Mangled Thoughts

Still to finish this item, having put out several parts already, but here we digress by turning to the topic of `psychics’. Psychics seem to be harmless, who merely make a fat living off the gullible who might be as well served if they just picked up the telephone and say, “Hullo, hullo, anybody there? Cuckoo, cuckoo, cuckoo ( ad infinitum).” It is just as likely the believers would, after half an hour repeating cuckoo, would hear strange, profound noises directly. Rather like staring at a statue or portait, 5 minutes of that and, lo, it moves.Psychics aren’t, however, harmless, to the contrary, in playing upon the gullible, and the pyschic business, summed up, is better than corporations engaged in large scale ventures, and risk free, for no capital required. In Oz, a `pyschic’s’ `consultation’ ranges up to $400, some might be more. In the U.S., up to $700 a fling. Some such as Allison Dubois, James van Praagh and John Edward are amassing fortunes out what is nothing less than fraud, fraud because, of course it is rubbish.

The two techniques used are `cold reading ‘ and `hot reading’. The second is when a `psychic’ has either been prepared by supply of sufficient details about a subject that the guessing game involved in `readings’ is reduced to a minimum. `Cold reading’ the psychic prompts either an individual or a number of people with assertions which are voiced as true statements and highly generalised, open catch-all assertions, or assertions delivered as questions. `I’, for example, `hear a name beginning with the letter L’ , is a typical open ended assertion. All such statements are based on probability, which can be refined further by, for example, if subject(s) are , say 60 to 70 years of age, running letters for the most common Christian names for the period in which they were born. A nod of the head is sufficient to cue the `psychic’ in, or a shift in voice over the telephone. What happens often enough is, a subject jumps in and `validates’ the statement by supplying the name. The psychic jumps in by saying, for example, `Yes, that is who I’ve been picking’.

That is when the psychic claims to have contact with the dead. The same, however, holds for `predicting’ some-one’s future.What the psychic does is lift enough information from a subject to arrive at a generalised prediction, so loose that it will be `true’. Take a single male, early 20’s, starting out , perhaps as an engineer, a barrister, an entrepenuer and already the psychic has enough information to deliver a prediction which will amaze the gullible. `I see two young ladies who will come into your life. You will foind it difficult to decide which one to marry. Each has strenghts which will complement yours, and will compensate yours. You will marry one of them and have children. It won’t all be easy going, you will have to work at the marriage but it will prove a blessing to you into your old age.’ The psyhic will throw in no less pedestrian statements about career, finances and so forth. The psychic can narrow it down further as, each `validation’ not only reduces the guessing game which is , the Pyschic prising out information about the subject(s) to what to the gullible seems like amazing details no-body else could `know’.

A couple of weeks ago, The Australian Pyschics Association announced its Psychic of the Year Award, a Miss Charmaine Wilson. The association advertises itself as a `professional’ association, which excludes `charlatans’ pretending to be psyhics. Pyschics are pre-occupied with rebutting, they are nothing but charlatans. That some might believe they are possessed of amazing powers is delusion and unfortunate, nothing worse than a true believer, because garbage so beleived is the stuff of cults. Thus we have one parallel between psychics who do believe the bilge they are addicted to and those who believe in the bilge of AGW. As well as another telling one, both are very proiftable to the boosters of each: AGW is highly profitable for politicians , bureaucrats, and shysters and shysters selling junk to `govts.’ such as windmills and `water desalination plants’, to the misery of real taxpayers.

The Association has a `code of ethics’. Socialistos as much as cranks called psychics just lurve codes of ethics, they are piddle, rubbish, and resorted to when, though what, say a govt. has done is odious they cite, nonethless, but it was all done in accord with the code of ethics. In other words, an escape clause for politicians, bureaucrats, and assorted charlatans to escape having their croimes sheeted home to them. Bracksie Wacksie is fond of inventing codes of ethics and appealing to them, and the explanation why he is so is stark birthday suit naked. This is its code of ethics, from the Association’s website :

1. You are to give your psychic readings as accurately as possible.

2. In the process of your readings, you are not to give legal or medical advice. You are to refer clients to suitable people in the above professional categories if the need should arise.

3. At no time will you offer to cast spells or incantations for a fee.

4. Promises to bring lovers together by psychic means for a fee will not be tolerated. Where either partner does not will such an event to occur you are infringing on their rights of free will.

5. Generally fees are around $60 per hour. Naturally those with many years experience will charge more. However, the association will not tolerate any members asking for exhorbitant sums in return for services that fall outside the normal psychic advice. Reference is particularly made in regards to the use of magic or witchcraft.

