2% The Two Percent Company
[ - ]
| Large Type Edition |
[ - ]
[ - ]
| Navigate the Rants




Categories

Special Collections
|
[ - ]
[ - ]
|
Subscribe to the
2%Co Rants:



Syndicate this site:
ATOM
RSS 1.0
RSS 2.0
|
[ - ]
[ - ]
| The Usual Suspects
On Hiatus
Carnivals
Carnival of the Godless
Skeptics' Circle
Tangled Bank

Gone But Not Forgotten
Lost to the Mists of Time
|
[ - ]
[ - ]
| Archives (Weekly)
% 2016.11.06 » 2016.11.12
% 2009.04.05 » 2009.04.11
% 2009.03.15 » 2009.03.21
% 2009.03.08 » 2009.03.14
% 2009.03.01 » 2009.03.07
% 2009.02.15 » 2009.02.21
% 2009.01.25 » 2009.01.31
% 2009.01.18 » 2009.01.24
% 2009.01.04 » 2009.01.10
% 2008.12.21 » 2008.12.27
% 2008.11.16 » 2008.11.22
% 2008.11.09 » 2008.11.15


Archives (Monthly)
% 2016 November
% 2009 April
% 2009 March
% 2009 February
% 2009 January
% 2008 December
% 2008 November
% 2008 October
% 2008 September
% 2008 July
% 2008 June
% 2008 April
% 2008 January
% 2007 November
% 2007 October
% 2007 August
% 2007 July
% 2007 June
% 2007 May
% 2007 April
% 2007 March
% 2007 February
% 2007 January
% 2006 December
% 2006 November
% 2006 October
% 2006 September
% 2006 August
% 2006 July
% 2006 June
% 2006 May
% 2006 April
% 2006 March
% 2006 February
% 2006 January
% 2005 December
% 2005 November
% 2005 October
% 2005 September
% 2005 August
% 2005 July
% 2005 June
% 2005 May
% 2005 April
% 2005 March
% 2005 February
% 2005 January
% 2004 December
|
[ - ]
[ - ]
|
« Carnival of the Godless #11 The RantsThe Skeptics' Circle Wants You! »

Only God Can Prove a Negative, and There Is No God
2005.04.25 (Mon) 00:54

In response to our series on Allison DuBois, we have received a fair amount of feedback. Among the critical comments, there is one specific theme that we've heard more than any other — people questioning why we didn't "disprove" the existence of Allison's powers. Jeantia's comment below is pretty typical of this theme:

I realise that I'm a little late in joining this discussion... However, I read your weeks intense study into why Allison Dubois is a fraud and I have the following questions:

You've given us two "quotes" from e-mail responses stating that Allison was not involved in police investigations and implied that the Dr Schwarz's ideas are ridiculous, how does this DISPROVE the fact that her ability is genuine? Wouldn't disproving her abilities require ACTUAL evidence? If you're making the claim that she has not achieved what she has claimed to achieve, then you'll have to PROVE her wrong.

I was honestly disappointed that I got to the end of a whole week of "Rant" to discover that you had no concrete evidence, just a fistful of ideas and a sarcastic tone that really does make you sound bitter as opposed to truly interested in the truth.

Let's see...we see the statements "DISPROVE," "disproving her abilities," and "PROVE her wrong" all listed prominently in Jeantia's comment. Hey, we'd love to do all of those things, but there's a simple problem that prevents us from doing so which we outlined in our reply:

We've heard this complaint before. Here's the problem — it is absolutely impossible to prove that Allison's powers do not exist. We know that the phrase "you can't prove a negative" is technically inaccurate for semantic reasons, but the intent of that phrase actually paints a pretty valid picture of the process of scientific inquiry. No one can "prove" a negative assertion such as one stating that "mediums" do not have spirit powers. The same is true of most examples of paranormal and supernatural "phenomena" that you can think of. Take, for example, an attempt to prove that fairies don't exist. A fairy believer says that fairies live in the hollow tree down by the river. So, we go down to the tree to look, and there are no fairies. When we report back, the fairy supporters say "they were out to lunch," or "they were invisible," or "well, they still exist, just not in that tree." See the problem?

Similarly, if we were to take an example in which we showed definitively that Allison's powers failed, what would that buy us? Nothing. Allison could just claim that the "message was fuzzy" or that we'd "understand later" that it was really right. Even if we could somehow prove that her powers didn't work in this one instance, how do we prove that they simply don't exist in any instance? We can't. No one can.

To "prove" that Allison has no powers, we would have to prove that in every possible instance — which would be as many as Allison cares to make up, and she can always make up new ones on the fly — Allison exhibited no powers.

On the other hand, to prove that she does have paranormal abilities, Allison would merely have to demonstrate one instance — much less than our infinite workload — in which her powers unequivocally worked.

So which makes more sense? That we spend our entire lives batting down Allison's claims one after another, or that Allison simply comes up with one honest, unquestionable demonstration of her "powers"? (It's the same as the difference between James Randi's challenge and Victor Zammit's challenge — the former requires proof of only a single extraordinary claim, while the latter requires disproof of an infinite number of extraordinary claims.)

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. Allison is the one making extraordinary claims here, not us. She's the one who must provide the proof of her claims, if she wishes to be believed by anyone intelligent. So, rather than trying to prove or disprove her powers, we decided to examine her claims to see how they held up as proof of her abilities. We stated this as our objective up front, in our first post on Allison, and that's exactly what we did. From our first post on Allison:

But since we don't have access to more complete and specific data or direct access to Allison herself, we're going to take our analysis in a different direction. We have chosen to analyze Allison's own statements — her specific claims that she contends set her apart from the rest of the psychics on the market today.

So, we're sorry if you didn't enjoy the series, but we did exactly what we set out to do. We showed that Allison's claims are absolutely meaningless — not only does she not have extraordinary proof, she has no proof at all. Why the hell would anyone believe her line of shit with absolutely no evidence to back it up? Now, if anyone still wants to believe her, they can go right ahead; but we want to make it clear that they do so with no logical or scientific reasons, contrary to Allison's claims. That was our aim.

Are we bitter? No. What you were sensing in our Rants was outright anger, not bitterness. We're angry that "mediums" like Allison pull their bullshit on people who have lost loved ones. We're angry that they are validated by certain dishonest or gullible academics and by the entertainment industry (which is also both dishonest and gullible). We're angry that they try to shift the burden of proof to the rest of us when it should fall squarely on them, and we're angry that the public seems to agree with them, despite the impossibility of that approach. Are we interested in the truth? Absolutely. That's why we wrote this, because Allison is, at best, bending the truth, and at worst, pissing all over it. Our entire series was meant to bring the truth to light.

Now we'll ask you a question — specifically, what would you have liked for us to have written about? Everyone who has made comments such as yours has made them in the same way that you did, by stating what they didn't like about our approach. No one has yet stated what they did want to see instead. Keep in mind what we said above — as much as we'd love to do it, no one can prove that her powers don't exist; that's a logical impossibility. We also have no access to Allison to conduct tests on her (and we'd bet quite a large sum that she wouldn't submit to such tests, judging by her reaction to James Randi's million dollar prize), so anything involving that approach is out as well. We know that we could have examined the transcripts from her sessions with Gary Schwartz and pointed out instances of subjective validation, cold reading, hot reading, et cetera, but, as we said in our opening post on Allison, we chose not to do that — both because we had little confidence in Schwartz's data, and because that wouldn't have proven anything definitive either. What other avenue could we have gone down?

We're not being "sarcastic" when we ask this question — we sincerely want to hear what other approaches people think would work to address the claims of "mediums" like Allison. Go ahead and make a positive assertion that suggests a definitive approach to Allison's claims. We'll wait.

