Archive through July 16, 2002
MoveCloseDeleteAdmin

The ClubHouse: General Discussion Archives: Archive Three: Roddy the Skeptic!: Archive through July 16, 2002

Foodbunny

Tuesday, July 16, 2002 - 09:24 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
I hope this can be a love thread, since there's a bash thread also on the page ;)

As a skeptic I know how hard it is to challenge people on the topic of the paranormal when you're outnumbered. As an atheist and a skeptic Roddy just made my day bringing up the million dollar challenge and challenging astrology and psychics. There's practically no representation of my point of view on these shows, you get non-commital New Agers and you get hardcore Christians. It's just so nice to see someone I can relate to on the show, I'm really thrilled.

Roddy just moved up into my number one pick by that alone. I already liked him but my respect for him just jumped up an incredible amount.

Lurknomore

Tuesday, July 16, 2002 - 09:37 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
But that is not a legit challenge, from the "Amazing Randy," or as John Edward once called him, a man who uses an adjective for his first name. He won't commit to what would be proof.

Independent scientific studies have proven what John Edward and others is doing is statistically way beyond random guessing.

I think you and Roddy are more than entitled to your beliefs, and I would never try to convince anyone of anything. I think everyone should be skeptical and demand proof, but also keep an open enough mind to allow it might be legit.

Foodbunny

Tuesday, July 16, 2002 - 09:40 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
Ahem, if you look at the Randi Challenge, it doesn't state what would be considered proof because people make so many claims. You go to Randi and tell him what you can do, agree to a test (if you don't agree to the controls they will be changed) and then try to do it. You can't have a "THIS IS PROOF" when you're getting psychics and mediums and dowsers and people who claim to be making free energy machines and people who think their toasters are talking to them and all sorts of claims, you have to handle them on a case by case basis. You can find out more at http://www.randi.org and find out how the tests are set up individually based on your specific claim.

Wcv63

Tuesday, July 16, 2002 - 09:45 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
Lurk I hesitated about posting because I am loathe to denigrate anyone's personal and spiritual belief system. I have faith and no, I have no proof, scientific or otherwise, to back up my faith so this isn't an attack against your belief system.

I too am skeptical of John Edwards. I didn't hear Roddy's comments so they may have been much more intolerant than my own skepticism. It's not that I wouldn't LIKE to believe that we can communicate with our deceased loved ones. I would love for that to be true. I just have a problem believing that beyond personal prayer that it can be done.

Have you ever seen the movie "Leap of Faith"? Steve Martin is an evangelist (I know totally different from John Edwards but I do have a point) who plays the crowd by having people walk through the crowd as they are filing in...listening to their conversations, picking up clues, and then feeding him information that allows him to give the impression that he is being given the information from God.

I think of that everytime I see a psychic or medium. It may not be a fair representation but it is something that colors my viewpoint.

Lurknomore

Tuesday, July 16, 2002 - 09:46 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
Sure you can have a "this is proof." How about if a Medium reads an anonymous person, knows nothing about them, and they provide 20 specific points of detailed information. How about 30? He can set some boundaries on what proof is.

Nothing is ever proof for Amazing guy. I can sit here and detail why I believe. I can tell you personal experiences and specific information mediums told me that no one knew. Some facts even I didn't know at the time and I had to find out they were right and I was wrong. But I can make an argument for why I believe. I'm not referring to wacko talking to aliens or toasters stuff...I'm talking about solid proof of communication with dead loved ones.

Angelsluv

Tuesday, July 16, 2002 - 09:50 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
The paranormal has been studied and researched for years all over the world. There is proof that it does exist.

Big problem is that many times anyone who has more of a scientific/mathmatical mind cannot grasp the thought that, if you cannot see it, that it still exists.

Randi and even Kreskin are not "All Knowing".. People have been laughing agt them for years too *LOL*

It all depends upon what side if the brain you develop more..

** And "No", I am not into "New Age".. I am a Witch! (Not wiccan.. a witch!)

Foodbunny

Tuesday, July 16, 2002 - 09:52 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
He doesn't just test mediums and not all mediums make the same claims. You can't have a standardised test for something you aren't even sure exists, you have to treat each claim individually or else it's not fair to the person making the claim.

Roddy comes across stronger than I like to, but he's still representing things that are important to me. Things that very rarely get any representation on reality tv at all. So I can't help but feel darn proud of him.

Ryanc2002

Tuesday, July 16, 2002 - 09:54 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
Foodbunny - I was chanting "Go Roddy!"

Lurknomore

Tuesday, July 16, 2002 - 09:55 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
Wcv, first I wouldn't be offended at all. I never mind an intelligent discussion on any topic even if I am disagreeing with a person (long as we are both being respectful).

I have seen John Edward in person twice. The first was a public lecture prior to his TV show, so he wan't "hot" then. Let me tell you something he asked. He asked who in the audience was a skeptic. I sat there proudly with my hand down while many raised there. He yelled out a few minutes later "EVERY HAND IN THE ROOM SHOULD BE RAISED." He went on to talk about how a good medium will prove to you he is legitimate and no one should just believe. It was a very good lesson/reminder to me.

I will tell you what I've told some skeptical friends of mine. You shouldn't just believe. But if you have an interest then do some research, find a legitimate medium, book only using a first name, have a reading, and then look at the information and judge it then. Or go to a spiritualist church and watch mediums work. Or go watch John work unedited. The information I've seen and personally recieved is SO specific that it helps remove any doubt.

If Hollywood is going to color your viewpoint watch Ghost or The Sixth Sense. I see your point about the movie you mentioned, but how can specific details be fed to any medium at an event like that? Even if they were wired, how would they know?

Oregonfire

Tuesday, July 16, 2002 - 09:55 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
The thing is that absolute rationalism is a belief system too, with its own set of biases just like any other. I appreciate that he is skeptical--that's a healthy frame of mind. But I think he thinks he's too cool for school, better than everyone else. The "cynical writer" is a stereotype too. You have just got to see the movie "Daytrippers" for a character just like Roddy.

This is also a departure from any previous HG. Love it!

Angelsluv

Tuesday, July 16, 2002 - 09:59 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
Just thinking..

Another problem is that you can believe or not believe in any religion, philosophy, or spiritual system.. It really doesn't matter since it's another topic all together.. you don't need to "believe" to have "inner site"

"Leap of Faith" is a great movie, but the concept was more of "holy roller healers"..

You can find "crooks" and "frauds" in the psychic/medium avenue (more than true and accurate ones).. But you can with any field..

Wcv63

Tuesday, July 16, 2002 - 10:03 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
Hollywood didn't color my viewpoint but it did show me how a con man could work the crowds and come off as utterly believable.

I admit I've never been to a pschic or medium. Well I did go to a fortune teller once who told me I was going to get married soon. I was VERY impressed until I realized that I was wearing my engagement ring and carrying a rose.

I haven't done much research so I can't speak knowlegably on the subject. I can only say that perhaps my opinions on this subject come from exposure to the psychic hotlines, watching documentaries showing the tricks passed down from generation to generation of cons, and a skeptism brought on by being taken advantage of for being naive too many times.

Zachsmom

Tuesday, July 16, 2002 - 10:06 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
I have never been to a psychic or medium..never felt the need so I cannot offer whether or not they are fake or true..

but I have had astrologists who have only had my birthday and come up with a 99.9% accurate description of me! ( the .1% is stuff I didn't like)

Lostinthefog

Tuesday, July 16, 2002 - 10:12 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
So Lurknomore, just out of curiosity why do you believe that John Edwards is the real deal? Are you able to separate the true mediums from the frauds? Can this be done by viewing and listening to a medium, or are random probability tests necessary?

Zeyna

Tuesday, July 16, 2002 - 10:24 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
Well I guess my mathematical mind is working overtime here, and I'm a little scared to enter this discussion, but Lurk, I respectfully disagree with your statement:

"Independent scientific studies have proven what John Edward and others is doing is statistically way beyond random guessing."
I would not say this is a generally acceptable belief in the scientific community.

I don't want to start debate here, and think that everyone is entitled to their opinion, but the fact that a medium gives 20, 30 or 100 detailed explanations to one person does not constitute any scientific proof. It may to that person, and those watching, but it cetainly does not prove statistical significance.

Anyway, Roddy might have made a big mistake to share this opinion with the others.

Lurknomore

Tuesday, July 16, 2002 - 10:25 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
I believe that he is legit because I have seen him work a lot and he has repeatedly provided specific details that just logically couldn't be guessed at. We have mutual friends whom I respect and who I know have very high standards and they all agree he is legit.

Regretfully there are way too many frauds in this field preying on folks vulnerabilities and grief. They see this as a quick way to make a buck...or a lot of them. I went to one myself, and I am thankful I didn't let them turn me off forever to this.

I don't think it's possible to test every medium, but there certainly are ways to separate the real ones from the fake. Word of mouth is always good. Most large areas and some small have Spiritualist churches. They are free to go to, beyond passing the plate like any church. The mediums that work and attend churches are almost always on the level. Granted their degrees of talent may vary, but it's a really good way to find some good mediums. Churches also offer many low cost ways to have readings with mediums. For example a reading on Mediums Day at my church just went up to $20, $15 for members. A lot of the mediums that donate their time to read for the church and members do private readings for about $100.

But anyways (I do tend to go on about this topic sorry) I think the best way is watching folks work and then seeing if they are being specific and giving specific and accurate details. If someone just says so and so is sending their love, that's not good enough.

Lurknomore

Tuesday, July 16, 2002 - 10:28 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
Zenya..the study done was FAR more elaborate than that. It was done in a controlled, university lab and involved scientific machines as well as exact statistical evaluation of the mediums. It was done by Gary Schwartz at I believe the University of Arizona. I hope to get a copy of it someday so I can quote this stuff precisely.

Angelsluv

Tuesday, July 16, 2002 - 10:33 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
"Too Cool for School"

*LMAOPMP!!*

Easy way to test a "true" vs fraud (short version):

1) Are they asking questions that can cause them to "fill in the blanks" and are you making facial reactions to "egg them on" in a certain direction???

2) Clinical Studies

3) Are they telling you generalized "stories" or answers that can be correct for many people or are they giving:
a) names?
b) dates?
c) features (pyhysical), personality traits, or quirks that you can identify?

4) Are they telling you things that there is no way that anyone could know?

5) If you ask them a direct question, do they give you an answer without hesitation or with a look of bewilderment???

6) Are they telling you everything you want to hear???

7) When you walk in for a reading, do they ask you why you came and what do you want to know, or who you want to hear from??


*** Typer's cramp****

Lurknomore

Tuesday, July 16, 2002 - 10:37 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
There is a well known medium from New York who kept repeating the same phrase when I saw her lecture. I think it sums it all up:

"NEVER TELL A MEDIUM ANYTHING"

A good medium will do almost all the talking, and ONLY want to know if you understand or not.

btw...nice job of detailing Angel :)

Sanfranjoshfan

Tuesday, July 16, 2002 - 10:40 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
I've seen studies on astrology beliefs (DSC channel or something) where a college teacher asked all the students in the class for their birthdates so he could have real astrological readings done. In the next class when he gave the students their "individual" readings, he asked the class how acccurate they were...the vast majority said it was really close to their personalities/characteristics. Turns out they all had the same "reading" and it was based on the birth date of Ted Bundy!

I guess I am a bonafide skeptic. I gotta give Roddy some credit, too. It's difficult to be an atheist in a crowd of believers.

No offense to anyone intended....JMO

Zachsmom

Tuesday, July 16, 2002 - 10:55 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
Oh wow SanFran..don't I feel like a fool.. I give koudos to Roddy for standing up for his beliefs.. we stand up and shout Hurray to Jason for standing up to his..why should we put Roddy down for NOT believing?

Unrepentantsinr

Tuesday, July 16, 2002 - 11:00 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
Lurknomore, I don't mean to be impolite, but you're talking through your hat. Gary Schwartz's study was hardly "elaborate" and qualifies as scientific with only the most liberal application of that word.
You can find a lengthy discussion of the methodological problems with Schwartz's study at this site.
http://www.csicop.org/si/2001-11/mediums.html
I am sure that your response will be (see, I'm practicing my psychic powers ;)) "of course they attack Schwartz, it's a close-minded skeptical organization. That of course would be a logically fallacious and invalid argument known as an ad hominem or attacking the person. What I would really like to see is an actual dissection of the evidence presented on this webpage by you.
I wait with baited breath. :)

Zeyna

Tuesday, July 16, 2002 - 11:02 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
Lurk, sorry I was not implying that the study itself was based on one reading, just a comment for a statement somewhere above.

In any case, I did a quick search for the study done by Gary Schwartz, and there are disputes for the way his study was conducted. I won't start listing sites here, but if you're interested you can search them out.

Grant

Tuesday, July 16, 2002 - 11:02 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
I don't think anyone in this world can read a person's mind, future, or otherwise. I agree with Roddy in that it's just a way to make a buck in the entertainment industry. People fall prey to these false hopes in search of something more for themselves. When I see the 1-900 psychic lines advertised daily on TV, I appreciate that I have a Spiritual Being to turn to for support instead of some costly gimmick.

Sanfranjoshfan

Tuesday, July 16, 2002 - 11:13 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
Zachsmom....you have no reason to feel like a fool! I know exactly what you mean. I am an atheist, but believe me, I am nervous about stating that in a room full of believers. To not believe in god in this country is to be villified. Of course, to not believe in Allah but TO believe IN god elsewhere is to be villified.

When it comes to faith based stuff....there is no way to prove or disprove anything. Heck...John Edwards could just have telepathy rather than the ability to talk to the dead. :-) He could have some trick to it (like a real evangelist "faith healer" did years ago, who was exposed on a 60 Minutes type program with an earphone, being fed info about the audience from his wife....they actually picked up his wireless headphone and broadcast the info that he was getting "from god" on that exposé! )

John Edwards could be that one in 8 billion billion trillion fluke that just happens to guess right every time. Odds are against that, just like they are against winning the lottery (44 million to one in CA) but then...many weeks, someone hits those odds! Personally, I don't think someone just guessing right every single time is any less likely than getting paid a lot of money talking to unseen dead people on a tv show.

I just *know* I have gone too far now....I should probably just disbelieve very quietly. :-)