Discussions about Psychics and Psychic Phenomena, Extra Sensory Perception, Telepathy, Psi, Clairvoyancy, 6th Sense, Psychokinesis, etc.
10 posts • Page 1 of 1
Very hard to know. The ability of a medium is usually to channel dead spirits, not recognise things about living people from behind a screen. I don't know why mediums would have subjected themselves to such a 'test'. It's like taking a trained mechanic and then challenging them to perform open heart surgery because they said they can 'fix things', and then saying they just can't possibly be mechanics when they baulk at doing the open heart surgery. Many people with psi only have an ability in one area -- which is why it's odd 'mediums' agreed to such a test.
If, on the other hand, someone had claimed they could perceive things about a person from behind a screen, that's another story.
Tests by both 'sceptics' or 'pseudosceptics' have to actually be set up to measure whatever ability the person is claiming to have.
This is not to say there aren't many cold-reading fake psychics out there who claim to be channeling the dead or what have you, and thus their claims are kind of unmeasurable or 'unfalsifiable' due to the way they claim they have to operate -- asking lots of questions and making lots of guesses that are just shrewd cold-reading and hit and miss. Funnily enough, Freud's development of 'psychoanalytic theory' suffered from the same pitfalls, by more than a coincidence -- he was on the make, trying to create a reputation for himself and the creation of a branch of psychiatry he could put his name on.
I realize this is an older thread but it does warrant commentary. I have deep training as a psychic and I am not at all surprised that science was unable to validate "psychic" ability. There is a very good reason for this. The psychic is simply the observer of experience not the source of the phenomenon. This means that the psychic has no more capability to channel or receive spirit than anyone else. This also means everyone has the potential to be psychic. It also means that spiritual contact is necessary for what appears to be a demonstration of psychic phenomenon. The phenomenon is real and not the issue here. Science requires observable demonstration. Well how do you scientifically prove the thoughts in your head let alone the imagery should this be present in the experience. I cannot conjure up a psychic experience this is purely a function of contact. I can put it out there but there are no guarantees. All the best readings are channeled. I like everyone else can read the physical signs and a layer under that like the circumstance that is generating the current physical signs; character or valence.
Is that true, truthjunkie? The psychics I know are all born with the gift and it seems to run in families. I suspect a genetic link, it is hard to do much scientific or investigative research beyond that, might be interesting to get willing volunteers to get harmless(?) brain scans done while they do their thing to at least try to find the seat of the activity in the brain, assuming anything can be measured that way.
Uhm, actually it is the issue here.
If there are no guarantees, then how do you know it is "real?" How do you know that any success you may have had was not the result of something perfectly rational such as an "educated guess," unknown cold reading, or something else that wouldn't require a paranormal experience?
Uhm, it's not an issue to non-skeptics and it's absolutely no issue to those with said abilities.
No, there are no guarantees and that is why it is classified as psychic phenomenon and not science. It can't be explained, hence it's paranormal.
The body is a great measurement instrument in itself. We can detect all kinds of physical effect including energies given enough magnitude to be registered in the body. This is where spiritual experience occurs. It is personal due to the ontological gap. I do not represent psychics.
I respect your opinion TruthJunkie, but unfortunately I disagree with your statement. Many people who have claimed to have experienced the end result of spiritual contact believe the medium was successful in channeling their departed loved ones. However, upon further review, it is discovered that those receiving the 'reading" only remembered the "hits" by the medium and overlook the "misses." It's the mind and emotions that come into play and although to the receiver, the contact has been validated by the experience, but whether or not spiritual contact with the deceased was actually made remains a mystery and has never been validated.
When I attend the performance, I will be hoping to receive a message from a loved one or two. It would be easy to hear from the medium that there's a "J" father figure who had issues with his chest and had sore knees his whole life who just wants to let me know he's doing fine where he's at. To many, that would be validation. To me, I want to know where he put the $50,000 stock certificate that no one in the family can find. THAT would be a validation to me. But again, I'll try to keep an open mind and see what happens.
Contrast this to anti-depressant research where vast amounts of money are at stake. It is well known that money is a powerful motivator for cheating. In those cases, researching the studies was a challenge because there was deliberate obfuscation; something unheard of in parapsychology. Negative studies were suppressed and some were made to look positive despite evidence to the contrary. I'm not familiar with the vitamin research so I can't speak to it, but I'm sure my point is made.
10 posts • Page 1 of 1
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests