what rot, there is no such thing as the supernatural.
Clairoyant fakery can cause a great deal of harm.

A COUPLE allegedly tied up and tortured a teenage employee because a Vietnamese fortune teller told them she stole from them, a Darwin court has heard. Read more: http://www.news.com.au/national/fortune-teller-blamed-for-teen-torture/story-e6frfkvr-1225900949467#ixzz0xNiwCWXe

'Psychic' powers are non existent, and those who claim to have them are either liars or deluded idiots. It is a sad day indeed when grief stricken people are encouraged to believe in the efficacy of 'psychics' by misguided members of what should be the most pragmatic of all professions - ie our police force. The drivelling tripe propounded by various TV shows add to the confusion among the less intelligent members of the community.
Psychic revelations; prayers; contact with the 'afterlife' via 'mediums' and the like; fortune telling; water (or gold, etc)divining; biblical prophecy; astrology - the list goes on - are money making scams practiced by scoundrels and believed by fools.

My sister took her cat to the vet. When they arrived, her cat (Sarah) managed to jump in fright out of the car, onto the street and was gone. For 10 days my sister cried and fretted that her cat was lost. After 10 days, my sister's friend listened to my sister crying to her on the phone. My sister's friend suddenly said "we will find her", and she left immediately in her car to travel from the other side of town at night-time to my sister's house. When she arrived, she decided to drive straight away to a randomly selected street where they stopped at one particular house, with this street and house randomly chosen for no particular reason. It was the only house they went to. This house was not near the vet, but in the same suburb, nor was is near to my sister's house, but was in the same suburb. My sister's friend and my sister got out of the car and stood at the front of this house. The cat started miaowing. It had been locked in the garage of this house for 10 days without food or water. The old people who lived there had no idea that the cat had been locked inside. My sister didn't know these people, nor did my sister's friend. No reason why my sister's friend suddenly decided that they had to go to that particular house all of a sudden and out of the blue. If that friend of my sister happened to be me, I wouldn't dare to reveal it because people would think I was a nutter. It was very good luck that they happened to go to exactly the right place to find Sarah.
I think most people who claim to have psychic powers have delusions of grandeur - like religious magicians, conjuring up spells. Mix em up and turn em round and turn em round again. And yet, sometimes stuff just happens there is no logical or scientific explanation for, that we know about ... yet, or, that is knowable to us.

"My sister took her cat to the vet...

...they happened to go to exactly the right place to find Sarah."

Sorry, but either you are trying to fool us or someone is trying to fool you. That happens a lot, which is why scientific investigation by objective investigators is the only way to verify or disprove events of this kind.

'You got to ac-centuate the positive and e-liminate the negative,' Dean Martin once sang, and the followers of psychics dutifully take this advice to heart.

So 'Cheryl' got lucky and stumbled across a corpse. Not the right one, but hey, why be picky? Otherwise one might also question the 'dream' as opposed to just a good old-fashioned hunch that a murderer might dump a body in bushland conveniently located in an otherwise urban area.

No magical powers, just a bit of intuition and a bucketload of pure, dumb luck.

A lovely story Dotto and one I enjoyed. When I was ten years old my second cat, a kitten of 6 months old disappeared one day after school. Similarly I discovered her on the other side of town wrapped up in a little red nurses cape and white nurse uniform by some children in daycare at a lady's home. They had princess sitting in a pram taking her for a walk in the front yard with the daycare lady smiling at them: picture a tabby on a hot summers day wrapped up in an old nurse's uniform LOL, concerned she was going to die of dehydration.

To this day I recall walking in a certain direction across town into that certain street where I found her.

Disregard the cynics. Generally black and white insecure thinkers, suspicious of any minds who are able to open up, are in touch with their feelings, intuition, those who are broadminded as ourselves.

Ha ha, how did I know someone was going to play the 'open your mind' card?

Unfortunately, the person who urges an 'open mind' is actually the more close-minded: http://skeptico.blogs.com/skeptico/2005/10/the_appeal_to_b.html

...coming from a 'Skeptics' site; written by 'Skeptics', based on sceptisism Clownfish! Your point is....skeptical...and permeated in your 'ha ha's', thats okay, what you do not know cannot hurt you; live in skepticism, for what can one possibly 'know' that one has not experienced; therefore a closed mind on these types of matters!