...and wait, and wait, and wait....



Allison DuBois: Debunked! (2%Co)

— • —
[  Filed under: % Allison DuBois Week  % Bullshit  % Greatest Hits  ]

TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.twopercentco.com/rants/tpc-trkbk.cgi/131

Comments (16)

Angry Professor, 2005.04.25 (Mon) 11:30 [Link] »

Most excellent rant, gentlefolk. I try to explain this stuff to my statistics classes and I never get it this right or this good. Once again you've provided me with excellent teaching material.



The Two Percent Company, 2005.04.25 (Mon) 22:59 [Link] »

If you actually use the fairy tree analogy, let us know how it goes over!



paul, 2005.04.26 (Tue) 00:46 [Link] »

Hello from Australia.
love your work!



The Two Percent Company, 2005.04.26 (Tue) 23:13 [Link] »

Thanks very much, Paul! Always nice to have a fan Down Under.



% Trackback » 2005.04.27 (Wed) 11:50
"Burden of proof" from Skeptico

The guys at the Two Percent Company have apparently been getting some grief over their Allison Dubois week articles. [More]


% Trackback » 2005.04.27 (Wed) 12:24
"Burden of proof" from Skeptico

The guys at the Two Percent Company have apparently been getting some grief over their Allison Dubois week articles. (Dubois is the supposed psychic the TV series “Medium” is based upon.) Specifically the complaint is the old chestnut that they [More]


% Trackback » 2005.04.28 (Thu) 00:40
"Skeptics' Circle #7" from Thoughts from Kansas

It's that time again, a time when we put on our thinking caps and ask the hard questions. Why should that be true? Does it make sense? Do extraordinary claims offer extraordinary proof? And, most importantly, what are the bloggers saying? [More]


Jim Lippard, 2005.05.02 (Mon) 18:23 [Link] »

"You can't prove a negative" is one of my pet peeves, and I disagree that "it is absolutely impossible to prove that Allison's powers do not exist"*, at least under the ordinary meaning of the word "prove" (a standard substantially lower than mathematical proof). On the contrary, I think an exceedingly strong case could be made that Allison doesn't have the powers she claims if she were willing to submit to the appropriate tests. That wouldn't be "proof" in a mathematical or logical sense, or in a sense that it would force any rational person to assent, but that sense of proof isn't available for positive statements, either. (BTW, Robert Nozick's book, Philosophical Explanations, has some nice commentary on the use of rational argument to force assent to a proposition...)

In addition to Carrier's piece on proving negatives, I also recommend Jeff Lowder's article on "Is A Proof of the Nonexistence of God Even Possible?" (yes, it is), and my response to Ted Debiak on this issue:
http://www.discord.org/~lippard/debiak.html

* Note that this statement is a negative--if it is impossible to prove negatives, then it's impossible to prove this statement.



The Two Percent Company, 2005.05.03 (Tue) 20:59 [Link] »

Jim,

We understand what you're saying, but as it relates to our post, we have to disagree. Since tone is something that doesn't always come across well in writing, please note that while we are challenging what we read from you and the articles you linked to, we're by no means trying to slam you personally.

First, you mention that the statement "you can't prove a negative" is not true. We agree, and we said as much in our post. What we wrote wasn't about that statement in general, but rather about what we see as the intent of that statement as it applies to paranormal claims. From our post:

We know that the phrase "you can't prove a negative" is technically inaccurate for semantic reasons, but the intent of that phrase actually paints a pretty valid picture of the process of scientific inquiry. No one can "prove" a negative assertion such as one stating that "mediums" do not have spirit powers. The same is true of most examples of paranormal and supernatural "phenomena" that you can think of.

Of course many negative assertions can be proven. We started our post by stating that fact. What we're saying is that in paranormal cases like the one we're talking about, we can't prove the non-existence of fantastic phenomena, and we explain exactly why in our post — since these supposed powers have no specified rules, the person who claims to have those powers can just keep evading the conclusions of our inquiries. They are, in Jeffery Jay Lowder's words, factually meaningless.

