:1orglaugh

You can't just change your opinion on what John is doing. You said that he is simply cold reading and the retrofitting is what makes him look accurate. I presented you with proof of something that could not be cold reading, and you say the member of the audience was planted. That is a seperate debate on whether that is happening. Does this mean I convinced you that John isn't just cold reading people, and now you think the audience members are fake? I want to be clear on what exactly it is that you're skeptical about. You're changing your answer
:winkwink:

Why would he use cold reading techniques on plants?

Why wouldnt he? it makes others believe and once they do, mass amounts of idiots start watching the show (no offense) and advertising goes up and so does his paycheck...... i bet most of the people are plants...... If you look at history and apply it to these type of shows/seminars..... its proven like 5 years after the fact when no one cares anymore that most of the people were plants.... Its just to get the audience riled up....

I don't think you understand my question. I'm saying that John wouldn't NEED to use old fashioned cold reading techniques on people if they were working with him. He would just go by the script. Right?

There's no set pattern or procedure. I was just citing one example.

A wide variety of techniques are used ... including good old fashioned fakery ...

There's even online training and "schools" for this ... where a wide variety of tricks are taught ...

But hey ... if you need to believe and enjoy believing it ... what the hell ...

Or, if this is a joke thread ... and you're just jerking us around ... believe me, I'm laughing too

I don't think the fact that something CAN be faked proves that everyone doing it is a fake. I'm sure there is literature teaching you how to con people into thinking you can do many things, but that doesn't mean everyone in all those professions is also a fraud. That kind of logic is flawed, I'm sure you can admit.

Don't tell me I need to believe. I am very far from needing to believe.

I am still officially agnostic even after seeing probably 100 episodes of John Edward's show and realizing that it is more likely than not that he getting his information from somewhere we don't understand.

That's what's great about being agnostic, you admit that you don't understand everything, and you are open minded. You sound like an atheist? Are you? Being skeptical is one thing, but being cynical and close minded is unhealthy (in my opinion).

Well, logic tells me that if these people were really psychic ... they wouldn't need to be hustling for money ...

They would have made their fortunes by now ... in the stock market or some other financial endeavor where they could predict success ...

Hell ... if I was really psychic ... I would retire and be on an island by now ...

P.S. You did admit that he missed some things at this seminar .... that is a telltale sign ... believe it or not ...

Maybe you're confusing being able to connect with energies that have passed with being omnipotent. Maybe stock market tips aren't something he gets? He claims to connect with people that have died, not KNOW EVERYTHING.

Of course he's going to misenterpret things that he hears/sees, or say something that doesn't make sense to the person he's reading at the time. You think something like correctly telling someone their husband had amputates toes is null and void because he also mentioned there is a November 20th connection that made no sense to the woman? Maybe she couldn't think of it, or maybe he just fucked that part up. I don't think it devalues the fact that he hit something with 1 in a million odds right before that.

You still haven't answered if you're atheist. From your logic, I'm guessing you are.

Have you ever seen the Street Magician David Blaine? He has this neat trick where he levitates off the ground in the middle of the street. It's pretty amazing and actually looks like he is defying gravity. He also has another trick where he rips the head off of a Chicken and reattaches it! If you've ever seen them they knock your socks off.

Now tell me, what is the difference between believing that David Blaine can levitate and resurrect dead Chickens and believing John Edwards can communicate with the dead? There really isn't any, they both take blind faith. Blind because information on how their tricks are done is readily available.

No one believe what magicians do is real because we know it's all a simple trick of slight of hand, smoke and mirrors, misdirection, etc. It's a great performance but at the end of the day we know their not Warlocks or Witches.

Again I ask, what is the difference between a Magician and a Psychic? We know how psychic perform, we know their tricks, and we know the psychology of the people who use them. Why is it that you don't believe in magic yet you'll believe a Man can talk to the dead using a technique used by charlatans for centuries?

The only evidence you have is anecdotal and the only evidence we have is scientific research and first hand experience.

Go sell your blind faith somewhere else because we?re not buying it here.

I believe in evidence and scientific fact ...

I acknowledge that spiritual things may exist ...

But until it's proven, I don't believe in it ...

If that makes me an atheist ... then so be it ...

it's real!!

Maybe the best way is to just go to one of these shows and see for your self. I bet you would change your mind after really going to a real physic like Sylvia Browne. And John Edwards has been tested over and over enen by skeptics at several universities knowone has been able to prove him as a fake. He hit on shit noone would know. But for each is there own I belive in physics but very few of them exist most are frauds.

