Is Telepathy Real? My Personal Experience with Grandparents and a Tractor

[dacruick]

quite frequently. not always. and, yes (it sounds like such a cliche) there were times when i'd be at work, the phone would ring, and i'd know (by a feeling in my guts) it was her (note: i received many calls at work, at these calls came in at various times during the day).

Think of how many times you'd "know" it was her and it actually wasn't, and then forget that you "knew". To state that you knew it was her means that you would have taken any odds on a bet in that second. If I bet 100:1 on a dollar that it wasn't her would you have taken the bet, right?

My point is that you would only commit it to memory when you successfully guessed that it was her.

 

[Deveno]

Think of how many times you'd "know" it was her and it actually wasn't, and then forget that you "knew". To state that you knew it was her means that you would have taken any odds on a bet in that second. If I bet 100:1 on a dollar that it wasn't her would you have taken the bet, right?

My point is that you would only commit it to memory when you successfully guessed that it was her.

quite possibly this is true (i mean, certainly, the "times i was wrong" i might have forgotten). it just happened enough that i was right, to be noticeable (whereas i had no such luck with anticipating a call from an engineering firm, or one of our firm's regular customers).

i only mention it, to say that this bond with my wife, wasn't entirely a function of proximity. I'm sure there are several plausible explanations, i never made any attempt to notify the local press (or even my circle of friends) of some "amazing ability".

perhaps it is just (in some way) that human patterns of behavior are predictable. i'll admit that's one answer. i remain unconvinced it's the only answer.

i would hesitate to say that i was "guessing". the feeling was more akin to fear, than anything else (or perhaps apprehension is a better word). i don't recall a sizeable number of times i felt the relief i would have felt, had i been wrong (of course, there's the whole bit of how reliable memory is, in the first place).

these are just some of my personal experiences. I'm not so silly as to think these can be extrapolated meaningfully to "how things are, for everyone". these personal experiences have led me to believe that some kind of indirect information transfer could be involved. coincidence is a "non-explanation", it basically asserts "strange things happen" they aren't significant. this might be true, it might not be. i don't have a broad enough view of the totality of human experiences to make that kind of assessment. I'm not sure anyone does (or to turn it around, i would be suspicious of anyone who claimed such).

 

[Evo]

LOL, it reminds me of calls from my ex husband. The phone would ring and I'd ask the girls to get it because it was their dad. I was never wrong. They asked how I knew and I told them that his ring sounded different. Of course it could have been an unusually long lucky streak, but I had the girls convinced that I was Psychic.

 

[Deveno]

i can bend spoons with my fingers. i just say "bend" as I'm bending them. it really works!

oh...and...you're thinking of making a reply to this post right now! (how did i know that?)

 

[Ryan_m_b]

Telepathy and other spooky bonds that people recall are brilliant examples of confirmation bias. Just the other day I was walking with a friend and from out of the blue both of us started at the same time talking about the same topic that had nothing to do with what we were doing nor what we were previously talking about. Some sort of mystical energy pattern or unexplained phenomenon? Whilst I, nor anyone else, cannot rule it out it is far more likely that this is just a product of chance. Throughout our friendship we have spent thousands of hours together, considering the huge abundance of times that we haven't immediately started saying the exact same random thing it diminishes the credibility of this event being special.

It's an inherent faculty of humans to notice the out of the ordinary and the seemingly ordered. Thus we naturally forget the 99.99% of events that are perfectly normal and focus on the 0.01% of weird ones. I had a statistics lecturer who once addressed the "I was thinking of them and then they rang!" phenomenon. He encouraged us that the next time it happened we should make a note of it. The time after that when it happens we should look through our call history and see just how many calls we received where we didn't have some sort of premonition. And that's before we get into the confounding factors of how often you think about certain people, the unconscious/automatic knowledge you have of the most likely time they will call, attaching extra significance to when two coincidences coincide (e.g. a premonition about a bad phone call from Alice before getting a phone call from Alice saying that Bob is in the hospital) etc.

 

[Deveno]

Telepathy and other spooky bonds that people recall are brilliant examples of confirmation bias. Just the other day I was walking with a friend and from out of the blue both of us started at the same time talking about the same topic that had nothing to do with what we were doing nor what we were previously talking about. Some sort of mystical energy pattern or unexplained phenomenon? Whilst I, nor anyone else, cannot rule it out it is far more likely that this is just a product of chance. Throughout our friendship we have spent thousands of hours together, considering the huge abundance of times that we haven't immediately started saying the exact same random thing it diminishes the credibility of this event being special.

It's an inherent faculty of humans to notice the out of the ordinary and the seemingly ordered. Thus we naturally forget the 99.99% of events that are perfectly normal and focus on the 0.01% of weird ones. I had a statistics lecturer who once addressed the "I was thinking of them and then they rang!" phenomenon. He encouraged us that the next time it happened we should make a note of it. The time after that when it happens we should look through our call history and see just how many calls we received where we didn't have some sort of premonition. And that's before we get into the confounding factors of how often you think about certain people, the unconscious/automatic knowledge you have of the most likely time they will call, attaching extra significance to when two coincidences coincide (e.g. a premonition about a bad phone call from Alice before getting a phone call from Alice saying that Bob is in the hospital) etc.

one wonders how much confirmation bias lies underneath our scientific inquiries. i suspect we have a preference for data that confirms our existing theories as being "better" than data that contradicts it (so much so, that when such data is reported, often the first task is to see if the data can be discredited, somehow).

to phrase it loosely: skepticism is fine, but we should, in all fairness, be somewhat skeptical of our own skepticism.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

one wonders how much confirmation bias lies underneath our scientific inquiries. i suspect we have a preference for data that confirms our existing theories as being "better" than data that contradicts it (so much so, that when such data is reported, often the first task is to see if the data can be discredited, somehow).

to phrase it loosely: skepticism is fine, but we should, in all fairness, be somewhat skeptical of our own skepticism.

