talkmagic.co.uk

I feel like there's the basis for a book emerging here...

As stated, this thread is demonstrating that a meeting of minds and muxing of knowledge can produce truly dramatic and collaborative views.

And I for one have had my eyes not only opened but blown wide apart by this thread.

In essence, what started as an opinion has developed into a lesson.

Fantastic.

Craig Browning wrote: ... pdjamez is being a non-accussive or demeaning person of character in this issue of debate... it's so rare to encounter this kind of "proper" conduct in a discussion of this kind ...
So many that hold to the skeptic's position lack the sense of dichorum and respect Paul has exhibited, nor are they equiped with real-life points of view as Paul has brought out. ...

If only I could actually live up to these ideals.

Craig Browning wrote:But, the Teller quote is a prime example of how certain factions in magic are seeking to remove from Mentalism, one of it's cornerstone elements. One cannot read the older tomes of this art form and not see where people like Larsen, Boarde, Nelson and in more recent times Webster, Strivings, Riggs, and Hilford were not Readers. Hell, it's the foundation behind doing Home Parties and backroom sales. All of which have been a key part of true Mentalism since its inception.

But times move on. We discover certain things don't hold water. Look at the situation in America were children are being taught intelligent design in biology. If we don't look to explanations that are provable and repeatable we start to move backwards.

Craig Browning wrote:This particular philosophy sustains the fact that certain people in the magic world, are striving to rob from mentalism the mystique and advantage it's known for a considerble period of time... the leveling of the playing field and in so doing, nutering the performer's ability to do their job in a manner that's been proven effective for so very long. .

As I said before times move on. It's important that people are aware of what is real and what isn't. It isn't about a jealousy on the side of magic it is brought forward by the fact we have on offer to us explanations that aren't explored by science but are unknown to the layman. Bending spoons for example. Ever since Randi and Banachek made mince meat of the last lot of scientists to examine PK effects no serious scientist will go near it and rightly so. That may lead the layman open to people that display these effects. It is up to us, the magician, to show them that it isn't real and is just entertainment. This doesn't have to mean exposing methods it can just mean repeating the effect and admitting that no psychic methods were used.

Craig Browning wrote:This reference likewise infers that "all Readers are cons" which, as we've been discussing, simply is not the case... it's an opinion that some share, but it is an opinion that has no solid foundation in the sense of hands on experience and actual acts of investigation (without preconceived notions one way or the other). In this case, we are quoting from a person who, via their actions, has proven to the world that they have little to no regard for anyone's beliefs or point of view outside their own. This is the kind of "performer" that has brought about a very negative taste in the mind of the consumer when it comes to magic on the whole. Quite simply, the public does not like to be insulted or told they are stupid because they believe in things. Any performer, I don't care who they think they are, that walks out and insinuates such things via their shows, is a looser through and through -- bullies who are compelled by arrogance as well as their own fear vs. compassion and genuine ethics.

My personal performance is certainly not about exposing anyone. I will however perform many mentalist effects alongside magic effects. Vanishes may appear in the same performance as a booktest. People will still believe the effects as they are a moment of suspended belief but after the show they will be saying "wasn't that cool" or "I wonder how he did that" they won't be saying "I should go and ask him for marriage advice". Of course there are some scary people out there that even when I tell them outright it's not real will still want to believe it is. One girl asked to divine the results of a smear test that were due the next day and when I refused and told her I couldn't she got very cross and claimed the reason I wouldn't tell her was because it was bad news!!
I walked away from that with a clear conscience. Someone that claimed to be the real deal would have had to leave her with some kind of information even if it was completely neutral advice it would still be advice given on false pretence of a position of knowledge.

I've seen far more abuse of the public under the guise of religion and mental health treatment than I've ever encountered within the Psychic industry. You've heard me say that in the past John and you know why I say it... aside from the fact that it's exceptionally true.

I accept that but vandals don't cause as much trouble as murderers doesn't make them right.

But as you also know, my "issue" with people like Teller, is that they don't want to apply their rules equally to all aspects of business practice or social interaction... they pick (nit pick) and choose what they want to point fingers at, choosing the softer target where they can gain the stronger sense of public support from time to time... after all, heckling and beratting Psychics is the one thing Atheist and Christian Fundamentalist can agree upon it's a common "foe" but for different reasons.

True but most magicians aren't theologians and would struggle to hold a debate with religious leaders. It is up to others, atheist theologinans for example to deal with them. Many magicians however are experts in the field of creating illusions and recreating PK effects/mind reading/remote viewing and all the other "effects" of which our industries overlap in use.

