I challenge any Psychic on boards.ie

Inter

GhostInTheRuins wrote: »

How many "psychics" do free readings? I would like to try it myself but there's no way would I give any of those chancers my money

The psychics who ask for payment may or may not be true psychics. You have to recognise two things.

First: Psychic ability is not always about foretelling the future or getting in touch with dead relatives.

Second: Not all psychics go into show business.

patrickthomas

iamhunted wrote: »

so your lifetime of research tells us that anyone who believes in psychics is 'flakey' and not too good with dealing with reality?

Well Done. That takes stereotyping to a whole new level.

You misquote me, I wrote that " a high proportion of people" which does not mean "anyone" or everyone.....and I stand by what I stated.

Inter

patrickthomas wrote: »

I have spent a lifetime of research and study of the paranormal, supernatural and divination. Never have I found a shred of evidence to back up any of these peoples claims.

How odd. I've spent three months and found abundant evidence. Maybe my technique is better.

patrickthomas wrote: »

One thing I have noticed about people who believe in this nonsense is the high proportion of people who for want of a better word are "flaky" i.e. Not the most stable of people in dealing with reality, and seem to turn to an unreal world as an alternative.

Again, distinctly odd findings. Have you tried talking with many non-flaky people about their psychic or religious experiences? I'm sure you'll be intrigued by the answers you get from them, though admittedly the flakier ones can be much easier to out-argue.

patrickthomas wrote: »

And just for the record, I studied this area as I initially felt that there was something in it and gradually over a period of several years eventually coming to the conclusion that all of it is fake.

I don't need to be psychic to sense your disappointment. Have you returned to God yet, or do you still find His existence unconvincing (for the record, I don't believe in God, but it sounds like you used to).

patrickthomas wrote: »

It is amazing how people can believe in one-off chance happenings, I kick a football and "bend it like Beckham" it could happen, 10,000 to one chance, but it could, and meant nothing whatsoever, the monkey and a typewriter scenario.

Frankly, what is amazing is how many people believe in things being impossible and yet are quite easily convinced that they have consciousness.

patrickthomas wrote: »

Lately I have turned my attention to "alternative" or as they like it to be called nowadays "complimentary" medicine, and am discovering the same mentality within that, Homoeopathy has absolutely zero medical or scientific proof as well as being obviously nonsense yet the same type of people spend money on it.

I'm with you there. Moderrn medicine has already utilised all the "alternative" medicines there are. It's just put them in smaller capsules and made them more efficient. And this notion of water molecules having a memory is still just a little too outre for me to believe right now. However, if I find some reason why this should be so, I will reassess my position, as I have on a number of issues related to psychic phenomena and paranormal experience.

I will of course continue to remain as unflaky as I can since clearly that would be a terrible thing to become. I might start being dogmatic and inarticulate, all at the same time, and that would never do.

patrickthomas

Inter wrote: »

How odd. I've spent three months and found abundant evidence. Maybe my technique is better.

What is your "technique" and where is the abundant evidence?

Inter

No fair cheating. You'll have to make your own investigations better, I'm not letting you see my notes

In fairness, I've already mentioned my journey in other posts. If you like, I have no objection to you reading those first and then coming back to me for elaboration. I'm open to PMs, as to carry on such discussions here might seem like we're hi-jacking the thread.

patrickthomas

Inter wrote: »

No fair cheating. You'll have to make your own investigations better, I'm not letting you see my notes

In fairness, I've already mentioned my journey in other posts. If you like, I have no objection to you reading those first and then coming back to me for elaboration. I'm open to PMs, as to carry on such discussions here might seem like we're hi-jacking the thread.

So your notes are not for scrutiny! and I will have to make my investigations better..! because mine do not agree with yours, and agree with every double bind investigation done by the scientific community?

As for hijacking the thread...:rolleyes:

Inter

Lol - point taken

Oh, btw, did you notice how I started the last paragraph of my post? It seems by your reply that you might just not have completely read it

patrickthomas

Inter wrote: »

Lol - point taken

Oh, btw, did you notice how I started the last paragraph of my post? It seems by your reply that you might just not have completely read it

I took a look at your other posts, "Reki, third eye,4th dimensional layers,astral planes,Shamanism"

Good luck on your journey, you will need it to ever see the truth. Bye

iamhunted

patrickthomas wrote: »

You misquote me, I wrote that " a high proportion of people" which does not mean "anyone" or everyone.....and I stand by what I stated.

im agog here that you can reckon that stating its " a high proportion of people" means you arent stereotyping. Seriously.