Well a big part of the scientific method is eliminating things like confirmation bias and other fallacies. We do that with rigorous methodology and a good understanding of statistics.

As for the data that doesn't fit with theory, the reason that this often is treated as probably wrong is because a well established theory has already been shown to make multiple, correct, testable predictions. Occam's razor would suggest that the single piece of data is wrong rather than the already tested theory. However if further review shows that the methodology that produced the data is sound then much more work has to be done to elucidate the meaning of this anomaly.

 

[phinds]

one wonders how much confirmation bias lies underneath our scientific inquiries. i suspect we have a preference for data that confirms our existing theories as being "better" than data that contradicts it (so much so, that when such data is reported, often the first task is to see if the data can be discredited, somehow).
.

Yes, possibly, BUT ... the crucial factor here is that reputable scientists DO try to discredit the data whereas the nut cases and overly credulous do not.

 

[DaveC426913]

There is no proviso about "all other aspects of the theories being equal".

It is not in Occam's razor; it is about invoking it.
One does not resort to Occam's razor until one has two theories that are similar competitors. If they are not similar in plausibility, it's because they have better merits to weight them on - such as one theory falls well within statistical likelihood, while the other has precious little evidence or mechanism to support it.

In fact, I don't think telepathy even qualifies as a theory. It does not have a proposed mechanism by which is could occur. It is merely an hypothesis.

Theory versus hypothesis? No need for Occam's Razor.

The fact remarkable coincidences are statistically common is a very good reason to prefer that explanation over telepathy, on which we have no data whatever.

That fact, though, does not constitute proof that it wasn't telepathy. Because, strictly speaking, there's been no proof it was a coincidence,
just proof of the high probability it was coincidence.

No one is talking proof here.

 

[imiyakawa]

Hi Dwalaine. Welcome to the Physics Forum and thank you for your post.

Unfortunately, even though your experience is interesting, may have really happened just as you described, and similar experiences have been reported by many others, it cannot be accepted as evidence of telepathy, certainly not according to the rules of this forum as I understand them. It must remain a charming anecdote.

The "scientific" literature on Psi is very thin. If you are motivated to explore what little of it I am aware of, you might take a look at some of the books written by Dean Radin.

Respectfully submitted,
Steve

I wouldn't recommend Radin's popular publications for those that are serious about learning the field. His scientific publications are fine, but the meta-analyses that he provides in his popular books are not.

There are those that have a much wider search criteria (hence a larger N, perhaps because they've accounted for foreign publication) but also a stricter inclusion criteria (w.r.t. experimental methodology) that have shown significantly lower effect size that what Radin has reported.

Also, if you look at Dick Bierman's 2000 or 2001 paper, I forget the name, there are many experiments that have had perpetually decreasing ES, perhaps due to improving experimental rigor and decreased file drawer effect/publication bias, which means there's something that's really biasing results from this era but he's included them in his sample.

After reading the field for a long period of time, I've come to the conclusion that the results are disinteresting until there is a central body where the researchers report their intentions to experiment prior to the commencement of the experiment. Without this, there is no way of determining the extent of the file drawer effect. I came to this conclusion after seeing the N to ES plot of Ersby's meta-analysis, massive gap in bottom left (low N low ES). Conclusion: large file drawer problem that has not been accounted for and will not unless they form a central reporting body to eliminate it.

I'm sorry but I'm too lazy to properly reference these claims.

 

[zoobyshoe]

It is not in Occam's razor; it is about invoking it.
One does not resort to Occam's razor until one has two theories that are similar competitors. If they are not similar in plausibility, it's because they have better merits to weight them on - such as one theory falls well within statistical likelihood, while the other has precious little evidence or mechanism to support it.

In fact, I don't think telepathy even qualifies as a theory. It does not have a proposed mechanism by which is could occur. It is merely an hypothesis.

Theory versus hypothesis? No need for Occam's Razor.

Now, Dave, you are violating the Razor by inventing unsupported and overly complicated criteria about when it can be invoked.

"a scientific and philosophic rule that entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily which is interpreted as requiring that the simplest of competing theories be preferred to the more complex or that explanations of unknown phenomena be sought first in terms of known quantities"

-Merriam-Webster's

The razor can be invoked any time someone suggests an unnecessarily complex explanation or one that requires agents or phenomena we can't even prove exist. It can be used to guide you toward one of two competing theories if such exist, but does not require that two competing theories be in play before it can be used. As soon as someone says "telepathy" it's absolutely proper to invoke Occam's Razor to say "Let's stick to phenomena we can prove exist for potential explanations"

No one is talking proof here.

Good. At least that isn't in dispute.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Telepathy and other spooky bonds that people recall are brilliant examples of confirmation bias. Just the other day I was walking with a friend and from out of the blue both of us started at the same time talking about the same topic that had nothing to do with what we were doing nor what we were previously talking about. Some sort of mystical energy pattern or unexplained phenomenon? Whilst I, nor anyone else, cannot rule it out it is far more likely that this is just a product of chance. Throughout our friendship we have spent thousands of hours together, considering the huge abundance of times that we haven't immediately started saying the exact same random thing it diminishes the credibility of this event being special.