Being "Ethical" as a counselor has little to no bearing as to which lable you fall under. You will find the same charlatan activities within the auspices of Mental Health and Religion as the Psychic's are constantly charged with. You will also discover that it is but a very small percentage of those communities that are guilty of such acts of trespass, most strive to be honorable and to actually help those that come to them

Because they have the deep belief that what they are doing is right. As I'm sure many in the Mental Health and Religion industries do. They all need correcting in my opinion. My knowledge is on the methods of psychics far outweighs my knowledge of the mental health industry though. I will leave the mental heath charlatans to medical experts to deal with.

It's a sad world when people simply won't allow people to be who and what they are and judge each by their actions vs. their alliances or the various labels imposed upon them.

That only works when the people they are making alliances with are doing the right thing for society which I strongly believe that those that hold back the tides of science are not.

Johndoe, nice beartrap. There is an evil streak in you my friend.

Okay, before we take this debate into areas which it really shouldn't go lets all take a big step back.

I am a skeptic atheist magician with a strong science background, which pretty much makes me enemy number one from Craigs point of view. I am however capable of separating my belief system (atheism) from my rational statements (science). Let me explain:

As an atheist:

1. I don't believe in a deity.
2. I don't believe in ghosts.
3. I don't believe in communicating with the afterlife.
4. I don't believe in other such nonsense.

You see its all about belief. I cannot prove these statements to be factual, anymore than an opposing belief system could disprove them. If we intend to engage in a debate between opposing belief systems I for one do not intend to contribute. This thread is just going to get a lot longer without getting any further.

Now from a rational scientific point of view I end up making this type of general statement.

1. On current evidance the existance of paranormal phenomena is improbable.

But thats as much as I can commit to because of the principle of scientific falsibility.

With regards to ethics, these tend to be derived from belief systems, so your back to my original issue. Ethics discussions will tend to reach the same endless flame war. I contend that this may be a waste of our time and effort.

I've made my ethical concerns clear to Craig with respect to his activities. He responded, and thats pretty much all that I can do.

Now as I understand it, Craig has not declared himself to have paranormal powers. Infact all he declared was that he had a heightened sense of intuition.

We can come to a number of conclusions based on his commentary alone.

1. He is mis-leading us.
2. He is mis-interpeting normal behaviour.
3. He has an enhanced sense of intuition.

Now I don't know Craig personally, so in reality each conclusion has equal merit. Please don't take that as an insult Craig, its just the reality of the situation.

The only reason I am leaning towards number 3 is because its the most interesting of the options. If Kenton Knepper tells us to take risks in magic, is Craig Browning telling us to use our intuition. How so?

By the way, for my fellow skeptic atheists, you are right, despite the subject of this thread, I have said my piece and now I am ignoring key arguments. Because, this afterall is a magic forum.

pdjamez wrote:Johndoe, nice beartrap. There is an evil streak in you my friend.

Was I that obvious?

As an atheist:

1. I don't believe in a deity.
2. I don't believe in ghosts.
3. I don't believe in communicating with the afterlife.
4. I don't believe in other such nonsense.

You see its all about belief. I cannot prove these statements to be factual, anymore than an opposing belief system could disprove them.

This is a problem. As an atheist that is fine but as a scientist it isn't. A true scientist (I'm not claiming to be one by the way) wouldn't believe anything that couldn't be proved. However the onus of proof is on the person making the claim. It is impossible to prove something doesn't exist however from a scientific view point something has to be proved before it exists. I.e a scientist would not say "leprecauns don't exist" he woud say "bring me a leprecaun then I will believe they exist but until you do then I would doubt their existence based on the fact that given all the time available noone has yet done it."
Therefore it is not a case of 'believing' it doesn't exist it is a case of simply saying "prove it". Which leads to cyclical arguments when it comes to things of this nature.

I've made my ethical concerns clear to Craig with respect to his activities. He responded, and thats pretty much all that I can do.

Craig and myself and countless others through out history (Discoverie of Witchcraft, anyone?) have been round this block many a time. However I wouldn't want to see the thread locked as long it's friendly. I would much rather see it moved to "off topic" (is it Dove's head you call it here) because it's just not magic, it's not mentalism either because it's about offering readings and 'help' to people using either heightened tuition or 'tricks'. We are entertainers, not helpers or guides and I believe a very thick line should be drawn between the two.

