talkmagic.co.uk

Science is not all about measurement .

It is about observation and experimentation.
You observe a phenomenum then devise an experiment to replicate, then form a hypothesis, devise more experiments to test your hypothesis , which in the end, hopefully leads to laws.

Sure somewhere in that process the issue of measurement will arise but repeated observation under scientific conditions is paramount

BScPhDCChemMRSC

Aren't we still talking about quantification?

I fail to see how controlled recreation is possible without targets and expected values.

You can talk about science and measurements all you want as an arguement but it is nonetheless weak. There is no proof whatsoever of psychic ability and Randi has been 'confrontational' because you have to be in this game. Everyone claiming to be psychic up until now has been a charlatan so a nicey nice approach just wouldn't work. If the rules were more relaxed there would be about 1000 people a day trying to con their way to the money like a lottery of guesswork.

I'm just going to come out and say it. Psychics don't exist.. prove me wrong.. I'll set up my own tests

Mr. Grue has come relatively close to how I see certain things but so has PC in that I'm of the firm belief that science has and will continue to prove out what the ancient mystics knew.

I support the reality around esoteric prowess because I can understand it all from a very mundane point of view. I also understand how so many Cynics in the world are so hell-bent in proving bears don't Sh*t in the woods that they will constantly demand more and more and more versions of "Proof" never allowing the next pile of evidence to be "enough". Like St. Thomas, they won't believe in a pile of dung until they are at least waist deep in it, can touch it, play with it and go "Oooo... you really do have nail holes in your wrist and feet... but anyone could survive that..."

As to my dislike of Randi the facts are quite simple; I know that he has been very vicious and nearly homicidal when it came to "the competition" years ago when he stood in the shadow of Steve Baker. There is video footage as well as eye-witness accounts showing this but because of the international elements Steve has yet to get everything together for taking Randi to court over it... given the years that have past, it probably wont happen at this point.

I have reviewed the audio record as well as court transcripts concerning his penchant for under-aged lads as well as hearing tales from those who worked at Tannens Magic in the 70s when Randi was playing Mr. Big Shot in the region... just prior to being invited to get the hell out of town and shortly after paying for the college education of at least one known lad involved in one of the cases.

I have been shown newspaper article linking Randi to other "questionable" activities including art theft and related fraud along with a short list of other odds & ends e.g. I must weigh my position on what I've seen in and around this man over the years and ask "Why on earth so many "intelligent" people rally around this schmuck and help hide his transgressions against society?"

The ONLY Answer that comes back is ARROGANCE -- the delusion behind the consignment Randi offers them by being the public face when it comes to belief in anything these people don't WANT to believe in. Randi has been promoted to the status of Evangelist when it comes to this position and quietly, the promotion of an Atheistic agenda.

But on top of all of this the biggest thing that tics me off the most, is that Randi and his followers have done more to hurt magic and especially mentalism and the public's view there of, than most any other source in the past 50 years that I can think of.

How?

As recently as 20 years ago it was still considered common and even honorable to be part of the Christian Magician's Association... I've never been a member but knew many, including some rather well known performers. Today that organization has come to know an amazing sense of ridicule even though many of its members cling to the old church propaganda about how "real miracles" can only happen within the auspices of Christianity and all else is either false or the product of the devil... kind of ironic when you take a look at how much deliberate trickery was used by priests for the sake of stealing property and fortunes from noted families during the witch-hunting years... which, to a point, is all part of the JREF game.

I know there are those that won't believe this but then why do known associates of the JREF go into religious forums, not just Christian but Buddhist and Islamic forums as well, and harass these people and challenge them when it comes to things like the power of prayer, the siddhis of Buddhism, etc.?

It is arrogance on a huge level, ignorance on another and if you were to place it into a more clinical niche, it's all FEAR. Fear that is related to their need to feel and "be" (in their mind at least) "superior" to all others. Maybe I'm wrong, but a long look at how agressive these folks tend to be and how they love to laugh mockingly at those they insult and put down kind of sustains what I'm saying, does it not?

If any other person on this forum was suspected of any one of the charges listed above in and around Randi, not only would they be harassed and ousted from this forum they would be pointed out to the moderators of other forums and magic clubs in hopes of pushing that person completely out of magic. I know because I've looked at how this community has treated people like Tom Ogden... a one time hero of the craft... or Henry Hay.

I am very much a believer in things mystical and spiritual. Not in the manner our cynical fellows would like to define but more in how the neophyte learns to see beyond the surface of things, understanding the greater truth over the illusion. And life my friends, is nothing but one big illusion.

I agree that most of the high-profile psychics I have seen are suspect.

As with all things, when large sums of money are involved and results are expected on-demand, the method by which those results are achieved become much more flexible.

But that's not to say that there aren't still interesting things to uncover.

It's one thing to debunk the likes of Sylvia Browne, and another to deny the existance of anything not currently known or understood.

I see Craig's opinion of Randi goes alot deeper than his debunking of psychic ability so I won't comment on matters I know nothing of.

