I don't know. I think it should be a more nuetral agent that sets the paremeters. Not Richard Wiseman, who would manage to be able to find no psychic ability in God.
I agree. And not dean radin, who gets on skeptic's nerves.
But Dean Radin isn't convinved they are communicating with the dead, he thinks it's a form of psi...oh right yes, he would get on skeptics nerves.
There is no test that shows whether someone is communicating with the dead, fastz.
That is beyond the realm of science.
Tests can only show if she is correct significantly above chance, and it can be inferred that she has some other source of her information ( unconscious or something yet to be explained).
You asked if it is better for her career to say that every test is unfair, did you not.
And my reply is that can't be answered by assuming she will say every test is unfair.
No, the original question was whether she'd ever laid out what she would consider to be a fair test. Which you sidestepped by, again, putting the onus on 'sceptics'.
No, the original question was whether she'd ever laid out what she would consider to be a fair test. Which you sidestepped by, again, putting the onus on skeptics
Yes of course the obligation is on the one accusing her.
Sally is, in effect, the defendant and you are the prosecution.
She doesn't have to prove her innocence.
As much as you wish she would.
You have to prove your case against her no matter how strongly you suspect her.
Weren't you arguing the same on the pistorius thread?
Yes of course the obligation is on the one accusing her.
Sally is the defendant and you are the prosecution,
She doesn't have to prove her innocence.
As much as you wish she would.
You have to prove your case against her.
Who said anything about guilt or innocence?
She is the one claiming to have supernatural powers, the likes of which have never been proven to exist. Until she can provide some evidence of them, such claims should be treated with disdain.
If you think it's a good idea to simply give people the benefit of the doubt as regards whatever unproven nonsense it is they claim to be able to do, then more fool you.
Yes of course the obligation is on the one accusing her.
Sally is the defendant and you are the prosecution,
She doesn't have to prove her innocence.
As much as you wish she would.
You have to prove your case against her no matter how strongly you suspect her.
Weren't you arguing the same on the pistorius thread?
In this instance, Sally Morgan is claiming to possess an extraordinary ability which no person in history has ever been proven to possess. If she was saying she could fly like Superman or shoot laser beams from her eyes, it would be reasonable to expect her to demonstrate such abilities under conditions where entertainer's tricks cannot be used.
She is the one claiming to have supernatural powers, the likes of which have never been proven to exist. Until she can provide some evidence of them, such claims should be treated with disdain.
If you think it's a good idea to simply give people the benefit of the doubt as regards whatever unproven nonsense it is they claim to be able to do, then more fool you.
Nope. You are turning it around. She is being accused of conning people. That is fraud.
You are making the logical error that she has to prove her innocence to you.
She doesn't.
The best you can do is offer a fair and neutral test and challenge her.
No absolutely not. This is where skeptics who say they are thinking scientifically are not at all. Statistical significance is to rule out luck as the cause.
You might as well say that Prozac or Celexa has to cure every single person who takes it, or removed from the market as a bogus substance. Antidepressants help maybe 50% of persons.
If a psychic can score significantly above chance on a series of tests, then she or he is not any more or less of a fraud than Prozac.
Then it should really be up to the public to decide if they want to go to someone who may be correct in some of the things they say. Or may not be. Just like Prozac.
Then there can be people still negative about psychics and negative about antidepressants but not to the level that they only con people.
Yes, absolutely yes. If I told someone to say 10 things and paused slightly in between each one, they'd be able to repeat everything I said. If not, I'd be wondering why not. The same with a psychic that can supposedly communicate with a dead person. If they can't get everything right.....why? Communication, in terms of repeating what the person's saying, should be 100% correct.
Nope. You are turning it around. She is being accused of conning people. That is fraud.
You are making the logical error that she has to prove her innocence to you.
She doesn't.
The best you can do is offer a fair and neutral test and challenge her.
She has a legal right to refuse one, though.
Well, fraud is a dodgy area, seeing as Sally operates within the context of "entertainment". She has not committed fraud in the legal sense of the word.
However, the law should be toughened so that entertainers such as Sally can't pretend their act is real.
Well, fraud is a dodgy area, seeing as Sally operates within the context of "entertainment". She has not committed fraud in the legal sense of the word.
However, the law should be toughened so that entertainers such as Sally can't pretend their act is real.
That's entirely different though, asking for the law to be changed.
The poster is trying to say that it is up to Sally to prove she is legit.
Unfortunately, no matter how much you feel disdain for her, she doesn't have to participate.
