talkmagic.co.uk

I have read this thread with great interest, but after recent contributions I feel compelled to comment.

Now its my turn

Let me start by saying that I am a trained scientist and a supporter of Mr Randis' efforts. So heres my tuppence worth...

Craig Brown wrote:I jokingly state that I have a 3% belief factor. That is to say that I've seen and experienced far too much to say that it's all hookem e.g. I believe that "something" exists that is outside our CURRENT ability to define, meassure and prove and/or manipulate.

There is much which exist outside of our ability to define, measure and prove. In this respect, 3% is a little on the low side. I am not being glib with regards to this statement.

Craig Brown wrote:In short, we've had a few dozen centuries in which other words, terms as well as perspective lent to these things, a different kind of idea e.g. the words and terms are different but the end outcome is the same -- it's all science!

I may be misunderstanding your meaning, but I must point out that those on the other side of the wire, have a tendency to misunderstand or misrepresent scientific terms and methods. Words like theory and evidence are often cited by such individuals but are used in a non scientific way. Science is more than a set of terminology, it is a rational process.

Craig Brown wrote:But hey, we've been trying to accurately forecast the weather for over 200 years now via the auspices of science and we still get it wrong a good portion of the time.

Actually, our most advance models provide 90% accuracy for 4 day outlooks. Again this is the very form of misrepresentation of science which is incorrectly used to bolster paranormal arguments. Our weather system is one of the most complex systems which science is attempting to model. Our limits in constructing a valid model, are more to do with cost/benefit returns than our ability to understand. Of course my result of greater than 90% comes from scientific research where your result of less than 50% comes from your own powers of intuition, so that probably explains the discrepancy. Okay, that was glib but you are falling into the behaviour of the very shysters you are attempting to distance yourself from.

Craig Brown wrote:Fact of the matter is, we know of electricity and how to manipulate it and yet, we cannot explain it. Same can be said about magnitism and various other "energy" currents that we are just now beginning to discover and exploit.

If you had made this accusation at our understanding of gravity you would have been partially correct, as we have yet to prove the existence of the gravitron due to the fact that it generates an incredibly weak force in nature. Although with recent detectors being built in both the US and Europe, we are hopefully not that far off. I am confounded by your assertion that we cannot explain electricity, magnetism and various other energy currents. I need only look to my now ancient school text books to gain an insight into these fundamental forces. I cannot of course provide an explanation for the various other energy currents you define. I do not mean to nitpick, but its this type of pseudo-science which only goes to drive a wedge between both our communities.

Craig Brown wrote:In short, "they" want to level the playing field and force the psychic entertainer to have to work the market in the same manner as "they" do;

The problem here is, the word entertainer. I concur with seiges original thoughts on it being very bad taste to comfort bereaved families. Is this a form of entertainment?

Craig Brown wrote:Not every person that does Readings is a crook or con-person

I agree completely.

Craig Brown wrote:The debate should not be set around if or not such phenomena is real or not but more along the lines of how do we cull the pack and seperate the chaff from the grain? How do we identify the real bad guys that are literally stealing folks blind in contrast to those that offer an honest services for a minor fee and in so doing, actually supply a valuable service to the community.

Agreed, but how do we do the later without understanding the former. What you are suggesting is leave it to the good guys, like yourself, to point out the bad guys? Does anyone else see the problem with this?

Craig Brown wrote:Long story short, for $100.00 in books, candles, oils and sea salt (all products they bought on their own) they were able to find the contentment and peace that was needed.

A commendable action on your part, but haven't you simply reinforced the very superstition that leaves people open to this sort of abuse. But we can be sure that if another charlatan operates on them, then you or another "spiritual advisor" will be on hand with the sea salt. Don't get me wrong Craig, the very fact that you helped these people is great, but you haven't actually fixed the problem. I understand that overcoming this level of superstition is next to impossible. But to use a business saying "how do you eat an elephant? one bite at a time".

Craig Brown wrote:I have had guns & knives pulled on me more than once and had to deal with the scare tactics some of the more hardened criminals won't hesitate to put into play, if you seem a threat. This is a reality all our Cynical friends over at the Randi forum or CSICops don't tell you about, but it's something you need to seriously think about.

Why would we? Oh yes, and scientists have never been threatened or abused. Try declaring your love for Darwinian Evolution in small town America and see where that gets you.

Craig Brown wrote:can now see some sort of legitimate value when it comes to what it is I do

I do see value in what you have presented, but I also find some fault in you justification. There is an ever so slight feeling of persecution in your tone.

