John Edwards a fake or the real deal?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Max
  • Start date Start date
AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around John Edwards, a psychic known for his show "Crossing Over," where he claims to communicate with the deceased. Participants express skepticism about his abilities, debating whether he is a genuine medium or a fraud. Many argue that his techniques, such as cold reading and vague statements, allow him to manipulate audience emotions and perceptions. Critics highlight the ethical implications of his work, suggesting that he exploits vulnerable individuals seeking closure. Some participants reference the work of skeptics like James Randi, who have exposed fraudulent practices in the psychic industry. The conversation also touches on the broader topic of belief in psychics and the lack of scientific evidence supporting their claims, with some asserting that without proof, the default position should be skepticism towards such abilities. Overall, the thread reflects a mix of skepticism, concern for emotional manipulation, and a call for accountability in the psychic profession.
  • #51
jarednjames said:
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.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #52
DaveC426913, I think it was with sophiecentaur (?) that you discussed the definition of the word 'psychic---not me.
 
  • #53
jarednjames said:
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 said:
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.)
 
  • #54
DaveC426913 said:
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.
 
  • #55
jarednjames said:
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?
 
  • #56
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.
 
  • #57
gnurf said:
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?
 
  • #58
gnurf said:
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).


jarednjames said:
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.)

jarednjames said:
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.
 
  • #59
jarednjames said:
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.
 
  • #60
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.
 
  • #61
Well, my own 2-cents worth:

I take all claims of psychics or paranormal subject matters with skepticism.
Yet, I am open to the possibility of such issues being real in some cases.

There are many documented cases of fraud, but zero scientifically documented cases of authenticity(that I know of)
Still, there are from time-to-time, reports from what appears to be upstanding, sober individuals witnessing a psychic reading or paranormal event having no "apparent" natural explanation.
So, I stay open on the subject.
 
  • #62
pallidin said:
Still, there are from time-to-time, reports from what appears to be upstanding, sober individuals witnessing a psychic reading or paranormal event having no "apparent" natural explanation.

Do you have examples of these events to show us?
 
  • #63
@ Palladin: How many of these examples which are not obviously fraudulent were repeatable on demand? Only that could constitute a serious scientific proof. And sobriety and upstandingness do not imply 100% reliability in a single unblind test.

If we had to treat every unlikely model as a possibility then where would that take us? It strikes me that, as history and Science have progressed, the only direction things have gone is towards the decreasing likeliness of this paranormal stuff being real. In the same way that Homeopaths keep saying that "more studies are needed", the proponents of the paranormal keep wanting "best of three" followed by "best of five" followed by "best of seven" because they just don't want to lose the game.
The balance of probabilities just falls further and further against the magic spells merchants. We just don't need any of it.
 
  • #64
jarednjames said:
Do you have examples of these events to show us?

Sure, just Google "paranormal events and law enforcement" or something similar.
 
  • #65
pallidin said:
Sure, just Google "paranormal events and law enforcement" or something similar.

Googled "paranormal events and law enforcement" and not one relevant result came up on the first page.

Perhaps you could provide some links for us to back up your assertion that some are unexplainable.
 
  • #66
sophiecentaur said:
And sobriety and upstandingness do not imply 100% reliability in a single unblind test.
.

Indeed, and it never will.
But, it does offer legitimacy for further investigation/inquiry.
 
  • #67
I'd also point you here:

http://www.ukskeptics.com/article.php?dir=articles&article=police_and_psychics.php

DEVON AND CORNWALL CONSTABULARY
Mon, 20 Feb 2006 23:28
Devon & Cornwall Constabulary do not use the "services" of psychics and any persons offering such services are routinely declined.

SURREY POLICE
Tue, 21 Feb 2006 07:52
We do not/have not used this method.
Jonathan Edwards, HQ Registry

CITY OF LONDON POLICE
Tue, 21 Feb 2006 10:11
Dear Sir or Madam, for your information, psychics have never been used by the City of London Police to my knowledge.
Kieron Sharp, Detective Chief Superintendent

And so on.

The police do not use psychics (at least in the UK).
 
  • #68
jarednjames said:
Googled "paranormal events and law enforcement" and not one relevant result came up on the first page.

Perhaps you could provide some links for us to back up your assertion that some are unexplainable.

Yes, I like the way you think.
Please allow me a little time to do this.
The Internet is so convoluted now. Should be able to find them though...
 
  • #69
jarednjames said:
The police do not use psychics (at least in the UK).
Maybe they read this: http://www.csufresno.edu/physics/rhall/jref/tam4p/10_BR_tam4.pdf" (pdf)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #71
sophiecentaur said:
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?

Fundamental difference, the cosmetic surgeon neither lied about the methods, nor about the end result.
 
  • #72
Granted, the subject of the paranormal is of considerable debate.
 
  • #73
pallidin said:
Still, there are from time-to-time, reports from what appears to be upstanding, sober individuals witnessing a psychic reading or paranormal event having no "apparent" natural explanation.
So, I stay open on the subject.

I believe you are referring to the "remote viewers" sometimes reported to be used by "law enforcement".

