TV is gone to hell

shay7

I just saw this program on UTV. I think it was called “Haunted Houses”

It starts with these people who think their house is haunted
The haunting is investigated by a bunch of quacks
And then some psychic twat performs something called a “clearing”

It really annoys me that the media encourage belief in stuff like this. I guess it makes “good TV” but wouldn’t it be more fun to watch a program debunking these guys.

6th

*Nice Skeptically approach, so scientific in your detailed analysis of the programme.





*I'm being sarcastic, you are a cynic in skeptics clothing and do this forum no justice. At least try to discuss it and the happening and offer alternatives to what these people are experiencing as oppose to "Hey lads, they're a bunch of mentals! ... man i'm so cool".

Of course you'll be protected here and i'll get hassle but really genuine Skepticism seems to be hard to find nowdays. Dont get me wrong plenty of good posters here but this guy is not one of them!

shay7

Sometimes I just say what I feel
The amount of this stuff lately frustrates me.
Sorry, I’m not more intellectual
Maybe I should leave

6th

Its nothing to do with being an intellectual, but maybe if you have a problem with a TV programme complain in a TV forum. If you want to take a skeptics stance on a programme be prepared to discuss it.

Now I did see last nights episod but I did the week before. The resident skeptic on the show is quite good, he saw nothing to suggest to him that anything paranormal was going on but said the stress on the family was very obvious. He hoped that whatever it was that Mia Dolan (the medium) was doing he did hope that it would put the family at ease. Basically if the family believe that what she did worked then they would relax and have no more problems.

I recorded the show last night so i'm sure I'll have more to add after i watch it later.

shay7

6th wrote:

The resident skeptic on the show is quite good, he saw nothing to suggest to him that anything paranormal was going on

I thought he was quite good too. My problem is with general atmosphere of the program. Watch how the guy summarizes everything at the end. It’s obviously aimed at people who want to believe this stuff because the media feels that that’s where the market is.

He hoped that whatever it was that Mia Dolan (the medium) was doing he did hope that it would put the family at ease.

That’s very nice, he displays a lot of sympathy for the family but stands by while the rest of program panders to their beliefs. I feel that the program makers only managed to reinforce the supernatural beliefs held by that couple. Is there no other avenue by which they could be put at ease?

from earlier

offer alternatives to what these people are experiencing as oppose to "Hey lads, they're a bunch of mentals! ... man i'm so cool".

The name calling in the first post was aimed at the program makers and the medium not the homeowners. It’s sad to me that people can suffer this way.

If you are taking objection to my coarse manner you’re probably right. I’m a fan of Penn & Teller

Dont get me wrong plenty of good posters here but this guy is not one of them!

A bit personal but you’re right I’ll never make a writer. In my defense, I’ve always had some sort of issue with dyslexia (some people don’t believe in it) I’ve overcome it to a great extent and I’ve done it by myself because I felt that the only other option was to hide it or suffer the ridicule of a remedial class. When I write posts it tends to be in bullet points so I hope you’ll appreciate the effort I’ve put into this.

6th

My problem with your post was that you approached the programme as a cynic not a sceptic. You Flamed it out right, without looking at what was happening and offering up possible explainations for what was happening.

I have no problem with you or your dyslexia, my problem is with the quality of alot of skepticism out there.

shay7

6th wrote:

My problem with your post was that you approached the programme as a cynic not a sceptic. You Flamed it out right, without looking at what was happening and offering up possible explainations for what was happening.

Well hopefully I'll know better the next time, if I dare to hit that "new thread" button again.

my problem is with the quality of alot of skepticism out there.

I cant really help with that. But on the bright side, it's still skepticism

6th

shay7 wrote:

But on the bright side, it's still skepticism

No its cynicism: An attitude of scornful or jaded negativity, especially a general distrust of the integrity or professed motives of others

Scepticism is: 1. A doubting or questioning attitude or state of mind; dubiety. See synonyms at uncertainty. 2. Philosophy a. The ancient school of Pyrrho of Elis that stressed the uncertainty of our beliefs in order to oppose dogmatism. b. The doctrine that absolute knowledge is impossible, either in a particular domain or in general. c. A methodology based on an assumption of doubt with the aim of acquiring approximate or relative certainty. 3. Doubt or disbelief of religious tenets.

robindch

> My problem with your post was that you approached the programme as a
> cynic not a sceptic.

I didn't see the episode in question, but I have seen other ones in the same series and I think that shay7's judgement is spot on. It is not so much cynicism but accuracy which would lead one call these folks "quacks", by which I mean people who judge the worth of something by assessing the willingness of other people to buy it.

> my problem is with the quality of alot of skepticism out there.

Could you explain in a bit more detail what you reckon is wrong with skepticism, and how you feel this could be sorted out?

> Scepticism

...or work from my defintion is here:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=2715932&postcount=2

Additions welcome.

Sangre

shay7 wrote:

my problem is with the quality of alot of skepticism out there.

