To think psychics are all fakes?

[LambinsideaDuckinsideaTrout]

I don't like that they take peoples money when they are in a vulnerable place, lost loved ones etc. It's immoral. Just my opinion.

Thoughts? Opinions?

Hettie- probably because posting in such an unnecessarily aggressive way invalidates any credibility you may have and leaves you looking like a petulant schoolkid?

Hettie that reminds me of the saying

'Don't preach in my school and I won't think in your church'

Thanks hareinthemoon ;) hehe...

I wonder how they go about believing that dead people are actually talking to them though, that's the part I don't get, surely they know if they are lying about that? Anyhoo..

Theodorus

You can believe what you like because it 'feels nice'. But saying it does no harm is incorrect.There are plenty examples on the thread of the harm these types of things do cause.

What are you referring to, Baldricks? What belief system do I have?

I don't believe in ghosts because there's no evidence for them. The exact same reason you don't believe there's invisible dinosaurs in Back's basement?

I picked you up on the gravity thing because you were wrong. Just wrong. No picking and choosing there.

You then tried to claim that there are intangible things that exist that science can't detect.

We asked....like what?

You tried Black Holes and several of us explained how they are detected.

I have picked and chosen nothing.

I believe that when science says something is true, it generally is. With the proviso that science bases it's conclusions on evidence - when evidence changes, so does the conclusion.

But that doesn't affect things like gravity, BB theory or black holes. The evidence for these is massive.

Invalidates any credibility

You wish.

You were wrong, and shown to be wrong.

All you have left now is........."you nasty person".

I'll let you have that, since it's all you have.

You read research others have done and then pick and choose the parts which suit your belief system.

Said no scientist ever...

Seriously, how can one "pick and choose" which science to accept ("believe" not being an appropriate verb here)? Well, most "proper" scientific investigations will have a formalised structure which includes a testable hypothesis, the experiments will be well-designed and repeatable by anyone, and the results will be picked over and spat out by a panel of peers who would like nothing more than to uncover the fatal flaw in the whole shebang.

I think there is a huge and very important difference between believers and non-believers.

If, tomorrow, actual evidence were presented that proved the existence of any kind of woo, the non-believers would listen, read, appreciate and change their minds.

Believers are actually the ones with the closed minds as, despite the countless studies of the paranormal, they will not listen to reason and choose blind faith instead.

But the examples I gave of gravity and black holes were to illustrate that there are forces in nature that we know exist but do not fully understand. How is that wrong they are (wait for it) FACTS! Somebody mentioned the Higgs Boson particle- until recently this was a theoretical particle that nobody had seen or measured, scientists just theorised that it was there. Then it was found. Science is constantly evolving and if there's one thing we can learn it is that there is vastly more in the universe that we DON'T know than that which we do. It's narrow minded nonsense to dismiss anything unless you have 100% evidence that it cannot exist.

Hettie- how have you proved anyone was wrong? You haven't said or done anything on this thread which means anything, apart from be rude to people.

Exactly, Okay.

What's that other lovely phrase? About having a mind so open your brain falls out?

But lamb with regards to doing harm. Fakes and cult leaders etc are just those. Con artists. You get them in all walks of life. They have picked a way to con you and get what they want. Money or followers. Tin some cases those people are fake psychics or crazy people who brainwash people. They would be nasty manipulative people in life in general. And could easily have chosen to scam you on eBay or in chat rooms. Or worked for a company conning old ladies out of thousands selling security systems. Because that's who they are. They know they are talking crap and don't care. They have an agenda.

Those people are a far cry from a few people hear who happen to believe something different to you. I believe. That's just how it is with me. But in a decent person I have no agenda to brainwash people to lead to some mass suicide or sell twigs and shit as protection from evil spirits and con people out of money. It's one little aspect of my life which doesn't even impact anybody.

I agree with almost all of your post Baldricks, it's just the last sentence that doesn't make sense. How do you prove a negative? I refer to my, somewhat stupid, pink rat analogy up thread somewhere.

Have to run, but baldric I don't believe in science by sticking a pin randomly in a list of facts, nor do I pick a nice sounding scientist and believe them. If I did it would be much the same as the believers method.

You know science predicts that if you do this, that and then this, you will have a DVD player. You probably have a DVD player that works don't you.

Religion and superstition predicts that if you pray this will happen and then that, but ... it doesn't does it. Ask anyone who prayed to get their lost limb back.

Baldrick, I agree with everything to:

It's narrow minded nonsense to dismiss anything unless you have 100% evidence that it cannot exist.

So you're saying that people can make up anything, and because it can't be proven false, we have to concede the possibility that it might be true?

That's not science.

X post with ItsOkay

Hettie- how have you proved anyone was wrong?

Oh blimey. Do you have short term memory problems? Your stupid remarks about gravity, for a start.

It's narrow minded nonsense to dismiss anything unless you have 100% evidence that it cannot exist

It's impossible to obtain 100% evidence that something doesn't exist!

What evidence does something that doesn't exist provide that can be used to prove it doesn't exist?

We make judgments about whether something exists or not based on whether we have evidence demonstrating it.

This is logic 101.

At the risk of droning, Lamb...

Once as a teen I went to a concert and did the hysterical screaming thing (do NOT ask me who was playing, I will never tell, waaaaay too shaming). In one part of my mind I knew that it was a bit mad, what I was doing, but the other part of my - mind? - not sure - just seemed to want to be part of that crowd energy. It seemed, not logical, but, somehow, the right thing to do at the time.

DH is a musician and he often talks of being "in the zone" with other players, where each person knows what the other is going to do and it all feels a bit magic. Experiences like that are outside of the normal way of things, and pretty inexplicable. I mean, you probably could come up with an explanation, but DH wouldn't be interested in hearing it. He's after creating it and experiencing it, not the explanation.

Final part of drone: people don't have the same faith in authority that they might have had in ages past. There are lots of different explanations for things (for one instance, just look at all the threads on dieting on here, with many, many different ideas about the "right" way of doing it, all claiming scientific backing to a greater or lesser degree, and many claiming that the government advice is wrong - so the authority that is supposed to "care" for us is seen as fallible). In the absence of a unifying belief, people choose to believe according to individual criteria.

Then you have proved my point Hettie- you can not ever disprove anything without any doubt. You can compile evidence for a for and against argument. You can take a good guess, you can make a judgement, but not you not anybody can say unequivocally that something does not exist.

Not sure how that explains what I asked, but interesting anyway, thanks.

Baldrick - Russell proposed that there is a teapot in orbit between Earth and Mars (I think it was those two planets).

Now, no matter how hard we look for it, and no matter how many times we fail to find it, we can never prove that it isn't there (and that we just happen to to have missed seeing it every time we've searched).

Are you saying that you think there is a teapot orbiting between Earth and Mars?

Think about that. Think about the implications of that.

Quantum mechanics would say that there are infinite possibilities and outcomes to any give situation. I do think about that often.

*given

Would it? Quantum mechanics?

Anyway, do you think there is a teapot orbiting between Earth and Mars?

Then you have proved my point Hettie- you can not ever disprove anything without any doubt

Of course not (except in maths).

Science isn't about proving something 100%, never has been, never will be. It can't do that, even if it wanted to.

Quantum mechanics would say that there are infinite possibilities and outcomes to any give situation

It wouldn't say that. That's a hypothetical explanation for certain phenomena.

Particularly annoying are the ones who claimed to have helped police solve crimes, etc. "But of course the police will deny it". Well yes, they will. Because it's not true.