Even though I can believe a very high percentage of psychics arent actually psychic its still pretty obvious your research is based on your own opinions and not on any kind of fact. An opinion that stereotypes people who believe in psychics.

Inter

patrickthomas wrote: »

I took a look at your other posts, "Reki, third eye,4th dimensional layers,astral planes,Shamanism"

Good luck on your journey, you will need it to ever see the truth. Bye

Thank you, and especially for the thoroughness of your investigation into my post history, which I assume shows the thoroughness of your investigation into the phenomena we've been discussing.

But in the end, it isn't about luck (I don't believe in luck or coincidence) it's about study and discovery - but you know that, because, as you also know by now, I've said it in practically post I've made in this thread alone, so forgive me repeating myself.

Even so, I appreciate your kind sentiment.

bokspring71

Inter wrote: »

No fair cheating. You'll have to make your own investigations better, I'm not letting you see my notes

In fairness, I've already mentioned my journey in other posts. If you like, I have no objection to you reading those first and then coming back to me for elaboration. I'm open to PMs, as to carry on such discussions here might seem like we're hi-jacking the thread.

Its fascinating that many who claim to have "proof" then decline to give their evidence.

When faced with so many self proclaimed psychics who are frauds ( Uri Gellar, Sylvia browne, Kitty parker, Doris Stokes etc etc ) , it's hardly surprising that, when not one person in the history of the world has even shown proof of being psychic, then there are many doubters.

Oryx

bokspring71 wrote: »

Its fascinating that many who claim to have "proof" then decline to give their evidence.

When faced with so many self proclaimed psychics who are frauds ( Uri Gellar, Sylvia browne, Kitty parker, Doris Stokes etc etc ) , it's hardly surprising that, when not one person in the history of the world has even shown proof of being psychic, then there are many doubters.

People have subjected themselves to testing (Gordon Smith being one) which has produced interesting results, but they tend to be one off tests, others have not, for reasons unknown to me, repeated the test. Perhaps a lot of the 'serious' scientific researchers wont touch psychic testing with a barge pole as they feel they would have their credibility tainted by association.

patrickthomas wrote:

I have spent a lifetime of research and study of the paranormal, supernatural and divination. Never have I found a shred of evidence to back up any of these peoples claims.

I am very interested in the study you have taken (seriously, Im not being antagonistic). Would you be prepared to give details here, or to me via pm?

Inter

bokspring71 wrote: »

Its fascinating that many who claim to have "proof" then decline to give their evidence.

It's probably even more amazing that when someone offers to share his "proof", skeptics choose to refuse the offer and then deny the "proof" was ever offered in the first place.

I'll say it just one more time for the severely slow-witted: Many have been shown and many have accepted the evidence. They have become, in their turn, what bigoted skeptics continue to call "deluded" or "fraud". This path is open to EVERYONE ON THE PLANET! How many times do I have to keep saying it? But it's like anything else. IT TAKES TIME TO LEARN AND TO USE. If you want to learn a language, live with the people who speak it. If you want proof, open a book!

If you will refuse to read what I say, then I must decline to engage in any further discussion on the matter. Your mind is closed. So, now, is my interest in your growth and development.

The more moronic among you will read only the last sentence and comment on it. Closed minds, closed eyes, completely beyond hope.

seimi

Inter wrote: »

Your mind is closed. So, now, is my interest in your growth and development.

It's very kind of you to take an interest in the growth and development of anonymous people, and, furthermore, to get your commas in the right places.

Fighting Irish

This can be all cleared up if someone gives a name a number of a psychic who can give me a reading while i have a bag over my head and i'm sitting totally still and not talking. If he/she gets even 70% of stuff he/she says right i might consider psychics being real

Zombrex

Oryx wrote: »

People have subjected themselves to testing (Gordon Smith being one) which has produced interesting results, but they tend to be one off tests, others have not, for reasons unknown to me, repeated the test. Perhaps a lot of the 'serious' scientific researchers wont touch psychic testing with a barge pole as they feel they would have their credibility tainted by association.