I live and experience my life often more intuitively and with common sense which has not let me down to date approaching 50. Scoff all you like at peoples experiences Clownfish, it does not affect or change peoples experiences. Sad you have not enjoyed any though.

I note, we are unique, that you do a nice line in pejoratives: 'insecure thinkers', 'sad you have not enjoyed any though', yet you don't even attempt to answer the substance of the skeptics' argument. I rather suspect that that is because you are simply unable to; hence you resort to insubstantial belittlement to hide your lack of a cogent argument.

You also use 'skepticism' as an epithet, rather than 'the application of critical thinking to evaluate truth claims' or 'the position that what cannot be proved by reason should not be believed.'.

Perhaps you don't actually know what 'skeptic' means, and simply confuse it with meaning some sort of mean ol' party-pooper, or perhaps you're simply the opposite of skeptical - gullible.

Jon J, oh ye of little faith! So let's get our facts correct then. You were not there in the cat story (unless you were the old man in the house), and although you were not there you disbelieve everything about what took place and you are demanding objectivity. Your rationale for this is because you are a skeptic, right? Well that all makes sense. How did you come to choose to be a skeptic JJ? Was it a personal choice? I guess a skeptic firmly believes that if you cannot see something then it must not exist. You're right. You didn't see it because you were not there. So, if you say so JJ.

And Deano also sang out from our television screens slurring effortlessly into the melody with his tie partly undone and his bedroom eyes "everybody loves somebody sometime". It was a love song, nothing deeper Clownfish. A Dean Martin sung song is a good example of scientific evidence. Thanks Clownfish, that was really helpful.

Hi we are unique. Thank you for sharing your lovely story about your cat Princess. I do trust my intuition and I also know (let's call it experiential evidence) that something has only got to happen to you once for you to know that it has happened. I don't automatically block all incoming out of the ordinary information because I've got a skeptic sign plastered across my forehead (as some may do). And speaking of intuition we are unique, I also listen to my gut feelings about things. I couldn't find the original article I read a few years ago, but this one's more recent anyway. If you haven't already seen this, hope you enjoy it.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=gut-second-brain

Dotto, I am at a complete loss to understand what your like to the Scientific American article has to do with alleged psychic ability at all. It would be ungenerous of me to think that it's simply an attempt to appear scientimatific by posting something, anything, from a science site.

If you want to proffer 'experiential evidence', by all means do so. However, that means that you must document EVERY time you had some intuition, premonition, vision, etc., WHETHER IT HAD A POSITIVE RESULT OR NOT.

Listing the ONE time you had a positive is not valid, it's simply argument by selective evidence - 'cherry picking'.

I could, after all, cite the fact that I won $5 on a scratchy as evidence that I am supremely lucky, but I would be guilty of ignoring the many times I bought one, and won nothing.

Or, more pertinently, if one tallies the number of times a 'psychic' like John Edwards makes a wrong guess, against the number of correct guesses, one finds that he has a hit-miss ratio of something around 20-80. In other words, he's a very poor guesser.

Oh, and the Dean Martin song was never intended as 'scientific evidence', it was an analogy, a simple rhetorical device. I thought it was fairly obvious, but I should know by now, never to underestimate the obtuseness of believers.

Clownfish, I concur that psychic ability is something quite different from gut feeling eg link to a scientific article about the gut brain. However, this article as an example of something scientific which is to do with 'gut feelings' does highlight that there is still a lot we do not yet know. Whoever would have thought that a gut feeling had anything at all to do with a gut brain and that the cellular make-up of the brain has strong connections and similarities to the gut. There is also the theory that peptides have the ability, as information messengers in the body, to carry emotions. So I say Clownfish, who knows? And yes, it could sound like cherry-picking to bring up a single incident to use as an example to prove one vast and completely unknown to science area. It may have indeed been luck, or dumb luck as either you or JJ put it. Maybe, I don't know. It happened and it was strange that it did. Perhaps some people do have psychic abilities. This has not yet been proven by science, so none of the rest of us will know for a fact if this is true or not, and that includes you Clownfish.

No magical powers, just a bit of intuition and a bucketload of pure, dumb luck.
Posted by Clownfish, Monday, 23 August 2010 10:01:39 PM

You said it all yourself Clownfish! Intuition! Why demonstrate hypocritical behaviour of both Dotto's and my story?

An excellent article Dotto thank you most kindly!

Oh dear, dotto, where do I start ...

The peptides claim is peddled by Candace Pert, aptly described as 'a talented scientist who went woo woo many years ago.' Pert also claims to have found a cure for AIDS, but - surprise, surprise - her work is 'being suppressed'.

'It happened and it was strange that it did.' Perhaps so, but that don't mean a thing, on its own. Strange things happen sometimes. Which, given probability, is exactly what we should expect.

'Perhaps some people do have psychic abilities'.

Perhaps, but they've yet to offer any proof. No-one has *ever* been able to demonstrate any undisputed 'psychic' ability. Most 'psychics' appear to be shonksters, pure and simple. Some 'psychics' may genuinely believe that they're the real deal, but, again, none of them have been able to prove it under test conditions. For a straightforward explanation of 'genuine psychic ability', I'd suggest you read up on the 'Clever Hans Effect': http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clever_Hans

But the point is: science does not have to prove anything, with regard to 'psychic' abilities; 'psychics' do. They're the ones making the claim, after all, so it is beholden to them to prove it.

You are using an argument quite common to proponents of such beliefs as 'psychics': 'science doesn't know everything, therefore my whacked-out belief must be true'.

Of course science doesn't know everything - which is part of the beauty of science - but that doesn't mean that any woo-woo idea that cannot be categorically proven false is therefore true.

Something is only worthy of consideration *if there is a reason to suppose it is true*. In other words, there must be some evidence. So far, 'psychics' have, over the centuries, given none. Therefore, it is wisest to judge that they are false.

The final word should go to Skeptico: 'If you don’t restrict yourself to things that are backed by some evidence, or if there is at least some logical reason to suppose they might be true, you will believe in absolutely anything. And I have this really great bridge to sell you.'

rather than 'the application of critical thinking to evaluate truth claims' or 'the position that what cannot be proved by reason should not be believed.'.

I save the application of critical thinking to evaluate claims for my work and field [rather 'lucky' for yourself and others] Clownfish. The latter you mentioned above is just one of the differences of opinion and lifestyles between yourself and I: ie you have indicated that you appear to live your whole life sitting around and awaiting scientific evidence and for facts to be presented in front of you; as opposed to myself not requiring the methods you choose on every occasion.

As stated to you in my previous post, Clownfish, what you do not know or what you have not experienced cannot hurt you. Why are you bothered debating this issue if a skeptic? Fear? Worried you may allow your mind to learn, grow and expand to experience some more positive moments in your life?

I do not believe in Psychics having the ability to forsee one's future set in concrete. Peoples thoughts, behaviour and lives are ever changing. Although it is my experience that some gifted honest Psychics are able to channel certain visions and messages to certain individuals. Whether or not the Psychic has correctly comprehended the messages at the time is another story.

Experienced the evidence put in front of me accompanying another friend to a Psychic!

We are unique, you haven't answered a single challenge, or proffered a single proof. All you've done is subtly insult me, proffer a single, uncorroborated anecdote, and shift goalposts with some meaningless NewAge waffle.

So, by all means show me what evidence you, or anyone, has that 'psychics' are genuine. I'll be duly impressed if you do. In fact, show James Randi - he'll not just be impressed, he'll also give you a lot of money.

Until then, I'll have to reluctantly conclude that you're just another gullible mark.

Not that it's any of your business, but I fail to see what being gullible has to do with 'allow[ing] your mind to learn, grow and expand to experience some more positive moments in your life'.

I do all those very nicely, thank you, but if you try to sell me a bridge, I'll want to see some proof that you own it.

One last word of advice: if you open your mind too much, your brain falls out.

We are unique, you haven't answered a single challenge, or proffered a single proof. All you've done is subtly insult me, proffer a single, uncorroborated anecdote, and shift goalposts with some meaningless NewAge waffle.

1. What challenge are you referring to Clownfish?
2. Proof of what?
3. Insult? Where in my postings to you have I made insulting comments Clownfish?
4. A single, uncorroborated anecdote and shift goalposts with meaningless Newage waffle? Experiences and facts regarding a childhood encounter is not an uncorroborated anecdote nor is it shifting goalposts.