Further, most of the people claiming paranormal abilities refuse to submit to the appropriate tests, which (as we note) is the case with Allison. If they did submit to such tests, we could certainly prove or disprove certain specific claims that they make (assuming we could tie them down to the specifics), but in the end, because most of them are just making up the rules as they go, they can waffle their way out of our test results — "the spirit I was talking to must have been lying to me," "the voices were vague," or "it doesn't work that way."

So, theoretically, it is possible to prove that Allison has no powers, but realistically, it isn't possible. We can take this a step further by pointing out that the articles to which you referred us (including the one we had already linked to in our post) are mostly theoretical in nature. That's a fine discussion to have, and a great mental exercise, but it doesn't necessarily reflect reality in our opinion. We haven't read them cover-to-cover yet, but from what we have read, they deal with a lot of hypotheticals (Lowder's article concludes with a conditional statement), closed systems (like saying that we can prove non-existence of a physical object within a single room), and future possibilities (such as saying that we can prove something if we someday build an AI that is exactly like a human). The Lowder piece in particular seems to be exceedingly flawed in numerous ways. We won't get into them all here; maybe in a future post.

Getting back to the issue of proving a negative, from the article your post refers to:

The skeptic who says, "Of course I can't prove psi doesn't exist. I don't have to. You can't prove a negative," is simply wrong. To rule something out, definite reasons must be given for ruling it out.

Of course, for practical reasons it often isn't possible to gather the necessary information to prove or disprove a proposition, e.g., it isn't possible to search the entire universe to prove that no intelligent extraterrestrial life exists. This by itself doesn't mean that a case can't be made against the existence of extraterrestrial intelligence, although it does probably mean that the case can't be as air-tight and conclusive as we would like.

This group of statements is highly misleading. It starts by saying, flat out, that a skeptic who makes the assertion that "you can't prove a negative" is "simply wrong," but it then goes on to qualify that statement so completely that, in our opinion, it negates the earlier statement entirely.

The first qualification applied is that "of course" this doesn't apply to impossibly large samples, like proving that something doesn't exist anywhere. This is exactly what is being requested when a skeptic is asked to prove that there are no such things as ghosts or psychic powers — they'd have to search the entire world (if we're kind and lower the sample size from "the whole universe") to prove it (only to have a true believer tell them that the phenomena were just "indetectible" by scientific means, or that the real sample size needs to include alternate planes).

The second qualification is that this "doesn't mean that a case can't be made against" a claim that spans an impossibly large sample. However, "making a case" is very different from "proving" something. The example used is making a case against the existence of extraterrestrial intelligence, and we think that's a perfect example. Any evidence that we offer to make this case is weak at best, and doesn't make a convincing case at all. Are we making a case? Sure. Just not a perfect one. Hardly proof in any sense of the word.

We could make a case for the non-existence of Allison's powers (if she submitted to sound scientific tests, which she won't), but we still couldn't disprove them. Allison, on the other hand, could certainly prove her powers to us in the same tests. All she would have to do is to exhibit knowledge of information that she has no other way of knowing, in controlled conditions; this would not only prove her own powers, but also prove that the power in general exists (and unlike Lowder, we believe that the general existence — absent any qualifiers — of any entity or phenomenon is a universal assertion). This is what we mean when we say that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof" — not that the proof must be some form of "superproof," but rather that it must be proof that shows the extraordinary ability in question in more than a simple anecdote. Perhaps we could revise our statement as: "Extraordinary claims require some valid evidence."

