Is John Edwards really psychic?

Don't apologise for believing Marie. I wish I believed.

 

You sound like my Mum!

Anyway, would you still be saying well done to John if he was lying to these people about communicating with the dead?

 

Wikipedia, actually. It puts it better than I can

Niiice. Do veiled insults make you feel superior? Besides, I know exactly what's going on. You claimed cold reading is pseudoscientific, I'm disputing that.

The fact is, cold reading doesn't try to explain anything. It's just a technique, that's the only point I'm making.

Earlier you said we can't prove it wrong, as much as we can't prove it right. I commented on that by saying the onus is on him to prove it right - we don't need to prove it wrong to say it's not true, despite the small chance that it is.

 

I'm not disputing your belief. I'm asking if you'd still congratulate him if it was proven that he was just making it up?

 

Fair play. But what if he was lying - would that be wrong?

 

Sorry if I'm prying here, but what is it that makes you believe that he can communicate with the dead?

 

Glad you said that.

Nothing veiled about my insults. * cheek.

Yes it does try to explain things. And for you to say otherwise is just plain daft. It has been offered as a rational (and rationality stems from science by the way :icon_mrgreen explanation for what has otherwise been passed of as supernatural.

You've allocated the psychic explanation a small chance of being true. That wouldn't have anything to do with science now, would it?

 

Attack the argument, not the person? My *!

Fair enough, but it is a more sensible answer and it does work, scientifically speaking.

And I only allocate it a small chance of being true because of scientific honesty. Until something is disproven there is always the chance that it is correct - on the other hand if a better explanation makes more sense, shouldn't we accept it, at least with a pinch of salt. Always leave room to correct your viewpoint.

 

As long as he doesn't cause harm or do something morally wrong, I wouldn't care about him. But the fact is, if he is lying, then he is doing something morally wrong.

Have you ever read Richard Dawkins, Marie? In The Blind Watchmaker he speaks about the mind as simulation software, something that is scientifically true. It may provide answers about your experiences.

 

You definitely sound like my Mum. I don't mean that in a rude way btw, it's just that's something very similar to what she said when I asked her why she believed it.

The reason I question my Mum -respectfully of course :icon_mrgreen:- is because she only took an interest in it after my Dad died (although I suppose that would be something that would cause an interest) even though she had experienced the loss of someone close before that. It just seems very improbable to me that a human can have psychic abilities! The reason I don't say impossible is because I can't prove it wrong. But if these men do have psychic abilities, why are they so few and far between? Have they always been psychic? Do you have to be born psychic or can you learn it? Can I learn to communicate with spirits?

Edit: Not that I particularly want to communicate with spirits, but if I could, I'd try it out.

 

Yeah, it's just a parody. I'm usually all about the opposite, it's why I'm not allowed in the debating forum. :icon_mrgreen:

Science and scientists are the spokespersons for lots of things these days, no reason why this should be any different.

Science isn't always honest, and can often be instrumental in blurring the truth, especially when something is contested - just like this.

The cold reading explanation is just as full of if's, but's and maybe's as is the psychic explanation. If that were not so, there would be more John Edwards in the world doing whatever the * it is he does - and books (that work) telling us all how to do it. And probably degrees in it too, from those old polytechnics that turned into universities. :icon_mrgreen:

I'll take me chances.

 

An avatar that never fails to make me laugh.

 

Fair play, lol.

But I am all for scientific honesty, simply because it's used to blur lines. Any true scientist will leave room to change his viewpoint (Unless it's concrete fact), and if they use science to blur lines, they're no better than New Labour's spin-doctors and, well, John Edwards

 

Science is about the truth of things. I'm always open to that chief. Nice debating with you too.