nothing you put a nothing value on it. So take the money. Don't overcharge but don't undercharge.

I do myself believe 100% in the power of the tarot. But don't get me wrong. I don't think it is magic or the supernatural. I have no time to explain it here but my explanation is perfectly logical and scientific. The tarot works because of natural laws not supernatural ones. However the point is that it WORKS. I bet I could even convince that Randi crowd of my argument if they weren't all mentally deranged zealots and acne ridden teenagers. Regrettably what I have to say requires intelligence which is sorely lacking among the JREF soccer hooligans. I rather think that they should all blow their brains out but of course they would have nothing to lose if they did that.

Don't confuse the effects of the immune system with pain relief. Pain is almost entirely 'in' the brain. The immune system may well be affected to some degree by the brain, but it does not rely on your brain receiving certain signals from the spine.

As far as I know, research into the Placebo effect is ongoing. According to Wikipedia some recent research suggests that there is no measurable effect. So let's not assume that it works. It's just a theory, like so much else. From the article:

Hróbjartsson and Gøtzsche found that in studies with a binary outcome, meaning patients were classified as improved or not improved, the placebo group had no statistically significant improvement over the no-treatment group. Similarly, there was no significant placebo effect in studies in which objective outcomes (such as blood pressure) were measured by an independent observer.

Note that this research has faced some criticism, so there really is uncertainly.

There is an interesting point made in the same article that could be applied to less conventional practices (crystals etc). To my mind you could replace the word 'placebo' below with crystals, reiki or whatever:

Critics of the practice responded that it is unethical to prescribe treatments that don't work, and that telling a patient that a placebo is a real medication is deceptive and harms the doctor-patient relationship in the long run. Critics also argued that using placebos can delay the proper diagnosis and treatment of serious medical conditions.