Here is a simple, fair test which would prove Edwards abilities beyond reasonable doubt, but which he will never agree to.

No one has claimed Edwards should know everything, but he should be able to communicate what these dead people he is talking to know. The test is easy and obvious. Get someone whose deceased relative worked for the CDC and ask him, through John, what the deceased relative thinks of some new and obscure development in viral epidemology. You could do the same with a Doctor, Lawyer, or anyone in any field that requires specialized knowledge not generally avalible to outsiders.

Ever wonder why Edwards does all the talking and audience members are not allowed to ask these sorts of uncomfortable questions? Now you know.

Oh, and I'd still like to hear what exactly you find unfair about James Randi's testing process for paranormal abilities.

As far as the issue of belief goes, the fact Edwards and his ilk refuse to prove their abilities in controlled environments with fair, objective tests is reasonable 'face value' evidence that they are full of shit. It would be one thing if the tests were obviously unreasonable and designed to make the psychic fail, but I think you know as well as I do that the opposite is true.

What you are seeing here is the process of induction, not unreasonable skepticism. If your past experience tells you that someone making claim X is always associated with fraud, then you are going to be inordinately skeptical of people who make that claim in the future.

Fact is that so many psychics have been exposed as frauds in the past that people have come to believe (reasonably..) that the burden of proof falls 100% on the psychic to prove beyond any shadow of a doubt that they are real. Given the sordid history of John Edwards types, I wouldn't be expecting to convice anyone until you have evidence which is absolutely unimpeachable.

Looks like you just haven't researched John that much, which is fine, so I'll explain some things.

John has actually done many things in controlled environments. He was part of a study at a university where they hooked him up to machines when he read people. I also saw a special on MSNBC about psychics, and there was part where they had people who claimed to be psychics sit in a room while people would come in and sit behind them. The psychic would then just start speaking about whatever he was seeing, and the person didn't respond at all. The person who was read was then asked to go look at the tape and grade the accuracy of their reading. MSNBC said that the psychics they tested (John Edward was one of them) had an accuracy rating that was somewhere in the 80% range (don't remember exactly), and other people that tried had less than 40% accuracy. This is with no cold reading, not even seeing the person or hearing them.

The reason I said Randi obviously doesn't want to give away his million dollars is because he refuses to look at studies just like these that have been performed on psychics like John. If scientifically proving that John can give a reading that is twice as accurate as a normal person, without even seeing or hearing the random person he is reading...if that is not proof, what would be?

You must not watch the show much. He does Q&A very frequently during the show's readings and at seminars, to take a break. Just because you don't recall seeing things doesn't mean you should say that he refuses to do them. You did that with the "controlled tests" thing too.

See....here's someone who is aware of the situation before making broad claims.

um the university and tests you are talking about is "Soul Science research at the University of Arizona's Human Energy Systems Laboratory" lol - he never even did a double-blind test!!!!!!!!

you must really want to believe to be using a guy who's regarded as a joke, and who's funding is tied up in proving these things to be true as your standard of proof - no medium has EVER passed an impartial scientific inquiry as to their abilities.. the randi prize should be EASY for anyone even half psychic.. thing is. IT DOESN'T EXIST.

heres edward in his "rigorous" testing environment..:
http://www.randi.org/images/03-23-01-edwardlab.jpg

what you mean because he agrees with you lol!!!!

Hilarious, I saw that shit on the Discovery channel. And some psychiatrist hooking John Edwards up to an EEG proves what exactly? That he actually has brainwaves? lol. Morons.

And what "studies" might those be? Attaching some wires to his head while he cold reads a subject?

The only thing that "study" proves is the depth of your credulity.

Why would Randi "look at" someone elses study for this shit? Christ, if your going to whine about the guy being unfair at least READ his fucking site first. Randi has his own well defined testing process that must be satisfied for the million dollars to be paid out. The testing process is neither biased nor unfair, and the only reason Edwards and his ilk are afraid to take it is because they would be exposed as frauds.

Man, face it... for some reason you desperately WANT to believe. If you just wanted to know the truth you would be in favour of rigorous testing.

The difference is that David Blaine is a magician. Everyone knows that it's tricks. John Edward doesn't claim that what he is doing is tricks, so it is open for debate. And I will revert to my previous statement that just because some people are cons doesn't neccisarily damn everyone else.

