View Active Topics          View Your Posts          Latest 100 Topics          Switch to Mobile

Another example of a fraudulent "psychic"

Discussions about Psychics and Psychic Phenomena, Extra Sensory Perception, Telepathy, Psi, Clairvoyancy, 6th Sense, Psychokinesis, etc.

Another example of a fraudulent "psychic"

Postby quantumparanormal » 21 Sep 2009, 00:21

From http://www.kxly.com/Global/story.asp?S=11158040:

KXLY wrote:But as soon as word got out that Phillip Paul was on the loose the 911 Call Center was flooded with tips and sightings.

"We got a call from a psychic who went online and found the information online and called in with her psychic information," 911 supervisor David Affeldt said.


These bad apples sure make it bad for the rest of the bunch.
Mike G.
Quantum Paranormal
Image
quantumparanormal
 
Posts: 276
Joined: 24 Aug 2009, 05:09
Location: Los Angeles, CA, USA

Re: Another example of a fraudulent "psychic"

Postby NinjaPuppy » 21 Sep 2009, 04:43

I find it odd that it seemed more important to the press to relay the false psychic report than it was to give a physical description of this man or to put a picture of him in the article. Go figure.
User avatar
NinjaPuppy
 
Posts: 4002
Joined: 28 Jul 2009, 20:44

Re: Another example of a fraudulent "psychic"

Postby ProfWag » 24 Sep 2009, 20:40

quantumparanormal wrote:From http://www.kxly.com/Global/story.asp?S=11158040:

KXLY wrote:But as soon as word got out that Phillip Paul was on the loose the 911 Call Center was flooded with tips and sightings.

"We got a call from a psychic who went online and found the information online and called in with her psychic information," 911 supervisor David Affeldt said.


These bad apples sure make it bad for the rest of the bunch.

What "bunch" are you referring too, Quantum?
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3846
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

Re: Another example of a fraudulent "psychic"

Postby quantumparanormal » 24 Sep 2009, 23:26

ProfWag wrote:
quantumparanormal wrote:From http://www.kxly.com/Global/story.asp?S=11158040:

KXLY wrote:But as soon as word got out that Phillip Paul was on the loose the 911 Call Center was flooded with tips and sightings.

"We got a call from a psychic who went online and found the information online and called in with her psychic information," 911 supervisor David Affeldt said.


These bad apples sure make it bad for the rest of the bunch.

What "bunch" are you referring too, Quantum?


Hey, welcome back. "Bunch," as in the rest of the "psychic" field in general. It was a generalization. I used it since pseudo-skeptics seem to use that tactic often--generalize specific cases. For example, ciscop uses Uri Geller as a case to discredit ALL of the positive psi evidence that's out there and anyone and everyone who is a proponent of psi.
Mike G.
Quantum Paranormal
Image
quantumparanormal
 
Posts: 276
Joined: 24 Aug 2009, 05:09
Location: Los Angeles, CA, USA

Re: Another example of a fraudulent "psychic"

Postby ProfWag » 24 Sep 2009, 23:45

quantumparanormal wrote:Hey, welcome back. "Bunch," as in the rest of the "psychic" field in general. It was a generalization. I used it since pseudo-skeptics seem to use that tactic often--generalize specific cases. For example, ciscop uses Uri Geller as a case to discredit ALL of the positive psi evidence that's out there and anyone and everyone who is a proponent of psi.

Thanks. I'm still in the process of getting things back to normal, but so far so good.
Your use of the word "bunch" implies that there are "good applies" i.e. good psychics, which, of course, hasn't yet been proven.
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3846
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

Re: Another example of a fraudulent "psychic"

Postby quantumparanormal » 24 Sep 2009, 23:46

ProfWag wrote:Your use of the word "bunch" implies that there are "good applies" i.e. good psychics, which, of course, hasn't yet been proven.


That depends on what you mean by "psychics" and "proven." You're using very broad terms. Please define them.
Mike G.
Quantum Paranormal
Image
quantumparanormal
 
Posts: 276
Joined: 24 Aug 2009, 05:09
Location: Los Angeles, CA, USA

Re: Another example of a fraudulent "psychic"

Postby ProfWag » 24 Sep 2009, 23:53

quantumparanormal wrote:
ProfWag wrote:Your use of the word "bunch" implies that there are "good applies" i.e. good psychics, which, of course, hasn't yet been proven.


That depends on what you mean by "psychics" and "proven." You're using very broad terms. Please define them.