It's an inherent faculty of humans to notice the out of the ordinary and the seemingly ordered. Thus we naturally forget the 99.99% of events that are perfectly normal and focus on the 0.01% of weird ones. I had a statistics lecturer who once addressed the "I was thinking of them and then they rang!" phenomenon. He encouraged us that the next time it happened we should make a note of it. The time after that when it happens we should look through our call history and see just how many calls we received where we didn't have some sort of premonition. And that's before we get into the confounding factors of how often you think about certain people, the unconscious/automatic knowledge you have of the most likely time they will call, attaching extra significance to when two coincidences coincide (e.g. a premonition about a bad phone call from Alice before getting a phone call from Alice saying that Bob is in the hospital) etc.

Since I made a post in this thread yesterday with a reference to a zebra I seem to be running across mentions of zebras everywhere. Have you noticed that if you plant the idea of a specific animal in anyone's mind that they will find themselves apparently bombarded by external references to that animal in a short period of time? I've ignored and already forgotten a huge number of orangutans, leopards, pit vipers, elephants, hummingbirds, and goldfish I've had shoved at me on TV and in ads, but I remember every single zebra!

 

[Ryan_m_b]

Since I made a post in this thread yesterday with a reference to a zebra I seem to be running across mentions of zebras everywhere. Have you noticed that if you plant the idea of a specific animal in anyone's mind that they will find themselves apparently bombarded by external references to that animal in a short period of time? I've ignored and already forgotten a huge number of orangutans, leopards, pit vipers, elephants, hummingbirds, and goldfish I've had shoved at me on TV and in ads, but I remember every single zebra!

Ah now I haven't done that but now that you've pointed it out again no doubt I will!

 

[DaveC426913]

The razor can be invoked any time someone suggests an unnecessarily complex explanation or one that requires agents or phenomena we can't even prove exist. It can be used to guide you toward one of two competing theories if such exist, but does not require that two competing theories be in play before it can be used.

It can be, but it is premature to do so, because...

As soon as someone says "telepathy" it's absolutely proper to invoke Occam's Razor to say "Let's stick to phenomena we can prove exist for potential explanations"

... it is a stronger case to say "Evidence please. Proposed mechanism please."

The lack of evidence and the lack of a proposed mechanism (and thus the lack of it constituting an actual theory) is a stronger case than the application of Occam's Razor.

Occam's Razor is a weak argument. It is a "usually" case (as in the simpler theory is usually the right one), whereas "lack of a developed theory" is an "always" case (as in, no theory, no service). A weak argument would be applied only after a stronger argument could not produce results.

 

[FlexGunship]

... it is a stronger case to say "Evidence please. Proposed mechanism please."

The lack of evidence and the lack of a proposed mechanism (and thus the lack of it constituting an actual theory) is a stronger case than the application of Occam's Razor.

Occam's Razor is a weak argument. It is a "usually" case (as in the simpler theory is usually the right one), whereas "lack of a developed theory" is an "always" case (as in, no theory, no service). A weak argument would be applied only after a stronger argument could not produce results.

I can get behind this.

 

[zoobyshoe]

The lack of evidence and the lack of a proposed mechanism (and thus the lack of it constituting an actual theory) is a stronger case than the application of Occam's Razor.

It's like you can't read the definition of Occam's Razor I posted. Occam's Razor is what says the lack of a proposed mechanism makes an explanation moot:

"...or that explanations of unknown phenomena be sought first in terms of known quantities"

Telepathy is unknown. By Occam's Razor we are directed to look for the explanation in terms of Known Quantities.

 

[Whalstib]

Not taking sides but I had an experience that is difficult to explain.

At the behest of a friend I was at a talk at an old magicians house. Seriously! This was an old guy who was a parlor tricks kind of sort who was dabbilng in the occult. It was really corny and I was checking my watch by the second. After giving us his life history he said he wanted to try an experiment. he pointed out an envelope on a shelf said it contained a simple line drawing and asked us to concentrate and draw it.

I wanted out at this point and just quickly drew a child like sailboat with triangular sails on the classic wave pattern sea. Done, can we go..

Well he opens the enevelope and it is EXACTLY like my drawing. I don't show him right away and he starts to critique the others drawing stretching the credibility. One drew a horse so he was tuned into the transportation. He comes to me and his jaw drops! he didn't know what to say.

As we're leaving he's begging me to come back again but I never did.

I can't explain it and I believe it was so spot on it defies chance. Same size etc, clouds in the sky...like I cheated... I tend to doubt most of this kind of thing and haven't thought about this for years.

BTW I know what your thinking but it's true! :D

W

BTW 2 I have an uncanny knack for guessing the time. I can wake up in the middle of the night and guess say 3:49 and then look at the clock and it'll be 3:49! I can do this at all hours and 90% of the time am within a minute or 2 and right on more than half the time.

I swear I just guessed 2:47 and it was 2:45... totally weird!

 

[Jack21222]

BTW 2 I have an uncanny knack for guessing the time. I can wake up in the middle of the night and guess say 3:49 and then look at the clock and it'll be 3:49! I can do this at all hours and 90% of the time am within a minute or 2 and right on more than half the time.

I swear I just guessed 2:47 and it was 2:45... totally weird!

Your first part is a magic trick.

The quoted part above isn't terribly uncanny at all, though I doubt your accuracy is as good as you believe it is. I suspect you're forgetting some of your misses. Most people can guess the time within about 10 minutes or so.

 

[DaveC426913]

Concur with Jack on both counts.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Your first part is a magic trick.

How is it done?

 

[DaveC426913]

How is it done?

Is it sufficient to say that, despite not actually knowing how it's done, it is enough to know that it is a common magic trick in many a magician's arsenal?

 

[Jack21222]

How is it done?

Google "drawing duplication."

 

[Whalstib]

Sorry Jack et al... It wasn't a magic trick.

More information as I recall. This was an older gentleman who was offering a series of lectures of supernatural phenomena, minor occult etc. A friend was very interested and I was bored and it was free so I went. The entire talk (about and hour) was at his modest house in Encinitas CA and was his life story and an attempt to interest us (about 10-15 present) into meeting weekly. I was not interested in this at all. At the end of the talk he handed out paper and pencil and drew our attention to the envelope which had been there the entire time or at least he did not place it there at that moment. Point is is it was not noticed until that moment. From the mention of the envelope to my drawing was about 30 seconds. After about 2-3 minutes he opened the envelope and revealed the imaged (exactly as mine) and left it right where the envelope was. he then started at the opposite end of the group and critiqued the attempts at ESP.

I was last in line and did not show him until he got to me. As I said he was making excuses and stretching credibility down the line as there were drawings of horses and teepees what ever... As I recall he kinda begged me to come back but I never saw him again.

I can't explain it either but do know for certainty is was not a trick and the magician was the one who was most surprised!

I have had not other ESP events in my life aside from being able to predict the time...:D

I am going to take you "scientists" to task for quickly attempting to discount the facts and debunk instead of thinking analytically. Granted I have had a few more years to ponder this and compare notes and the only logical conclusion would be a suggestive scenario, where the "magician" was making subtle remarks about boats etc and betting the odds that some one will come close and he can sell his expertise on the matter, tutor and nurture the fledgling talent. I would search for scientific papers based on this if interested and see how successful such things have been.

At any rate you let your emotion overpower your reason...not good for a scientist...

Adios,

W

 

[Ryan_m_b]

Turn on your TV, log onto YouTube, walk down the street and you can find a magician doing fantastic things. I once had a magician do a similar trick to me, I had to write a name on a card that I'd pulled from a deck and put it in an envelope. He wrote a name and did the same. Then after some talking and handwaving he produced a card that had both the names on it and was a fusion of the two cards (I.e if the two cards were 5 of diamonds and 6 of hearts the card was 5 of hearts). The cards in the envelope became blank.

Now I have no idea how he did it, but does that mean that it was magic? No. I'm not saying it couldn't have been but with all the experience the world has with trickery supernatural explanations just get smaller and smaller.

Now you won't be able to read many scientific papers on the subject because investigating magic tricks is not what scientists do and it would be a waste of time and resources. If you want to figure out how to do it buy a magic book and take a few classes.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Google "drawing duplication."

Thanks. Apparently there's endless variations of this trick, and new ones always being developed. Different magicians develop their own version. You can buy magic packages to learn any particular version. (Kreskin did one once years ago on TV but I don't recall the train of events such that I could figure out exactly how it was done.)

Wahlstib, you, yourself, have to squarely face the fact you gave us:

"At the behest of a friend I was at a talk at an old magicians house. Seriously! This was an old guy who was a parlor tricks kind of sort who was dabbilng in the occult."

The "dabbling in the occult" baloney and his apparent surprise at your drawing were part of the act. He must have been very good, since you're still moved by the experience today.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Turn on your TV, log onto YouTube, walk down the street and you can find a magician doing fantastic things. I once had a magician do a similar trick to me, I had to write a name on a card that I'd pulled from a deck and put it in an envelope. He wrote a name and did the same. Then after some talking and handwaving he produced a card that had both the names on it and was a fusion of the two cards (I.e if the two cards were 5 of diamonds and 6 of hearts the card was 5 of hearts). The cards in the envelope became blank.

Now I have no idea how he did it, but does that mean that it was magic? No. I'm not saying it couldn't have been but with all the experience the world has with trickery supernatural explanations just get smaller and smaller.

Now you won't be able to read many scientific papers on the subject because investigating magic tricks is not what scientists do and it would be a waste of time and resources. If you want to figure out how to do it buy a magic book and take a few classes.

The claim it was a parlor trick on the principle that most of these sorts of things are parlor tricks has almost no persuasive power to someone who has swallowed one hook, line, and sinker. It is soooo much better when you can explain, step by step, how it was done and duplicate the trick before their eyes according to your explanation.

I have one such trick I know about. Here's how it looks when you don't know what's going on:

You're playing cards with friends. During small talk in a break in the game one of the players mentions how they don't like playing with another of the players because that player seems always to be able to read their mind. You ask what they're talking about. They say that, whenever they are concentrating on a particular card, they seem to send the message of that card into the other player's mind. You say, "Prove it!" They go, "OK. I'll even let you pick the card I concentrate on."

The "receiver", the one who knows what card the other is concentrating on, is sent into the other room. 9 cards, 3 rows of 3 cards, are laid out on the table and you are told to pick one. You pick. The other person is called back in, looks at the cards, and instantly picks the one you picked.

If you object that the other person was looking through a crack in the door, or heard what card you said, they will repeat the trick by sending the receiver outside the house or anywhere you choose. If you object that the "sender" is cuing the receiver somehow with eye signals or finger tapping, they repeat the trick with the receiver sitting stock still and them not looking at each other.

You're left without ideas as to how they did it. If they have a good "act" they can do all this with great seriousness, as if they actually have a telepathic bond they, themselves, can't explain. That could be pretty creepy if you are suggestible.

The way it's done is that the "sender" must have some form of rectangular object at their disposal. This could be the deck of cards, a cigarette pack, an iPod, a phone, anything rectangular. The 3 rows of 3 cards naturally get laid out in an overall rectangular arrangement and each card represents a position on the rectangle, say, row 1 card 3, or row 2, card two. The sender casually indicates the position of the selected card by laying a finger on their indicator rectangle in the relative position of the card. The girl who showed me this trick used her iPod. I was paying no attention whatever to the fact she had picked it up and seemed only to be casually holding it, but her accomplice had only to glance at what position she was indicating on it with her thumb to know which card I had told the "sender" to concentrate on.

 

[DaveC426913]

At any rate you let your emotion overpower your reason...

When you're pointing at us, three of your fingers are pointing back toward yourself.

 

[Jack21222]

Sorry Jack et al... It wasn't a magic trick.

More information as I recall. This was an older gentleman who was offering a series of lectures of supernatural phenomena, minor occult etc. A friend was very interested and I was bored and it was free so I went. The entire talk (about and hour) was at his modest house in Encinitas CA and was his life story and an attempt to interest us (about 10-15 present) into meeting weekly. I was not interested in this at all. At the end of the talk he handed out paper and pencil and drew our attention to the envelope which had been there the entire time or at least he did not place it there at that moment. Point is is it was not noticed until that moment. From the mention of the envelope to my drawing was about 30 seconds. After about 2-3 minutes he opened the envelope and revealed the imaged (exactly as mine) and left it right where the envelope was. he then started at the opposite end of the group and critiqued the attempts at ESP.

I was last in line and did not show him until he got to me. As I said he was making excuses and stretching credibility down the line as there were drawings of horses and teepees what ever... As I recall he kinda begged me to come back but I never saw him again.

I can't explain it either but do know for certainty is was not a trick and the magician was the one who was most surprised!

I have had not other ESP events in my life aside from being able to predict the time...:D

I am going to take you "scientists" to task for quickly attempting to discount the facts and debunk instead of thinking analytically. Granted I have had a few more years to ponder this and compare notes and the only logical conclusion would be a suggestive scenario, where the "magician" was making subtle remarks about boats etc and betting the odds that some one will come close and he can sell his expertise on the matter, tutor and nurture the fledgling talent. I would search for scientific papers based on this if interested and see how successful such things have been.

At any rate you let your emotion overpower your reason...not good for a scientist...

Adios,

W

Look, I studied magic for about 4 years, and I was pretty serious about it. I'd shut myself in my room for many hours every day practicing, and I had about two dozen books on magic tricks. I'd easily spend 10 hours a week or more at the local magic shop. Mentalism wasn't my specialty (I focused on close-up card and coin magic), but I've read and seen plenty of mentalism tricks. This was a magic trick.

There is somebody here letting emotion overpower reason, but it ain't us.

 

[DaveC426913]

I can't explain it either but do know for certainty is was not a trick

And know know for certain it was a trick how?

I am going to take you "scientists" to task for quickly attempting to discount the facts and debunk instead of thinking analytically.

We have accounted for the facts, and have thought analytically. i.e. not gotten swept up in a fantastical explanation.

the only logical conclusion would be a suggestive scenario, where the "magician" was making subtle remarks about boats etc and betting the odds that some one will come close...

So, a trick.

 

[FlexGunship]

How is it done?

James Randi did a version of this trick live on Barbara Walters (or some similar show). There's a YouTube clip of it.

 

[Whalstib]

Physics Forum must be what the Inquisitions were like.

Anything that is out of the prescribed paradigm is dismissed and explained away no matter how anecdotal.

Curious how most were content with the information provided and leapt to a conclusion. None of you bothered to ask more about...to investigate...apply the scientific method?

I think this quote fits quite nicely don't you?:

"There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments, and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance—that principle is contempt prior to investigation."

I'd be happy to entertain questions if someone has an idea and does not just want to proclaim they KNOW what happened.

W

 

[zoobyshoe]

James Randi did a version of this trick live on Barbara Walters (or some similar show). There's a YouTube clip of it.

Meh. It's ten minutes of him reproducing Uri Geller tricks WITHOUT EXPLAINING THEM!

 

[DaveC426913]

Curious how most were content with the information provided and leapt to a conclusion.

Actually, I don't think anyone made any conclusions about what actually happened to you. (We know we cannot do this)

What they did was point out that what you described is seen lots of times and known to be a common parlor trick.

I'd be happy to entertain questions if someone has an idea and does not just want to proclaim they KNOW what happened.

W

No one knows what actually happened - including you.

The point is that there is nothing to explain. What you described can nicely be explained by the use of a common parlor trick. It fits well within existing phenomena.

Here's a question for you: why are you convinced it cannot be the same as similar parlor tricks? Nothing about your description is beyond it. Going to claim to be rational?

 

[zoobyshoe]

physics forum must be what the inquisitions were like.

No one expects the spanish inquisition!

 

[Ryan_m_b]

Physics Forum must be what the Inquisitions were like.

Anything that is out of the prescribed paradigm is dismissed and explained away no matter how anecdotal.

Curious how most were content with the information provided and leapt to a conclusion. None of you bothered to ask more about...to investigate...apply the scientific method?

I think this quote fits quite nicely don't you?:

"There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments, and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance—that principle is contempt prior to investigation."

I'd be happy to entertain questions if someone has an idea and does not just want to proclaim they KNOW what happened.

W

Er...you are the one proclaiming to know here. The scientific method works like this;

-Observation of a phenomenon
-Research of everything known about said phenomenon
-Hypothesis constructed from this knowledge
-Experimentation to test hypothesis
-Conclusion

Now we cannot test any hypothesis we come up with regarding your anecdote. It's not like we can go back and none of us are going to leave our jobs and homes to track down this mysterious occult man. What we can do is think rationally about what you have told us. You have described something that has happened to many people and seems like a very well known magic trick. There is no known method (even after decades of diligent study) by which supernatural powers exist. So combining these two things it is reasonable to conclude that it was probably just a magic trick. We can never say for certain obviously but there is nothing more we can do. Unless you have more to tell?

It always does amuse me and also makes me a bit sad when people try to lecture others (some of whom actually are scientists) about what science is and what they should be doing, only to get it completely wrong. Put it another way, if I told you this story;

"I was driving my car this morning and it just suddenly stopped. Apparently it had run out of petrol but it couldn't have because I filled it up the night before and it hasn't been driven since. There is no way anyone else drove it, there's nothing wrong with the car (no leak or anything) and I definitely filled it up."

What would you conclude? Would it be that the most likely explanation (assuming I was telling the truth) is that I am mistaken about when I last filled it up or perhaps there is something wrong with the car that I haven't found? Would it ever occur to you that there must be some supernatural explanation because if everything I have said is true then I should not have run out of petrol? How would you feel if I insisted that it was some sort of magic that removed the petrol?

This is how your anecdote appears to me. Something that sounds like a perfectly normal thing to happen for which there are a myriad of natural explanations but you are insisting it cannot be any of these for no rational reason.

 

[FlexGunship]

"I was driving my car this morning and it just suddenly stopped. Apparently it had run out of petrol but it couldn't have because I filled it up the night before and it hasn't been driven since. There is no way anyone else drove it, there's nothing wrong with the car (no leak or anything) and I definitely filled it up."

What would you conclude?

Open letter to all paranormal claimants;

This is exactly what you sound like. Every time.

-Sir Flex of the Gunship

 

[Whalstib]

Ryan says: " Something that sounds like a perfectly normal thing to happen for which there are a myriad of natural explanations but you are insisting it cannot be any of these for no rational reason.

I simply said the explanations provided so far don't work. The scientific method has to be a 2 way street. I propose one thing you come up with an explanation. As the only observer of the event I am in the unique position of being judge and jury. If I say a particular explanation doesn't work you can't just give up and say I'm irrational. I guess you can but that isn't very scientific.

You are free to ask me question and propose explanations and discuss it with me. I have already provided one "rational explanation" myself but am unconvinced of this being so.

Since I am not claiming any extraordinary powers I have little at stake in this. I have come up with another real obvious explanation.

How about this:

Magician has a group of people assembled. Gives a talk and has allusions to something peppered through out. What ever. He does in fact have a line drawing in an envelope on a shelf out of his reach. We are prompted to draw a simple line drawing. This sounds complex but how many variations of this could you come up with? A house, a tree, a boat, a car, a dog...etc. I think there are a limited number of motifs one could bet on appearing in the group. Magician has a series of alternate envelopes with a variety drawings. Say 10 envelopes and 15 people drawing simple objects...I'd like my odds of getting a match. As people draw perhaps there are mirrors or there is no concern about secrecy because the envelope is is plain site and he has already told you it has already been drawn. At any rate he catches a glimpse of a drawing and makes sure he palms an envelope with a similar drawing to open if the original is far off any matches.

Frankly I would have to say it didn't work this way. If I do have a 6th sense it's about "used car salesmen" and this guy didn't come off like that. He was a nice old gentleman who was open and polite and engaging. I found the topic boring but that isn't a reflection of the person. I still think based on a myriad of other data that he was just playing and this happened to alls surprise.

If he was trying to pull a fast one it would not have been at the very end of his talk when the only variable of time would work against him. he only had a couple of minutes to attempt to persuade me to return a task at which he failed. Who knows if he had more time what would have materialized. Also as I recall there were more simple drawings, a tree that's a circle and a stick drawn by a much more eager participant.

I'm still 95% convinced this was not a trick set up in some Randi type deal. I'm sorry if I can't convey more of why I believe this, you will have to accept this...or not...

W

 

[zoobyshoe]

-Research nothing about said phenomenon but find convenient simple safe explanation

How do we research telepathy? Telepathy is unknown to science: all scientific attempts to study it lead nowhere: scientists can't find a subject whom they can prove has telepathy.

Prove you have telepathy and well study you:

I am looking at some objects on my desk. What are they?

 

[Office_Shredder]

Batteries and your cell phone charger

 

[Ryan_m_b]

Ryan says: " Something that sounds like a perfectly normal thing to happen for which there are a myriad of natural explanations but you are insisting it cannot be any of these for no rational reason.

I simply said the explanations provided so far don't work. The scientific method has to be a 2 way street. I propose one thing you come up with an explanation. As the only observer of the event I am in the unique position of being judge and jury. If I say a particular explanation doesn't work you can't just give up and say I'm irrational. I guess you can but that isn't very scientific.

No, you are not "judge or jury". Look I am happy to have this conversation but please drop the pretence that you are being an advocate of the scientific method. You really aren't; there is no such thing as a judge or jury simply because you were there and I have not said you are being irrational.