I don't have "blind faith". If you had read my posts, you would have understood that I am agnostic, I believe in no religion because I think there is no way to tell what is true and what is not. I have watched many episodes of John's show and I have come to the conclusion that I find it more likely than not that he is getting his information in some way that normal people can't. I'm not "selling" anything. That is my opinion, my conclusion. You are entitled to your opinion, and I started this thread because I am interested in your opinion. If you're not interested in my opinion, don't read it. But don't tell me to go somewhere else :321GFY

I saw him do a double blind test on the MSNBC show. Just because you didn't see something doesn't mean there's no way it could have happened. You know the sun rises in Asia every day too, even though you don't see it happen.

Since when does having an opinion make me desperate?

I'm not in favor of rigorous testing? What the hell are you talking about?

No, the double-blind test that I explained in that same post, that you cut out of my quotes when you responded.

I saw a woman get cut in half on tv the other day too. Until theres been some credible testing it's just a hoax mate. Seriously if he could actually do it, if it was ACTUALLY SCIENTIFICALLY proven possible. the US government would have him in clamps in some NSA dungeon asking muslim ghosts where binladen is, or dead terrorists what they know about bomb plans.
the fact is, he's a charlatan making money of the vulnerable and the gullible. and good luck to him.

I like how you say it's a "fact" when it is your opinion. If I said that it was a "fact" that he can communicate with the dead, you guys would have my nuts for breakfast.

when you attack the fair test of randi's but go on about tv stunts i think it's pretty obvious where you stand on rigorous testing.

How can you do a double blind controlled study to prove someone talks to the dead? Don't be a fool.

There are a number of easy, obvious tests that one could perform to substantiate someones ability to communicate with the dead. I illustrated one of them in my first post. None of the"studies" contain these obvious ways of deciding whether Edwards is telling the truth because he would never agree to subject himself to them. He knows that if he did, he'd be out of a job.

Now, lets use our brains here. Why would someone avoid subjecting himself to an obvious and direct way of knowing for sure whether he is telling truth or not in favor of the ambiguous "studies" that you cited, which will always leave room for doubt? Hmmm...

i like how i say it too. the burden of proof doesn't rest on me. as it hasn't been scientifically proven he can do it, it's a FACT that he's a charlatan.

I don't think MSNBC doing a statistical study on whether psychics have a more accurate guessing ability than an average person should be considered a TV stunt. It's still a study. Just because it was done by a news corporation that broadcasts its results doesn't make it "When Psychics Attack!" or something

I don't think that what someone finds as a lack of proof then automatically proves the opposite is true. That's failed logic. That's like saying because you can't scientifically prove that God exists, that it's a FACT that he doesn't. That's retarded. I'm agnostic and I would never say it's a FACT either way. When something needs more proof, it simply needs to be investigated more.

it certainly doesn't make it "the Oxford Medical Revue" either :)
News corporations make money by sensationalising things.. thats how it works. The telling thing is that he'll do a promotional "study" on MSNBC, or testing at the sympathetic "Soul Science research centre" but not a real scientific organisation.. or shock horror a skeptical one.. If I had psychic powers the first thing i would do would be to crush Randi and humiliate him into giving me the prize.. but then.. if i thought i had "psychic" powers i'd be either delusional or a fraud who would lose my income by being proved a charlatan by him.

no your strawman is "retarded". the existance of god CANNOT be proven or disproven so the lack of proof doesn't make it a fact.. john edward's "ability" *CAN* be proven or disproven so the telling lack of evidence, and the reams of data on the techniques he uses and similar tv charlatans that are fake and gullible and vulnerable audiences being the only ones that believe in him does make it a fact that he's a charlatan.

Actually the tone of the MSNBC special was pretty negative towards psychics. The study they did was a small part of it, and it was like "John Edward did score over 80% accuracy with his statements, compared to a 40% accuracy from other subjects". and then they went on. There was nothing sensational about it, and it was one of the only positive things for a psychic in the special.

You're assuming he uses the reams of techniques used by similar people. There is no proof of it. Give me the proof and I will agree that it's a fact he is a charlatan. Find me a planted audience member. Something...some proof. Until then, nothing is a fact.

If he won Randi's prize i'd be singing his praises. til then he sucker as much cash as he feels like from willing and complicit wallets.