One thing I have to ask Craig (because I like to prod him every now and then ) is why, if you have such heightened intuition, do you require and continue to seek such a remarkable amount of knowledge in the world of legerdermaine?
You seem to have an incredible knowledge of peeks, centre tears, Corinda, Anneman, we have even discussed the use of stooges before.
Why do you have all this knowledge if phenomen such as extremely heightened intuition exists?
Personally if I had the power to actually make a silk disappear I wouldn't be bothering to learn about TTs and pulls.

Reading through this thread has been both enjoyable and completely unexpected. I never thought that so many people would get involved and have so many varied opinions--many thanks! In way of reply I’ll then return to my first post and fill in some of the blanks that I left there to answer some of these points.

As stated, I spent many years searching for answers that primarily dealt with the idea of ‘divinity within’--the old ‘I Am That’ default position that haunts Advaita Vedanta and many other schools of teaching. I resultantly travelled through Hinduism and Western Occultism with that idea firmly at the forefront of my mind, and actually sought ANY and ALL ways to possibly get ‘beyond my mind’ to reach the Face I Had Before I Was Born, or the Groundless Ground Of All Being, or the Primal State spoken of in Dzogchen…or whatever you want to call it. The upshot was a total experience of Satori or Enlightenment which, just as in Crowley’s case, didn’t rock my world off its hinges. Rather than being blown away by the ‘none’ experience of not being an idea but the space in which all ideas arise, I found myself rather noting a neurologically fascinating perspective which was akin to several panicky sessions that I’d had smoking large amounts of cannabis or taking doses of LSD in my youth. The sense of not being a me or an I was, without question, rooted in the chemistry of my brain and was no more ‘absolutely’ valid or truly pointed beyond itself to any divine revelation than a typical schizophrenic patient suffering a sense of disassociation and loss of self.

From this I then found myself turning away from Huston Smith, David Loy and Ken Wilber to V. S. Ramanchandran, Steven Pinker and Daniel Dennett. The mind is the brain imo--pure and simple--which is to state that millions of years of blindly engineered evolutionary time have produced a Universal Turing Machine running on von Neumannesque Architecture, guided ultimately by our genes and the various mishaps which have shaped them. As far as I am concerned, if you want the face of God then a simple algorithm will be the terminus of your effort, which is demonstrably the case when you consider the lack of any meta-ethical foundation in nature or the simple needs that guide you on a daily basis, such as taking in food, excreting and the overwhelming pressure to spread your DNA.

As for the psychic/intuitional stuff talked about, then as my good friend who is a research chemist (and far smarter and scientifically literate than myself) often comments, “we’re all just information, just as the whole universe is information, so what’s the big deal in the occasional programming glitch? It didn’t send Feynmann running off to his local church and it won’t send me there either”…just as I might add that any metaphysical queries into the fundamental nature of information itself won’t lead me down the theological dead-end of seeking its ultimate self-causing cause or drawing an untenable ‘God Card’ from the deck

However, I suppose primarily the issue here is one of bias and taste, and I must count myself pushed in the direction of evidence and fact rather than hopeful idealism or unsupported faith. The body is a collection of bacteria and genes--proven--just as the mind is software running in the brain, as is equally clear if you visit your local hospital and see the often pitiful state of patients who have suffered strokes. In their case whole blocks of memory may be erased and huge swathes of personality be consumed in a splash or sudden limiting of the blood flow needed to run the software and hardware in their heads, causing their families to despair as Uncle Charles, or whoever it may be, is now somebody else entirely or has been reduced to their very barest essentials.

(NB - If you wish to PM me on this point I’ll be happy to send over some work I did on David Chalmers and errors in his ‘zombie’ thought experiments in regard of supervenience and neuroscience, which from Chalmers and others has got to be the very last philo/theo outpost in trying to show that the mind cannot be reduced to the brain, unless you count the work of Penrose, which has been largely discounted even by Penrose himself, or John Searle who keeps repeating the same dead argument to the point of nausea and absurdity).

Finally, I refer to Richard Dawkins in summing up the biological state of play when he points to the digger wasp and the sickeningly carnivorous process by which it breeds. To give this some background to those who do not know the attractive details, the wasp in question stings and paralyses a caterpillar before injecting it with eggs that will feed on its still living flesh while they tunnel their way out. As with all of nature, this shows a complete sense of blind, pitiless indifference to the fact of suffering while revealing the hand of chance in the arms race of survival rather than any transcendent guiding light. Unless we are to believe that God is mentally ill, or senile or otherwise not very good at his job in mostly exterior Western terms (which includes the possibility of Him actually being dead), or if we are to take the interior Eastern model and conclude that God enjoys a morbid state of affairs akin to a masochist or self-harmer who likes playing the role of one who is thrashed or cuts himself into ribbons, then the notion of God as a whole starts to look a bit ridiculous when you take a sober look at it.

