Clairvoyants - I KNOW they're dud, but how do I explain this to my co-worker?

why do you give such a shit if she believes something silly? i mean, if she starts taking all her advice from psychics and giving them all her money, then you'd have reason to worry. but if she's just "amazed" or whatever by her "experience" why not let her have her beliefs? it's rather assholish to try and force her to your views.

it's that kind of smug attitude that makes your average joe resentful towards skepticism. i mean how are believers in creationism going to be swayed by someone like richard dawkins if he keeps telling them they're stupid for believing in what more often than not they were brought up to believe?

Maybe I need to look at why good, rational people believing in this horse sh1t makes me so angry, I dunno.

anything you say probably won't convince her since people don't believe these things for rational reasons anyway.

Trayce is so OTM with James Randi. He's written some good stuff on the matter. I'll send you a link when I find it.

but seriously just try to remind yourself that people are basically gonna believe theses things no matter what. also most people don't mean harm by them, and are just filling voids in their lives. not that irrationality should go unchecked, of course.

x-post

Anyway we get there and to cut a long story short she had a dodgy lock on the toilet and I was trapped in there for 20 mins.

good, rational people believe this stuff because we're wired that way. the type of thinking that exposes how clairvoyance and the like really operate requires study, practice and discipline. it's not something you can just intuitively grasp because you're really smart. that's why it's mostly magicians that debunk psychics, because magicians are experts at tricks and misdirection and know what to look for.

the worst approach possible to changing people's minds about this stuff is to loudly proclaim it bullshit, even though it is. this makes you somebody who hates fun and you will be ignored. which is another reason magicians are good at debunking... they can do neat tricks!

but as an aside, i kinda believe in that horseshit. i believe there's a lot of crazy shit we don't understand. not because some magician showed it to me or because i'm naive and want to believe it (i was raised atheist by skeptics), but i've seen, my friends have seen it. i don't think everything needs some western scientist or doctor's seal of approval before i can believe it exists.

May not convince her, but for anyone that who's interested, the Skeptics Society (and their magazine) makes fantastic reading.

1. yes, there are things beyond our comprehension, but they are not generally of the dead / souls / moving glass / ghost variety. Every one of those things is explicable, in every case.
2. the "we" suggests that we all have equal abilities and belief in science. the things i don't understand are generally because i'm not smart enough, not because i don't think there's an explanation.

huh? everything everyone has ever experienced in any circumstance is measurable? and recorded and tested? and has a 'rational' explanation? even quantum physics goes against this. (doesn't it?)

i think you have an irrational faith in science. to believe someone somewhere can explain things for you if required. just like religious people have an irrational belief that some religious leader or god or someone can explain the strange things in their lives. or else you've never had some intense crazy shit happen to you to question things. It's common for skeptics to criticize the comfort people find in the supernatural, but there is a great deal of comfort in thinking we understand and can predict and somewhat control everything around us.

As with everything I suspect there's a bit of *truth* to both ideas and *reality* can somehow encompass all of it.
the movie Contact to thread...

I would not say this is what every skeptic thinks, though.

say you come home and a guy in a ski mask has all your jewelry in a sack and is stepping out your bedroom window. do you think to yourself "oh, it's probably my insurance agent wanting to re-appraise my diamond necklaces without disturbing me" or do you call the cops?

in other words, do you show the same degree of open-mindedness towards incredibly unlikely explanations of mundane situations that do in situations involving psychic phenomena? if you don't, you should probably ask yourself why you're willing to disregard your usual way of thinking when it comes to the likelihood of somebody having psychic powers.

in other words, do you show the same degree of open-mindedness towards incredibly unlikely explanations of mundane situations that you do in situations involving psychic phenomena?

I'd casually mention that "Penn & Teller's Bullshit!" is your new favorite show on television and ask her if she's seen any episodes. Then leave a copy of the Shermer book around

Using scientific thought to disprove spiritual thought is pointless. It's like trying to disprove Christ's divinity by quoting the Koran - if you don't accept the legitimacy of the other's method nothing will be achieved. Spiritualism only becomes a problem if it's used to defraud people, and while this goes on, I think a great deal of mediums genuinely believe in their 'powers'. While I think that occultists etc. are wrong, I don't *know* that they are wrong - certainly not to the extent that I would dedicate myself to debunking their beliefs. Without sounding too namby-pamby pluralist, it's good to discuss differing world views and appreciate the good and bad that lies in each other's thought. I try to treat people who view science as man's liberator and ultimate tool in the same way I treat people who believe in a Christian theology, with curiosity and respect. Obviousl I fail at this a lot, but I know it's wrong when I do.

people who believe in psychic abilities are rarely so insane that they are unable to reason in any circumstances. they just refuse to apply their everyday reasoning to the supernatural because for whatever reason (heh) they've got a personal stake in believing that it's true.

as in the example i gave above, proponents of something like clairvoyance will suggest all kinds of outlandish theories to explain how it exists, but if you ask them if you can borrow their credit card for a couple weeks and provide an similarly outlandish story to explain why you need it, they will quickly dismiss your theory and correctly divine your intent, which is to rip them off.

again, it has nothing to do with differing worldviews or epistemology or what have you. it's pretty clear that in the majority of situations people who believe in the paranormal evaluate most claims the same way anyone does. they just decide to evaluate paranormal claims using different (and much looser) criteria.

But when it comes to straight belief in a spiritual dimension and spirits and stuff, I don't think there is much to be argued against. Whilst there may be no evidence to support it, neither is there to refute it. I don't believe it is illegitimate to assume a belief in the absence of deciding factors, except if we refer to occam's razor, and frankly I don't see it as a very useful tool for this sort of thing.

Hmm. I guess not much of that makes any sense. It is 3:45 in the morning here, and I've been up for days. And I have to go to a Sonic Youth gig tonight (yay!), so I think my incoherenced is explicable.

Anyway, I think my point is that people don't make special allowances for supernatural phenomena (oh, and assume that is in '' wherever you see it - I don't believe in Clairvoyants any more than you do) because they prefer it, but because it is a special class of experience outside of normal sensory rules (obv. not the case of someon who just goes to see a fortune teller, unless the experience affects them in a profound way - but in the case of mediums who claim to contact a spiritual realm, or feel the presence of spirits it is the case that this is extra-sensory). Obviously in most cases you are correct, but you can't assume that a belief in clairvoyance is automatically dishonest or delusional. I have more problems with people who automatically equate seeing and existing (without thinking to back it up) than I do with people who believe that they got sick because they saw a solitary magpie the day before. A world with a little mystery is more fun, and that seems (in the absence of anything else) a good enough reason to give people the benefit of the doubt about their beliefs.

The word "skeptic" has been mangled and totally debased. These days it seems to mean someone who comes into the debate with a "no" belief, rather than the *actual* meaning, which should be someone who comes into the debate with an "I don't know" belief.

To go back to the original question, though, without getting dragged into the whole frustrating and pointless "philosophy of science" questions (the nicest thing about not being in a relationship any more is not having to listen to the dogmatic crap of "skepticism" any more) - what difference does it actually make to you *WHAT* your coworker believes?

When it comes to questions of religion, I don't actually care about scientifically "true" or "false" - I care about "useful and positive" or "harmful and counterproductive".

I know it's not a particularly attractive trait - pressing my ideas into other people - but I really don't get why people go in for that kinda stuff after seeing, essentially, a magic show. Maybe I need to start reading a few of them books that have been recomended - that'll sort me out.

When people talk about this "frustration" they feel towards the "ignorant" it only reminds me of the "frustration" that missionaries talked of feeling towards "savages".

Sure, there are circumstances where people are taken advantage of by "psychics" or "clairvoyants", especially those who are going through the process of grief. But if something brings *comfort*, succour and relief, then does it really matter if it's scientifically True or not?

I'm more or less OK with people having "beliefs", but if they interfere with me in any way, or even try to tell me about their supernatural experiences (and this includes all religions) I get a bit cheesed off. I kind of think of it as analogous to a person's love life: you wouldn't generally discuss that in much detail at work, so why would you talk about your "spirituality" (vile word)?

But if something brings *comfort*, succour and relief, then does it really matter if it's scientifically True or not?

It doesn't matter to THEM, no. But it matters if they try and convince me otherwise. If people are happy in believing that the Earth's flat, then fine, but don't expect me to pay you money for the information, and don't expect me to listen to you telling me how wonderful flatEarth-ness is.

x-post

Kate OTM.

I think this is a really interesting thread but I'm going to have to do some work before posting my thoughts.

Whew. That's good to know!

I want someone - anyone, really - of the wise, potentially omniscient denizens on this thread to please help me disprove (or provide an adequate proof for an alternate explanation, in oops' case), discredit, and demystify the first spontaneous Kundalini experience I had on the night of October 11th, 1994 that broke my mind into zillions. And has been reoccuring ever since...

I'd really, really appreicate this, and I agree to wait patiently until you do. Maybe you'd cause me to re-write me entire emotional history since then, with all your newfound insight (on the superconscious / subconscious). It's about Time! (Since we still have to pretend to believe in all that.)

Contact me off-board if necessary; I'll give you the details, and hopefully you can look it up in the necessary texts to diagnose the root of the problem, but bonus points if you don't prescribe any medication, or overuse any boring, stuffy modern psychiatric terms in your analysis.

Thx a bunch!!! I can't wait @@@

toodles,

V

I knew Vic was gonna come in and say that.

I have fond memories of how, after that crazy-overlong post, Leon-Larcole waltzed in to say "No, N. (Dastoor) is still stranger than you" or something pity and dry like that, cementing her status as my Fave Poster of All Time right there.

And gosh, Mr Kicks - who I remember getting into some row over about a year and a half ago (was it "past lives?" yeah, i think it was past lives) - if ya knew I was gonna say that, by gosh jolly aren't you a cycloptic clairvoyant ?

Much like how out-of-it I was that afternoon in the computer lab, three autumns ago, when that f. girl thread came into being.

But i've made a decision: since I'm such a singular (and isolated) voice when it comes to articulating such deviant and extreme views on anything metaphysical on ILX, I might as well continue. I may remain isolated, but again it comes down to experience, and I don't expect anyone else to relate in the first place. It's been like that since I was fourteen, and I'm pretty sure that's it's going to remain like this for quite some time.

What's important is to maintain some form of discretion, which is why I'm cautionary about email addresses. I got googled the other day from someone who had looked up my address on some internet resume I had posted, 'coz he wanted to find out more about my building as he was interested in finding an apt here. I'd like to prevent all that when it comes to topics like spirituality (which I believe is a perfectly suitable word).