I think you will find that the strongest opponents of these reports are "law enforcement." And the strongest proponents of these reports are "remote viewers."
 
  • #74
And for me to exclaim that paranormal phenomenon does not exist is simply irresponsible.
After all, quantum weirdness exists.
 
  • #75
As per myself, I don't have to claim it doesn't exist.

I simply dismiss the notion of psychic ability until evidence of its existence comes to light.

There is a difference. I am not claiming anything.
 
  • #76
jarednjames said:
I simply dismiss the notion of psychic ability until evidence of its existence comes to light.
Alas, it means you can only react to new discoveries, you won't be leading them.
 
  • #77
DaveC426913 said:
Alas, it means you can only react to new discoveries, you won't be leading them.

Sadly it's true.

I'm an engineer. Not really in the "discovering things" field.

I take what we've got and build on it.
 
  • #78
DaveC426913 said:
Alas, it means you can only react to new discoveries, you won't be leading them.
Not at all. Not being distracted by what you consider nonsense means you can focus more on what matters. This can place you way ahead of the pack in discoveries. While others are wondering if dead people talk, you're doing something important with your life.
 
  • #79
Evo said:
Not at all. Not being distracted by what you consider nonsense means you can focus more on what matters. This can place you way ahead of the pack in discoveries. While others are wondering if dead people talk, you're doing something important with your life.

:biggrin: :cool:
 
  • #80
Doc Al said:
I was not aware of this. Do you have some reference where he admits he's just faking? Edwards makes a living by having people believe he really can talk to the dead. He's a con artist.
John Edwards has neither admitted he is a fake, nor explicitly claimed amazing 'abilities'. He has claimed he is an entertainer. I would characterize him as a mentalist - not unlike the 'Amazing Kreskin'. He has a knack for milking information from people. For some unflattering review see:
http://www.re-quest.net/entertainment/movies-and-tv/tv/john-edward/
http://www.dunamai.com/articles/pastors_desk/crossing-over.htm
 
Last edited:
  • #81
pallidin said:
And for me to exclaim that paranormal phenomenon does not exist is simply irresponsible.
After all, quantum weirdness exists.

Again two very different things. "The paranormal" has been added to the domain of human knowledge in a very different manner than "quantum weirdness." Furthermore, "quantum weirdness" is both experimentally repeatable with incredible precision and offers real explanatory models for reality as we understand it.

If you could build a computer out of ghosts or design new materials based on your knowledge of demon horns, then I'm 100% sure you would receieve a considerable amount of personal attention from the scientific community.

"See... the demon horn has an semi-crystalline structure of alternating fire and brimstone atoms. Ions suspended in the lattice are possesed by the unholy Lord of Darkness and Pain giving it an amazingly high sheer strength."

"Woah, what are you doing all of these simulations on?"

"Oh, this is my ghost computer. I stabbed it in the CPU while it was performing a long calculation so it came back as a ghost because it 'had unfinished business.' Fortunately, it generates its own cold drafts which means it runs cooler. The big problem is that sometimes it emits strong electromagnetic fields, so my ghost hard drive is full of corrupted sectors."
 
Last edited:
  • #82
I'd also like to add to the discussion that the group of individuals that John Edwards speaks to most often are grief-stricken folks looking for emotional solice.

He doesn't help historians unravel mysteries of long unsolved military skirmishes (something that would be equally unimpressive since the results aren't verifiable).
 
  • #83
I would not rule out the possibility some of the 'audience' may on the payroll.
 
  • #84
Chronos said:
I would not rule out the possibility some of the 'audience' may on the payroll.

Some of John Edwards' peers do this, but I've never heard it confirmed about Edwards himself. Specifically, Dowd and Flynn would put people in the line leading INTO the building to start conversations. They would ask questions like "who are you here to talk to?" and "I'd like to hear from my dead father, how about you?" The responses would be recorded and they would be ushered into a specific area. Flynn would review a few index cards with notes like: "Alan, died of black lung, section 4" and "Marianne, car accident, section 1."

With just a tiny bit of information she seemed to perform miracles.
 
  • #85
FlexGunship said:
He doesn't help historians unravel mysteries of long unsolved military skirmishes.
What an awesome application though. Never thought of that.
 
  • #86
FlexGunship said:
Fundamental difference, the cosmetic surgeon neither lied about the methods, nor about the end result.

Some of them still make a lot of money out of many people who don't need bigger of 'better' bits but think that, by paying a lot of money they can be made happy.
I am, of course, totally in favour of plastic surgery when there is no element of exploitation involved. It can be a life saver. But I only used that as another example of a way of fleecing people in exchange for some phoney happiness.
 
  • #87
DaveC426913 said:
What an awesome application though. Never thought of that.

I sense a spin off!

He's a zany psychic that talks to the dead! And he's a political cartographer and military historian of the late Bronze age!"

Yeah, I'm already bored with the idea.
 
  • #88
I'd pay to talk to ancient dead people. Just think of all of the New Age suckers that would give anything to talk to the Druids that they pretend to be.
 