Experiences are experiences Clownfish. Do you not 'experience' life and situations?

Best stick with facts and [evidence] as you proclaim to others Clownfish, prior to making the above claims that I allegedly made to you. I cannot find any 'insults' in my postings to you.

That is your problem if you have not encountered any evidence or experiences involving Psychics being accurate or intuitive.

If you choose to write peoples opinions and experiences off as a result of an individual not presenting facts or evidence to you on subject matter, you indicate fear, complete distrust and cynicism within your mind and heart. I feel sorry for you. What will you interpret and twist those comments as Clownfish? Condescension?

Gullibility is irrelevant regarding experiences and evidence.

Challenges? Well, for a start there was the link to the Skeptic blog, regarding the 'close-minded' fallacy, which you apparently duly read (unless you decided to rubbish the Skeptic's site without actually reading it, which I'm sure you'd never do) but have yet to respond to; apart from repeating the fallacy several times.

Then there was the challenge to offer a full set of your 'experiential evidence', the misses as well as the hits, so that an objective judgement could be made regarding their validity. And related to that, the challenge to offer valid evidence, of any sort, of genuine 'psychic' ability.

That's the proof I'm asking for, as I'm sure any reasonable person would. It's a fool, after all, who accepts an extraordinary claim, unquestioned, without any valid evidence.

The 'subtle insults' I mentioned are a standard response from Woos: adopting an attitude of saintly condescension, with accusations of cynicism and hypocrisy, the implication of narrow-mindedness and meannness, and the general insinuation that a skeptic is a sad, nasty nay-sayer.

What it really boils down to, though, is that you have no evidence to offer, and no logical argument, so the best you can do is to try and paint me as a bad person in order to distract attention from your own untenable position.

Finally ... um, yes, 'experiences and facts (?) regarding a childhood encounter' are precisely an uncorroborated anecdote. I shouldn't really have to give lessons in basic English, I would have thought, but here goes: uncorroborated - 'not supported by evidence'; anecdote - 'a short account of a particular incident or event of an interesting or amusing nature, often biographical.'

Once again - a point you have also conspicuously failed to answer - if I 'have not encountered any evidence or experiences involving "Psychics" being accurate or intuitive,' that's not my problem, it's yours.

*You* are the one making the extraordinary claim, so it's up to *you* prove it. By all means, go ahead. Sadly, experience so far leads me to suspect that you won't even try.

"Oh dear, dotto, where do I start ...

The peptides claim is peddled by Candace Pert, aptly described as 'a talented scientist who went woo woo many years ago.' Pert also claims to have found a cure for AIDS, but - surprise, surprise - her work is 'being suppressed'."

You have forgoteen something Clownfish. Candace was the scientist who discovered the opiate receptor. She should have received the Nobel prize for it but her superiors got jealous and greedy and they claimed the prize instead. Very convenient that she's now considered to be a woo woo. Yes, Candace has been blocked by the world of science, and in this way she has been silenced. Wouldn't want to risk the fine upstanding reputations of her colleagues.

So, in answer to your question Clownfish, oh dear dotto ... where do I start - you could start by not putting words into people's mouths. You could read up on single case study research. You could ask yourself who the target audience of the Septics website is, and why.

Oh, dotto, you still won't answer, will you?

'read up on single case study research' - that's exactly what I'm asking for. I've read *plenty* of case studies, and in every one, the 'psychics' fail. If you could provide a valid case study that actually lends credence to a 'psychic', I'd be most interested.

You can cut-and-paste, but it doesn't appear that you can read: the quote I used 'aptly' acknowledged Pert as a 'talented scientist.' But one, unfortunately, who ended up tripping off with the fairies.

I'm also well aware of Pert's backstory - probably better than you are, since I know that it was not the Nobel she probably should have won, but the Lasker prize. Skeptico, that wicked skeptic site you so disparage, has the full story, and they're quite sympathetic to Pert's role in it: http://skeptico.blogs.com/skeptico/2005/05/candace_perts_m.html

As for the target audience of Skeptico? People who can think, because people should think, not accept any old fairy story uncritically.

