No. 118 ([info]essentialsaltes) wrote in [info]skepticaldebate,
@ 2006-01-04 10:51:00
Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend!  Next Entry
Hindsight is 20/20, Second Sight is Baloney
Apparently, Sylvia Browne was on George Noory's radio show last night. When the topic of the lucky surviving WV miners came up, she said she knew it all along. Of course, what she knew was wrong, because all but one of them was, in fact, dead.

The media is taking lumps from all directions from outraged, grieving families, from its watchdogs and from itself. But no one will take Sylvia to task for her fantasies passed off as fact. Her own reaction was apparently to bash the media for making her post-diction look foolish.

Sure, telephone psychics are all labelled 'for entertainment value only', but how many people disregard that warning and waste their money? Enough that Miss Cleo alone had racked up $1 Billion with a B during three years of operation. Were people that desperate for entertainment? And Sylvia doesn't say that her services are for entertainment only. It's the genuine article, except (of course) when she's wrong. But what have you got to lose, other than $700 for a 30 minute phone call?

It's not just the money that pisses me off, but the way psychics prey on the fragile and despairing. Just ask Marc Klaas, father of Polly Klaas:

"I have very strong feelings about psychics," Klaas said Tuesday. "They're part of a second wave of predators. The first wave is the person who takes the child. The second is the ambulance-chasing lawyers, the exploitation journalists and psychics. She came up with the same crap that we heard from every other psychic we talked to. She said she saw rolling hills and green trees and a babbling brook. She described nearly every spot in northern California."


Or perhaps you might ask Elizabeth Smart's uncle about his dealings with PSI-TECH, who declared that Elizabeth was dead? Or imagine yourself in Elizabeth's shoes; imagine that psychics have told your family and the police that you're dead; imagine them searching for bodies on a psychic wild goose-chase, while you're being sexually assaulted by a nutball.

Everyone yells at the media when they get it wrong; why do the psychics get a free pass?


Edited to Add: Partial Transcript from Fox News:

Noory: "Had you been on the program today, would [you] have felt if — because they heard no sound — that this was a very gloomy moment — and that they might have all died?"

Browne: "No. I knew they were going to be found. I hate people that say something after the fact."



(Post a new comment)


[info]theamaranth
2006-01-04 07:24 pm UTC (link)
Everyone yells at the media when they get it wrong; why do the psychics get a free pass?

The news is SUPPOSED to tell us the truth.

i think most people realize most TV psychics are actors.


DAMN, i am going to call my grandmother RIGHT NOW. she always made me sit down and watch that bitch Sylvia when she gets on Montel. "Oh look, this woman knows what she's talking about".

and i'm like "Grannie, while i believe in ESP, these people are frauds."

HA! Ha, grannie!

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]anthonyjaycee
2006-01-05 03:17 am UTC (link)
I like your viewpoint-- you critique frauds and/or showboats, but you do so because of the fradulance or the attempts at exploitation... not through a blanket cynical dismissal of the abilities themselves.

Analyzed like a true scientist. I think Carl Sagan would be proud. :)

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]theamaranth
2006-01-05 05:04 pm UTC (link)
LOL thanks.

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]baron_army
2006-01-04 07:26 pm UTC (link)
Is there any way to get our grubby little mits on the transcripts from the show? The "prediction" (if you want to call it that) is some good material for JREF.

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]essentialsaltes
2006-01-04 07:51 pm UTC (link)
The link to Noory's show appears to offer audio files of the show, but no transcript.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]baron_army
2006-01-05 01:13 am UTC (link)
I passed your post on to James Randi and he's wondering whom to credit. Would you be willing to send your name, alias, etc. to me via email?

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]essentialsaltes
2006-01-05 03:15 am UTC (link)
Email sent to your LJ email account, though the credit is all due to cambler and his/her/its original post to the atheist community, which is where I learned of it.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]baron_army
2006-01-05 01:23 pm UTC (link)
Thanks for the info. I passed it on.

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]dogofthefuture
2006-01-04 07:33 pm UTC (link)
Erm. Let's not get too excited, though. Yes, Sylvia Browne is an evil bitch who trades in human misery - in being "right" about this one, though, we should remember that 12 people died to prove our point.

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]phenyx
2006-01-04 08:46 pm UTC (link)
It's a perfect case study in being unambigously wrong. Few things are clearer than life or death. There's no wiggle room for the merchants of pseudoscience and claptrap.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]dogofthefuture
2006-01-04 09:07 pm UTC (link)
Agreed. But it would be unseemly to be gleeful over the deaths of 12 people because it makes us right.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]baron_army
2006-01-05 01:18 am UTC (link)
I don't think anyone is shamefully gleeful (or in any other form for that matter) over what happened. This appearance and her comments in regard to the unfortunate affair is just a distinct example of Sylvia Brown being wrong, there being recorded evidence of it, and her trying to cover-up what she said. She was playing the odds based upon the news she had just heard. Hell, I could be a "psychic" based upon the morning new.

Newscaster: Last night, the Falcons beat the Raider 21 to 20.
Me: I knew that all along.

See how easy it is. I'm a freakin' psychic!

What one who is motivated needs to do is take those predictions she made for 2006 and keep track of how many she "hit".

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]essentialsaltes
2006-01-04 09:15 pm UTC (link)
Agreed, though I note that it was she who first involved this tragic life-or-death situation in a parlor trick.

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]anthonyjaycee
2006-01-04 10:58 pm UTC (link)
Saying "all psychics are predators" looks essentially just like saying "all black people are criminals." It's easy to find anecdotal evidence of "badness" in _any_ group.

In either case, the statement says more about the speaker than that which the speaker is speaking about.

Supporting "good" over "evil" is a reasonable enough endeavor, but it's tricky to separate them accurately, I admit...

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]baron_army
2006-01-05 01:22 am UTC (link)
Sure, saying all psychics are bad is a little rough. A more accurate one would be: all psychics who take other peoples money -- whether it is through payment or "donation" are predators. That statement is far more accurate.

I'm certain there are people out there who think they have some kind of a gift who only want to help people and are not predators. Those who "talk to the dead" and other such nonsense and charging for it are only taking advantage of the emotions of innocent and misguided people.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]anthonyjaycee
2006-01-05 03:07 am UTC (link)
Ah, _now_ we get to the real heart of the groupthink bias that often shows up for this topic.

You (and perhaps many others like you) are making an unproven assumption. You used the term "nonsense" with regard to talking to the dead and such. That is not a statement of logical assessement, that is a statement of _opinion_.

By definition, you cannot have comprehensive logical proof that _no one_ can talk to the dead, that no one has psychic abilities, and so forth. That's called attempting to prove a negative, and that's not actually doable. Whether you realize it or not, you are making an assessment based on whatever your own personal "trusted experts" have said, and you are assuming that their perception represents the intellectual consensus of the whole of humanity.

Furthermore, another note-- if a person believes that he or she is psychic, and/or believes that he or she can speak with the dead, and then charges for such services, then you can't really assess legal blame to the person simply for that... law doesn't work at the "action taken" level, it looks at any given case more deeply and subjectively. The person's intentions may very well be in the right place. If you're going to prosecute on the grounds of ignorance, then you have to be able to _prove_ that you are right... which goes back to that "proving a negative" thing.

A parallel argument can actually be made for many human endeavors outside of the hard sciences... including the soft sciences. What proof do we have that psychiatry works? What proof do we have that a creative entity is of any inherent value? Yet many people make a living off of helping people through subjective, unproveable means, or through creating and selling art and entertainment. Should everyone offer "your money back" if the service or creative entity does not live up to the expected potential?

You're opening a very slippery slope with your overgeneralization here. My personal opinion on the matter is that there are a great many things that work and/or provide significant emotional benefit to people, and that we benefit for having them all around, regardless of the opinions of miscellaneous cynics. Why must the cynic be convinced, if the general populace is happy enough? The cynic is not always inherently right.