Both the US Military and the UK DoD carried out studies on the claims of people being able to mentally see real places and people at great distances. They didn't really find anything of interest or use. The advantage of the military is that they don't care how it looks (it is all secret anyway) they only care if it works. It didn't work, so they abandoned it.

Some what like Creationism there is only a certain amount of effort "serious scientific researchers" can spend looking at certain explanations for these phenoemena that produces no scientific results, before, as you say, their credibility starts to become tainted.

Oryx

Oryx wrote: »

People have subjected themselves to testing (Gordon Smith being one) which has produced interesting results, but they tend to be one off tests, others have not, for reasons unknown to me, repeated the test.

Yes but these results have not been "presented" to the "skeptics"

funny thing is i have seen some psychics in action who were absolutly terrible at the time. Then meeting them again on another occasion they have been scarily accurate.

Zombrex

Deleted User wrote: »

funny thing is i have seen some psychics in action who were absolutly terrible at the time. Then meeting them again on another occasion they have been scarily accurate.

Do you appreciate why that causes problems for scientifically testing if these psychics are actually being psychic?

patrickthomas

Wicknight wrote: »

Both the US Military and the UK DoD carried out studies on the claims of people being able to mentally see real places and people at great distances. They didn't really find anything of interest or use. The advantage of the military is that they don't care how it looks (it is all secret anyway) they only care if it works. It didn't work, so they abandoned it.

Some what like Creationism there is only a certain amount of effort "serious scientific researchers" can spend looking at certain explanations for these phenoemena that produces no scientific results, before, as you say, their credibility starts to become tainted.

I think this is the most important point of all, there are a whole lot of people who would be more than happy if there was anything in this psychic business, it would be run by corporate organisations, funded by governments and taught in colleges. It would be bigger than democracy!

The stock market would be run by them, climatologists would be clambering to consult them, and as for insurance companies...!!!

If there ever was a species capable of using a natural resource or ability, we are that.

The proof that it does not exist lies right here in our human nature to exploit whatever resources we discover on this planet.

In the absence of any psychic abilities existing, the ability of the human to exploit those misguided enough to believe in it will exploit that, and there is ample proof of people being exploited by this primitive superstition.

There is no difference to me between the people who see the virgin in the rings of a tree stump and believe in this nonsense. They are projecting what they wish to believe in and that projection is nothing short of delusional.

Wicknight

Wicknight wrote: »

Do you appreciate why that causes problems for scientifically testing if these psychics are actually being psychic?

Absolutley, But the fact that they were so spot on the second time gave a cause for further re-search .

watty

no..
People remember "correct" readings more than incorrect.

Psychics have never performed better than Random in proper double blind trials.

By "guessing" you can be "right" for quite a while.

This explains a bit of the mathematics as to why tests of psychics have to be not only double blind trials but also statistically meaningful designed by people with suitable mathematic knowledge.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Random_walk

There is a good reason why Randi's $1M has never been won. No-one has even come close.

A misunderstanding of statistics, probability and lack of knowledge of Random walks encourages people to bet on the number that hasn't come up all night on the roulette.

Throwing a perfect dice randomly all numbers will have an equal chance each throw. But the Die has no memory. So in a particular trial one number can appear excessively or another "not enough".

All of the this must be understood in evaluation of tests of psychic ability.

patrickthomas

And the question remains, Why do people still cling to these beliefs despite every piece of evidence pointing to it being fakery?

There is a theory of a gene that allows people to suspend logic and integrate imaginative ideas into everyday life but this is now runing dangerously close to new discoveries in mental illness.

I notice again and again that people who believe in these Psychics also believe in an array of other things, Ghosts, pre-destination, etc etc.

watty

Elvis not dead, Moon landings are hoax, UFOs, Aliens, Angels (not the Judeo-Christian bible ones) ...

iamhunted

patrickthomas wrote: »

And the question remains, Why do people still cling to these beliefs despite every piece of evidence pointing to it being fakery?

I for one would love to see all this evidence that points to everything parnaormal being fake.

Oh hang on, I bet you'll tell me you didnt say that .... (otherwise point me to this great information)

The real question that remains is how can people really believe they know it all and can explain everything, without explaining anything?

watty

Wy do people cling to unlikely convoluted explinations of things varying from real events (which may or may not have a simple explination) to "events" or Phenomena only in the eyes or ears of the Observer, e.g. Raudive Voices

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

And
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=skeptic-agenticity

iamhunted

i am assuming youve investigated every known case of reported EVPs etc to be able to make such general assumptions?

No, I didnt think so.

iamhunted

dony get me wrong, everyone is allowed to have an option, though we tend not to ram it down other peoples throats.

Its fine to have an opinion that the paranormal doesnt exist. ive no problem with that. I'd love to know how the standard 'skeptic' (though we all are) is so sure considering how little all of us understand of the whole thing.

Then again, I aint pretending I have all the answers. maybe those of us who have can share?

Zombrex

iamhunted wrote: »

Its fine to have an opinion that the paranormal doesnt exist.

What do you ever mean when you say that?

According to you what is "the paranormal", and how does it exist or not exist?

iamhunted wrote: »

ive no problem with that. I'd love to know how the standard 'skeptic' (though we all are) is so sure considering how little all of us understand of the whole thing.

That is the point. We don't understand these things. They are unexplained. So why are some people claiming to be able to classify them?

To the rest of us "the paranormal" is a human classification for phenomena that is unexplained that implies that there is something going on beyond current known or understood scientific theory. Given that by definition you cannot know that if something is unexplained (I don't know what that was but I know it was paranormal), the term itself is some what nonsensical.

But to say "it" does or doesn't exist is even more nonsensical. It is a classification, it is either accurate or inaccurate at describing what is happening.

It is quite easy to say that the human classifications of "paranormal" have never been demonstrated accurate and are most likely wrong since humans tend to get guesses wrong the vast vast majority of the time.

And just so you don't think I'm picking on believers in paranormal explanations, every single scientific hypothesis has started out being wrong. It is only after refinement through experiment that they begin to get more accurate. And as we have already established no one has ever done that properly with paranormal explanations.

So me one human who has looked at something unexplained and figured out instantly exactly what is happening.

There have been lots and lots of examples of unexplained phenomena that when studied closely reveal an explanation that is actually outside of the current scientific understanding, and the scientific theories are updated to reflect this new evidence.

But there has never been a case where this has happened and the original explanation that someone came up with turned out to be accurate.

No one has any issue with unexplained events possibly being unexplainable by current scientific knowledge, unexplained events requiring an updating of theories to reflect the often weird and wonderful things that we find causing these phenomena.

What people object to is someone making s**t up to try and explain something, particularly when they try and slap a scientific sounding term like Electronic Voice Phenomena (EVP) on it despite the term being totally baseless.

iamhunted

Wicknight wrote: »

What do you ever mean when you say that?

According to you what is "the paranormal", and how does it exist or not exist?

What i mean is some people believe the paranormal (define it as you will) can exist, others believe it doesnt. Are you jsut stuck or why ask such futile questions?

That is the point. We don't understand these things. They are unexplained. So why are some people claiming to be able to classify them?

People do, do they? There are people telling you they understand everything about the paranormal? Wouldnt these be the people who believe they know it cant exist?

To the rest of us "the paranormal" is a human classification for phenomena that is unexplained that implies that there is something going on beyond current known or understood scientific theory. Given that by definition you cannot know that if something is unexplained (I don't know what that was but I know it was paranormal), the term itself is some what nonsensical.

But to say "it" does or doesn't exist is even more nonsensical. It is a classification, it is either accurate or inaccurate at describing what is happening.

It is quite easy to say that the human classifications of "paranormal" have never been demonstrated accurate and are most likely wrong since humans tend to get guesses wrong the vast vast majority of the time.

And just so you don't think I'm picking on believers in paranormal explanations, every single scientific hypothesis has started out being wrong. It is only after refinement through experiment that they begin to get more accurate. And as we have already established no one has ever done that properly with paranormal explanations.

So me one human who has looked at something unexplained and figured out instantly exactly what is happening.

There have been lots and lots of examples of unexplained phenomena that when studied closely reveal an explanation that is actually outside of the current scientific understanding, and the scientific theories are updated to reflect this new evidence.

But there has never been a case where this has happened and the original explanation that someone came up with turned out to be accurate.

No one has any issue with unexplained events possibly being unexplainable by current scientific knowledge, unexplained events requiring an updating of theories to reflect the often weird and wonderful things that we find causing these phenomena.

What people object to is someone making s**t up to try and explain something, particularly when they try and slap a scientific sounding term like Electronic Voice Phenomena (EVP) on it despite the term being totally baseless.

Finished? Now lets read over that to see just what it was you actaully said.

1) the paranormal is unexplained ..... wow, what genius. none of us every thought g that before.


2) You love being pedantic ("But to say "it" does or doesn't exist ...") - that bit was just waffle. You seem to be trying to be awkward about just what the paranormal is. Since it isnt a thing or it that can exist or not exist (as we know its a descriptive term more than an object), just what are you trying to say here other than muddy the water and score points without actually saying anything of value?

Then again, whats new?

3) You tell us theres never been a case to ever back up any paranormal claim. I find this amazing, as how the hell do you know this unless you investigated them all? Did you forget to mention you cant know this as you havent?

4) You have no problem with things that arent understood. But you arent realyl going to bother ever trying to work out what they are. You;d ratherslag people off online for trying to find out the same things by having absolutely no understanding of what they're doing.

5) Due to this, you think people make **** up.

Wow - thanks for that post. Its cleared up so much for me.

Zombrex

iamhunted wrote: »

What i mean is some people believe the paranormal (define it as you will) can exist, others believe it doesnt. Are you jsut stuck or why ask such futile questions?

What do you mean define it as you will. You define it, you are the one using it in an odd way. No one else can figure out what the feck you mean unless you define what you mean by that term.

My understanding is that "paranormal" means an explanation that expands on the current known theories of nature. I've never met anyone who believed that all phenomena can be explained with the current set of scientific theories so who are these people who believe the paranormal cannot exist (ie there can be no explanation for some thing that doesn't use the current scientific theories of the universe)

They would have to be pretty stupid because they are demonstrated wrong any time a scientist discovers anything new, which is like every day.

iamhunted wrote: »

People do, do they? There are people telling you they understand everything about the paranormal?

No, there are people telling me they understand something about an unexplained phenomena. I never said "everything"

Do you disagree? Are there not people claiming to know things about apparently unexplained events?

iamhunted wrote: »

Wouldnt these be the people who believe they know it cant exist?

Believe what can't exist?

There is a difference between someone saying that an explanation is very likely wrong since someone just guessed it (the most common objection to paranormal explanations and the one being used here) and saying that nothing unexplained requires an explanation the expands current scientific knowledge, which is what saying the paranormal cannot exist.

iamhunted wrote: »

Finished? Now lets read over that to see just what it was you actaully said.

1) the paranormal is unexplained ..... wow, what genius. none of us every thought g that before.

Well you didn't apparently, since you keep saying people are claiming the paranormal "doesn't exist".

How can the unexplained not exist? How can an explanation for an unexplained phenomena "not exist"?

You are making no sense and then refusing to clarify yourself. And you are giving out to me for waffle :rolleyes:

iamhunted wrote: »

3) You tell us theres never been a case to ever back up any paranormal claim. I find this amazing, as how the hell do you know this unless you investigated them all?

No, that isn't what I told you. Read it again.

But there has never been a case where this has happened and the original explanation that someone came up with turned out to be accurate.

If this wasn't true you me and everyone else would know about it.

You keep saying how do I know simply becasue you know you can't provide an evidence.

Did you forget to mention you cant know this as you havent?

iamhunted wrote: »

4) You have no problem with things that arent understood. But you arent realyl going to bother ever trying to work out what they are.

Like I said I have a day job. I'm probably not going to curse HIV either, how selfish of me :rolleyes:

iamhunted wrote: »

You;d ratherslag people off online for trying to find out the same things by having absolutely no understanding of what they're doing.

I'm not slagging off people who are trying to find out what unexplained phenomena are. I'm slagging the people who don't find that too hard and just start making s**t up.

iamhunted wrote: »

5) Due to this, you think people make **** up.

Well yes, people do make **** up. They do it all the time.

Are you claiming people don't make up explanation with relation to the paranormal?

Because if that is what you believe that might explain some of your aggression towards me and other sceptics who post here. I commend your faith in humanity