talkmagic.co.uk

Has anyone else been watching this series ? Tonight was the 2nd of a 7 part series.

In a nutshell, wannabe psychics are set tasks and at the end of the programme, 1 of them is voted off by a panel of judges.

TBH I'm a bit of a sceptic but I'd also like to think I have an open mind and if I see something convincing then I may be swayed to believe in the paranormal, etc.

I didn't really see anything tonight to convince me. The part where they had to sense which 1 of the 5 (or was it 6 ?) people, all in separate prison cells, was an ex-con, was quite entertaining - me and the missus both managed to sense (or even guess !!) which 1 it was

Has anyone watched this and been convinced yet ?

I always thought the term magician and sceptic were synonymous.

I taped it because of the snooker final (mmm, snooker) but I kept flicking over between frames. From what I've seen so far and last week, they're not very good at it, are they? A bit random, even. One might almost say they were making educated guesses.

The great problem with this show, as with other similar televisual treats is that it presents itself as a scientific investigation without applying any rigorous scientific principles. Not that the application of rigorous scientific principles is any guarantee of valid results (Project Alpha anyone). This would of course make for dull television, which I guess isn't the point. Above and beyond that, I doubt anyone who makes paranormal claims would take part under these circumstances. Why bother when they could take a million bucks from James Randi.

Using my own paranormal powers, I forsee that the result of the show will be a spooky, well we're just not sure....

I saw last week's episode where one guy got nothing right until he blurted out the name "James" in the supposedly haunted pub in Cambridge. This he took for proof positive of the spirit world. In fact, he as particularly bad at noticing things!

If you were in the business of book tests, you'd do what's necessary (secrets, secrets ). I can't help thinking that the woman who was uncannily accurate in the same pub had done what's neccessary. I know I blummin' well would!

Tomo wrote: they're not very good at it, are they? A bit random, even. One might almost say they were making educated guesses.

My thoughts exactly

I've just been watching last night's episode. The car crash victim should have been bread and butter stuff to all of them. I think we found which are the cold readers and which rely on their interpretations of what bubbles up from their subconscious (or perhaps the spirit world )

It's on again - about to start at 8pm on channel 5 - I still believe that this lot are nothing but cold readers and lucky guessers but I'll watch with an open mind

Well, I've watched last night's episode now and I'm amazed to find that they're still worse than the general public at divination. I thought they'd be better than this. Mind you, it was a hoot to hear so many different versions of the same three ghosts at the pub they all stayed in!

The bit in the pub cellar was interesting. The ex-police woman was actually giving them hints without realising by acknowledging what they'd said - right after telling the big guy with the walking stick to stop fishing for whether he was right or not!

Oh, this week's New Scientist has an intersting set of articles about belief. I've only skimmed the one about belief in the paramormal but it looks like something I'm going to read on the train to That There London on Thursday before falling asleep and drooling all over my jumper.

Great thread!

Although may of the tests do not prove psychic ability there are some segments of the program that are interesting.

During some of the tests where the contenders are asked to pick up on energy patterns from photographs and objects, there are some results that clearly defy the rules of chance and co-incidence.


I firmly believe that after over a century of research by parapsychologists there is ample evidence to suggest that in some form or another, be it crude and basic, there is evidence of E.S.P

However those that claim to have it - seem to only be able to access and use it occasionally which is what leads to the confusion and ridicule.

That’s not to say that there aren’t con artists out there! And thank goodness that the sceptics are here to police this area of exploration to ensure blatant liars are exposed.

The Orwell quotes are great but…

They once laughed at Edison when he talked about recording sound, when his recording devise was first unveiled, one of the scientists invited to the demonstration accused the inventor of being a talented ventriloquist who could project his voice from his stomach…

Robert D wrote:I firmly believe that after over a century of research by parapsychologists there is ample evidence to suggest that in some form or another, be it crude and basic, there is evidence of E.S.P

Could you point me to the appropriate scientific publications?

pdjamez wrote:

Robert D wrote:I firmly believe that after over a century of research by parapsychologists there is ample evidence to suggest that in some form or another, be it crude and basic, there is evidence of E.S.P

Could you point me to the appropriate scientific publications?

I concur.

As I would understand it, there is no concrete evidence whatsoever—as all experiments involving ESP are purely subjective.
Because we are not able to clinically isolate the laws of chaos (by definition, chaos cannot be predicted) we are relying solely on probability.

Mentalists, cold readers, gypsies, psychics, TV charlatans, mediums & clairvoyants, human error, hoaxing and even delusion can all account for 'proof of ESP'

ESP in my own interpretation is nothing more than a game of chance. And games of chance simply cannot be repeated in scientific conditions because they are by their own existence nothing more than Lady Luck.

Personally, proof of ESP will come when the Lottery is won by someone claiming that they read the numbers in their mind. That truly would be ESP.

What REALLY turns me to thinking that ESP is 'all in the mind' (no pun intended) is that the world superpower supremos in the US, the CIA, have been experimenting for YEARS with their 'remote viewing experiments'.
Nothing concrete, but (probably to justify the huge expense of this departmental facility) they DO claim that there is evidence of ESP... although this is widely poo-pooh'd by top scientific bods as being nothing but fluff, owing to fraud, error and pure fluke.

So, I'm afraid that ESP remains so far a 'myth' for me.

seige wrote:

pdjamez wrote:Could you point me to the appropriate scientific publications?

I concur.

The subtlety in the question wasn't lost on you then, seige.

The trained scientist in me has to take a more pragmatic view on this issue. There is to my knowledge no evidence of paranormal abilities. This is not the same as saying that these abilities do not exist. However, if you factor in my general magician skepticism, I would have to say that their existance is highly unlikely.

As with subjects of this nature, it comes down to a bun fight between a rational and an irrational view of the world. From experience the rational view tends to win, eventually.

Here's an intersting angle, but it needs reading all the way through:

Remember that the control groups they use on the show get what you'd expect: average results. Some of the contestants get significantly less than average results. Before anyone angrily hits reply, let me xplain why I'm bringing this up. It's because we're all subject to something called Confirmation Bias, which is the tendency to remember incidents that confirm our viewpoint while rejecting or attacking or even explaining away those that don't. It operates mostly subconsciously to maintain referential integrity in our models of the world, and can make us reject an idea angrily as being distasteful or unbearably wrong.

For example, I tend to reject the hits the contestants get as random chance or them simply noticing things, and point out how rubbish they are at certain tasks because I grew up doubting that there was anything other than the physical world. The evidence I accept confirms my belief and view of the world as entirely physical. Another person will take the same show and pick up on the hits the contestants get, and conclude that this is proof positive and therefore confirms their belief. Same data, same cognitive bias, but radically different results, because of the different histories, expectations, beliefs and desires that go to compose our personal models of the world and how it should be.

I need a lie down...

Tomo wrote:Here's an intersting angle, but it needs reading all the way through:

Agreed, but scientific method counteracts this strongly, reducing the possibility of results which are tendentious.