I do respect your anger, but it is misdirected-- prosecute people with malicious intent only, in accordance to whatever a jury agrees upon. If your particular groupthink has an unproven belief that it is absolutely impossible to speak to the dead, then it is up to anyone following that groupthink to remain angry and jaded, or to broaden his or her mind,. (In this case, for example, I'd start by reading books by and about people who have had out-of-body experiences and near-death-experiences, and comparing their independent reports. Those, like many other sources, provide enough information for any given person to make better informed assessments about matters pertaining to the spiritual.)

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]baron_army
2006-01-05 01:30 pm UTC (link)
Here is the truth of the matter no much how much some fantasy prone individual might believe otherwise:

There are no psychics. It's all crap. It was when Nostradamus was writing. It is when Sylvia Brown opens her mouth and it will continue to be long after the current crop of believers are gone.

As for proving a negative. Prove a postitive or find ANYONE who can. Then you could be a goddamned Nobel Peace prize winner. You could win a million dollars! Hell, everyone would know your name.

The truth is people have tried and failed -- repeatedly -- to test for psychic ability and nothing beyond pure chance has ever been demonstrated.

Unfortunately, the opinion you express is the direct reason unfortunate and gullible people continue to be taken advantage of to this day.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]baron_army
2006-01-05 01:33 pm UTC (link)
I forgot to include:

If one doesn't like the creative entity they puchased or otherwise consumed -- they can, and often do, get their "money back" by selling said artwork, CD, book, or whatever. My girlfriend just did it with some CDs for a band that doesn't care for. Include schisters along with artists is hardly a supportable arguement and nothing more than an obfuscation of the real issue -- you believe there are or may be psychic. I know there aren't. If I'm ever proven wrong, I'll eat my hat.

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]anthonyjaycee
2006-01-05 07:12 pm UTC (link)
I honestly don't know what planet you're living on, or what sources you're listening to. There is _plenty_ of evidence out there to support psychic abilities. And there are _tons_ of people who believe in phenomena such as prayer... look at how many people in the world support faith through organized religions, let alone spirituality in general.

Most of the world has already seen these types of things proven their satisfaction. You don't represent the majority with your opinion-- you represent an ever shrinking community of cynics.

I can provide adequate proof for myself, for other highly intelligent and scientific people around me, and for gullible (your definition) people out there as well (I guess you mean people who believe in such things with far less documented evidence than I needed).

Do you not understand the concept of cynicism? You are not a skeptic. You are a cynic. You aren't _looking_ for proof. You're _seeing_ proof, and you're _rejecting_ it.

If you stop being a cynic and start being a skeptic, you'll be able to find documented scientific proof that will satisfy you. I went through that transition in 2002. I didn't become gullible. I just became more scientific about these things, rather than listening to what cynics who were _less_ scientific than me had to say.

Let me name a few places where you can find evidence of proof and/or reasonable theories that explain paranormal or psychic abilities better than Newtonian physics does. Let's see...

In terms of books: The Holographic Universe, The Field, Astral Dynamics, The Secret of the Soul (tons of OBE accounts). In terms of testimonials, go to any religious community and ask the leaders and/or the devout followers what they think, and what they've felt, and what they believe. Oh, or go to the science section of your local bookstore and read some books that talk about God. Look into what the scientists in What The Bleep have to say... read some of their books.

You're not going to find scientific proof that one religion is "right" and that another one is "wrong." But there's plenty of evidence that our existing scientific theories are incomplete. Cynicism exists off of the presupposition that "I know it all already" and that "most people are guillible." Guess what-- in reality, the _most_ gullible people are the ones who are the _least_ open to other people's perspectives, evidence, and understandings... because they are the ones who have _already_ been tricked by a sucker. (In religion, they call people like that fundamentalists.)

The only proof I see here is that you've already been convinced of cynicism, and that you're in denial. If you were sure you were right, then you wouldn't need to make blanket, unproven, insecure statements like "it's all crap." Nothing against you personally, but your reaction pattern follows the textbook psychology of a person in denial.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]baron_army
2006-01-05 08:40 pm UTC (link)
No. I am not a cynic because I know something to be false because it is false. I've examined the real evidence -- not some untestable annecdotal garbage spouted by some newage knucklehead. Accepting the truth does not make one a fool but denying the truth does.