Since science is so far firmly on the side of the 'skeptics' surely it is not them who need to put forward proof of the flaws of these shows but rather it should be the TV show that should be trying to prove their side?

shay7

why does the quote in post 10 say "Originally Posted by shay7"
it wasnt

6th

robin, your definition of scepticism talks of asking the hows and whys, questioning what people are claiming. I rarely see questions asked at all just judgements made not based on whatever the case at hand may be.

Dont get me wrong, I see some genuinely interesting points made & questions asked from sceptics on here, I'm sceptical myself of alot of claims, but the OP in this case came out with a post which belonged more in the TV forum than here.

6th

Sangre wrote:

Since science is so far firmly on the side of the 'skeptics' surely it is not them who need to put forward proof of the flaws of these shows but rather it should be the TV show that should be trying to prove their side?

Surely the role of the sceptic is to question and make judgements based on those questions & answers given? Should this forum be changed to the Irish People who have opinions & make judgements forum?

Like I said I've seen some great questions posed on here, and claims made by posters like Mysteria questioned in a very logical manner - more of that I say.

The role of the sceptic is VERY important, we'd be living in a crazy(er) world if it wasnt for them, but there are so many people just making judgements based on no questions being asked and no experience of looking at the area of the paranormal.

6th

shay7 wrote:

why does the quote in post 10 say "Originally Posted by shay7"
it wasnt

Was just a mix up when sangre quoted you, quoting me.

pH

I think i can agree with the overall assessment - TV is gone to hell (well from a skeptical point of view anyway).

There are steadily more and more of these junk paranormal programs on TV - from the 24 hour 'psychic' to fictional ghost based investigations.

These are a sample of what's on over the next couple of weeks:

• Medium
• Ghost Whisperer
• Haunted Homes
• The Girly Ghost Hunters
• Miracles
• Afterlife
• Derek Acorah's Ghost towns
• Most Haunted
• Most Haunted Unseen
• The Mystery of the Ghost Galleon
• Ghosthunters
• Street Psychic
• Jane Goldman Investigates (I know it says Investigates - but it's LivingTV)
• The Best of Jane Goldman Investigates
• Haunted Travels
• Castle Ghosts
• Haunted Hotels
• America's most Haunted places ...
• A Haunting
• Dead Tenants
• Ten Ways (to contact a ghost)

The latest craze seems to be these 'haunted house' type shows, where presenters walk around old houses with night-vision cameras and thing go bump. Cheap to make(fake) and the gullible lap it up.

I have nothing against Horror or Ghost fiction, it's good fun, scary and entertaining. However pretending any of it is real or worth investigating is just plain silly. Hopefully they're just this years fad, and they'll go the way of DIY soon enough.

6th

pH wrote:

[*]Jane Goldman Investigates (I know it says Investigates - but it's LivingTV)
[*]The Best of Jane Goldman Investigates

When are these on? :rolleyes:

pH

6th wrote:

When are these on? :rolleyes:

That'd be like collaborating with the enemy. If the Skeptics found out I'd told you they'd call at my door in the middle of the night and cut up my membership card!





They're on LivingTV (on Sky) @ 01:30 am - 02:30 am weeknights starting 21st September
She's "Investigating" Dowsing, Psychic Healing, Clairvoyance, Spell Casting, Past Life Regression, Talking to the dead, Poltergeists and Voodoo.
(It wasn't me who told you!)

Zillah

6th wrote:

My problem with your post was that you approached the programme as a cynic not a sceptic. You Flamed it out right, without looking at what was happening and offering up possible explainations for what was happening.

Not neccessarily.

One can approach something with a genuine sceptical eye, analyse the situation, consider the facts and decide that its a load of bollox. Then one can come online and say "What a load of bollox!"

Its not a very respectful attitude, but its not neccessarily cynical; a sceptic can come to a very negative sounding conclusion, while still being a sceptic. For example, one could say "Mysteria is a complete fraud, her methods and knowledge are absolute nonesense!" and not be cynical.

6th

Yep I agree 100% (200% on some of it and you can guess which bit Zillah ) but I dont think thats what happened in the case of the OP - maybe I'm wrong, its happened before .

Zillah wrote:

Not neccessarily.

One can approach something with a genuine sceptical eye, analyse the situation, consider the facts and decide that its a load of bollox. Then one can come online and say "What a load of bollox!"

Its not a very respectful attitude, but its not neccessarily cynical; a sceptic can come to a very negative sounding conclusion, while still being a sceptic. For example, one could say "Mysteria is a complete fraud, her methods and knowledge are absolute nonesense!" and not be cynical.

shay7

6th wrote:

Yep I agree 100% (200% on some of it and you can guess which bit Zillah ) but I dont think thats what happened in the case of the OP - maybe I'm wrong, its happened before .

6th wrote:

*Nice Skeptically approach, so scientific in your detailed analysis