Personally I think the idea God in any form is the product of not knowing what has actually been going on for the greater part of our history, and now that we are finding out we finally should bin it along with the alleged Dragons on mediaeval maps or those cheeky rascals who are touted as The Ever Living Christmas Elves

Best Wishes,

Nathan

Johndoe wrote: I wouldn't want to see the thread locked as long it's friendly. I would much rather see it moved to "off topic" (is it Dove's head you call it here)

OK, it's moved!

Sorry Nathan, but I had the hardest time getting through your post... rather confusing to me

Now, as to the "beartrap"... or, as John knows the way I view such things, it's one of the classic ploys of the non-believer for entrapping the believer... a game I do not play. So c'mon JD, let's drop that game. This has been a very benevolent conversation thus far and as Paul has pointed out, you're now introducing a "get nowhere" aspect -- your beliefs & position vs. mine... both are just as right and legit as they are wrong, so let's not go there.

One thing, when it comes to the "Intuition" issue, that I will recommend for both of you... two things actually, since Kenton was brought up... His recent release MIND READING and Millard Longman's PSYCHIC SKILLS WORKSHOP (available through Loren Tindall), both of which reveal ideas and actions that invoke the intuition and imagination as a means for delivering Readings.

This is where I find this whole issue rather odd...

Firstly, if the concept of being a Reader is so wrong, why are there still so many "new" routines, effects, etc. being created and released that employ this basic concept? Why do we have so many wannabe mentalist half-assing the act of being a Reader via card tricks... or worse, using it as a ploy for picking up a date for the night?

Why, if this is an area that's so wrong, are all the magic dealers clamouring over books and resources on the subject of How to Be An Effective Reader? Why are all these "ethical" magicians you hear taking John's position on this issue in these forums, bragging about how well they do with their Readings?

Why is this the only skill allied with the whole of the magical arts & sciences, that has been seen as the pentacal to one's career and skill base, about all others? Yet is it the very thing all of our detractors wish to remove from the scenario?

But times move on. We discover certain things don't hold water. Look at the situation in America were children are being taught intelligent design in biology. If we don't look to explanations that are provable and repeatable we start to move backwards.

Firstly, this whole "Intelligent Design" c*** (not the best) is nothing other than a demonstration of how certain wolves that call themselves "the church" are sleeping with politicians. Granted, it is being supported by a bunch of idiots, but how are they and the manifestation of this "new" idea any different than how genuine charlatans manipulate the gullible? This is a prime example of how a "conspiracy" established over two decades ago via Pat Robertson & Jerry Falwell (when they did the big take-over of the Jim & Tammy PTL corporation)... It was Robertson that coined the phrase "The Dumming-down of America" and he's been doing it inch by inch, ever sense; stirring people's fears, phobias and their ignorance... the result is what's coming frighteningly close to a Theocratic society thats' now headed by little man with an even smaller mind (and I'm not talking about Robertson).

How is the use of these deceptive & manipulative skills any different from what you and your kind, claim we Readers use?

As I said before times move on. It's important that people are aware of what is real and what isn't. It isn't about a jealousy on the side of magic it is brought forward by the fact we have on offer to us explanations that aren't explored by science but are unknown to the layman. Bending spoons for example. Ever since Randi and Banachek made mince meat of the last lot of scientists to examine PK effects no serious scientist will go near it and rightly so. That may lead the layman open to people that display these effects. It is up to us, the magician, to show them that it isn't real and is just entertainment. This doesn't have to mean exposing methods it can just mean repeating the effect and admitting that no psychic methods were used.

For starters, I know of exceptionally few "psychics" that do any of that kind of stuff... as you said, time moves on and things change... you won't find very many using billets, clipboards or any of that other questionable stuff all the cynics want to keep leaning on as "proof" to our duplicity. You guys don't even want us to use the very techniques employed (stolen from us) by the mental health industry, which you endorse... completely ignoring the amount of harm and hustle that exists therein. But, because they are acredited and supposedly "scientific" you tend to ignore them and the oft time much more cruel acts of harm and trespass that happens via that particular system.

If there were one "Issue" I have with those that wish to be my detractors, is that they don't want to apply the same rules and logic across the board, even to their own philosophy, wordage, and acts of expression. They do not wish to accept responsibility for the harm and damage they cause in the world with their bullishness and arrogance (I referr to the like of Penn & Teller, Jamie Swiss and most recently Criss Angel).