Yes, absolutely yes. If I told someone to say 10 things and paused slightly in between each one, they'd be able to repeat everything I said. If not, I'd be wondering why not. The same with a psychic that can supposedly communicate with a dead person. If they can't get everything right.....why? Communication, in terms of repeating what the person's saying, should be 100% correct.
That doesn't make any sense at all. You may as well say that Prozac has to hit the right neurotransmitters 100% of the time. That's not the way science determines statistical significance.
That doesn't make any sense at all. You may as well say that Prozac has to hit the right neurotransmitters 100% of the time. That's not the way science determines statistical significance.
I have to agree with bolly on this one, zx50. 100% accuracy is unattainable in most contexts. What we need is evidence of consistent performance above chance expectations.
Prozac, for example, has been demonstrated to be more reliable than a placebo.
Comments
I agree. And not dean radin, who gets on skeptic's nerves.
A neutral person.
Which brings us neatly back to my point I made a few posts ago...
You are mistakenly assuming she said every test was unfair or that she was offered many tests or many fair tests.
Did she?
Get logical and offer her the fair neutral test and see if she accepts.
That will be the answer.
But Dean Radin isn't convinved they are communicating with the dead, he thinks it's a form of psi...oh right yes, he would get on skeptics nerves.
I note that you deftly sidestepped essentially the same question when I asked it of you above.
There is no test that shows whether someone is communicating with the dead, fastz.
That is beyond the realm of science.
Tests can only show if she is correct significantly above chance, and it can be inferred that she has some other source of her information ( unconscious or something yet to be explained).
No I certainly didn't sidestep.
You asked if it is better for her career to say that every test is unfair, did you not.
And my reply is that can't be answered by assuming she will say every test is unfair.
If she is offered a fair test or tests and says they are unfair, that is something else,
It could be beneficial to her career actually to take a fair test, if she has confidence in her abilities.
No, the original question was whether she'd ever laid out what she would consider to be a fair test. Which you sidestepped by, again, putting the onus on 'sceptics'.
This thread does make me chuckle at times
Yes of course the obligation is on the one accusing her.
Sally is, in effect, the defendant and you are the prosecution.
She doesn't have to prove her innocence.
As much as you wish she would.
You have to prove your case against her no matter how strongly you suspect her.
Weren't you arguing the same on the pistorius thread?
Who said anything about guilt or innocence?
She is the one claiming to have supernatural powers, the likes of which have never been proven to exist. Until she can provide some evidence of them, such claims should be treated with disdain.
If you think it's a good idea to simply give people the benefit of the doubt as regards whatever unproven nonsense it is they claim to be able to do, then more fool you.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
Nope. You are turning it around. She is being accused of conning people. That is fraud.
You are making the logical error that she has to prove her innocence to you.
She doesn't.
The best you can do is offer a fair and neutral test and challenge her.
She has a legal right to refuse one, though.
This is just brilliant
Yes, absolutely yes. If I told someone to say 10 things and paused slightly in between each one, they'd be able to repeat everything I said. If not, I'd be wondering why not. The same with a psychic that can supposedly communicate with a dead person. If they can't get everything right.....why? Communication, in terms of repeating what the person's saying, should be 100% correct.
However, the law should be toughened so that entertainers such as Sally can't pretend their act is real.
Isn't that like your pistorius argument?
Let's lawyer it. ;-)
That's entirely different though, asking for the law to be changed.
The poster is trying to say that it is up to Sally to prove she is legit.
Unfortunately, no matter how much you feel disdain for her, she doesn't have to participate.
Nope, nothing like it.
That doesn't make any sense at all. You may as well say that Prozac has to hit the right neurotransmitters 100% of the time. That's not the way science determines statistical significance.
Prozac, for example, has been demonstrated to be more reliable than a placebo.
It seems to me that it is because we are talking about what the law requires because there is no other requirement.
Legally Sally doesn't have to do anything.
At best skeptics can try to shame her by offering her a fair and neutral test and see if she accepts or not.
If she is the same Sally who got all those answers correct while blindfolded at the Hard Rock Cafe, it shouldn't be a problem for her.
You appear to be. I wasn't.
What are you talking about then because she isn't required to prove anything to you.
I didn't say she was required to prove anything to me.
Are you the poster who wanted her to initiate her own test.
( I'm confused).
She doesn't have to.
Legally, morally or ethically.
Doesn't have to.
That's why a test should be presented to her.