I didn't say she was 'required' to do anything. I did say that her claims of psychic powers should be treated with disdain until she provides some credible evidence that they exist.
I didn't say she was 'required' to do anything. I did say that her claims of psychic powers should be treated with disdain until she provides some credible evidence that they exist.
Hope that clears things up.
No it really doesn't because you said she is in a much better position to know what a test entails.
That's not the case. She can only describe what she does and then a researcher has to design the appropriate controls.
It is her word ( says she's legit) against yours (not legit).
Of course you are free to feel disdain for her but it is not scientific disdain unless she is tested and fails.
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.
The promotional material for the show carries a disclaimer, but you don't have to look far for more brazen quotes -
"I want people to leave and believe they have seen a medium," she said. "I want to pass on as many messages as I can from one world to the next."
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.
If they can communicate with the dead, why would they get any wrong?
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.
No, that's completely different. Prozac will have to 'find' what it's aiming for and because of that, there is a chance that some of it will be lost. Once a psychic/medium has made contact with a dead person, the contact should be clear. Contact between a dead person and a medium (IF it's possible) should be the same as that of between two living people.
Not if you understand how psi works, in that it is an inconsistent phenomenon. Being in a trance state with decreased frontal lobe activity is not the same as turning on the TV and reporting what you see. You must be familiar with this already?
It would even be hard to know what is anomalous information and what is coming from one's own subconscious and being projected onto the reading. This causes errors.
I'm not saying that mediums are or aren't talking to the dead, btw. I'm just explaining anomalous information.
No, that's completely different. Prozac will have to 'find' what it's aiming for and because of that, there is a chance that some of it will be lost.
The reader also has to find (access) what he or she is looking for and we are ignorant of why Prozac only does it some of the time with some of the people.
Not if you understand how psi works, in that it is an inconsistent phenomenon. Being in a trance state with decreased frontal lobe activity is not the same as turning on the TV and reporting what you see. You must be familiar with this already?
It would even be hard to know what is anomalous information and what is coming from one's own subconscious and being projected onto the reading. This causes errors.
I'm not saying that mediums are or aren't talking to the dead, btw. I'm just explaining anomalous information.
You'll forgive me if I point out there's a lot of assertion here with no evidence for 'how psi works'.
A much simpler explanation is available for it's less than impressive accuracy. ;-)
Why is it you believe in psychic claptrap bollywood yet cannot name any genuine ones? The only ones Ive seen you refer to are unimpressive (not above chance) showmen.Like Joseph Tittel and Blair Robertson(who isnt even a psychic anyway by the believer definition) .
The reader also has to find (access) what he or she is looking for and we are ignorant of why Prozac only does it some of the time with some of the people.
But apparently above chance occurrence.
Prozac will be a powder, and this might mean that not all of it will hit the right spot, even if some/a lot of it does 'find' its target. Once a psychic does manage communication with a dead person, that communication should be going until the medium ceases contact.
Not if you understand how psi works, in that it is an inconsistent phenomenon. Being in a trance state with decreased frontal lobe activity is not the same as turning on the TV and reporting what you see. You must be familiar with this already?
It would even be hard to know what is anomalous information and what is coming from one's own subconscious and being projected onto the reading. This causes errors.
I'm not saying that mediums are or aren't talking to the dead, btw. I'm just explaining anomalous information.
Which is something that Sally Morgan certainly isn't when I've seen her on TV in the past.
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.
Chinese Whispers?
We don't really have a clear idea of just what limitations there are when it comes to psi functioning though. Expecting it to be just like how we communicate face to face in the usual fashion is just an assumption. From what I have heard, most psi functionning seems to be based around imagery, symbolism, feelings and even smells, unless the medium goes into a trance and channels the information, which would seem to imply, if true, that they need an earthly body to be able to communicate in an earthly fashion.
Yours would just be an explanation without evidence though, so I'm not sure why there is the smug smiley.
I'm assuming that Jefferson Hospital is researching brain states of mediums because they think something other than fraud is occurring.
An assumption yes but a good one as I see it.
Forgive the smug smiley and accept that if there ever is any real evidence for psi, I'll be at least as excited about it as you are. Meanwhile I feel justified in being more than a little sceptical.
Prozac will be a powder, and this might mean that not all of it will hit the right spot, even if some/a lot of it does 'find' its target. Once a psychic does manage communication with a dead person, that communication should be going until the medium ceases contact.
I think it's much more complex than that for Prozac. We don't even know what the right
"spot" is. We know very little about depression just as we know very little about how the person accesses the anomalous information. You are describing it like it's Skype.
We don't really have a clear idea of just what limitations there are when it comes to psi functioning though. Expecting it to be just like how we communicate face to face in the usual fashion is just an assumption. From what I have heard, most psi functionning seems to be based around imagery, symbolism, feelings and even smells, unless the medium goes into a trance and channels the information, which would seem to imply, if true, that they need an earthly body to be able to communicate in an earthly fashion.
Mediums ive seen tend to switch around methods of receiving info based on how good they are at cold reading. Sometimes its a "feeling" then "hes stood here" " he's showing me X" Hes telling me X". I can think of a very easy test based on those parameters. Sitter conceals an object/photo the spirit describes what it is. Or a simple question and answer.
"What date did he/she die?" "Which hospital were they in prior to passing /when they passed"
Id like an explanation of how a dead person communicates full stop being that they are dead. It;s rubbish lets be honest.