John, I've never seen you perform but as you describe you act, I can only see the prime example of the magician's that want to reduce mentalism to being nothing other than a trick vs. a related artform that requires an alternate sense of discipline and approach. This has become the driving force behind a lot of the psychic bashing we see on line, in that many want the "advantage" Mentalism has to offer and yet, few (exceptionally few) are willing to take the time and learn how to do it right... they want to sell it as being nothing but a trick and that is exactly what is going to destroy it as an artform. Your own disbelief is merely an excuse for not learning something and presenting it in the psychological manner that's been proven over generations vs. this current mood we are seeing break loose as the result of two or three Tv personalities; the whole of the concept taken totally out of context.

Because they have the deep belief that what they are doing is right. As I'm sure many in the Mental Health and Religion industries do. They all need correcting in my opinion. My knowledge is on the methods of psychics far outweighs my knowledge of the mental health industry though. I will leave the mental heath charlatans to medical experts to deal with.

I repeat... the techniques are one in the same, so what's the excuse for not applying an even hand in your acts of judgement and condemnation?

I know I saw that famed Cynic's cop-out line there about the "onus of proof"... as you know, those of us on the other side of the fence insist that you guys look at the three fingers point back in your direction and consider who really has the greater obligation. Your the ones that are trying to breakdown a social reality that's spanned thousands of years... seems to be that this would be the great claim given the myriad of folks that have deep testimonials about the miraculous and divine/spiritual.

I read something once about faith... Faith is a belief and beliefs can be changed e.g. it is not something that would compell one to be a martyr in that certain extremes would lead one towards doubt and probably conversion. On the other hand, when one KNOWS something with the whole of their being, it is an unshakable thing that can withstand the greatest of torments e.g. what I share and the reason I leave certain doors open, is because I absolutely KNOW there is something out there that's a bit bigger and more enveloping than myself. Some people call it God or Goddess, Great Spirit, etc. I don't know and chose not to define it in that I believe part of it pertains directly to the more mundane... science. That may sound like double-talke, but if you study the deeper teachings of mysticism, you will see that it really is one in the same point of view.

My point is John, each individual must choose how he/she uses this kind of skill and the broadbrush all the cynics want to apply isn't only rediculous, it's just as immoral and unethical as you are claiming us to be. Again, we a "standard" when it comes to the "rules" isn't applied across the board on all things, it is not a standard but rather a manipulation of what is and isn't for the sake of self-serving vs. genuine wisdom in action. In short, we go back to that old idea about removing the beam from your eye before pointing to the splinter in the eye of your fellow.... get you own house in order, so to speak:wink:

Firstly I know nothing about problems in mental health services. Either it isn't a problem in the uk or it isn't one we talk about. Either way stop diverting on to other subjects, we are not discussing what the mental health people or religious people are upto we are discussing what so called Psychics are upto.
It is a classic trait of the pyschic that when questioned about their own actions they will try to justify by saying "go pick on them instead". "Why pick on us when they are doing wrong?" Well why pick on burglars with so many murderers around?

Firstly, if the concept of being a Reader is so wrong, why are there still so many "new" routines, effects, etc. being created and released that employ this basic concept?

That should be obvious. It is a great trick. That can be very entertaining.

Why do we have so many wannabe mentalist half-assing the act of being a Reader via card tricks... or worse, using it as a ploy for picking up a date for the night?

Having done the AC with the Queen of Hearts and some cheesy babble myself many times I would say the same thing. It's fun and as long as the spec has a sense of "how the hell are you doing that?" rather than "this guy must have special powers" then it's fine.

They do not wish to accept responsibility for the harm and damage they cause in the world with their bullishness and arrogance (I referr to the like of Penn & Teller, Jamie Swiss and most recently Criss Angel).

I don't understand that comment maybe you could expand? I can't think anyone could be harmed by Criss Angel does anyone take him seriously?
I know you guys in the states don't have pantomine but if you did you would see how Criss is pure panto.

John, I've never seen you perform but as you describe you act, I can only see the prime example of the magician's that want to reduce mentalism to being nothing other than a trick

That's spot on. Though a little bit far. Magic to me is more than tricks but it's still just entertainment not a self help pseudoscience.

This has become the driving force behind a lot of the psychic bashing we see on line, in that many want the "advantage" Mentalism has to offer and yet, few (exceptionally few) are willing to take the time and learn how to do it right... they want to sell it as being nothing but a trick and that is exactly what is going to destroy it as an artform.

It's not an artform if you are offering people social or personal advice. No other form of artist does this. It should be entertainment and entertainment only.

In short, we go back to that old idea about removing the beam from your eye before pointing to the splinter in the eye of your fellow

I've never liked that comment. That means that only perfect people can criticise and as there are no perfect people everyone else can do what the hell they want because there is noone around to critcise them.


You talk like this attack on pyschics and psuedo-scientists is new and that that we are breaking down old traditions with these 'attacks'. This just isn't the case people have been attacking charlatans through out the ages. You can follow it through Moses to Julious Ceaser to Reginald Scott's Discoverie of witchcraft to Houdini (he gave a secret method to his wife and anyone that could speak to him once he was dead he would tell them the message and they could pass it onto his wife and claim a considerable amount of money, bit like the Randi challenge noone manageed it) then on again to Randi, Banachek, Teller etc. It's not new and showing up scams/beliefs for what they are is just as old as the scams/beliefs themselves.

Craig Browning wrote:Firstly, if the concept of being a Reader is so wrong, why are there still so many "new" routines, effects, etc. being created and released that employ this basic concept?

Nothing wrong with being a reader for entertainment value - its when you pretend that you're a hotline to the spirit world that it's wrong, ie. John Edwards. !

Craig Browning wrote:Why, if this is an area that's so wrong, are all the magic dealers clamouring over books and resources on the subject of How to Be An Effective Reader? Why are all these "ethical" magicians you hear taking John's position on this issue in these forums, bragging about how well they do with their Readings?

Again I think you're missing the point about why people object - if readings are done for entertainment only and everybody involved knows that then that's fine.

Craig Browning wrote:How is the use of these deceptive & manipulative skills any different from what you and your kind, claim we Readers use?

Are you suggesting that deception and manipulation is OK because other people in other spheres employ the same technique? Surely wrong is wrong.

Craig Browning wrote: I know I saw that famed Cynic's cop-out line there about the "onus of proof"... as you know, those of us on the other side of the fence insist that you guys look at the three fingers point back in your direction and consider who really has the greater obligation. Your the ones that are trying to breakdown a social reality that's spanned thousands of years... seems to be that this would be the great claim given the myriad of folks that have deep testimonials about the miraculous and divine/spiritual.

If you're asking me to believe something I'll want to see proof - if you're not asking me to believe something then I say believe what you like - as long as it doesn't negativly impact others.

From Randi's website - I think this is a great explanation of why anybody doing what Edwards and the like does are wrong.

"(5) What harm does it do to simply let people believe in silly things? Why do you take away their pleasant delusions?

The potential harm is very real, and dangerous. Belief in such obvious flummeries as astrology or fortune-telling can appear — quite incorrectly — to give confirmatory results, and that can lead to the victim pursuing more dangerous, expensive, and often health-related scams. Blind belief can be comforting, but it can easily cripple reason and productivity, and stop intellectual progress. We at JREF never try to impose our beliefs or philosophies on others; we only try to inform them, and suggest that there are alternate choices to be made. Examples of personal tragedies resulting from an uncritical embrace of supernatural claims, are plentiful. "

I am enjoying reading this discussion, but can I just a ask a favour? Both sides have made very sweeping comments about magicians and readers which, from my experience, are only really valid in the minority of cases so I think that the debate would profit from the elimination of these statements.

When talking about using the same standards accross the board, surely that relies on knowing what is going on across the board? I realise that anyone seriously wanting to put an end to certain practices should ensure that they are aware of all the fora in which they occur, but isn't it likely that people would never even consider that mental health professionals would reinforce belief systems which might cause the patient further trouble? I certainly wouldn't, and would hope that since I have never heard that they do before it is more of an American phenomenon than a British one.

For context, I am another skeptical, atheist scientist! However, I am also open minded enough that I won't discount the possibility of some form of telepathy, as a result of the same biofeedback that allows mental control of computers, being responsible in some way for moments of heightened intuition. I don't believe (note that this is an entirely unfounded belief since I have never been offered any proof either way) that we are no more than the sum of our parts, and as a result there can be no possibility of two-way communication with the dead

Johndoe wrote:

pdjamez wrote:As an atheist:

1. I don't believe in a deity.
....

This is a problem. As an atheist that is fine but as a scientist it isn't.

Which is why I defined what I can say as a scientist below this statement.

Johndoe wrote: A true scientist ... wouldn't believe anything that couldn't be proved.