Craig Brown wrote:Now, let me ask you a serious question or two. How long have you done Readings? How deep have you gotten into hands-on investigation in this kind of thing?

Ho hum. I don't actually need to experience something in order to have an opinion on it. Neither do I have to carry out my own experiments/investigations. I will leave that to those who have expertise in the area, and will read their results with interest. I've never been to the moon, but I'm pretty sure its not made of cheese.

Craig Brown wrote:When the cynic's society can tell me how, without ANY form of cue or up-front insight I can hit a client with deep, exceptionally personal and accurate details, I may have to reconsider my position on this. To date, no one has been able to come close.

Actually, when you described you power of intuition, I immediately started to refer to a number of interesting pieces of work in and around intuition. As you know the brain is an incredibly complex system (more so than weather) and our understanding is less than complete. But we are beginning to understand some of the behaviours which it is capable of exhibiting. For an accessible interpretation of this research you may want to look at Blink : The Power of Thinking Without Thinking by Malcolm Gladwell. There are many examples of intuitive, sub-conceous evaluation which may in part explain your intuitive, empathic ability. In essence this research makes a formidable case, that some readers may be "cold reading" without actually knowing it. Now I don't see this as a negative, and this skill could be used to benefit many people. I just dislike the hokum that usually surrounds such empathic skills. To be fair, you have yet to stray into the usual paranormal terminology, for which you should be commended.

TheMightyNubbin wrote:As far as I know (and please correct me if I'm wrong) there isn't currently any real repeatable evidence that people can speak to the dead.

Correct. Although there are some interesting results in this area, repeatable results have failed to materialize. A fact that some authors in this area fail to articulate. The repeatability of experiments is a fundamental principle of scientific method; it allows us to govern experimental errors caused by measurement, protocol or straight fraud. Note that when I state fraud I mean by those running the experiment not the subjects of the experiment. The fact is the subject cannot defraud the experiment, they can only exhibit a behaviour which is to be understood.

Craig Brown wrote:Even Randi has finally conceded to the fact that people are going to believe no matter what's said or "proven" one way or the other.

I think the word finally is a little strong in this instance. Randi has always seen this as an ongoing battle and even if he has changed his mind over the last few years, aren't we allowed to learn from experience.

Craig Brown wrote:more akin to what can be cause via natural electro-magnetic impulses... which is, after all, how the brain works; a fact that science has been experimenting and now exploiting to a great degree via "Though Command" type control systems and even the use of biorythms.

Now your just getting silly. The brain works through chemical reactions; electrons are exchanged, but to refer to this in the terms you use has more to do with Mary Shelly than an understanding of modern biology. Thought Commands? well yes there is some experiments around stimulating brain areas, but this is hardly what I'd call commands. Biorhythms oh dear, more bunkum, the 70s have a lot to answer for.

Craig Brown wrote:Removing the "Blinders" cannot be done in a manner that is bullish or arrogant. Randi has proven that over the past 30 or so years of his campaign. His hard handed approach has only made people dig their heels in deeper and resent everything he's presented. That is, until he started exploiting an old trick known to cultists of all forms; he started lectureing college students and preying on the younger, still formative minds of young adults. He, like most snake oil salesmen, understood when and how to strike when the iron was at its hottest. It's an old trick and he's used it well... it's made him quite comfortable in his old age. Which takes us to another extreme when it comes to a simple, albeit well circulated suppostion -- who's really getting hustled the most, the believers or those that sustain the Randi idea?

Sorry did I read that right. The cultists are actively selling their wares to our young, but god forbid that JREF go in there and teach kids about rational thought. You've banged on about what a great job you do protecting us from the shysters, but when Randi does it he is analogous to a cultist. This is simply unfair demonization. Please take the time to remember what education is actually about? JREF itself is dedicated to education that enhances critical thinking and the understanding of science. I can find no evidence to contrary. Indeed, JREF has on occasion pointed the finger firmly back at the science community for carrying out bad science. It takes someone outwith the science community to do this. As for Mr Randis' financial position, well since JREF is a non-profit organisation; if you have any information about misappropriation of resources you should inform the authorities immediately. You should probably wait till he's out of his hospital bed first though.