6. At no time should professional members promise to be 100% accurate. Allowing for an error margin in predictions and the like is quite reasonable. Making ridiculous claims does not increase your standing in the clients` eye. Honesty, on the other hand, will always serve you well.

7. Members are required to hand in statutory declarations signed by a Justice of the Peace from three (3) clients who indicate in the above document that they are satisfied with the work done for them by the respective member. Under no circumstances will a Certificate of Professional Membership be bestowed on anyone who does not fulfil the above requirement.

Number 7 is mystifying. J.P.’s witness documents for the purpose of law. A statutory declaration attesting, we like Jo, or we like Bill’s work is meangingless, nothing more than there are at last three who are willing to act as character referees for a psychic, and who are gullible enough the pyschic has done something for them. Oh, wait a moment, the psychic has done something for them, slimmed their wallets in return for nothing at all.

To rule 6, a successful prediction, if it is specific and thus falsifiable, has a probility of random chance , and that probalility is so low that, unless mistaken, it can’t be calculated: noting the probility of an event is the sum of the probalities of the events of which it is compose and each of those events are composed of events which renders calculation of the pr. of a psychic’s prediction coming true impossible, complete rubbish. Accuracy of prediction, conversely, soars according to the generality of the statments as illustrated above, but such statements do not admit of falsification and moreover, even only a slight semblance between the `prediction’ and events `predicted’ will be counted as confrimation, which, again, is meaningless, not that believers will be convinced otherwise. So, we have another parallel between the junk purveyed as science by boosters of AGW and psychics.

Charmaine has been feted, for example, A Current Affair, and 3 AW, and several newspapers. Since 3AW advertised she would be a guest on Sundays, following the Faris Q.C. show, I stayed tuned the last two Sundays. The first Sunday, she mentioned she had discovered her amazing ability to converse with the dead, soon after a family tragedy, she heard voices, that started her off. She mentioned that she watched John Edward and his Crossing Over show, and studied what he did, saying she had learned much from Edward. Well, if you plan to profit from a magic show, it pays to study the best, except , Edward is bad very bad, not a good magic man at all.

Shooting for each episode takes a whole day to produce enough material to put on about 20 minutes of T.V. What is never shown is the hours of footage cut and wiped because, though running both hot and cold reading, his successful guess are actujally very few. It is only the final edited film which makes Edward a stunningly accurate guesser. Worse, as Randi has related, when confronted by subjects who refuse to oblige with the cuing in , having been prepped so as to not make any replies which do that, Edwards fails entirely and, on failing double blind, Edward was furious against Randi. The producers edited out those spectacular disasters. Here’s one exposure of the fraud in action and caught red-handed but the damning evidence was, surplise surplise edited out:

Edward will merely switch gears and continue to perform in-person for those with enough money but not enough judgment. You know, some time ago, several computer-crashes before the last one, a reader wrote me detailing an account of an in-studio experience with Edward where he inadvertently gave out some information which was then fed back to him when he was part of the studio audience ? and though that data was wrong, the spirits whispered that wrong material to Edward to hand out. Another reader who recorded a studio session in person, found that the program as broadcast did not agree with his recording, since “creative editing” was resorted to. I’d like to hear from those folks…

The nasty `Sensing Murder ‘ occasional serious is made using the same deceitful practices as used to make the `Cossing Over’ Show, as the Victorian Sceptics Society has related in telling, dripping detail here,Taking a look at “Sensing Murder” - a shabby and insulting TV show

.

Despite Channel Ten billing “Sensing Murder” as a show in which psychics work with police to solve murder cases, the police are not involved with the show, and the section with the psychics only lasts for about a third of the hour-and-a-half show.
A contact from the crew of “Sensing Murder” has revealed another part of the reason why the psychics did so well at sensing details from the murders. Apparently the psychics were filmed while they were picking up ?vibes’ about the case and then their comments were matched up against the known facts. The show was subsequently ?improved’ by editing out the mistakes. The correct statements were left in, as well as those mentioned by both psychics. The crew member was very unimpressed by the psychics’ abilities and claimed to feel “morally bankrupt” for having worked on the show.

