FRIHOST FORUMS SEARCH FAQ TOS BLOGS COMPETITIONS
You are invited to Log in or Register a free Frihost Account!


Why I don't like psychics....





Bikerman
We have, occasionally, got into discussions of psychics and those who claim to be able to talk to the dead - mediums, spiritualists - call them what you like.
I think I've made my own opinion clear - I regard them all as dangerous liars, whether they believe in their own 'powers' (deluded) or not (con-merchants).
The science is clear, which is why I'm not posting this in the science section. No psychic has ever managed to demonstrate their claimed 'power' in a properly controlled situation.

Apologists often come back with 'it is harmless entertainment'.
OK, I don't particularly have a problem with that PROVIDING it is clear to participants (which is why I think the recent UK decision to bring this group of people under the provisions of normal trading law is a good one).

Other apologists claim that these people provide a 'service' and can help grieving parents and relatives with their grief. I reject that argument strongly.
Firstly I believe that as a matter of principle one should not lie to people - even if one believes it may comfort them. Doctors do not (or should not) lie to patients with a teminal prognosis. They may, in some circumstances, not give the patient the full picture, but to tell the patient that they are fine and well would be unethical. How much more unethical, then, for a 'psychic' to give parents and relatives completely ficticious information?
Secondly, the psychic is profiting from grief (whether or not they take payment for their 'service', they will almost certainly use any 'success' as evidence of their 'power' - and even if a psychic selects comments entirely at random they are statistically bound to get something right occasionally).

Here's a couple of fairly well-known examples of psychics showing the basic imorality of their actions:



(I can just imagine the apologists lining up to point out that these are examples of 'fakes' and that no 'real' psychic would behave like this. Bollox - go and google the 'No True Scotsman' fallacy. I noticed that even these two clips carry adverts for 'real' psychics - have they no shame at all?)

Here is James Randi giving HIS take on this:
catscratches
[offtopic]I read the title as "Why I don't like physics", saw who posted it, and was thoroughly confused.[/offtopic]

I find psychics to be apalling. All they do is exploit people who are going through hard times, people who are the most vulnerable.

Quote:
I noticed that even these two clips carry adverts for 'real' psychics - have they no shame at all?
I think what adverts are shown are based on certain keywords in the title and description, in this case 'psychic'. It's an automated process. (Though I'm not sure what advert you're talking about since I have AdBlock Wink )
Dialogist
A psychic or mystic claiming to have knowledge or the goods on the 'other side' is a form of otherworldly nonsense, basically, as the trusty old randi link suggests, it is nonsense because it can't be proven. I'm not sure why a topic about mystics is being posted in this area of the forum but I'm assuming it wasn't disingenuously misplaced due to the poster (forgive my ad hominem jumping to conclusions in favor of taking it as a compliment as somebody who doesn't misplace things without reason). I'm presuming that it's dangerous because people use this fake knowledge of beyond the realm to manipulate people's actions, beliefs and viewpoints. This reminds of certain quarrels I hear a lot about religion, in fact. That religion claims to offer knowledge or occupation with something that cannot be proven, and that it offers solidity, strength and confidence to those lost and in need of something to follow and identity themselves with. That it manipulates their need to belong and feel a meaning and purpose in their efforts by telling some cockandbull story which simply nobody could ever claim to be a factual one. What a coincidence! These people are just like theists!

Here's another coincidence: They are exactly like atheists too.

What a remarkable coincidence.
Bikerman
Society is not yet ready to lump religion in with psychics and other paranormal practicioners/organisations. I think it will come, but not soon. In fact it has been and is happening - most very early religions are now regarded as simply superstition. The worship of inanimate entities is seen by nearly all as nonsense. The same can be said about animal worship (though some new-age Druids seem to have something close to it). Many African religions have gone the same way.
Nameless
Bikerman wrote:
In fact it has been and is happening - most very early religions are now regarded as simply superstition.

This doesn't really suggest that religion is on the downturn, since new religions still appear or split off over time as well. Most very early medical beliefs are regarded as superstition too, or old fashions that are laughed at now but simply replaced by new ones.
Bikerman
Comparisons with empirical science are unhelpful since science is designed to change and is always contingent on measurement/observation.
Religion is usually supposed to represent some deeper and more permenant truth - otherwise what possible use is it?

It is undeniable that religion in the West is in massive decline. Whether that is balanced or even exceeded by new members in other parts of the world I can't really say without doing more work than I have time for at the moment.
deanhills
Dialogist wrote:
Here's another coincidence: They are exactly like atheists too.
Nice to see you posting Dialogist. I agree. Adoration or adulation of a character like Richard Dawkins for example to the extent of making a guru out of him, people needing to study all of his books, be an expert on his discussions to the point of regurgitating all of those ad infinitum and replay speeches and debates over and over again. That does have a ring of religion as well.

Brings us back to people being people and capable of being dishonest and corrupt regardless of their beliefs or lack of beliefs.
loremar
deanhills wrote:
Dialogist wrote:
Here's another coincidence: They are exactly like atheists too.
Nice to see you posting Dialogist. I agree. Adoration or adulation of a character like Richard Dawkins for example to the extent of making a guru out of him, people needing to study all of his books, be an expert on his discussions to the point of regurgitating all of those ad infinitum and replay speeches and debates over and over again. That does have a ring of religion as well.

Brings us back to people being people and capable of being dishonest and corrupt regardless of their beliefs or lack of beliefs.

Who the hell is Richard Dawkins????????

No true Scotsman doesn't seem to apply here since:
1. I am a true atheist by definition.
2. I don't know who Richard Dawkins is. I'm sure many atheists don't know him either. I heard about Hitchens and Dennett but know nothing about them.

Therefore, even if worship of Dawkins means religion, it doesn't apply to all true atheists or atheism in general.

All I know is that neither atheism nor theism is a religion. Though atheism or theism can be a part of a religion but a person who holds either belief doesn't necessarily have to be a member of any religion.

If Dawkinsism is a form of religion. I am certainly not a member of that. Maybe, if I read about him and come to like him and finally worship him, practicing all the symbols and rituals to lead a Dawkinsist life of realization and spiritual harmony. Maybe. Smile
Nameless
Bikerman wrote:
Comparisons with empirical science are unhelpful since science is designed to change and is always contingent on measurement/observation.
Religion is usually supposed to represent some deeper and more permenant truth - otherwise what possible use is it?

Going rather off-topic here, but: the fundamental laws of physics shouldn't be changing all that often, I'd have figured if anything it would make more sense for SCIENCE to gradually reach one (tested) understanding and then stop. Whereas gods (at least in older pantheon religions) could change their minds or make new appearances, or methods of worshiping the same unchanging God could fall in and out of favour.
Bikerman
But older pantheons had a major difference. Look at Roman and Greek mythology and what you see are capricious, fallible Gods - not loving, pefect, infinitely potent and wise ones. The Abrahamic religions all have the notion of a 'perfect' God - an infinitely powerful and knowing Deity that simply isn't found in earlier polytheism and pantheism. This, I suspect, is the inenitable end in the religious arms-race. One starts by going for the biggest and most powerful God, and as perceptions change so the Gods change to match new notions of power. So we see animals deified and then natural disasters, which are more powerful.

As mankind has progressed scientifically and technically we have ourselves become massively powerful. We are, by a massive margin, the most powerful entities we know of - and have been since at least the time of argriculture - say 10,000 years or so. Naturally, we then began to fashion deities on an idealised version of ourselves. The trouble is that the Jews, and later the Christians and Muslims, overdid it. They were in competition for followers and hyped up their particular version of Yaweh WAY too much.

The Jews sort of accept this and don't really concentrate on the limitless power of God. Christians and Muslims, however, cannot get away from it. God is infinitely loving, his divine plan has to be labelled 'ineffable' because what we DO eff is, if the result of intelligence, at best shocking incompetence and shoddiness and at worst a deliberately sadistic monster playing to its own ego.

The lack of coherence and any sort of logical/philosophical credibility, which lies at the heart of all 3 Abrahamic religions, means that increasingly convoluted 'theology' has to be done, simply to save the appearance.