Apparently I'm not a true scientist now. Actually the point I was making is that a science doesn't allow us to believe anything. All that science can do is allow us to make statements of fact based on the application of critical thinking.

JohnDoe wrote:However the onus of proof is on the person making the claim.

If this were true, very little would get done at all. Scientific research is not driven by scientific interest or lack there of, its driven by funding.

JohnDoe wrote:It is impossible to prove something doesn't exist however from a scientific view point something has to be proved before it exists.

Close enough; this is the naive laymens explanation of the principle of falsifiability. Which I mentioned previously, see here:

pdjamez wrote:Now, I didn't claim the such things don't exist; what I did say is that on current evidence (zero) that it was improbable. From a scientific point of view, I can't see this as being contentious, it is afterall accepted scientific practise. Furthermore, I could never actually agree to the statement you make above as it breaches falsifiability.

oh yes and here:

pdjamez wrote:1. On current evidance the existance of paranormal phenomena is improbable.

But thats as much as I can commit to because of the principle of scientific falsifiability.

Its a little odd for you to explain a principle which I use in my own argument. Oh and by the way, things do exist without proof. Try the following experiment: Close your eyes as tight as you can; does the world still exist?

JohnDoe wrote: I.e a scientist would not say "leprecauns don't exist" he woud say "bring me a leprecaun then I will believe they exist but until you do then I would doubt their existence based on the fact that given all the time available noone has yet done it."

Exactly what I said, except without the demand for proof and the fact that your imaginary scientist has again made a belief statement.

JohnDoe wrote:Craig and myself and countless others through out history (Discoverie of Witchcraft, anyone?) have been round this block many a time. However I wouldn't want to see the thread locked as long it's friendly.

Firstly let me apologise if I didn't make clear my meaning. I started to see comments using terms such as intelligent design, Atheist and Christian Fundamentalist. Reading them in context they were fine in themselves. But I didn't want what has become an interesting discussion to start to get into deeper waters.

I think its okay to attack Craig though.

JohnDoe wrote:We are entertainers, not helpers or guides and I believe a very thick line should be drawn between the two.

Again, I made my feelings clear on this. I have indeed drawn a thick line here.

JohnDoe wrote:One thing I have to ask Craig (because I like to prod him every now and then ) is why, if you have such heightened intuition, do you require and continue to seek such a remarkable amount of knowledge in the world of legerdermaine?

Come on, we both know that this is almost entirely rhetorical. It serves it purpose through the insinuation, rather than any response Craig makes.

Surely the question is how does Craigs powers of intuition manifest itself?
I think his response to this maybe more instructive.

For those of you who worry that I've suddenly developed a belief in the paranormal, please read my previous post regarding a possible scientific explanation for Craig powers of intuition. Although he is still to describe what he means by intuition so I reserve judgement.

Craig Browning wrote::Now, as to the "beartrap"... or, as John knows the way I view such things, it's one of the classic ploys of the non-believer for entrapping the believer... a game I do not play.

Craig, its a common debating technique. You can't possiblely limit it to this debate.

Craig Browning wrote:This has been a very benevolent conversation thus far and as Paul has pointed out, you're now introducing a "get nowhere" aspect -- your beliefs & position vs. mine... both are just as right and legit as they are wrong, so let's not go there.

Actually, my concern came from some elements of Johns, Nathans and your own posts. Oh and I don't believe some of these positions are legitimate, thats a point of view and I do have my own beliefs afterall.

As for the rest, I think John will have that covered.

Surely the question is how does Craigs powers of intuition manifest itself?

I think his response to this maybe more instructive.

First of all, I do not claim to have "Powers"... this term is one of the reasons so many individuals mislable and heavily misconstrew the whole "Psychic" question. It is a premise that stems originally from Religious rhetoric followed by Hollywood's (the media) misrepresentation so it's become an "assumed" factor that simply is not true.

Intuition is a natural, innate factor that we all have as well as a "sense" we all have the ablity to cultivate or "fine tune". We are all guilty of following a hunch or gut level feeling -- that's intuition! I intentionally use this term because it allows me to remove the boggieman issue from the concept in the mind of the believer (small bites from that elephant Paul introduced earlier).

Now, in a conversation with Banachek of all people, I was told that a person that does Readings and claims they are only using Intuition in conjunction with an oracle system like Tarot, who is not claiming some kind of "supernatural" connection, is not in the wrong... they aren't be charlatans or misrepresenting who and what they are or what they are doing. Yet, the Johndoe's of the world want to say that it isn't the case.