Especially in the Phillip Island episode, there was real scorn for the police work that had gone before. For Scott Russell-Hill,

The above indicates the extent the medja is prepared to lie about `psychics’ in order to promote them, which is what the medja are actually doing. Another example of the vile decietful conduct of the medja, is illuminated by this exchange,2003, between the Australian Sceptics and the lying woo woo buffoons responsible for A Current Affair:

The plain facts about Australian Skeptics’ testing of Dennis Puffet on A Current Affair

TV viewers who saw a story on A Current Affair (ACA) on Tuesday, June 17 might have been left with the impression that Australian Skeptics (AS) had “backed-down” from testing a “healer”, one Dennis Puffet. That impression, fostered by ACA both in its advertising and on air, is wrong. At no stage has Australian Skeptics ever had an agreement with Dennis Puffet, nor with anyone else, to conduct a formal test of his alleged paranormal abilities. Any charge of our backing down is blatantly untrue and neither Mr Puffet nor A Current Affair has any reason to suppose otherwise.

Trying to be scrupulously fair to ACA, they might have initially convinced themselves (mistakenly) that they had the rights to run a test for the Skeptics $100,000 challenge under their own rules (but using AS money) while ignoring any sort of controlled conditions. However, long before this segment went to air, ACA was left with no legitimate excuse for continuing to so believe.

Since the first story was shown, and before the offending segment, AS engaged in voluminous correspondence (telephone and email) with ACA in which we explained the rules, in great detail, under which such a test could take place. The first such rule is that a claimant must make a written submission to AS, clearly defining in detail precisely what it is that s/he believes s/he can do. We must know this before we can even begin to decide whether the claims are testable and, if so, how they can be tested. It hardly needs stating that waving one’s hands around on TV and apocryphal testimonials do not constitute such a claim.

At this point the issue entered the realm of pure farce. ACA told us that as Puffet would not agree to being tested by a scientist (who would be biased), they had approached Bond’s English Literature department. Seldom have our ghasts been more flabbered.

It appears that not only is the claimant allowed to nominate his own (very open ended) criteria for success or failure, he is also allowed to dictate who can supervise the testing and the right to veto anyone who might be expected to be capable of designing a scientific test. Not for our money he isn’t.

The only story that interested her, and the one to which she directed every question, was that “the Skeptics are backing down”. Clearly this approach had been decided long before the interviews and no inconvenient facts were going to be allowed to interfere with the story.

The Skeptics Challenge is NOT a game of chance, a bet that someone can put one over the Skeptics, nor one that can be decided on purely subjective criteria. The Challenge is a serious attempt to investigate whether or not popular paranormal beliefs have any substance. It something that requires testing, objectively, by rigorously using the tools of science, not because it makes an entertaining story.

Barry Williams C.E.O Australian Skeptics Inc
Richard Saunders President Australian Skeptics Inc

In a nutshell, the liars at who are responsible for ACA showed a willingness to defame others in order to protect frauds and their advocacy and promotion of bunk. This is another parallel with the AGW rubbish, the medja conveying attacks on many scientists whose crime is to point the AGW claim is false and that amny of its boosters are oi fact committing fraud in science in order to `prove ‘ AGW.

In America and Oz, and in Britain, the television refuse to admit any sound testing of psychics for the very reason,. they will be shown up for what they are , charlatans. Is this an exception, from Channel 7,

Caught on hidden camera, a psychic has ‘communicated’ with three people’s dead relatives, who never existed.

Channel 7 didn’t let that demonstration of charlatanism stand in the way of promoting the charlantan and her non-existent speical powers. No, they let the bilger bilge on, and on about how belief is essential, where-as scepticism interferes with the spooky things she taps into.

On the first Sunday, Charmaine failed, badly. The first caller to the 3 AW promo of voodoo, did not cue Charmaine in by her answers, and with no visual cues, she floundered and how. To each assertion, the first caller answered as follows: No. No. That’s not the name at all. You’re not describing whom I wish to contact at all. This is wrong.

In response to each denial, her stock response is, after a short pause , to sort out, no doubt, how to continue with, in fact, not conversing with the dead but interrogation of callers: `This doens’t matter’ ,or, `that’s o.k., we can move along and fnd out what is going on.’

That first caller became quite angry - that’ll teach her to patronise charlans. Charmaine was beginning to panic, becoming desparate to make even just one successful guess. To cover herself, she blurted, `I usually need more time , I can’t work this fast, give me time work with me.’

The first was complete failure, the disk-jock covered for Charmaine by announcing an ad break and getting the offending caller of the linbe quickly. Nearly the same thing happened last Sunday morning, again first call, again a woman, seeking contact with her dead son. After a number of failed guesses, the caller was becoming angrier and angrier but, the caller made a mistake, a slip of the tongue, she was that angry, delivered more than a cue:

[Shall continue posting as I tap it in].