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?

I quite agree and wasn't sniping at the op. I also agree that the take a break mags that advertise 0898 psychics are immoral, totally agree with that. I just find it interesting that every thread turns into a googlefest and some people have had some fairly unpleasant scathing stuff thrown at them. So, spooky Halloween stories are welcome but not anyone who believes in God or anything "spooky" the rest of the year.

Theodorus, I don't think anyone has said people aren't allowed to believe whatever the hell makes them happy...

People have asked "where's the harm?", and others have replied with examples of harm that can be caused by belief in eg stage psychics.

Otherwise, people have tried to claim status for eg belief in ghosts that is not logically sound or objectively verifiable, eg that such beliefs are on a par with our knowledge of black holes - and they've been rightly called out on that.

I can't see much wrong with any of that, myself. As I say, people can believe what they want, just don't claim the belief is better-grounded in observable reality than it actually is.

And now, having packed DH and DS off to their various daily pursuits, I believe I shall now return to bed for a while

(Ignoring Batman vs Superman because Hettie has bloody gone and won it by mentioning Tom Cruise, SULK).

For a start, Theodorous, nobody needs to be a scientist to talk at the level we have on this thread (although I think Maid is). I didn't Google except to find a quote to end gravitygate. This is extremely basic stuff - GCSE level, as I said.

Of course people can believe what they like. I would go so far to as to say that it's essential for a healthy society that we have that freedom - the alternative is unthinkable.

But, I strongly think that overall believing codswallop is very bad for everybody in the world. Gullibility is the con artists dream - if they'll believe anything you say, they'll give you anything you want. You only have to look at the mega rich, bouffant-hairstyled evangelical Christian Ministers in the US to see that.

By and large, people call psychic hotlines, or whatever, to find out if he's planning to propose, or still hankers after his ex. Harmless (ish) - fair enough. But what if they are a bereaved mother who cannot cope with the loss of her child and so are receiving messages "from the other side"? Someone is making money out of her grief and lying to her - piously pretending they are providing a service. It's despicable, nothing less.

I think such "services" should be banned, but I doubt they will be.....free expression and all that.

I think the best way of getting rid of these con artists is to make people less gullible in the first place.

And, a word about "personal beliefs". Beliefs involving ghosts, God, the efficacy of homeopathy and so on are not actually that "personal" - they're a claim about the nature of reality, a reality we all inhabit.

If some one, anyone says, "I believe ghosts are real" - that's not just a "personal" belief. They hold it personally, of course - but if ghosts are real for them, then they are real for me too. If you make a claim on a public website about the universe we all live in, someone will address it and show that it's not true.

That's why I think Dione is mistaken - personal beliefs of this sort should be logical & they can be addressed by others in a debate format. The problem, of course, is that belief in God & other woo is neither logical or rational to begin - if you didn't use reason to arrive at a belief, you flounder a bit when you try to use reason to support it.

But why can't people choose to believe in something if it gives them comfort? Even if deep down they know it's probably not real.

How can you believe in something if you know it's probably not real? I don't feel I can control my beliefs like that. I can say I believe, I can act as if I believe, but if I don't actually believe, I can't make myself believe.

X post with Lamb (didn't realise there was a second page, thought posts stacked up in a single list...).

Hettie And, a word about "personal beliefs". Beliefs involving ghosts, God, the efficacy of homeopathy and so on are not actually that "personal" - they're a claim about the nature of reality, a reality we all inhabit
Excellent point, will steal for future use!

I'm getting worried by the tendency on this thread for certain posters to believe that you need to have a science doctorate or be a philosophy graduate in order to expose logical fallacies or have a basic knowledge of scientific principles.

You don't. This is averagely well-informed person on the street stuff.

There was also some nonsense quite a while back about how some posters 'pick and choose' elements of science to suit their personal beliefs. I'd be really interested to hear more about this - what are the creditable, peer-reviewed research publications that support the existence of psychic abilities/the supernatural?

"in fact I do believe in that there is more to life than the material "

So do I.

I have four degrees, including a doctorate, but none are in the sciences. I am in no way implying that the majority of Mn are 1950s Hausfrauen.

My point is that you don't need to be a science or philosophy graduate to grasp basic logical or scientific principles. Some earlier posters seemed to be implying that unless you were head of CERN, you should be a believer in ghosts/psychics etc.

" Some earlier posters seemed to be implying that unless you were head of CERN, you should be a believer in ghosts/psychics etc."

I particularly liked the implication that if you couldn't say what gravity "is", rather than what effects it had this proved that the world was full of "intangible" things and anything was possible, including ghosts and psychics.

My point is that you don't need to be a science or philosophy graduate to grasp basic logical or scientific principles

Yes, exactly. I had to laugh at the sarcastic references to my "vast intelligence" for knowing that gravity is a force that can be measured!

Although it might get me flamed so thoroughly I resemble an overdone doner kebab, I think it would in fact be interesting to see results from a survey that looked at whether there was any correlation between educational level and belief in ghosts/psychics.

If I think through people I know, I don't see one, but my sample is small.

would that not differ around the world

spirts, jinns, evil eye is also unexplained but is very much part of some cultures

There are many stats to show that higher educational attainment correlates with higher levels of atheism, if that's an acceptable readout of belief in woo?

but are these stats from the uk, us, europe, asia

Yep, mostly Western world. Would be interesting to see data from India etc. Also, it's just a correlation - lots of other factors in play e.g. richer country = higher education levels + better welfare provision (negating the need for woo?), and so on.

I suspect there are lots of factors in that. I would think that if you took someone from a society steeped in religion/belief in the supernatural. Where it played a part in every part of your day then it would be hard to shake off the beliefs because they were there first. So you ought to find more highly educated believers in Iran than in the UK.

An intelligent believer can still learn at least as much as a non-believer unless it clashes with their belief. You can be a good religious mathematician, but you can't be a good religious archaeologist or historian.
If you're a creationist then you can't be a good astronomer. You could come in and work the telescope, but your belief would trip you up every 5 minutes. You couldn't be much of a chemist if you added water to a compound and thought "hmm either that turned blue because of the copper sulphate or because my grandad is trying to send me a message".

in that case do you not believe people can put aside their personal beliefs, views and thoughts when they are working

i have to all the time it just is irrelevant when i am seeing a client (integrative counsellor) unless alarm bells are ringing and i feel they or someone else maybe in danger of harm

Re: putting aside personal beliefs for a job. It absolutely depends on the job and even the speciality within the job. As Back outlines, there is no reason why you cannot be a religious mathematician with any conflict. Indeed, if you survey the various National Science Academies, atheism is more prevalent than within the general population, but the mathematicians/physicists tend to be more religious than the biologists.

I'm conflicted on science teachers. I know there's no reason a Creationist isn't able to teach evolution, but I think it would raise my eyebrows a little...

"would that not differ around the world

spirts, jinns, evil eye is also unexplained but is very much part of some cultures"

Is it? No more than here, surely? People in "other cultures" are just as capable of using the scientific method, logic and critical thinking as they are in this culture. And, sadly of failing to.

You can certainly try and if your belief is vague and not relevant to your work you could succeed, but if your faith is strong and it does clash what then?

I think a good marriage counsellor should be able to advise gay people how to get along even if deep down he doesn't think they should be together.

But suppose you believe that god decides who gets sick and who doesn't. How could you possibly be a good GP?

but it is not ingrained into our society as it is in others, some cultures it is part of everyday life for the vast majority of people regardless of their social standing or education

they may not view scientific proof in the same way as we do in the west are we then the more intelligent because now more people in the west are wanting scientific proof, their stance maybe be different to what it is is the west