Science has progressed massively - and has built-in the concept of change. Religion has made no progress for centuries - even using its own measure of theological understanding. Modern theoloogy in all 3 religions is nothing more than apologetics and managed retreat from the inescapable paradoxes at the heart of all 3. The most successful theologians, post are those who come nearest to ditching the concept of a personal God and thus avoiding the obvious contradictions and paradoxes which otherwise are inherent. Ironic that the major pursuit of modern theology is to admit that there is no God really, whilst avoiding anyone actually understanding this. The Church does have a lot of practice, however. It has never liked the common herd having access to scripture (it was a capital crime a few centuries ago) - and this has not changed.

In fact, here's a test.
I'll bet there isn't a poster, aside from Indi, myself and perhaps one other I can think of, who can name 2 extant theologians and give a coherent summary of their contribution to the 'field'of theology and their major works.

Anyone care to prove me wrong?

anyhoo...
Once religion got to the point of no return, by making God unknowable, it is trapped - nowhere else to go. Once you declare a God infinite (in any regard - chronology, power, knowledge) then you simply have, at the very best, stasis. That is, of course, EXACTLY what happened during the dark ages after the fall of the Greeks. People wanted certainty, order, constants - and the Church provided it in spades - every animal, spirit, person and phenomenon simply a link in the great chain of being, immutable, fixed, and the death of all progress - scientifically AND theologically. The paradoxes mount until the notion since ANY change is intolerable. Then science gets going and BOOM.

As for science 'laws' being fixed - they are. The notion of stopping at some arbitrary point seems to be both defeatist and rather short sighted. Many Victorian physicists thought that the time to stop was about 1860 or so - after that it was just a case of working out a few extra decimal points. Instead we had the greatest revolution in physics, arguably, ever.

Once you agree some limit you are effectively saying - even if observation/experiment show this is wrong, we'll live with it. That actually sent a shudder down my back - it is profoundly disturbing for some reason.
c'tair
Nameless wrote:
Bikerman wrote:
Comparisons with empirical science are unhelpful since science is designed to change and is always contingent on measurement/observation.
Religion is usually supposed to represent some deeper and more permenant truth - otherwise what possible use is it?

Going rather off-topic here, but: the fundamental laws of physics shouldn't be changing all that often, I'd have figured if anything it would make more sense for SCIENCE to gradually reach one (tested) understanding and then stop. Whereas gods (at least in older pantheon religions) could change their minds or make new appearances, or methods of worshiping the same unchanging God could fall in and out of favour.


What you call "the fundamental laws of physics" aren't laws set down in stone tablets, they are simply abstract models that only exists in our brains that help us explain and make predictions. This is why science may never reach "the ultimate correct law" for something, because it it self-updating. One could say that Einstein's theory of relativity is the next version of Newton's classical physics - it adds much more precision, explanations and predictions.
Dialogist
deanhills wrote:
Dialogist wrote:
Here's another coincidence: They are exactly like atheists too.
Nice to see you posting Dialogist. I agree. Adoration or adulation of a character like Richard Dawkins for example to the extent of making a guru out of him, people needing to study all of his books, be an expert on his discussions to the point of regurgitating all of those ad infinitum and replay speeches and debates over and over again. That does have a ring of religion as well.

Brings us back to people being people and capable of being dishonest and corrupt regardless of their beliefs or lack of beliefs.



The social panacea of Dawkinsism, I've already commented about extensively on here, and although I do see it as a highly convincing and therefore influential orthodoxy, complete with dogma, moral judgement and worldview, falsely laying claims to an empiric superiority via appeals to a heinously perverted perspective on the unbiased neutrality of the scientific method for an authority, that's not exactly what I'm drawing comparisons with here.

I'm more interested in the parallels of both theism, mysticism and even atheism promulgating something which cannot be know as fact. There is really very little difference. There is a difference, obviously, but I feel it is based on a chicken and egg genetic fallacy, which, with all layers and depth of the arguments stripped away, all three show an exact likeness when you propose the simple question, "How do you know that?"

Not knowing is an important point here because although you'd have to get up early in the morning to find me defending Mystic Meg, zodiacs and fortune telling palm readers, I do have a lot of time for natural healing (not like Deepak Chopra, who, incidentally, I did enjoy Dawkin's derailing of) but in terms of Chinese medicine, positive energy/philosophy (some Buddhist principals), Chi/qi and the effect the psychological approach can have on the CNS. I personally feel nerves and spirituality are related. Intertwined, if you will. I feel health and happiness are synonymous.