As to John's charge of my "misdirecting" the issue or trying to change the point of focus... Well, you are wrong with your allogations and taking what I say out of context. What I have stated is why is it so wrong for Readers to use those techniques and they are totally ignored when so-called legitimate business elements use them? Why is it that Readers are attacked by folks like you for assumed wrong vs. the plethora of magicians out there who deliberately use their skills for hustling a quick buck on street corners or in the pubs? What I have asked, and you've attempted to block, is why isn't the same standards of judgement and condemnation applied across the board rather than singling out the "soft" target?

Psychics/New Agers/ Readers/Mediums whatever you wish to call them, tend to be "soft" and "easy" targets because the majority are passifists by nature and thus, avoid confrontation whenever and however they can. Too, they vew what they do as an element of faith e.g. they do not feel they need to defend or "prove" their faith, or to coin a phrase "to tempt the Lord thy god" as it were. In their mind "God" does not require proof and to embrace a challenge of this kind is to transgress against one's beliefs and acts of faith... it's arrogance vs. service to the spirit.

The more brutal of skeptics know this and know that they can get their jollies harassing individuals of this meeker persuasion and get away with it. Rarely does anything come from it other than the agressor being allowed to puff his chest a bit, especially when law enforcement itself can't do anything about a presumed act of fraud until solid and founded charges are set forth by those victimized. Which brings us to the next point... causing harm.

When a big mouthed bulley like Penn Gellett or Jamie Swiss gets on stage and states up front "There is no such thing as psychics and if you believe in them, god, or all that other bull s***, you're an idiot..." more harm than good is made fact. Yet, these same jerks will use Cold Reading, not for the sake of entertainment but as a ploy for getting into some chick's pants... adding even greater insult to the injury done.

The majority of poeple that come to a Medium, like John Edward don't feel victimized and the closuer such encounters allow, lends to them the ability to let go and move on. Sorry, but traditional counselling techniques don't work for everyone on this level. Some times you must use the right "placebo" in order to exact healing and though you may not want to believe in it yourself, you cannot negate the fact that it has and does do good in the greater majority of cases.

As you know John, I've shared about experiences I've had in which I've apparently "channeled" information to people from "the other side". I don't claim to be a Medium and I fully admit that I cannot explain how I was able to convey the insights with the level of pin point accuracy that I was able to do. Situations of this kind are what prevents me from becoming a pure cynic and analytical thinker. But, because such experiences didn't happen under what you or Randi or whomever wants to redefine as "scientific" or "laboratory" conditions, you instantly assume it is boogus and simply some kind of delusional thought on my part or that of anyone else that's had similar experiences. Assumptions based on your own lack of proof and predetermined mind-set, that none of it is real!

Now, Paul and I have had a decent conversation John but you are splitting hairs and you know I'm not going to go there. The day cynics look at this issue on an "individual" basis rather than painting everyone that does this or that as being wrong, false, a con artists, etc. then maybe we can have a real discussion. But you can't say that all people that do Readings as I and many noted PROFESSIONALS in Mentalism do, is in the wrong or bringing harm. That is simply not the case and you know you can't prove it otherwise... I don't have the onus of proof in this case, it is you making the claim that we bring harm to others but the same can be said about teh multi-billion dollar Gambling industry, the whole of religious teaching (regardless the theology behind it) and more.

The assumption that all Readers are out to take advantage and not help people is right up there with the urban myth that all children's entertainers are gay or sexual deviants of some kind and all white faced clowns are child molesters. Though the statistics are there, we would find that far more "up-right" citizens (in appearance at least) do these things than those that are assumed to. The fact that you and the cynic's club want to focus only on the minority within a given culture, speaks volumes.

Craig Browning wrote:

Surely the question is how does Craigs powers of intuition manifest itself?

I think his response to this maybe more instructive.

First of all, I do not claim to have "Powers"... this term is one of the reasons so many individuals mislable and heavily misconstrew the whole "Psychic" question. It is a premise that stems originally from Religious rhetoric followed by Hollywood's (the media) misrepresentation so it's become an "assumed" factor that simply is not true.

Craig, I am guilty of plurality, not persecution. See definition below:

Merriam-Webster's Medical Dictionary wrote:Definition: intuition
the power or faculty of gaining direct knowledge or cognition without evident rational thought and inference

Craig Browning wrote:As you know John, I've shared about experiences I've had in which I've apparently "channeled" information to people from "the other side". I don't claim to be a Medium and I fully admit that I cannot explain how I was able to convey the insights with the level of pin point accuracy that I was able to do.

Oh dear, I think my skeptometer has just been raised a notch.