Your use of the word "bad apples" was in reference to a psychic. Use your own definition for what made you call them "bad apples."
Proven has 4 definitions according to Webster's so I'm not sure if that is a "very broad term." I was referring to #3.
1 archaic : to learn or find out by experience
2 a : to test the truth, validity, or genuineness of <the exception proves the rule> <prove a will at probate> b : to test the worth or quality of; specifically : to compare against a standard —sometimes used with up or out c : to check the correctness of (as an arithmetic result)
3 a : to establish the existence, truth, or validity of (as by evidence or logic) <prove a theorem> <the charges were never proved in court> b : to demonstrate as having a particular quality or worth <the vaccine has been proven effective after years of tests> <proved herself a great actress>
4 : to show (oneself) to be worthy or capable <eager to prove myself in the new job>
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3846
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

Re: Another example of a fraudulent "psychic"

Postby ProfWag » 25 Sep 2009, 00:06

Speaking of broad terms, here's a trivia question for you just for fun. What word in the English language has the most meanings?
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3846
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

Re: Another example of a fraudulent "psychic"

Postby quantumparanormal » 25 Sep 2009, 00:17

ProfWag wrote:
quantumparanormal wrote:
ProfWag wrote:Your use of the word "bunch" implies that there are "good applies" i.e. good psychics, which, of course, hasn't yet been proven.


That depends on what you mean by "psychics" and "proven." You're using very broad terms. Please define them.

Your use of the word "bad apples" was in reference to a psychic. Use your own definition for what made you call them "bad apples."
Proven has 4 definitions according to Webster's so I'm not sure if that is a "very broad term." I was referring to #3.
1 archaic : to learn or find out by experience
2 a : to test the truth, validity, or genuineness of <the exception proves the rule> <prove a will at probate> b : to test the worth or quality of; specifically : to compare against a standard —sometimes used with up or out c : to check the correctness of (as an arithmetic result)
3 a : to establish the existence, truth, or validity of (as by evidence or logic) <prove a theorem> <the charges were never proved in court> b : to demonstrate as having a particular quality or worth <the vaccine has been proven effective after years of tests> <proved herself a great actress>
4 : to show (oneself) to be worthy or capable <eager to prove myself in the new job>


In that case, no. As I mentioned previously, I was generalizing, defining "bunch" as representing the entire field of psychical phenomena in general, not in reference to the type of psychic discussed in this specific news case. Again, cases like that make the entire field of psi, in general, look bad, typically. That was my point. Personally, I don't lend much credence to the "psychics" of the type discussed in that news article, but that's just a bias I have based on preconceptions I have about psychics, not based on any empirical evidence that might exist that might convince me either way, but I admit that.

That said, what makes you believe it has been "proven" there are no "good psychics?" I do admit, however, we'd have to mutually define "good" in order for you to be able to properly answer that question.
Mike G.
Quantum Paranormal
Image
quantumparanormal
 
Posts: 276
Joined: 24 Aug 2009, 05:09
Location: Los Angeles, CA, USA

Re: Another example of a fraudulent "psychic"

Postby quantumparanormal » 25 Sep 2009, 00:18

ProfWag wrote:Speaking of broad terms, here's a trivia question for you just for fun. What word in the English language has the most meanings?


SET

Haha, I looked it up on the web.
Mike G.
Quantum Paranormal
Image
quantumparanormal
 
Posts: 276
Joined: 24 Aug 2009, 05:09
Location: Los Angeles, CA, USA

Re: Another example of a fraudulent "psychic"

Postby ProfWag » 25 Sep 2009, 00:38

quantumparanormal wrote:In that case, no. As I mentioned previously, I was generalizing, defining "bunch" as representing the entire field of psychical phenomena in general, not in reference to the type of psychic discussed in this specific news case. Again, cases like that make the entire field of psi, in general, look bad, typically. That was my point. Personally, I don't lend much credence to the "psychics" of the type discussed in that news article, but that's just a bias I have based on preconceptions I have about psychics, not based on any empirical evidence that might exist that might convince me either way, but I admit that.

That said, what makes you believe it has been "proven" there are no "good psychics?" I do admit, however, we'd have to mutually define "good" in order for you to be able to properly answer that question.

It must be your personal bias on what you think I believe in that you keep jumbling my words in your head Quantum. I did not say it "has been proven there are no good psychics." I said it has yet to be proven. Big, big difference Quantum. And in my statement, if you remove the word "good" (and I agree with you on that removal, but was in reference to your own use of the term "good apples,") then even using the general term "psychic," I'm referring to those people who call themselves "psychics," "psychic advisors," "psychic mediums," etc. That phenomenon has YET to be proven.
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3846
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

Re: Another example of a fraudulent "psychic"

Postby ProfWag » 25 Sep 2009, 00:39

quantumparanormal wrote:
ProfWag wrote:Speaking of broad terms, here's a trivia question for you just for fun. What word in the English language has the most meanings?