If you fear James Randi, Penn Jillette and Richard Dawkins will scare the living sh*t out of you . When Neitzsche proposed an end to irrational thought over 120 years ago with his declaration "God is Dead" he was clearly premature. The power of irrational thought is stronger that it ever was. Although I personally concede that there is a place for irrationality, this does not mean a return to the dark ages. You should also note that despite some of your protestations JREF is not against irrationality per se. Prior to his heart operation, Randi himself wrote a piece about how personal belief is to be admired relating his experience from this years TAM4. And I quote:

James Randi wrote:What concerns me most is that it seems the "skeptical community" is willing to exclude someone for the wrong beliefs. And it concerns me even more that this feeling is more about what we, as skeptics or Skeptics, want to believe about ourselves rather than any sort of evidence-based reality.

Yep, there he goes selling his snake oil again.

Craig Brown wrote:There is a very small, yet growing movement to prove Randi the bigger fraud and con-man from within and outside the magic industry and some rather interesting bits of evedence that sustain their movtives.

You're insinuating without providing any evidence, other than anecdotal evidence. I think that it is this that in your words turns into heated argument and hurt feelings.

Its a great shame Craig, because I do think there is much we can agree on.

Craig Brown wrote:I'm quite aware that many believe that anyone that does Readings is in the wrong but I also believe that's because they have yet to actually study and understand the whole of the issue... just one biased side.

Again, I don't need to understand how to do a reading in order to come to a conclusion about its validity; another scientific principle. Can I suggest however, that you yourself are guilty of the same bias and cynicism that you point at JREF supporters like myself. I for one do not have any evidence to disbelieve your claims, and indeed on the face of it I find them reasonable and compelling. You are at the bottom of a very large tree of irrational thought, and the guns of the cynics aren't pointed at you. You are guilty of proffering a false dilemma, since I am not with you, I must be against you. I for one see the world as being made up of more shades of gray than that. So does that make me a skeptical cynic?

Some excellents points and observations there.

As it happens I've just finished reading 'Blink' by Malcolm Gladwell, very interesting read. You should check it out Craig.

Gladwell cites several examples of experts in their fields coming to very accurate instant conclusions in their chosen area but not knowing EXACTLY why. Gladwell calls it thin-slicing, others might label it 'psychic abilities'

As somebody else once said - psychic abilities are as real as you want them to be.

Incidently Craig - I asked before but you didn't respond - as a working reader do you claim you have contact with the spirit world?

pdjamez I strive ardently to hold to that grey area and as you have pointed out, I do believe we agree far more than we disagree.

Yes, I give Randi a hard time but I likewise respect much of what he's done and he's quite aware of that. Unfortunately the magic folk of the world only see one side of what I do... when I work with the shut-eye sector I tend to be taking the opposite position, nudging them towards the reality that "being psychic" isn't what they want to believe. "One bite at a time" I'm breaking down the elephant

When in a magic forum I will play devil's advocate in that an exceptionally minute amount of contrast exists when it comes to this issue, let alone "real world" experience that allows others to get a more broad view around the issue. As you well know, there's not much available in the magic community that speaks for "the other side" e.g. there's no balance. This same rule applies to the shut-eye side of things where I am likewise the Devil's Advocate, striving to get folks to see for themselves, in a more logical sense, how they are living in a delusional state rather than reality. In short, I strive to get rid of the boogiemen and fairy tales and simply get to the point.

You brought out the issue of the families I helped with the spell kit. I know what you're saying and in this particular case, the son that brought the family to me with this issue, was educated and understood the difference between superstition and reality. But people, especially older folk, cling to their old ways and personal laws. Even a professional counselor would be hard pressed to not exploit a degree of one's belief system in order to bring about a postive end result... as Lau Tzu points out, we must use the energy that's available to us in order to succeed. I know it seems a bit hypocritical but it goes back to that damned elephant... we can only do so much with what's given us.

I see you as a real skeptic btw... you are not being cynical (though you did split a few hairs). I also found your comment on my 3% rather humorous, but I believe you know what I'm getting at with that statement.

If you were to go back on my writings over the past four years or so (On-Line VISIONS) you will see where my philosophy has always been that of the middle path, negating either extreme of the issue at hand. This, as I'm certain you will agree, is the course where true wisdom and truth itself, can be found.

As to charging Randi with being a cultist... well, he is using some of the very techniques he's supposedly against in order to get his message out there. I'm a strong believer that what's good for the goose is good for the gander, so he needs to come clean on such facts. But that's the catch isn't it? (yes, I'm splitting a hair here)... It's ok for one kind of business or operation to use the same exact techniques to get ahead, you just can't use them under the ruse of being spiritual, psychic, etc. The concept makes no sense to me and I can't for the life of me, find how justification in one is any different than it is for the other.

Charlatans exist in all forms and within all aspects of thought. There have been more than a few come right out of the auspices of science and far too many within the world of corporate practice. It is the issue of usary that irks me, no matter what field is rears its ugly head from. I'm certain you'll agree.

The last thing I'll cover centers on the biorythm and mind control technology...

I'll find the links but there are a few bits of research you may not be aware of... actual commercial systems now on the market. One in particular is a "air hockey" styled game created in Sweedan I believe, in which the lowering of biorythms allows you to move a puck about a table. Two competitors work against one another in the exercise and the one that can relax the most wins (overly simplified but you get the gist)... this was featured on the TODAY show a few months back and has become a major attraction in parts of Europe... the units sell for some outrageous sum but it's killer stuff.

The other example I refer to is a PC control system that exploits neuro impulses (thought) for moving a virtual mouse and giving commands to the PC... this was recently featured on the Science Channel.

Craig, thank you for taking the time to make a considered response to my posting.

Craig Browning wrote:Yes, I give Randi a hard time but I likewise respect much of what he's done and he's quite aware of that.

I am grateful for you pointing this out, but I do think it is contrary to the tone of your previous postings. It was because of this interpretation that I felt compelled to reply.

Craig Browning wrote:But people, especially older folk, cling to their old ways and personal laws. Even a professional counselor would be hard pressed to not exploit a degree of one's belief system in order to bring about a postive end result...

I understand your point of view; my only concern is that it is a very fine line here between supporting the family and perpetuating the source of the problem. We need to get beyond fixing the immediate problem and look at more long term solutions. Its all down to education, but unfortunately thats going to cost a lot more than $100.

Craig Browning wrote:I see you as a real skeptic btw... you are not being cynical (though you did split a few hairs). I also found your comment on my 3% rather humorous, but I believe you know what I'm getting at with that statement.

Me split hairs, no never. When I get into scientific defense mode, you'll find I'm a little more exacting in my use of language. For the most part postgraduate research is all about arguing a point of view, and the techniques for this style of debating get kicked into you. My apologies if I went overboard.

I had previously noticed that you had contributed to online-visions, but I have never taken the time to review you writings. Thanks to our exchange, I look forward to doing this over the next week or so.

As for following the middle path, well yes I agree since I am, from a philosophical point of view, an old fashioned empiricist. Which oddly enough makes me a Skeptic in the real sense of the word.

Craig Browning wrote:As to charging Randi with being a cultist... well, he is using some of the very techniques he's supposedly against in order to get his message out there. I'm a strong believer that what's good for the goose is good for the gander, so he needs to come clean on such facts. But that's the catch isn't it? (yes, I'm splitting a hair here)... It's ok for one kind of business or operation to use the same exact techniques to get ahead, you just can't use them under the ruse of being spiritual, psychic, etc. The concept makes no sense to me and I can't for the life of me, find how justification in one is any different than it is for the other.

I think this is where our opinions diverge. As the Jesuits once stated "Give me the child until he is seven and I will show you the man". In these formative years, an individual can be greatly influenced by those in authority. This is why educational establishments have become a battle ground for the hearts and minds of our young people. I don't see Randis' actions in quite the same way as you do. He is acting after the fact, and is defending the rational position. The alternative would be to leave our children in the hands of those supporting irrational ideas. I am fearful of the harm our society would come to without this intellectual counterpoint.

Craig Browning wrote:Charlatans exist in all forms and within all aspects of thought. There have been more than a few come right out of the auspices of science and far too many within the world of corporate practice. It is the issue of usary that irks me, no matter what field is rears its ugly head from. I'm certain you'll agree.

Agreed.

Craig Browning wrote:The last thing I'll cover centers on the biorythm and mind control technology...

No need to find the links. When you stated biorythmn I thought you were referring to a pseudo-scientific prediction method. You are infact referring to biofeedback sensors. Thank you for clearing up my confusion.

I've been watching this topic with great fascination, I just haven't had the time to ad my thoughts:

TheMightyNubbin wrote:As far as I know (and please correct me if I'm wrong) there isn't currently any real repeatable evidence that people can speak to the dead.

Quite the contrary - it's just that it's difficult to find evidence for the dead talking back..

Seriously, though..
There's actually a lot of historical 'evidence' of people speaking with the dead - it's just that it's open to interpretation. Some people pray to saints, others claim to commune with their ancestors - it comes down to belief. To claim that such things don't exist because they aren't 'clinically repeatable' is going beyond the discipline of science. One can certainly explain these occurances from a scientific point of view - but that's all it is - another point of view.

From a psychological point of view, our memory of people is sometimes more real to us than the reality of the person. People we've encountered can have a dramatic influence on us even when we are not in their presence. Right now my wife is very real to me - even though she's at home in bed and I'm still here at work. The same applies to those who have passed away. It is therefore not unreasonable that we can have conversations in our minds with people who aren't there - in fact I'm doing that right now. None of you are present with me and yet I'm in a discussion with you in my mind - transferring it to the keyboard.

Now - if one takes that further into a councelling situation. It is common for one in these situations to deal with relationships with people that have influenced us. If we look at the transactional analysis model - it does this in many ways. In some forms of therapy one is encouraged to visualize certain events and relive them.

From a 'western' point of view we see these conversations as taking place inside our minds. Looking at it from a non-western point of view - it is sometimes seen as something external to us. This is a matter of different ways of looking at the same phenomenon. A trained councellor often comes to certain conclusions by intuition. I've been in councelling situations where I've had a very clear picture in my mind - that has been a breakthrough for the councellee. I could explain it in terms of symbols and the unconcious etc. but that's just an explanation - it's the phenomenon that makes the impact, not the explanation of it. I think that in western culture we need therapists because we are so out of touch with each other - but that's a whole other essay.

My point is that a reader is often doing the same thing a councellor is doing - but with possibly a different language and belief system. That doesn't negate what 'real' readers do..

I know this thread is about unethical practices - and that's one thing here that we seem to all agree on - however it's easy to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

b.t.w. - the disclaimer at the end of a John Edwards show says that it is for entertainment only.. (I got that from an article by Ian Rowland)

taneous wrote:Seriously, though..
There's actually a lot of historical 'evidence' of people speaking with the dead - it's just that it's open to interpretation. Some people pray to saints, others claim to commune with their ancestors - it comes down to belief.

Taneous, I take issue with some of your terminology. I apologise now for my over simplification of the scientific method, but I believe it is warranted.

There certainly are many observations of the phenomena you describe. In order to prove the hypothosis that humans can speak with their ancestors requires evidence. This is gathered through repeated experimentation until it becomes an accepted theory. See my previous posts for reasons why repeatability is important.

You said it yourself, it comes down to belief. If there were evidence, why would we need to take it as an article of faith.

taneous wrote:To claim that such things don't exist because they aren't 'clinically repeatable' is going beyond the discipline of science.

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.

taneous wrote:One can certainly explain these occurances from a scientific point of view - but that's all it is - another point of view.

I believe I was clear in my previous posts, but it does rather sound like your accusing me of scientism. The problem is that we can't explain the occurances because we don't have the opportunity to carry out empirical studies. For some reason, we are incapable of turning anecdotal evidence into scientific evidence. Cynics and skeptics alike draw their own conclusions from this result.

Please note, I don't take issue with your central point, just the first paragraph.

I really enjoy studying these conversations, but for the life of me I can't understand where you all get the enthusiasm to argue them so vigorously for so long.

Tomo wrote:I really enjoy studying these conversations, but for the life of me I can't understand where you all get the enthusiasm to argue them so vigorously for so long.

I second that, the longest post I've ever written is about a paragraph and here you go making ones that are three or four pages ;D.

Kati

pdjamez - hmm - I see what you mean about the first paragraph. I did put the word 'evidence' in quotes, though.

I am of the opinion that often science and belief can go together quite nicely and while science seeks to explain phenomena - belief gives meaning to it. I think sometimes the two 'disciplines' get confused. What I was trying to get at is that it's possible to build a a case for 'speaking to the dead' at least on a psychological level - but it seems like you got that .
(that - and the fact that I'm a far better speaker than I am a writer -especially after working 15 hours straight with no breaks..)

taneous wrote:pdjamez - hmm - I see what you mean about the first paragraph. I did put the word 'evidence' in quotes, though.

Okay, I'll let you off. Don't get me wrong, I am not attacking either yours or Craigs position on this matter. Indeed, for the most part I have to accept your core arguments. The one thing I can't abide is the misrepresentation of science and rational thought, used to bolster an irrational position. For the avoidance of doubt, when I use the term irrational, I do not mean it in a pejorative way but in the sense, that a position of belief is not based on reason.

taneous wrote:I am of the opinion that often science and belief can go together quite nicely and while science seeks to explain phenomena - belief gives meaning to it.

I can agree with this to some extent, but its often not the case. I prefer an absolute separation between the two sides. I not only think its fair and representative of most peoples position, but would stop any holy war from kicking off between science and any particular belief system.

The reality is that many people will continue to believe in statements that are demonstrably false using scientific method. This is usually because science has the capability to change its core truths, where as belief systems do not.

Also note that science is not above having its own internal beliefs. See my graviton commentary earlier. They'll be lots of red faces and shuffling of feet if the maths doesn't hold up. It would be naive to think that science represents the actual way in which the world works. It is merely a description of it. Our fundamental tool is mathematics, and numbers don't really exist. They are simply a tool for interpreting the world around us.

taneous wrote:I think sometimes the two 'disciplines' get confused. What I was trying to get at is that it's possible to build a a case for 'speaking to the dead' at least on a psychological level - but it seems like you got that .

I don't think irrational thought is unhealthy, and I can accept that there are some very big questions which science doesn't address. It is left to other disciplines to nurture these spiritual needs. The gray area here, is who has the ethical right to help those in need.

taneous wrote:(that - and the fact that I'm a far better speaker than I am a writer -especially after working 15 hours straight with no breaks..)

If I hadn't respected your position, or thought you inarticulate, I wouldn't have bothered to reply. Harsh but true. I prefer lively debate to mud slinging, and I think between yourself, Craig and I we have achieved that.

Tomo wrote:I really enjoy studying these conversations, but for the life of me I can't understand where you all get the enthusiasm to argue them so vigorously for so long.

This isn't an argument, it's a very solid discussion and I'm seriously enjoying it. 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 (if others held to this style of respect and conversation I'd probably not left a certain other UK forum I was known for being part of).

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. Rather, these wannabe types argue for the sake of arguing and strive to make any and all that have a belief of any kind (outside that of science, etc.) as being idiots and fools. Then too, anyone that would practice this kind of work, be it table side Readings, Channelling or whathaveyou, is instantly classified as a quack and hustler. That simply is not being done in this thread and I for one, am extremely grateful.

Truth of the matter is, if you read the things expressed by the three of us, you will find far more agreement than disagreement, which is one of the reasons I think a review of this conversation would be a very good thing for anyone having questions on or around the issue. It is very enlightening, for lack of a better term, as to how to view things concerning such issues.

Just for the record, we're being extra specially careful about comments at the moment for reasons posted elsewhere but this thread has (so far!) given no cause for concern - in fact, just the reverse so keep it going folks!

I would like to repeat Teller's words on the matter,

Many mentalists, doubting their ability to entertain as illusionists, dress their 'entertainment' up in quaisi-scientific robes, suggesting that "if you concentrated on developing your natural abilities just as I have then you too could do these wonders"

Some even use their stage act as a way of making contacts for doing 'Private readings'. This is conning not conjouring.

If you take my $50 to read my astrological chart and tell me my poor sex life is not due to my bad breath or overweight body but to some mystical reason then you are taking money under false pretences.

You are also making it harder for me to solve my problems effectively. As long as I believe my lonliness is in the stars I won't start that excercise programme or gargle away my halitosis

No doubt an attack on Teller will now arrive but that doesn't take away the truth in his words.

I don't think anyone is going to attack Teller for saying that. That's just not the way we do things at TalkMagic.

There might be comments though.

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.

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.

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.

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. 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.

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 and very few are raking in the big money as Randi & Co. would allude to.

I know that I'm NOT a con-artist and that I run my business in a very above board and honest manner. I know for a fact that this is the truth of most people in this line of work (the majority of whom, know nothing of all the cheats and psycho-babble the skeptic wishes to impose upon them). The point is, it comes down to the person. We are fools to claim that everyone out there that belongs to a given niche is this way or that. That's simply unethical and very much untrue. We've proven that time and again when it comes to issue of Race and even Sexuality, yet there are those that keep wanting to pigeon hole everything and use a broad brush on one group while claiming novelty within their own sect.

Not everyone in magic is an Atheist and yet, it would seem that certain folks wont rest until that becomes the constant. Kind of ironic when you consider how many members of the clergy and seminary students we have and have had throughout the course of this crafts history. Individuals who still retain their belief and points of view but who are perpetually harassed by the cynical that don't want to believe in anything but his/her self and science.

It's a sad world when people simply wont 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.