Forgive the smug smiley and accept that if there ever is any real evidence for psi, I'll be at least as excited about it as you are. Meanwhile I feel justified in being more than a little sceptical.
Obviously many of us believe there is plenty of evidence for psi, that has been dismissed, sabotaged, and in some cases outright lied about, by skeptics.
I'm skeptical of the skeptics and I think the tide is turning.
Magicians and non college educated monitors will no longer be the ones calling the shots on psi.
Obviously many of us believe there is plenty of evidence for psi, that has been dismissed, sabotaged, and in some cases outright lied about, by skeptics.
What you believe is irrelevant,evidence cant be denied. The fact there is none for anything you write is telling.
I'm skeptical of the skeptics and I think the tide is turning.
Magicians and non college educated monitors will no longer be the ones calling the shots on psi.
Thats the only way any positive result will show ,when the people who can catch tricksters arent involved.
Comments
Yes, that much is apparent.
I didn't say she was 'required' to do anything. I did say that her claims of psychic powers should be treated with disdain until she provides some credible evidence that they exist.
Hope that clears things up.
No it really doesn't because you said she is in a much better position to know what a test entails.
That's not the case. She can only describe what she does and then a researcher has to design the appropriate controls.
It is her word ( says she's legit) against yours (not legit).
Of course you are free to feel disdain for her but it is not scientific disdain unless she is tested and fails.
The promotional material for the show carries a disclaimer, but you don't have to look far for more brazen quotes -
http://www.shropshirestar.com/news/editors-picks/2014/10/11/psychic-sally-tells-of-her-talents/
She could probably wave away that sort of comment (among many) by saying it was 'in character' if it came to any challenge, probably.
If they can communicate with the dead, why would they get any wrong?
That's not really the question if you are talking about statistical significance.
Why does Prozac get it wrong.
No, that's completely different. Prozac will have to 'find' what it's aiming for and because of that, there is a chance that some of it will be lost. Once a psychic/medium has made contact with a dead person, the contact should be clear. Contact between a dead person and a medium (IF it's possible) should be the same as that of between two living people.
It's a good question that should be answered.
Not if you understand how psi works, in that it is an inconsistent phenomenon. Being in a trance state with decreased frontal lobe activity is not the same as turning on the TV and reporting what you see. You must be familiar with this already?
It would even be hard to know what is anomalous information and what is coming from one's own subconscious and being projected onto the reading. This causes errors.
I'm not saying that mediums are or aren't talking to the dead, btw. I'm just explaining anomalous information.
The reader also has to find (access) what he or she is looking for and we are ignorant of why Prozac only does it some of the time with some of the people.
But apparently above chance occurrence.
You'll forgive me if I point out there's a lot of assertion here with no evidence for 'how psi works'.
A much simpler explanation is available for it's less than impressive accuracy. ;-)
Very odd.
Prozac will be a powder, and this might mean that not all of it will hit the right spot, even if some/a lot of it does 'find' its target. Once a psychic does manage communication with a dead person, that communication should be going until the medium ceases contact.
Yours would just be an explanation without evidence though, so I'm not sure why there is the smug smiley.
I'm assuming that Jefferson Hospital is researching brain states of mediums because they think something other than fraud is occurring.
An assumption yes but a good one as I see it.
Which is something that Sally Morgan certainly isn't when I've seen her on TV in the past.
I don't know the answer to that. An EEG could clarify it.
Chinese Whispers?
We don't really have a clear idea of just what limitations there are when it comes to psi functioning though. Expecting it to be just like how we communicate face to face in the usual fashion is just an assumption. From what I have heard, most psi functionning seems to be based around imagery, symbolism, feelings and even smells, unless the medium goes into a trance and channels the information, which would seem to imply, if true, that they need an earthly body to be able to communicate in an earthly fashion.
Forgive the smug smiley and accept that if there ever is any real evidence for psi, I'll be at least as excited about it as you are. Meanwhile I feel justified in being more than a little sceptical.
I think it's much more complex than that for Prozac. We don't even know what the right
"spot" is. We know very little about depression just as we know very little about how the person accesses the anomalous information. You are describing it like it's Skype.
Mediums ive seen tend to switch around methods of receiving info based on how good they are at cold reading. Sometimes its a "feeling" then "hes stood here" " he's showing me X" Hes telling me X". I can think of a very easy test based on those parameters. Sitter conceals an object/photo the spirit describes what it is. Or a simple question and answer.
"What date did he/she die?" "Which hospital were they in prior to passing /when they passed"
Id like an explanation of how a dead person communicates full stop being that they are dead. It;s rubbish lets be honest.
Obviously many of us believe there is plenty of evidence for psi, that has been dismissed, sabotaged, and in some cases outright lied about, by skeptics.
I'm skeptical of the skeptics and I think the tide is turning.
Magicians and non college educated monitors will no longer be the ones calling the shots on psi.
I refuse to believe that a 'chav' has psychic abilities. pure bs.
Morgan's devoted and hardened followers really are deluded. It's unbelievable that they really think that she's a real psychic.
Why would a chav have less ability than anyone else?
There's not an income or requirement or dress code.
What you believe is irrelevant,evidence cant be denied. The fact there is none for anything you write is telling.
Thats the only way any positive result will show ,when the people who can catch tricksters arent involved.
That's exactly how I feel. The evidence for psi speaks for itself.
Catching tricksters is very 1970's.
Time moves on.