SET

Haha, I looked it up on the web.

Yep. I always thought it funny that a simple word like that could mean so many different things.
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3846
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

Re: Another example of a fraudulent "psychic"

Postby quantumparanormal » 25 Sep 2009, 00:51

ProfWag wrote:I said it has yet to be proven. Big, big difference Quantum. And in my statement, if you remove the word "good" (and I agree with you on that removal, but was in reference to your own use of the term "good apples,") then even using the general term "psychic," I'm referring to those people who call themselves "psychics," "psychic advisors," "psychic mediums," etc. That phenomenon has YET to be proven.


Thanks for clarifying your stance, fair enough. I don't have sufficient knowledge of empirical studies conducted with the type of psychics to whom you're referring, so I can't make an educated judgment about it either way, for or against the claim that "That phenomenon has YET to be proven." However, what empirical evidence do you have knowledge of "That phenomenon has YET to be proven?"
Mike G.
Quantum Paranormal
Image
quantumparanormal
 
Posts: 276
Joined: 24 Aug 2009, 05:09
Location: Los Angeles, CA, USA

Re: Another example of a fraudulent "psychic"

Postby ProfWag » 25 Sep 2009, 01:25

quantumparanormal wrote:
ProfWag wrote:I said it has yet to be proven. Big, big difference Quantum. And in my statement, if you remove the word "good" (and I agree with you on that removal, but was in reference to your own use of the term "good apples,") then even using the general term "psychic," I'm referring to those people who call themselves "psychics," "psychic advisors," "psychic mediums," etc. That phenomenon has YET to be proven.


Thanks for clarifying your stance, fair enough. I don't have sufficient knowledge of empirical studies conducted with the type of psychics to whom you're referring, so I can't make an educated judgment about it either way, for or against the claim that "That phenomenon has YET to be proven." However, what empirical evidence do you have knowledge of "That phenomenon has YET to be proven?"

Dean Radin in Entangled Minds. I understand you have the book (probably several copies to include the audio version, one for next to your toilet, and several abridged versions to pass out to strangers on the street) so perhaps you can share with the class at which point in the book he proves "psi." Oh, wait a minute, I don't believe he states that after 30 years of research he has proven "psi," but rather, there is "evidence" of it. Not proof, evidence. Is that a solid enough reference of empirical data for you?
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3846
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

Re: Another example of a fraudulent "psychic"

Postby quantumparanormal » 25 Sep 2009, 01:56

ProfWag wrote:Dean Radin in Entangled Minds. I understand you have the book (probably several copies to include the audio version, one for next to your toilet, and several abridged versions to pass out to strangers on the street) so perhaps you can share with the class at which point in the book he proves "psi." Oh, wait a minute, I don't believe he states that after 30 years of research he has proven "psi," but rather, there is "evidence" of it. Not proof, evidence. Is that a solid enough reference of empirical data for you?


You've employed a typical pseudo-skeptic tactic: deflection. Instead of answering my question (above), you've replied to it by making exaggerations and insults (no less, you've stooped to ciscop's level). Exaggerations and insults don't help you prove your claim. They simply show your emotional immaturity. Additionally, you've answered my question not with an actual answer, but with a question of your own, which is unrelated: "... perhaps you can share with the class at which point in the book he proves 'psi.'" [emphasis added] You're trying to deflect having to answer my question, and I believe there's an obvious reason why: you can't answer it logically. "YET" means "up to the present time;" therefore, in essence, what you're saying is "that phenomenon has not been proven up to the present time." Since "psychics" have been making claims for many hundreds of years, I'd like to reiterate my original question: What empirical evidence do you have knowledge of that "that phenomenon has not been proven up to the present time?"

And by the way, even though this is irrelevant to the original topic about psychics, I'll ask it anyway: Where and when have I ever stated "psi has been proven?" I'd suggest you search all of my posts on this forum for the answer. Additionally, Radin himself never states "psi has been proven," nor is his book about research involving psychics of the sort to whom you are referring above. You really need to control those emotions: they cloud your better judgment and logic.
Mike G.
Quantum Paranormal
Image
quantumparanormal
 
Posts: 276
Joined: 24 Aug 2009, 05:09
Location: Los Angeles, CA, USA

Next

Return to Psychic Phenomena / ESP / Telepathy

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron