John Edwards a fake or the real deal?

[FlexGunship]

Faith and hard work are not mutually exclusive, though.

True, but "cold reading to talk to the dead" is a bit like:

• a politician practicing lying
• a middle school teacher wearing condoms to class each day
• a driving instructor passing on the right
• or a professional DJ only listening to Britney Spears in the car.

Though these acts don't specifically mean that the person is actually lying about his or her job performance, it certainly should cause that person to question their own credibility.

Likewise, even if John Edwards uses cold reading to accomplish a "real act of faith" (in his mind), he should kind of question why he has to use cold reading to do it.

(Note: you could argue that I'm using circular logic here, but I don't think John Edwards claims he DOESN'T use cold reading, and it still seems to be the simplest explanation for what he does.)

 

[JaredJames]

a middle school teacher wearing condoms to class each day

Think I missed the point of this one, sounds rather creepy.

a driving instructor passing on the right

What's wrong with that? (I'm British)

or a professional DJ only listening to Britney Spears in the car.

You obviously ain't been to Oceana (nightclub chain in the UK, they have a 'cheese room' + dj for things like Britney).

 

[sophiecentaur]

I just wonder if cold reading needs to be a conscious act.
It's a narrow line between doing it by inspiration and doing it in a calculated way.
I am not in favour of this guy, btw. It's all bollocks afaic.
Yeah - I guess you're right. He's just a conman.

 

[JaredJames]

I just wonder if cold reading needs to be a conscious act.
It's a narrow line between doing it by inspiration and doing it in a calculated way.
I am not in favour of this guy, btw. It's all bollocks afaic.
Yeah - I guess you're right. He's just a conman.

Cold reading has to be actively done by the performer.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_reading

Cold readers commonly employ high probability guesses about the subject, quickly picking up on signals from their subjects as to whether their guesses are in the right direction or not, and then emphasizing and reinforcing any chance connections the subjects acknowledge while quickly moving on from missed guesses.

Although I agree you could pick up certain signals sub-consciously, the fact you have to change your approach based on reactions rules out a performer simply doing it without realising it.

The article goes on to subconscious discussion.

Former New Age practitioner Karla McLaren said, "I didn't understand that I had long used a form of cold reading in my own work! I was never taught cold reading and I never intended to defraud anyone; I simply picked up the technique through cultural osmosis." McLaren has further stated that since she was always very perceptive, she could easily figure out many of the issues her "readees" brought into sessions with them. In order to reduce the appearance of unusual expertise that might have created a power differential, she posed her observations as questions rather than facts. This attempt to be polite, she realized, actually invited the reader to, as McLaren has said, "lean into the reading" and give her more pertinent information.

Even in this article though, the performer is still actively doing something to work on the client. Even if not in the usual direct approach. She may not have realized it was cold reading, but that doesn't change what she was doing.

Notice how it says "I didn't understand that I had long used a form of cold reading in my own work". She didn't realize what she was doing. Not that she was doing it sub-consciously.

For years I worked with VBA in Access database projects. I didn't know it was simple programming, but that doesn't mean I was doing it sub-consciously. I just didn't understand what I was doing (or the name for it).

 

[FlexGunship]

Think I missed the point of this one, sounds rather creepy.

Strictly speaking, it's better than the alternative. However, it indicates a very serious problem somewhere.

 

[Panwasbipolar]

Some people just have superior gifts of reading others, watched one of his shows the other night and noticed a lot of guesswork to build a repertoire with group he spoke too.

Who knows?
If he's giving families comfort through spiritual means he's no different than a priest nodding for the collection plate.

Not sure which one I'd prefer.

 

[sophiecentaur]

Perhaps 'Poverty, chastitiy and obedience' could make a difference. Many of these 'performers' make a lot of money.

That, said, there have been some very power and money-hungry clerics.

 

[sophiecentaur]

John Edward: But I'm a psychic.
Stan: No dude, your a douche.

Stan got it wrong, I'm afraid. John Edward IS a Psychic because all psychics are the same. It's just that Psychics don't actually do what they claim to do - or at least they don't do it in the way they claim.

If J.E. also makes a lot of money, he is also an exploiter of needy persons. But I have to ask whether he is any worse than a very highly paid Cosmetic Surgeon in that respect?

 

[DaveC426913]

Stan got it wrong, I'm afraid. John Edward IS a Psychic because all psychics are the same. It's just that Psychics don't actually do what they claim to do - or at least they don't do it in the way they claim.

We can't claim this. We can't claim that there ARE NO psychics that talk to the dead. Best we can claim is that no psychics we have yet come across can do what 'A Psychic' is supposed to be able to do. So, the definition stands, A Psychic one with the bona fide ability.

 

[sophiecentaur]

Fair point. I should be more rigorous than that. But it is, surely, up to 'them' to prove that my statement is false. Otherwise anything goes.
Actually, the Wikipedia definition reads like this:
"A psychic (pronounced /ˈsaɪkɨk/; from the Greek ψυχικός psychikos—"of the mind, mental", also called sensitive[1]) is a person who professes an ability to perceive information hidden from the normal senses through extrasensory perception (ESP), or is said by others to have such abilities.

That says nothing about bona fides.

 

[JaredJames]

Fair point. I should be more rigorous than that. But it is, surely, up to 'them' to prove that my statement is false. Otherwise anything goes.
Actually, the Wikipedia definition reads like this:
"A psychic (pronounced /ˈsaɪkɨk/; from the Greek ψυχικός psychikos—"of the mind, mental", also called sensitive[1]) is a person who professes an ability to perceive information hidden from the normal senses through extrasensory perception (ESP), or is said by others to have such abilities.

That says nothing about bona fides.

If a psychic claims to be able to read minds / speak to the dead / whatever power they claim to posses, it is their responsibility to prove said claims in a satisfactory way. What you have to realize is that as soon as we have an explanation as to how the 'trick' is done that doesn't involve any mystical power, then the claim is effectively proven false. Even if they deny that's how it's done, they would then have to give more evidence to show that isn't the technique they are using.

To say "well you've given an explanation of X that doesn't involve magic, but the way I do X does use magic" doesn't prove your claim. This is what a lot of people in the field do. They simply write-off the explanations given but don't give anything to show that the expanation doesn't apply to them.

 

[sophiecentaur]

I think that, bearing in mind that the majority (or totality) of Psychics cannot prove they are genuine, then the definition of a Psychic is, surely, one who is not genuine - possibly well meaning or deluded but not for real.

 

[DaveC426913]

I think that, bearing in mind that the majority (or totality) of Psychics cannot prove they are genuine, then the definition of a Psychic is, surely, one who is not genuine - possibly well meaning or deluded but not for real.

Your own definition uses the concept of 'genuine' and 'real'. i.e. psychics that haven't proven themselves (even if that's all of that) are not 'genuine' or 'real'.

 

[JaredJames]

I think that, bearing in mind that the majority (or totality) of Psychics cannot prove they are genuine, then the definition of a Psychic is, surely, one who is not genuine - possibly well meaning or deluded but not for real.

Psychic has it's definition. It is what it is.

People call themselves it, but that doesn't make them so. It's called being a fraudster.

I can walk around calling myself a car mechanic if I want, but that doesn't make me one and it certainly doesn't alter the definition of what an actual car mechanic is.

 

[gnurf]

We can't claim that there ARE NO psychics that talk to the dead.

Why not? Assuming you want to make a scientific inquiry into whether or not psychics exists, the default position, or null hypothesis, is that there are no psychics. As I understand it, that is a claim you can make that is backed by science.

You seem to be confusing this with whether or not we can know (i.e., a justified true belief) that there are no psychics, which may be a discussion point based on a person's philosophical leanings. Philosophy aside (sorry), in my opinion it is meaningless to say something like "we can't know that there are no psychics", because that would mean I can't say that pink elephants don't hide in the clouds either.

Does that make sense?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Why not? Assuming you want to make a scientific inquiry into whether or not psychics exists, the default position, or null hypothesis, is that there are no psychics. As I understand it, that is a claim you can make that is backed by science.

You seem to be confusing this with whether or not we can know (i.e., a justified true belief) that there are no psychics, which may be a discussion point based on a person's philosophical leanings. Philosophy aside (sorry), in my opinion it is meaningless to say something like "we can't know that there are no psychics", because that would mean I can't say that pink elephants don't hide in the clouds either.

Does that make sense?

We can only say, there is no scientific evidence that "psychics" exist and can talk to the dead, and there is no scientific model suggesting that such things are possible.

We can never prove a universal negative - e.g. there are no psychics.

oh yes, and you said it: A null hypothesis

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I hope it is clear that a hypothesis is not a priori, fact.

 

[gnurf]

We can only say, there is no scientific evidence that "psychics" exist and can talk to the dead, and there is no scientific model suggesting that such things are possible.

Yes, but why qualify that with "only"? What I was trying to get at was that this is as good as it gets. Or bad, if you're a "psychic". Lack of scientific evidence is the strongest possible indication that something doesn't not exist, or does not work.

We can never prove a universal negative - e.g. there are no psychics.

And, except for in mathematics, you can't prove most of the positive scientific claims either. What you can say is: this is our claim or hypothesis, and this is the evidence that backs it up. That's not to say that you've arrived at the Truth, only that you've gotten as close as possible with the available knowledge we have. And---although it's technically right---for all practical purposes, the fact that you can't prove that there are no psychics is meaningless in my opinion.

 

[DaveC426913]

Why not? Assuming you want to make a scientific inquiry into whether or not psychics exists, the default position, or null hypothesis, is that there are no psychics. As I understand it, that is a claim you can make that is backed by science.

You seem to be confusing this with whether or not we can know (i.e., a justified true belief) that there are no psychics, which may be a discussion point based on a person's philosophical leanings. Philosophy aside (sorry), in my opinion it is meaningless to say something like "we can't know that there are no psychics", because that would mean I can't say that pink elephants don't hide in the clouds either.

Does that make sense?

Yes, as jj said, psychic has its definition. While there are no instances of psychics present, that does not change the definition.


Note that you use the conventional definition yourself:

...the default position, or null hypothesis, is that there are no psychics...

Allow me to make a direct substitution without changing the meaning of your quote:

...the default position, or null hypothesis, is that there are no people who can actually speak to the dead...

If we went with your definition of psychic (people who fake speaking to the dead), then what you tried to say is:

...the default position, or null hypothesis, is that there are no people who fake speaking to the dead...

.. .which is of course not true.

 

[JaredJames]

gnurf, the way I look at subjects such as is this is as follows:

Until evidence for the existence of X is present, I dismiss it.

There is no evidence for god/ghosts/psychics, therefore I dismiss they could ever exist in the first place.

Until I see evidence showing their existence, I have no reason to believe otherwise.

A lack of evidence does not mean something may exist and it doesn't prove something doesn't exist. It simply means we have no basis to think it exists in the first place.

 

[Evo]

gnurf, the way I look at subjects such as is this is as follows:

Until evidence for the existence of X is present, I dismiss it.

There is no evidence for god/ghosts/psychics, therefore I dismiss they could ever exist in the first place.

Until I see evidence showing their existence, I have no reason to believe otherwise.

A lack of evidence does not mean something may exist and it doesn't prove something doesn't exist. It simply means we have no basis to think it exists in the first place.

Best explanation I've seen.

 

[gnurf]

DaveC426913, I think it was with sophiecentaur (?) that you discussed the definition of the word 'psychic---not me.

 

[DaveC426913]

gnurf, the way I look at subjects such as is this is as follows:

Until evidence for the existence of X is present, I dismiss it.

There is no evidence for god/ghosts/psychics, therefore I dismiss they could ever exist in the first place.

Until I see evidence showing their existence, I have no reason to believe otherwise.

A lack of evidence does not mean something may exist and it doesn't prove something doesn't exist. It simply means we have no basis to think it exists in the first place.

Best explanation I've seen.

Right. But.

Let's just keep in mind that this decision is not objective. You make highly subjective calls about what you will accept as evidence.

You'll accept the word of a few scientists that something has been discovered, but you will dismiss the word of 100 million people that something else exists.

And no, I'm not claiming it's a popularity contest. I'm claiming you trust certain people.

(You have not seen evidence that neutrinos exist, you have a trust in the reporting system that other people have seen it exist.)

 

[gnurf]

Right. But.

Let's just keep in mind that this decision is not objective. You make highly subjective calls about what you will accept as evidence.

You'll accept the word of a few scientists that something has been discovered, but you will dismiss the word of 100 million people that something else exists.

And no, I'm not claiming it's a popularity contest. I'm claiming you trust certain people.

(You have not seen evidence that neutrinos exist, you have a trust in the reporting system that other people have seen it exist.)

But the decision is based on information that is produced through the application of the scientific method. This method is specifically designed to eliminate subjectivity from the results. I don't trust certain people---I trust the scientific method to produce the most reliable information there is.

 

[gnurf]

Until evidence for the existence of X is present, I dismiss it.

Yes, and rightly so. I mean, what exactly is the difference between a) something that is undetectable and b) something that does not exist?

 

[JaredJames]

Actually Dave, you are assuming to know what I'll accept as evidence.

For the record, I don't accept human 'witness' testimony as a valid source of evidence - regardless of who gives it.

There is a difference between a scientist who can produce evidence - mathematically, or otherwise - on demand and a person who is simply claiming something to exist with nothing more than various anecdotes to back them up.

I work somewhat like physics forums. There must be some form of published evidence - mainstream paper or the like - in order for me to take something seriously.

If every person on the surface of the planet told me that god existed, unless they could provide evidence to back this up I wouldn't listen. It's not about who says it, it's about what evidence they have behind them. As above, for me witness testimony isn't a valid source of evidence.

 

[JaredJames]

Yes, and rightly so. I mean, what exactly is the difference between a) something that is undetectable and b) something that does not exist?

If it's undetectable it exists, we just can't detect its presence.

I'm not arguing that something does or doesn't exist. I'm saying that unless you can prove it does, I dismiss that it ever could.

Did X-rays only come into existence when we were able to detect them?

 

[DaveC426913]

But the decision is based on information that is produced through the application of the scientific method. This method is specifically designed to eliminate subjectivity from the results. I don't trust certain people---I trust the scientific method to produce the most reliable information there is.

And you decide to trust the people that deliver the information to you. And there's a lot.

At some point in the process, you must decide that you will trust. It is circular logic. I trust these peole because they are doing stuff I trust. (assuming I can trust them).

Actually Dave, you are assuming to know what I'll accept as evidence.

No I'm not. (Except inasmuch as you are not Descartes, since he is dead. He concluded he can know nothing except his own existence.)

For the record, I don't accept human 'witness' testimony as a valid source of evidence - regardless of who gives it.

There is a difference between a scientist who can produce evidence - mathematically, or otherwise - on demand and a person who is simply claiming something to exist with nothing more than various anecdotes to back them up.

I work somewhat like physics forums. There must be some form of published evidence - mainstream paper or the like - in order for me to take something seriously.

If every person on the surface of the planet told me that god existed, unless they could provide evidence to back this up I wouldn't listen. It's not about who says it, it's about what evidence they have behind them. As above, for me witness testimony isn't a valid source of evidence.

There is a lot of trust in a lot of people between the actual experiment and your eyes.


I'm not saying the trust is not founded. We all must trust certain systems in order to get anywhere in life or society would fall apart.

I simply ask you to recognize that your system (of what you accept and what you dismiss) is highly subjective, as well as prone to error, and - within a reasonable deviation - almost as arbitrary as the next man's.

 

[gnurf]

Did X-rays only come into existence when we were able to detect them?

I laughed when I read my question after I posted, because the answer was so trivial. The idea, anyway, was that none of the myriad of undiscovered physical phenomena that undoubtedly exist in the universe have any explanatory value as long as we don't know about them. Even though you'd be right, claiming that your grandmother's tumor was caused by X-rays in the year 1200 would be irrational.

 

[JaredJames]

If there is evidence for something, I accept it. If there is not, I dismiss it.

How is it subjective, other than with the requirement of evidence?

Just because I haven't seen the evidence for something, doesn't make that evidence any less valid. The evidence exists and that is what matters.

I only dismiss things there is no evidence for.