Although, denying the existence is common sense to me. Call it arrogance or ignorance if you wish. I'll be happy to 'eat my hat' if proved wrong.

MasterCyde wrote:Although, denying the existence is common sense to me. Call it arrogance or ignorance if you wish. I'll be happy to 'eat my hat' if proved wrong.

That's kind of why I take the skeptical stance; I just believe it's a more practical starting point than believing in things and having those beliefs overturned - a kind of atheistic pascal's wager.

MasterCyde wrote:Although, denying the existence is common sense to me. Call it arrogance or ignorance if you wish. I'll be happy to 'eat my hat' if proved wrong.

Here's an analogy to illustrate how I see it though (and yes, I know, I love analogies):

The Coelacanth was once accepted to be an extinct species by everyone (apart from creationists, of course, who thought that its fossil was a practical joke played by God).

Everybody with an interest in such things knew that it died out at the end of the Cretaceous period.

Then, in 1938, a living specimen was found in South Africa.

Prior to this discovery, scientists would have told you that there was no such thing as a living Coelacanth.

The Coelacanth didn't re-evolve overnight in 1938. Nor did it just pop out of the ether. Living examples had been there for millions of years - it just happened that this was the first time one of them had been seen and identified by anyone that knew what they were looking at.

To me, science is about continuous learning. Science continuously changes the model of reality. It doesn't set it in stone.

There's a big difference between accepting something that has been scientifically proven, and rejecting something because it's unproven.

Remember that Sir Isaac Newton was a keen alchemist as well as the father of modern science!

Oh, and I also feel that play is an amazing route to discovery.

To discourage any experimentation with psychic phenomena on the basis of skeptic disapproval is a bit like telling children not to play with Lego bricks because it's silly, childish, and the spaceships they build will never really fly anyway...

I'm not sure where that comment was going, but I started it for some reason ot other.

Its strange how you say, you are confusing unproven, with proof something doesn't exist.

Yeah scientists get it wrong, there's countless examples BUT has there been an example in modern times of something that science has absolutely no evidence of whatsoever, yet people believe?? (im not getting into religion here!?).

Especially something (the human brain) which all scientists have unlimited access to.....i believe some kind of extra sensory perception may be possible, but if it is, it will NOT be as we know "Psycics".

Everyone with half a brain knows that people who believ in this clap trap have their reasons, and we could learn more about it if we studied these individuals not the psychics, who we know often prey on the vulnerable for profit.

True, but look back a couple of centuries at the fad of mesmerism.

There, we had a ludicrous collection of rituals, silly costumes and outrageous props, all designed to provide some sort of psychic healing process.

It was debunked and dismissed quite quickly.

In later years, however, psychologists looked again at the claims of mesmerism and the methods used. They stripped away all the affectation and bovine-poopy, and what they were left with was, essentially, hypnotherapy.

Mesmer and his followers were convinced that the costumes and magnetic baths were all part of the therapy process, because they saw results, and didn't want to ditch any part of the recipe that might be responsible for those results. They weren't looking at the process in the same way that today's scientists would. Rather than isolating each factor and testing its value, they kept it all and ended up with a complete farce.

It could be argued that today's psychics are carrying just as much 'baggage' as Mesmer - probably moreso considering the number of years that people have been playing with crystals, reading the Tarot, examining palms, or foretelling the future. When someone gets a colossal hit, they'll try to recreate what they did to-the-letter, and that means keeping the junk as well as the gem. And through the power of word-of-mouth and dodgy logic, it's possible that further experiments into the same field involve more junk than gem.

So maybe there is something at the heart of the silly psychic stereotype. But if there is, it'll require a lot of digging and testing. I'm not dismissing the possibility of there being anything there, but I'm not going to hold my breath for definitive answers either.

yes, you can strip mesmerism and find hypnosis just as you can strip psychic ability and find cold reading

First of all the only folks that have "proven" there is no such thing as Psi are people already hell-bent in doing so... the opposite can be said about those who set out to prove its existence; either side referring to the other as quack science or research that was improperly done, etc.

Secondly, we have a growing myriad of technology that SCIENTISTS are referring to as being literal PK and Telepathic ability. The cynic's discount said comments in that they are applying far too much black & white logic to the claims, pointing out that the bio-physics around such things negate the "paranormal" factor... well NEWS FLASH... the majority of mystic teachings will tell you that thought is energy and any 5th grade science student understands that energy expressed is akin to physical matter in action which MUST result in some mode of final manifestation. So if I apply thought, an electric impulse, that's been amplified via technology that results in a telepathic scenario it has to have a foundation in the fact that said ability is natural and already exists. [Just watch shows like "Beyond Tomorrow" and "Future Science" to get a glimpse of such things.]

Cynics love to play semantic gymnastic games when it comes to this issue; if something goes against their point of view they take on the mantel of two-bit lawyer and start splitting hairs; this includes imposing the "super-natural" idea ala Hollywood vs. how true students of mysticism understand it -- as a form of science NOT boogiemen and other imaginary friends making things happen.