Anyway, I await your revelations of rigourously tested, scientifically validated evidence for 'psychic' abilities with bated breath.

*I live and experience my life often more intuitively and with common sense which has not let me down to date approaching 50.*

So Unique, how did things work out, when it came to something
like selecting a husband?

Or do you simply have selective memory, like most?

In case you didn't know, the Lasker Award is known as the American Nobel prize, Clownfish. As I already said to you but you must have missed it, don't put words into my mouth. I have no problem with Skeptico, why, do you have a problem with people asking questions? Keep up the good work in knowing everything. Keep believing Clownfish. Might as well send it out to the universe while you're at it.

Er, but it's still *not* the Nobel, is it?

No matter what it's nicknamed ('The awards are sometimes referred to as "America's Nobels." '- wikipedia), it's still not the same thing.

'She should have received the Nobel prize'. I'm not putting words into your mouth, those are your own words.

Now, stop dodging, and show your evidence.

Yes, that time you were careful to use my exact words and in the right context. Okay Clownfish, you get to take that point (tick for you). The conversation is getting a bit silly now though don't you think? I'm bored, but thank you it was a lot of fun and I actually did appreciate your cleverness - didn't necessarily agree with all of it, (some maybe perhaps, oops did I say that?) Speak to you next time.

I guess that's your way of saying you're not going to offer any evidence, then?

Tsk tsk Clownfish, there you go again ...

*I live and experience my life often more intuitively and with common sense which has not let me down to date approaching 50.*

So Unique, how did things work out, when it came to something
like selecting a husband?

Or do you simply have selective memory, like most?
Posted by Yabby, Thursday, 26 August 2010 10:10:30 AM

Dear Yabby, he selected me, not the other way around, as you question. Regardless of being catholic I did not wish to marry. Live together yes; marriage I never believed in during my twenties. All 'things' as you term it, worked out extremely well regarding my 20 year marriage Yabby; I have not regretted any experience growing up together.

In particular, I have never regretted being with my husband [not divorced] as I learned a great deal from him and he is the father of my children. Yes, intuition played a great part. My children are the prize in our relationship, for which I am extremely lucky and thankful. Husband and self still close seeing one another daily.

Having said these little 'things' I would not marry again and it would not be a Farmer or Grazier.

Btw Yabby do you not have children? I have not heard you speak of any children to date. Being a Farmer or Grazier I would have thought you'd have had children to pass your properties down to by now.

Kind wishes.

Well clearly you did not live happily ever after, Unique.

So I guess my point was yes, women are intuitive for good
evolutionary reasons, but that intuition can also lead
them up the garden path of being completely wrong.

I have a very good American friend who is very maternal
like yourself. She regularly follows her intuition.
The problem is that when the crunch comes, all reason
is thrown out the window and she tends to commonly remember
when her intuition got it right, not when it failed
completely.

No I don't have any kids. I went farming because I love
the country lifestyle, not to create a dynasty.

Country life is something we either love or hate, each to
their own. You are clearly a city slicker at heart. Fair
enough.

You still have time for children Yabby [to experience and add the most joyous dimension into your life!

Raised on both properties and in the city, milking dairy cows in my early twenties and being with aunts uncles and granparents on both my parents side has seen me more a lover of country than city. You read me wrong. Lets just say your intuition was completely wrong.

Kindest wishes and enjoy your country life!

*Lets just say your intuition was completely wrong.*

LOL Unique, I have never claimed to have intuitive powers,
just powers of reason and the ability to separate emotion
from reason. In other words, learning to think about what
we feel and why.

In your case, if you really loved country life, you would
be living in the country. Your actions speak for themselves.

*You still have time for children Yabby*

ROFL Unique! Let's just say that I never inherited the gene
which makes some people crave to have children, above all else.
The world is already overcrowded with unwanted children. I see
no reason to add to the problem and so far nobody has ever
claimed financial compensation from me, for any that turned
up accidentaly. So in that regard I have been quite
fortunate indeed.

In your case, if you really loved country life, you would
be living in the country. Your actions speak for themselves.

I do live in the country Yabby yet city a half hour away. Not stated the contrary.

Kindest wishes.

Guys, not sure what the above sniping has to do with the topic at hand?