If you want me to break down what I think I shall do so;

Observation
- A man sealed an envelope and asked you to draw something. You drew something else which turned out to be exactly what was in the envelope. The old man appeared shocked and happy.

What is currently known that could explain said phenomenon?
- You are mistaken/lying? Possible but I will give you the benefit of the doubt.
- Coincidence? Unlikely but possible.
- Magic trick? It is similar to other magic tricks that are and have been rife throughout all forms of media for a long time.

Conclusion
- Whilst I can never be certain there is nothing to suggest that a magic trick is not the answer. It fits everything that you have said assuming that you are telling the truth or are not mistaken. There is no need to invoke an unknown factor as an answer.

How about this:

Magician has a group of people assembled. Gives a talk and has allusions to something peppered through out. What ever. He does in fact have a line drawing in an envelope on a shelf out of his reach. We are prompted to draw a simple line drawing. This sounds complex but how many variations of this could you come up with? A house, a tree, a boat, a car, a dog...etc. I think there are a limited number of motifs one could bet on appearing in the group. Magician has a series of alternate envelopes with a variety drawings. Say 10 envelopes and 15 people drawing simple objects...I'd like my odds of getting a match. As people draw perhaps there are mirrors or there is no concern about secrecy because the envelope is is plain site and he has already told you it has already been drawn. At any rate he catches a glimpse of a drawing and makes sure he palms an envelope with a similar drawing to open if the original is far off any matches.

Frankly I would have to say it didn't work this way. If I do have a 6th sense it's about "used car salesmen" and this guy didn't come off like that. He was a nice old gentleman who was open and polite and engaging. I found the topic boring but that isn't a reflection of the person. I still think based on a myriad of other data that he was just playing and this happened to alls surprise.

That could indeed be an answer. As for the guys attitude are you really not convinced that there are people in this world that are good enough actors (especially trained and experienced magicians) to fool you? You may not agree but surely you appreciate that your assertion based on your own instinct has no weight? See my example above containing my assertions regarding a car.

If he was trying to pull a fast one it would not have been at the very end of his talk when the only variable of time would work against him. he only had a couple of minutes to attempt to persuade me to return a task at which he failed. Who knows if he had more time what would have materialized. Also as I recall there were more simple drawings, a tree that's a circle and a stick drawn by a much more eager participant.

Perhaps his goal wasn't to flog you something but just to build up his magicians reputation. Or perhaps it was to convince you to sit back down so he could sell you something but it failed.

I'm still 95% convinced this was not a trick set up in some Randi type deal. I'm sorry if I can't convey more of why I believe this, you will have to accept this...or not...

W

It's statements like this that are putting you into conflict with others in this thread. Everything you say seems to come as a veneer to some supernatural belief. As I've already said we can't absolutely rule out the supernatural (we can't absolutely rule out anything) but there has never been any evidence for it and there is no situation where supernatural is an appropriate answer. If what you describe didn't resemble a well known magic trick and there didn't seem to be an explanation all we could say is "I don't know". It is irrational and unscientific to suggest a supernatural answer.

 

[FlexGunship]

I'm still 95% convinced this was not a trick set up in some Randi type deal. I'm sorry if I can't convey more of why I believe this, you will have to accept this...or not...

W

This is very telling. At this point you can officially stop claiming to hold any scientific clout.

You should read up on the "Carlos" incident in Australia.

In[/PLAIN] 1988, Randi tested the gullibility of the media by perpetrating a fraud of his own. By teaming up with Australia's 60 Minutes program and by releasing a fake press package, he built up publicity for a spirit channeler named Carlos who was actually artist Jose Alvarez, a friend of Randi's. Randi would tell him what to say through sophisticated radio equipment. The media and the public were taken in, as no reporter bothered to check Carlos's credentials and history, which were all fabricated. The hoax was exposed on 60 Minutes; Carlos and Randi explained how they pulled it off.

Read a few books about James Randi and you'll see why he's such a high-value member of our species. He would routinely go out of his way to fool people like you as hard as he possibly could for the sole purpose of proving that you're easy to fool. And he would smile, have a laugh, and go again.

I'm easy to fool, too, which is why I carry my skepticism in my front pocket with me everywhere I go.

 

[DaveC426913]

Let's remove the chaff in the middle and just look at your first paragraph and your last paragraph.

The scientific method has to be a 2 way street. I propose one thing you come up with an explanation. As the only observer of the event I am in the unique position of being judge and jury. If I say a particular explanation doesn't work you can't just give up and say I'm irrational. I guess you can but that isn't very scientific.

I'm still 95% convinced this was not a trick set up in some Randi type deal. I'm sorry if I can't convey more of why I believe this, you will have to accept this...or not...

You have a belief.
Which you cannot explain.
But are almost certain is true.

You want us to provide explanations.
Which you have already eliminated.

Hmm...

 

[Whalstib]

No, you are not "judge or jury".

Ok poor choice of words...you guys are touchy and leap upon phases instead of enjoying the big picture. Simply I am the only one who observed and can comment intelligently on others ideas.

- Magic trick? It is similar to other magic tricks that are and have been rife throughout all forms of media for a long time.

This is where your argument falters as you have not provided ANY. Several have been put forth with a dismissive air of authority but these I rejected as they were far off the mark

Everything you say seems to come as a veneer to some supernatural belief.

Have I provided any supernatural explanations? NO. You are assuming and painting me as you prefer to make it easier to dismiss.

face it you are uncomfortable with anything you can't explain and are politely casting mud my way as I refuse to tote the company line and say there is definitely a rational explanation, all the while down playing my several rational explanations. It is assumed I live in a vacuum and am gullible and of course there is no way to refute this on my end.

Once again the default mode here is hard core skepitism that is a good thing in general but IMO it should not be the only tool and in fact can blind some.

This is just idle chat but no one besides myself has come up with an original though and simply recycled well known debunking from 20 years ago.

Randi is as much a charlatan as Geller. He never brought anything new to the table and his act of arm waving some how appeals to the intellectual. His reactions make it obvious he was duped for a long time as his audience must have been because he only refutes obviuos frauds and performs parlor tricks.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

Ok poor choice of words...you guys are touchy and leap upon phases instead of enjoying the big picture. Simply I am the only one who observed and can comment intelligently on others ideas.

I wasn't just responding to your choice of words, I was responding to your idea. The fact that you were there in no way makes you the only one who can "comment intelligently on others ideas". Why on Earth would you think this? If I told you that I just saw a man drop down dead does that mean that I am the only one who can comment on Bob's answer that the man was killed by flying aliens? Of course not!

This is where your argument falters as you have not provided ANY. Several have been put forth with a dismissive air of authority but these I rejected as they were far off the mark

You are denying that such magic tricks exist? Here's a good link for you http://www.skepdic.com/sealedenvelope.html

Have I provided any supernatural explanations? NO. You are assuming and painting me as you prefer to make it easier to dismiss.

You are suggesting that it wasn't a trick and it wasn't coincidence and you weren't lying or mistaken. So what is your explanation?

face it you are uncomfortable with anything you can't explain and are politely casting mud my way as I refuse to tote the company line and say there is definitely a rational explanation, all the while down playing my several rational explanations. It is assumed I live in a vacuum and am gullible and of course there is no way to refute this on my end.

I am not uncomfortable at all with saying "I don't know" however in this case everything you have said suggests that it is a common magic trick

Once again the default mode here is hard core skepitism that is a good thing in general but IMO it should not be the only tool and in fact can blind some.

So what do you want? That we, on the basis of an account of something that is indistinguishable in description from a magic trick, run off to find this old man? If you were looking for a discussion based on how it could have happened you could have engineered the whole thing far better without coming across as someone who has already made up their own mind. Seriously, how are people meant to have a constructive conversation with you if you insist that it was definitely not a magic trick based on...nothing.

This is just idle chat but no one besides myself has come up with an original though and simply recycled well known debunking from 20 years ago.

What do you mean here? What exactly are you after when you present a situation that appears to be exactly like a magic trick but you are insisting it isn't?

Randi is as much a charlatan as Geller. He never brought anything new to the table and his act of arm waving some how appeals to the intellectual. His reactions make it obvious he was duped for a long time as his audience must have been because he only refutes obviuos frauds and performs parlor tricks.

Please substantiate this claim with evidence, consider that an official warning. James Randi spends his time debunking supernatural and magic claims, in what way is he as much a charlatan as the thoroughly discredited scam artist Uri Geller?

 

[Whalstib]

You have a belief.
Which you cannot explain.
But are almost certain is true.

You want us to provide explanations.
Which you have already eliminated.
.

Dave...I don't think you paid much attention to the explanations, they were feeble and far off the mark by any measure. It was as if I said something fantastic like "I saw a 3 legged fish" and your rebuttal was "Birds don't have 3 legs, here's a picture of a bird"

And now you are suspicious because I point out it is a picture of a bird not even fish.

Hmmm.. indeed.

What is being employed here is a misdirection where the "facts" can be ignored and the focus is put upon the presenter; Me.

if it would make any of you happy I will clearly state the event was not supernatural in the sense of the "magician" conveying a thought.

I'm pretty well convinced the event is explained by one of the 2 methods I put forth. I stated I doubt the trickster scenario based on unprovable information, my direct observation of the "magicians" character. Leaving suggestion, coincidence and the logical explanation.

But I'm not entirely convinced... You really had to have been there. Trust me it was not like a Rani trick... it was not set up as such nor play out as such. Feel free to quote this passage and create an entire argument around it and ignore the rest...just know it's obvious what you're doing.

BTW But I should also say this was Encinitas Ca in the 1980's. CA fruitcake capital. I worked at a vegetarian restaurant where occult kook was the daily special. There is no way you can build up a skepticism as I have until you spend months and years around these poor souls who actually claim car repairs with quartz crystals, or use pendulums to chose a meal or search for channeler crystals that Atlantis encoded there entire civilization upon. And are serious!

Ya had to be there!

W

 

[FlexGunship]

Trust me it was not like a Rani trick... it was not set up as such nor play out as such.

Yeah, Randi is only the world's greatest illusionist. It's pretty unlikely that the guy you know could even be compared to Randi.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i2-QwMXTrHY

You're digging yourself a very deep hole. We've all seen impressive tricks, but you're not doing yourself any favors by continually claiming it wasn't a trick.

 

[Whalstib]

Yeah, Randi is only the world's greatest illusionist. It's pretty unlikely that the guy you know could even be compared to Randi.

EXACTLY!

And on the examples you provide Randi is obviously holding the paper and drawing the image as BW describes it.

If the "worlds greatest illusionist" can only pull this off in such a clumsy fashion what about "my guy"?

W

 

[Ryan_m_b]

This thread has gone far enough. Magic tricks exist, magic does not, telepathy does not.