I hate to break this to you, but the fact that psychics guess better than your average joe was not in question before this "study" was conducted.

As has been pointed out previously in this thread, there are a number of ways one can go about becoming very skilled at scoring the sort of hits psychics do. There are books that teach it.

A "psychic" being better at making guesses about people than Average Joe is about as remarkable as someone who has practiced violin for 5 years being a better violin player than Average Joe.

I suppose you'll tell me its because the fucking violin player is channeling the spirit of Paganini... :1orglaugh

THEN WHY DOESN'T HE TAKE JAMES RANDI'S MILLION?

This thing is going round and round in goddamn circles.

When this bloke makes James Randi look like a fool I'll believe he has genuine ability but not before, because all these other 'tests' are NOT scientific.

Show me a book that teaches psychics how to cold read someone who they can't hear or see, and I'll agree that the test proves nothing.

sorry i can point out innacurracies all day long to you, which you will promptly say is hearsay, or exaggeration of events that happened - did you know he was caught out on tv? he had a "feeling" of a dead relative named x from someone in the room - and it turned out to be the cameraman's relative - thing is he'd spoken to the cameraman before the show and he'd let theat info slip.. now theres a bunch of "blooper" stuff like this documented.. but you don't want to believe it so you'll say it's lies... you see.. im afraid that when i say i saw elvis's alien baby.. the burden of proof is on me... just like i don't have to proove edwards is a fake.. it's up to you to proove it to us.

Hehe...yes it is kind of going in circles. I don't know why he doesn't take Randi's million. Maybe he's a fraud. Maybe not. Maybe he's afraid he'll choke and mess something up, and the next thing he know he's failed the test and then no one watches his show any more and he's out many more millions than the 1 that he would have gotten out of Randi. He admits that he messes things up sometimes. Why risk a MULTI million dollar career to get a crack at 1 million? I don't know, I'm just spitting thoughts out...this could be his reasoning, I have no idea. Someone should ask him.

this is going in circles... time to get some work done.

Another "psychic" fails the James Randi test.

http://www.time.com/time/columnist/j...199773,00.html

There hasn't been a test. Alrighty, lets go through this one more time.. just for fun.. and we'll make it really simple....

1. Edwards claims to be able to speak to the dead.

2. There are several simple tests which could validate his claim ot be able to communicate with the dead beyond any shadow of doubt.

3. Edwards refuses to take these tests.

4. Edwards instead participates in studies of the blindingly obvious which tell us nothing about whether his abilities come from being able to speak with the dead.

5. This gives his apologists, such as yourself, the ability to claim Edwards has been in "studies" when in fact his real claim.. the fact he says he can talk to the dead.. has never been tested at all.

6. Thus, Edwards provides a way for his apologists to claim scientific validity while at the same time avoiding any real test of his ability to communicate directly with the deceased.

Simple :)

Duuuuuude! That was not a blooper or him being caught! The producers included that in the show because they found it interesting that the cameraman got a reading by accident. Of course he could have talked to the camera man beforehand. If he only exclusively read his camera crew, that would obviously be a sign that he's a fraud. Try again :Graucho

The only place I ever heard about his double-blind test was on the MSNBC special. I have never heard him go around talking about it. He doesn't tout it as an accomplishment or anything. I just happened to catch it.

no, on the show it wasn't a blooper - later on though the camera man admitted he'd had a private conversation with Edwards earlier and he probably have given him family info.. he doesn't ONLY have to read cameramen to be a fraud - that he used information he was given eariler and pretended it was a reading shows that thats the way he operates.

Well now you're giving me andecdotal evidence :)

Where can I see the interview with the cameraman? Sounds interesting.

I guess my question as a professional skeptic (advanced degree in philosophy) is what would be the difference between a "real" John Edward show and one in which it was all scripted and arranged beforehand?

The problem with this show (just like the ones where David Copperfield moves an island or makes a jet liner disappear) is that while everyone on the screen is telling you over and over and over that it's all real and amazing, you aren't there, and gullible you are assuming that what you are seeing is real and true.

Even so, as has been pointed out, for a guy who supposedly has a pipeline to the other realm, he asks a lot more questions than he answers, and when he guesses wrong, he never says, "Oops, I fucked up!" he says, "We'll come back to that later," or later on when something seems to fit, he fits it in (how handy!).

It's just a slick sideshow performance, and you should be ashamed of yourself for falling for it.