talkmagic.co.uk

Yeah, while I'm certainly in agreement with that sentiment, I'm not really so interested in whether or not psychic phenomena actually exist outside of belief per se. It seems to me that it would be very cool to prove, but not so neccessary for living a comfortable life filled with telly, beer and bacon butties. What I am passionately interested in is how we arrive at conclusions about the world, because this is directly relevant to magic (the meta-argument if you like). I reckong the effect of really good tricks is to hack our natural programming in such a way as to take advantage of cognitive biases and logical fallacies to produce a conclusion that the spectator is unable to reject as he would anything else that is at odds with his model of reality. In other words, by his own definition something happened using things he can accept as real, but that produced something totally imposible and yet also jsut as real. Cool or what?

Tomo wrote:Yeah, while I'm certainly in agreement with that sentiment, I'm not really so interested in whether or not psychic phenomena actually exist outside of belief per se.

Sorry Tomo, I was still thinking along the lines of 4 post ago.

Likewise, I agree with your sentiment, although our background reading is obviously different based on the terminology you are using.

However, if paranormal phenomena were proven to exist, I contend it may well upset our buttie filled existance. How much Russell Grant could you honestly take?

if paranormal phenomena were proven to exist

It would be sheer hell with Russell Grant, John Edwards, Derek Acorah and all those other psychics/mediums/seers shouting, 'Ha - we told you so!'
(Russell Grant - Medium? More like Extra Large..... )

Does Russell Grant still get work? The last I saw of him was something about postcards in the middle of the night.

Idea for a show: "Russell Grant's Postcards from the Edge." I can't decide whether he would describe cliffs in a series of scribbled notes or correspond with U2's guitarist...

More coffee, I think...or perhaps less.

He's been mentioned in connection with the Fit/Fat Club TV programmes - apparently he was told he was so overweight for his height he literally was inviting an early death. It's reported that he said he never saw that coming but I think that was just someone being sarky!

I think the conversation between Russel Grant and the Doctor went something like - "You're fine - how am I?"

http://www.healthsystem.virginia.edu/in ... tystudies/

http://mikepettigrew.com/afterlife/html ... study.html

www.induced-adc.com

www.victorzammit.com

http://www.near-death.com/

Surely there has to be a point where we say let’s consider a hypothesis.

Many people that denounce the evidence have approached the assessments from a biased stance!

If you do get time to look at the above links, please consider that not everyone involved in any of the above is deluded, naive or a liar.

Thanking you - cue Orwell quote...

Two more...


http://www.survivalafterdeath.org/

http://www.coasttocoastam.com/shows/2006/01/23.html

I recommend the coast to coast interview as all angles are covered and some evidence is put forward for E.S.P - with in a scientific context.

survivalafterdeath.org - try's to represent both sides of the argument and will gladly expose frauds...

Food for thought, but not absolute proof

Just being pedantic, this thread has been moved from Magican Talk as it wasn't actually about a specific magician.

Robert...

In my own 'skeptical' way, I see the 'linking bereaved with their loved ones' to be rather bad taste. Sure, it's reassuring for the 'victim (as I see them)', but surely there's no actual way of proving OR disproving.

Reading through the articles you have pointed out, I am still very much skeptical.

I could, within 5 minutes, pull from the web 'convincing' and 'concrete' evidence that aliens live amongst us, Elvis is alive, or Michael Jackson is still human.

Please remember: this is only my own personal opinion. I am far too scientific of mind to actually believe that without concrete proof which I can have for myself, I cannot believe.

No matter WHO or WHAT is indicated by experiments, testimonials or other such material, I personally can only believe what I can experience with my own two eyes.

Robert D wrote:Many people that denounce the evidence have approached the assessments from a biased stance!

If you do get time to look at the above links, please consider that not everyone involved in any of the above is deluded, naive or a liar.

Hello Robert,

I've read the links you posted and they make very interesting reading (I really should be getting on with some work!). Would you be prepared to try a little something for me in return?

Can I ask if you'd be willing at some point to post some links that give a different viewpoint to theone you've posted? There's no agenda behind that request. The only reason I'm asking is simply to do with what I wrote above about comfirmation bias.

Robert,
Sorry perhaps I should have made myself clear.

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

Robert D wrote:Many people that denounce the evidence have approached the assessments from a biased stance!

If there were scientific evidence, then I would be incapable of denouncing it, wouldn't I? We may disagree over the interpretation, but the evidence would be there none the less. By the way, you do yourself no favours mentioning victor zammit, thats a red rag to scientific bull.

Let me be clear about my position. I do not contend that science has all the answers and I do defend your right to believe in what ever it is you want to belief in. All I ask is that you don't use pseudo-scientific method to defend your belief. The rational and the irrational are like oil and water and should not be mixed.

If you want to believe in ESP, so be it. I for one will reserve judgement until concrete evidence is presented.

Did anyone watch the last episode this evening ??

I gotta admit I'm quite a sceptic but some of the stunts that the eventual winner pulled off, impressed me to say the least:

- the finding of the lad who was well hidden, in just over 10 mins (it took a sniffer dog over 30 mins)
- and the details she managed to "reveal" about the murder on the lane

hmmm.......

What you have to remember is you saw heavily edited snippets. For example the first murder they showed. We do not know how long these pychics knew were they were going. We don't know if once they were in the hotel they had internet access or not. We don't know that if, like Most Haunted, the entire thing is fake.

I was very impressed with the woman finding that boy but to be fair the guy she was with knew where he was. To use this as any kind of proof you must use at least a "double blind" situation where the experimentor doesn't know where he is either and as such can't give clues whether those clues were given on purpose or subconsciously.

I found with the second murder it was very surprising she didn't reveal anything that wasn't already known to the public.

Without seeing the hours of film they had before they commenced editing it is impossible to say how she achieved this but it seemed very dodgy to me.