Those are just more theories about that which cannot be known, though. I cannot show you a photograph of my dreams, no more than I can offer you anything more concrete than anecdotal personal testimony of the nature of God. I can't tell you why identical twins have a psychic relationship of locality of proximity and psychological dialogue whereby they often finish each others sentences. I can't tell you why Near Death Experiences are always remarkably graphically similar but when I mention deja vu, there's a probability that you will be more familiarized with this and know personally which psychic phenomena I am referring too. Maybe that's because you've experienced it or read about it. You will often hear the term "Well we know that..." used a lot in scientific circles. "We" being the keyword. This is "science" for 'accepted fact' (pretty much). But a person can only really epistemologically "know" something if 'I/you/they' know it (individually). "We know" is just collective of people who know something and haven't argued about it or have argued about and the majority won. Compare the metaphysical experience of spirituality/God/mysticism/pyschic ability. Who really knows about that? Does this sound a bit pie-in-the-sky? Try this: "My wife is a terrible driver" - You could know this from personal experience yet even she would argue with you. Does that make it any less tangible or dare I say, "real"? It's not knowledge that is derived from opinion, because you've seen her repeatedly make dreadful mistakes, and it's hardly based on observation (empirical) because she's observed it too and thinks it's fine. So what do you really know? What you're thinking right now? That's real, right? Actual? Fact? Does it require a peer review?

In short, there's a lot you don't know and people of all religious and anti-religious preferences share this in common. But I do agree that if you lay claim to the unknown as a fact, you'll need more evidence, no matter who you are or what institution you point to as your authority. I think the problem is more concerned with motive and intention. Both of which tend to be horribly misconstrued by all of the opposing sides of this "I don't really have a clue, to be perfectly honest" trichotomy.
Nameless
c'tair wrote:
What you call "the fundamental laws of physics" aren't laws set down in stone tablets, they are simply abstract models that only exists in our brains that help us explain and make predictions.

No ... we might not yet understand exactly why every little quark or whatever acts why it does, but we can be pretty sure that there is a consistent reason for it. At some point the scientists are going to figure it out and going to be 100% correct and 100% sure of it, at which point there shouldn't be any need to change the model or their understanding again. Sure, they could continue experimenting and expanding our knowledge in other areas, but for that one area they'd be done. There is a theoretical stop point.
ocalhoun
Nameless wrote:
At some point the scientists are going to figure it out and going to be 100% correct and 100% sure of it, at which point there shouldn't be any need to change the model or their understanding again.

That's odd... I thought that one of the great advantages of a scientific approach is that one never gets bogged down in dogma, and can always revisit old ideas and correct them...

Personally, I don't think we'll ever be 100% correct and sure about it... and that thinking this is possible is dangerous, as it could allow people to think we've reached that point before we really have.
Bikerman
I think not.
Any model is a representation and, therefore, cannot be '100%' correct - in principle. To be so it would have to map one to one with every point of the thing being modelled. The only way for that to happen is when the model IS the territory, and I'm pretty sure there is a nice little proof somewhere regarding the impossibility of that, summarised in the easy to remember phrase- the map is never the territory.

And I haven't even wheeled Godel into the fray yet Smile
Nameless
Hang on. Hang on. I don't mean we're ever going to have 100% accurate practical models or that we should actually stop research. But the basic rules of how individual stuff works should be theoretically obtainable. Look at, I don't know, math. If we can figure out 1+1=2 and we can figure out 2+2=4, eventually we learn how basic addition works for any number. Now if we wanted to count the exact number of people in the world we'd still run into all kinds of variables and problems like people in hiding or people dying while we were count or whatever, and you'd need more complex equations to calculate those - but we still understand and aren't going to change the basic rules of adding two things together.

I imagine physics to be like that except vastly more complicated and difficult to figure out.

OT: THOSE GOSH DARNED PSYCHICS, huh?
Bikerman
No, fraid not.
Maths, for example, starts with the axioms - peano postulates. Without those you cannot do 1+1=2 etc.

I still don't really understand why one would wish to just call a halt to research in any field. Since one has no way of knowing what new developments are possible, it would seem to be a bad move.
Indi
Science is being terribly misrepresented in this thread. The laws of the universe never change, our understanding of the laws of the universe changes. Specifically, our understanding always improves. There's nothing weird about that, and nothing weird about the idea that scientific laws might change frequently - in fact that's a good thing, because it would mean we're getting better and better at understanding the universe very quickly. If science doesn't change that could be good (our understanding is close to truth), or it could be bad (we're stuck) - but in some cases we might not even be able to tell which of those it is... which is why we can never stop doing research.

The difference between science and religion is painfully obvious - the only reason people don't "get it" is the rampant misunderstanding of science. Science NEVER claims to have "the truth". Never, ever, ever. All science ever claims - at most - is that it has a model that so far as we know does a pretty good job of approximating the truth. When science changes, truth doesn't change, the model changes. By contrast, religions always claim to have access to some kind of deep truth, which means when the religion changes... the truth changes... which means it probably wasn't true to begin with.

Trying to argue that scientific understanding is arbitrary just because of some wacky beliefs in the way distant past is disingenuous for two reasons. First, when those wacky beliefs were actual science, they were the best understanding we had at the time, meaning that they weren't wacky, they only appear that way in hindsight. But more often than not, the wacky beliefs weren't science... they were just holdovers from the bad old days before science started (somewhere in the mid-1600s, i'd reckon, though it varies wildly from field to field). When science started, it didn't start from a blank slate ("we know nothing!"), it started by absorbing everything people believed at the time, and then, bit-by-bit, throwing out the garbage. So you can't just point at a stupid belief in old science and say it's evidence of science's arbitrariness, you have to ask: where did that belief come from? Was it a legitimate scientific belief? (Example: phlogiston.) If so, it wasn't as wacky as you think. Was it just a holdover from older knowledge? (Example: the four humours.) If so, then it wasn't real science, it was the mud that the real tree of scientific knowledge grew out of.
spinout
Hm, everything changes... What will it be in the next big bang?
Better hopefully!!!

Hm, Suppose one day - you could easily point out where a person was, blindfolded. Or even talk to ghosts... that happened to me! That Ghost thing is good news...
Bikerman
spinout wrote:
Hm, everything changes... What will it be in the next big bang?
Better hopefully!!!

Hm, Suppose one day - you could easily point out where a person was, blindfolded. Or even talk to ghosts... that happened to me!
No, you believe that happened to you - that is not the same thing at all. For this to be factual one would first have to substantiate the story - almost impossible I suspect. That is not to say that you are being untruthful - many, if not all, of us believe that some things have happened which, in reality, did not. In fact, strike the 'many' - it applies to everyone. Human perception is partial and easily fooled. Human memory is even more unreliable. Research into memory shows that it is not really a 'record' of what happened. It is far more 'interactive' and fluid than that and changes significantly. The whole 'hidden memory' scandal in the US and UK (where 'psychologists' apparently retrieve hidden memories of childhood abuse, when in fact what is happening in most cases is that those memories are being 'planted') is evidence of this.
spinout
Hm, the human brain and perception HAHA!

What one person recalls as "life" will never be recalled the same in another persons mind.
Everything is changing, and even what you do believe is factual - is not in the next moment!

So, YES! What I belived happened to me is everything.
Bikerman
Fortunately we have the scientific method which we can use to test these claims objectively.
Such testing has been carried out, exhaustively, over many decades and the results are pretty conclusive.
spinout
So you have the scientific method to claim that the brain has a completely useless perception! Smile

Seems a bit waste of time when we are brainwashed all the time by media.
The human is a creature that only think the same ideas 95% of the time, and the rest 5%... just bad ideas?