Furthermore, I don't give one hoot about how many "theories" there are out there about what ever fantasy-laced lunacy people want to pass off as reality. I repeat what I stated earlier -- prove the positive, find one instance of a repeatable and demonstratable occurance of a real "psychic". You can't. You won't.

I'll never eat my hat.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]anthonyjaycee
2006-01-06 05:53 am UTC (link)
The sources I mentioned provide a proof by corollary, given that they provide scientific evidence in support of theories which underlie psychic abilities.

I won't universally defend any given "official psychic" (given the massive potential for faking abilities, and how human nature often tends to lead people to deceive others), because psychic abilities are not something that "some people have and other people don't." Everyone has them, just like everyone can pray-- the basis behind thoughts and intentions affecting things at a distance is even accepted in some scientific circles, in accordance with zero point field theory (you'd know that if you read The Field, and/or checked the appropriate sources that it cites). There are also continuing scientific experiments that seek to prove or disprove action at a distance, and much solid evidence in favor of action at a distance exists.

But only a well-informed skeptic would know about these things, I suppose. :P

There is a book where a scientist tested John Edward's abilities to talk with the dead, comparing his results carefully against chance. The results were at least somewhat compelling... I looked through it back in 2002, so it's been a while since it came out. But that should provide some _real_ real evidence for you to examine.

I don't generally concern myself with proving or disproving psychics specifically... the subfield is not very scientifically elegant in and of itself. I'm more interested in checking, reading about proof of, and testing out new scientific theories that explain _all_ sorts of paranormal phenomena, at a broader and more comprehensive level.

When you've expanded your evidence checking to the skeptic examination of evidence for church reported miracles, prayer experiments materialization, knowledge obtained through OBEs that could not have been known otherwise, and materialization of physical objects, then we can talk. As it stands now, you still look to be about where I stood in about mid 2002, in my investigations into all of this.

As a side note... I'm perfectly willing to accept the possibility that all the evidence you have examined thus far did in fact come from charlatans. But there's no way to prove the non-existence of psychic abilities and paranormal phenomena conclusively through any finite examination of evidence. I've thrown away _tons_ of bad evidence, and plenty of "very good... but not _extremely_ conclusive" evidence, in my own investigations. There's still plenty of evidence that remains. The books that I mentioned before are very good at cutting through the massive quantities of fakery out there, and focusing on far more credible and far better documented evidence instead.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, after all. But there still is extraordinary evidence. I suggest starting off with The Holographic Universe-- real scientists only. We can cast the likes of Miss Cleo and Sylvia Browne aside immediately... this is the big leagues of proof and serious science.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]baron_army
2006-01-06 02:54 pm UTC (link)

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]alcira
2006-01-25 05:25 am UTC (link)
Hell... I'll have to say a few things 1) some people know more about psychic stuff than others 2) life is very boring sometimes, 3) it can be as natural as bodily functions to some people 4) Sylvia Browne is impulsive, misuses the media to ends that are exploitive, and can't stand the humility of using her shtick for free.

Now, I think some of you aren't backing up your points very well but I'm not saying that to be judgemental. The miner thing was wrong. You don't walk around telling people private things about their health problems. Sylvia Browne gets her anatomy wrong because she didn't make an effort to take a class on the subject. There are ethical guidelines to this stuff I'm sure. Another faux pas both the bullshiter John Edwards and Sylvia Browne do is being visible in the first place.

Larry King did call them on their embellishments. I will not attack nor evade anybody but everybody truly has the right to their spirituality. Atheists can't control everybody's individual belief in God even through medicating them out of it.

To some people that would make them miserable. If you think about that for a moment and remember family friends of yours who have escaped those countries so that they can practice their faith here in the US, it's why people try to escape countries that do not tolerate religious practice although it seems this debate forgot that America was founded on religious freedom as well as that of speech, which is to be used wisely.

(Reply to this)


Create an Account
Forgot your login or password?
Login w/ OpenID
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…