  • #89
This sounds completely prejudice and bias of me but I've always had the idea that every person that tries to make money especially on television using their "psychic" abilities for "good" are actually frauds. If they really possessed such a gift and wanted to do good with it, then they shouldn't be using their talent to rake in money and make themselves into celebrities. Even if they really did have such gifts, I still wouldn't trust them because it is obvious their intentions are not for the good of mankind.
 
  • #90
I don't think the whole "if you really had the power you wouldn't use it to make money" stance works. It may apply to some people, but there'd be equally as many people willing to use it for their own benefit. So it's not a good way to judge whether or not someone may/may not be genuine.
 
  • #91
I used to watch Crossing Over, I think Edward's is the best cold reader I've seen, it's an art. That weirdo that wiggles a pen over a pad of paper is the worst, I don't get why he's famous.
 
  • #92
Ha, funny you should bring up 'ghost writing'.

Just watched a comedy show and they had a video of a psychic doing it. She was saying "I don't know what the pen is doing, I have no control." She was doing some drawing about the guy opposite her.

When they revealed it, she had drawn a penis outline (hair and all). Considering 'she didn't know what she was doing', it was a faily good kn*b drawing - would make teenage graffiti artists proud!
 
  • #93
Evo said:
I used to watch Crossing Over, I think Edward's is the best cold reader I've seen, it's an art. That weirdo that wiggles a pen over a pad of paper is the worst, I don't get why he's famous.

If you were to look at the "taping times" of Crossing Over; they are 8 hour sessions. If you get to go for an episode, you sit for 8 hours (or maybe there were two 4-hour sessions).

Either way, it's easy to see some material didn't make it into the final show.
 
  • #94
FlexGunship said:
If you were to look at the "taping times" of Crossing Over; they are 8 hour sessions. If you get to go for an episode, you sit for 8 hours (or maybe there were two 4-hour sessions).

Either way, it's easy to see some material didn't make it into the final show.
I want to be clear, I don't think he's talking to the dead, just that he's very good as a cold reader entertainer.
 
  • #95
The most remarkable aspect of Edward's talents are the depths to which he will stoop. Should his career of humbuggery fall through, he might do well as a monitor of the society naked mole rats, familiar as he is with his own practiced model (he probably works on it in the mirror) of subterranean rodent behaviour.
There is the concern that the naked mole rats might protest, wondering why we would send someone who clearly belongs in deeper darker places than only underground among the esteemed company of hideous and hairless vermin.
 
  • #96
jarednjames said:
I don't think the whole "if you really had the power you wouldn't use it to make money" stance works. It may apply to some people, but there'd be equally as many people willing to use it for their own benefit. So it's not a good way to judge whether or not someone may/may not be genuine.

I think most would go the Iron Man route: try to do some good... at a profit.
 
  • #97
nismaratwork said:
I think most would go the Iron Man route: try to do some good... at a profit.

That's the sort of thing I was thinking. I don't think it would take much for most people to realize the value of their gift.
 
  • #98
You can't really say how someone who was genuinely 'like that' would act. It could go either way. But anyone who had that sort of ability, genuinely, would, amongst all their obvious abilities, also have the very good sense to keep it hidden and establish other plausible reasons for having their success / money / fast cars etc.. Otherwise they would be subject to the ultimate in exploitation from others.
Did you see Xmen? It would be like that.
 
  • #99
If anyone has seen Jumper, that's the sort of thing I picture happening.

Someone has the gift, they use it to their advantage but hide it from others.

I think anyone would realize what too much attention would cause, the government would show an interest to say the least.#

(Unless you're Hancock, in which case you got nothing to lose by showing it. Not like anyone could do anything about it / with it.)
 
  • #100
sophiecentaur said:
You can't really say how someone who was genuinely 'like that' would act. It could go either way. But anyone who had that sort of ability, genuinely, would, amongst all their obvious abilities, also have the very good sense to keep it hidden and establish other plausible reasons for having their success / money / fast cars etc.. Otherwise they would be subject to the ultimate in exploitation from others.
Did you see Xmen? It would be like that.

Why would they want to be hidden from exploitation (or accurately, is it exploitation if you want it)? Do talented musicians hide their abilities so they won't be exploited?

You were right the first time. It comes down to who they genuinely are. If they have the motivation to be rich and have celebrity, then they will use their ability; if they prefer some other, unrelated career path, then making this public would definitely interfere.
 

Similar threads

The Limits of Knowledge: Is John Edward Real?
3
Replies
100
Views
8K
John Edward: A Genuine Medium or a Cold-Reading Fraud?
Replies
35
Views
12K
Is John Edward's 'Crossing Over' a Hoax?
2
Replies
56
Views
15K
I want to understand Wagner's Parsifal
Replies
1
Views
2K
Death, Nothingness and Subjectivity
Replies
3
Views
4K
[Thought experiment] The futility of consciousness and free will
Replies
6
Views
4K
Is the Earth Harp real (acoustically)?
Replies
40
Views
47K
Who is your nominee for wise person?
Replies
1
Views
3K
How do I convince dad not to throw me out of the house because I wont get any job
Replies
5
Views
3K
What are some interesting facts about America's history and government?
Replies
20
Views
3K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top