Back to the psychics phenomenon - I was good at the tarot game and a good cold reader, I had learned the cards by heart and read the feace of the one I did the game on. "how did you knew that" - reaction everytime... Everyone was stunned. I and had a laugh.
Still any psychic worth a potential don't use that sort of stuff...
Bikerman
spinout wrote:
So you have the scientific method to claim that the brain has a completely useless perception! Smile

Err? The brain has the ability to be fooled, yes. That is a result of the way it evolved. It isn't a 'useless perception', more a mistake in perception, due to any of a number of possible reasons.
Quote:
Seems a bit waste of time when we are brainwashed all the time by media.
The human is a creature that only think the same ideas 95% of the time, and the rest 5%... just bad ideas?
I don't know what that means. We have all sorts of ideas - good and bad.
Quote:
Back to the psychics phenomenon - I was good at the tarot game and a good cold reader, I had learned the cards by heart and read the feace of the one I did the game on. "how did you knew that" - reaction everytime... Everyone was stunned. I and had a laugh.
Still any psychic worth a potential don't use that sort of stuff...
That assumes there are psychics with potential. I see no evidence to believe that.
spinout
Psychics with potential!
Well, what a Psychic needs to do is to have the surprice-moment. A fish without water is no good!
So if you have the mind like "no evidence on that" - then you are a good bait! The perfect catch for a talented Psychic, real or fraud.
To me a psychic is of no interest, more than just their performance. For me the science world is as equal as the psychic world... Since we just care about war (a.s.o) on this planet - what use is science or psychics!!!
Do I like science or psychics? correct or not correct, true or false... NJET! Science is for war on this planet and psychics does not teach for spiritualism!

I like science for the nerdness and I like psychics for showmanship.
LittleBlackKitten
Not all psychics are that type of psychic, and both situations are easily explained - if he were an asthmatic, an asthma attack can and does feel like you are drowning, and that water is filling the lungs. That would explain the sensation that he was drowning, or under water. I know this from personal experience. The second one, the sensation of her being shot could very well have been a heart attack - it does feel like you've been shot, and when you're young and not expecting it, that IS your first thought. I also know this from experience. Not that I condone her kind of psychic; I have NEVER met a genuine situational psychic like that.

Do keep in mind that there are as many kinds of psychic as there are races on earth; the gift is not always in situational communication with the dead or seeing the unseen.
Bikerman
LittleBlackKitten wrote:
Not all psychics are that type of psychic, and both situations are easily explained - if he were an asthmatic, an asthma attack can and does feel like you are drowning, and that water is filling the lungs. That would explain the sensation that he was drowning, or under water. I know this from personal experience.
That is entirely irrelevant. She said he was IN water and THAT was the reason that he could not be found - presumably the water blocks the bullshit psychic energy or something. She didn't say he had a sensation of drowning. In any case, he was a duty Fireman - working on 9/11. He would not have been asthmatic, and there was no water involved. She is a nasty manipulative scumbag who got it wrong and had nowhere to retreat to.
Quote:
The second one, the sensation of her being shot could very well have been a heart attack - it does feel like you've been shot, and when you're young and not expecting it, that IS your first thought. I also know this from experience. Not that I condone her kind of psychic; I have NEVER met a genuine situational psychic like that.
But any such heartattack would have been obvious on autopsy - particularly one massive enough to drop her, fatally. That doesn't scan.
It is classic cold reading - she makes a bold but statistically likely gamble (young kid, early death, gunshot is certainly possible if not probable) - she scores a miss and then tries to wriggle, saying 'hit in the chest', relaxing the gun idea and looking for something to connect to. She is another scumbag who exploits greiving people for money.
Quote:
Do keep in mind that there are as many kinds of psychic as there are races on earth; the gift is not always in situational communication with the dead or seeing the unseen.
I have seen no evidence that would indicate that there are ANY other kinds of psychic, apart from, maybe, the ones who manage to con themselves that they really have a gift....I suppose they can, at least, avoid the charge of financial gain - although they get their 'gain' from being the psychic - it makes them 'special', and people will do almost anything to be special or famous - more and more as time goes by
deanhills
Bikerman wrote:
I have seen no evidence that would indicate that there are ANY other kinds of psychic, apart from, maybe, the ones who manage to con themselves that they really have a gift....I suppose they can, at least, avoid the charge of financial gain - although they get their 'gain' from being the psychic - it makes them 'special', and people will do almost anything to be special or famous - more and more as time goes by
I am certain a large percentage of psychics are conning people, maybe themselves most of all, but then there are scientists who do the same as well, i.e. present themselves to others as scientists when they aren't real scientists, or present themselves as medical practitioners when they aren't medical practitioners. You find con artists in all walks of life.
Bikerman
But the comparison is bogus. A fraudulent scientist (and they are pretty rare) will be found out sooner or later. More importantly, there is an objective standard by which we can say 'He is in the wrong'.
What objective standard applies to the psychic? Who says whether they are con-merchants or genuine?
The same who says whether anything else is a con or for real - science. And science says that everyone tested is a con.
Ankhanu
deanhills wrote:
... there are scientists who do the same as well, i.e. present themselves to others as scientists when they aren't real scientists,

Presenting yourself as a scientist doesn't make you a scientist...
deanhills wrote:
... or present themselves as medical practitioners when they aren't medical practitioners.

... nor does presenting yourself as a medical practitioners.
deanhills wrote:
You find con artists in all walks of life.

Sure, but to say that the con artist is what they present themselves as is somewhat misleading, is it not?

Same goes for psychics. They can present themselves as such, but it does not mean that that's what they, in fact, are.
spinout
The telly psychists have their up n downs it seems...

In Sweden there was several mistaken:

1. A young psychic told the police a corpse was buried in a swamp - a massive search was done and... NOPE!
2. The best Swedish tv-psychic was wrong about everything until the end of that show - Aha, this death is the tsunami in thailand? ... He commented afterwards; every psychic can have a bad day! Smile
3. A female psychic seems always to miss the bad ghosts... every show end with a comment from the ghost house people like; "knifes are still moving in the air..." And she gets back and try to sort it out...

Hm, a Swedish psychic pointed out were in Japan a corpse would be found, and they found it there! So it isn't all crap psychics.
catscratches
spinout wrote:

Hm, a Swedish psychic pointed out were in Japan a corpse would be found, and they found it there! So it isn't all crap psychics.
Seems like a certain psychic needs to be investigated. :p
spinout
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IeUDh65inmE&feature=related

Here's the first part (1 of 5) in that Swedish tv show where this Psychic point out the location of the corpse in japan. Murder case solved!
catscratches
I meant a legal investigation... jokingly.

Well, he clearly didn't point it out... He went to the place, wandered around a bit, then said she was dead. He didn't say where she was. Even I could have guessed she was dead.

I like how he seems so surprised that he's supposed to actually present his results. "What?! I have to get results?" He also clearly get things wrong. The trucks integral to his "findings" don't have "flak" (not sure how that translates into english) as he claims. One thing he did get correct was that it was a suicide, but that seems to be his default answer, as can be seen below.

Here's a clip with the very same psychic:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tPW3i-kZtCQ&feature=related

In this clip a swedish show called him up claiming a friend had disappeared. In reality, the friend was perfectly fine and well. Jrgen claims not only that she's dead (suicide), but also that she was mentally unstable and had problems with her family while alive, neither of which is true.
spinout
As a showman Jrgen has lost it!
From the beginning he was the crying man! He always wept in tv, for a man that is good tv!

Yes, Jrgen didn't find the corpse. But he got the credit for pointing it out in Japan! Wink

hehe, I looked at the set-up clip! Jrgen was tricked, ouch, must have been painful! Jrgen isn't that good but he had a good success in Japan!
spinout
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fkh7c_hbbcg

More on the psychics... this time they get fooled.
Dennise
Suckers ................ thousands of 'em, born every minute. It's definitely immoral to prey on these poor souls.
Nameless
Dennise wrote:
Suckers ................ thousands of 'em, born every minute. It's definitely immoral to prey on these poor souls.

That's a whole other argument.
spinout
immoral! hehe, a good laugh and millions of wars!!!
Related topics
Why our life is like that...
why not install ZendOptimizer?
Why not Adding .... this ...
why no hosting under .com
why I cannot use kf97.uni.cc domain admin help me!!
Why use IE?
STEVEN WRIGHT QUOTES
GTA: San Andreas PC (OFFICIAL THREAD)
That's Why
why
Why PHPbb? '?
Why are no admins helping me?
WHY!
Why do students fail in exams...?
Reply to topic    Frihost Forum Index -> Lifestyle and News -> Philosophy and Religion

FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2011 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.