Yes, there are factions of the New Age type culture that buy into such things and even students of the occult will refer to them as delusional. Cynics tend to ignore these differences however, tossing everything into the same pile... not just Psi issues but aliens, conspiracy theories, leprechauns, God, Unicorns, et al.

How is this fair, logical, analytical or anything close to intellectual and "Scientific"?

As I've pointed out in the past, I am very much a SKEPTIC but I likewise leave a serious crack in the door, suggesting that I'm about 8% believer, simply because of the things I've seen, experienced and investigated... and given my level of background I'm pretty certain I'm not just "misreading" things, as some have insinuated.

Like everything in my life I stand in the middle of things when it comes to this issue; defending a.) people's right to believe; and b.) the plausibility that such things exist, just not within the parameters certain fantasiful thoughts and propaganda would impose. Then we come to the act of clarifying what is and isn't; where either point of view hosts a truth around the subject, neither being as right as they want to believe, nor as wrong as their counter-parts would like to paint them as being.

I believe I've mentioned this book before but I'll repeat myself here; if you are skeptical pick up the book "Wisdom of the Mystic Masters" by Joseph B. Weed. Just look at the foundation exercises for memory development and cultivation of one's mental prowess and tell me how the logic behind this is invalid or even boarder line "mystical" in the sense of being non-productive, bogus, or contrary to anything a serious student of Mentalism and/or the Psychological sciences don't exploit and work with both, in their own acts of self-development and in working with patrons.

Though there are a few spiritual elements in this tome, answer for me why, if Psi is so unproven, these techniques and even those taught by Harry Loraine as mental and memory development, haven't only proven benefit but create the sense that the welder of said techniques is PSYCHIC?

Mysticism is only a name for the marriage between science, intellect and faith as it was known prior to our modern times and prior to the Roman Church's deliberate act of segregating (even damning the auspices of Science as "Witchcraft" and aspects of "Satanism")... culling out logic and science for the sake of Cult Control and public manipulation... but that's another story altogether and it don't end well

king_of_keighley wrote:Its strange how you say, you are confusing unproven, with proof something doesn't exist.

Yeah scientists get it wrong, there's countless examples BUT has there been an example in modern times of something that science has absolutely no evidence of whatsoever, yet people believe?? (im not getting into religion here!?).

Getting away from psychic abilities for a moment, take a look at herbal medicines. Even though modern pharmacology began with herbal cures, it was only a few decades ago that all doctors and medical researchers scoffed at the idea that any traditional herbal remedy had any merit whatsoever. Doubly so if it was used in a non-European "savage" culture. Now we're taking a fresh look at the active properties of traditional herbs, especially those from outside Europe, and finding hundreds of potentially useful new drugs.

In the 1960s, herbal medicine would fit the description of "something science has no evidence of, but people believe".

Going back a few centuries, the term "a black swan" was a common way to say "an impossible thing". It was proven to everyone's satisfaction that swans could only ever be white. And then Australia was discovered, full of black swans.

As you say, there's an enormous gap between "unproven" and "proven not to exist". It can be difficult to prove that something exists, but it's almost impossible to prove that something definitely doesn't exist.

See this is the problem. Its not the skeptics job to prove it doesn't exist, its the job of the physic or spiritualist to prove it does exist, and the problem with that is as magicians we know we could all 'prove' that coins actually vanish if someone waves there hand over it.

I for one hope there are gods and aliens but if I'm being honest I hope there aren't real physics, there would be no privacy. But I have to be careful in what I accept as proof because as a magician I know really compelling proof can be faked.

My father for example has a close personal relationship with god, he doesn't go to church or join discussions about it or anything like that he just talks to god and god talks back. I find that fair enough, my father has experienced things that I can explain as cold reading, imagination, false memory etc but since I wasn't there, I can't say that is the case with any certainty, but I don't have to accept it as proof for myself.

So what I think about Randi and Dawking and others is that they may mean well, but they're wasting there time. Belief is powerful because it doesn't require anything beyond the persons willingness to believe, and to believe is to simply accept it as real no matter what.

While its true mesmerism had an element of truth in it, you forget that hypnosis basically boils down to a form of verbal 'placebo effect' the willingness for someone to believe they will behave in a certain way makes them behave in that way, just like drinking a bottle of water and coke that you think is vodka and coke, chances are you'll get drunk.
So hypnotism is the minds power to make belief a reality you aren't drunk, you just believe you are drunk, but all the proof of being drunk is there; staggering, vomiting, feeling up your sister.
Back to mesmerism and the argument 'you cant prove it doesn't exist'.
Can anyone actually prove the technique of costumes and magnets doesn't work? If a 100% hit rate isn't needed I bet you can't. Should we then all go back to waving magnets around people in tubs of water?

I think the reason people get so angry about things like God and the Supernatural is that so much money goes into it. Money that could be spent elsewhere, I think if its a matter of entertainment then no problem but what about someone with leukemia going to a physic healer instead of a doctor?

Like a said I hope there is a god and real magic, I will never stop hoping. But for now sadly I have been given no reason the accept it as real.