The point is, though, that "making a case" — while convincing to those who accept the rational and consistent workings of the scientific view of the world — is a long way off from "proving" anything. For similar reasons, this is why the defense in a legal case need only provide evidence of "reasonable doubt" concerning the defendant's participation in a crime. If we open the floodgates to all sorts of paranormal claims, the entire judicial system will be thrown out of whack — if, say, the defense could argue that an evil magical duplicate of the defendant was the perpetrator of the crime, and that it disappeared immediately after committing the crime, how could the prosecution prove otherwise, even with eyewitnesses? There is no way to definitively state that evil magical duplicates can't exist, though obviously we can make a strong case that they don't. On the other hand, if the defense can produce that evil duplicate, then we're getting somewhere.

As we said, the article makes the assertion that "To rule something out, definite reasons must be given for ruling it out." We agree. However, "definite reasons" do not mean "proof" either. The definite reason for our not believing in ghosts could be (and actually is) that we believe that the evidence in favor of them existing is completely inadequate.

Maybe we're talking past one another, though. To be clear, we will state what we believe about the paranormal. We certainly admit the possibility that any number of paranormal claims are true, we just think that, based on what we see as completely inadequate evidence, the possibility is so small as to make no odds. If we were presented with good scientific evidence, we would include that in our model, and rework our beliefs as required (a flexibility that seems to be sorely lacking among "true believers," as you would seem to agree).

What does this mean? To us, it tracks back to the saying that "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." Our belief is that there is an absence of evidence for the paranormal, so we do not believe in it. The fact that this does not translate into "evidence of absence" — or, said another way, disproof of the paranormal — is exactly what we were getting at in our post.

Thanks for your comment, and thanks very much for directing us to those fascinating and thought-provoking articles. It's always nice to hear from someone with valid points to raise (especially after dealing with morons and trolls on other posts). We hope to hear more from you.



Pia, 2005.05.04 (Wed) 08:00 [Link] »

What's so wrong with making vulnerable/miserable people happy?
Arguing or trying to prove a medium/psychic wrong or right is like challenging the truth of religion it self? A total waste of time. How could there ever be a scientific proof of a matter that isn't related to science at all? And seriously if we had concrete proof of a link to the life after death, we would most likely see a rapid increase in suicides. I would advise all skeptics to go on about their life and leave the forever hopfull/vulnerable/desperate/miserable people to their own. Perhaps our depreciation of morals and true value in our social structure could be worked at instead...



The Two Percent Company, 2005.05.04 (Wed) 11:42 [Link] »

Pia,

If it were really about "making vulnerable/miserable people happy," believe us, we'd pretty much agree with you.

But that's not what it's about. Please, please read our previous Rant on the dangers of pseudoscience; even better, make sure to read Orac's original post which inspired ours.

As we always say, everyone is welcome to believe what they want to believefor themselves. It is when others (like Allison DuBois, John Edward, or Nicholas Gonzales) take advantage of those beliefs, exploiting believers for money, fame or attention, that we take exception.

If you're truly interested in reconstructing the morals and the true value of our social structure, please understand that these bullshit artists — which, whether they have been charged with fraud or not, is what they are — are undermining your most admirable goals.



Ed, 2005.05.23 (Mon) 18:05 [Link] »

I ran a theatre at the Edinburgh Festival a few years back, and we had a psychic. her big gimmick was that she was blind, and couldn't see the people she was 'helping'. I have to admit, I was impressed for a bit...not by her readings, which were appalling generic tripe, but by the fact that EVERY DAY, without fail, she finished her show EXACTLY on time. How could a blind woman, alone on stage, know the EXACT TIME to the minute when she had to wrap it up?

Answer: she had a watch with a vibrating alarm. Apparently the spirits can't plump out for a decent timex between them.

Once again, the outwardly impressive is a cheap gimmick.



The Two Percent Company, 2005.05.24 (Tue) 11:18 [Link] »

Exactly, Ed: there's always a gimmick. And quite honestly, when you don't know the gimmick, these things are always impressive — even if you know that there is a gimmick but don't know what it is. That's why we enjoy stage magicians — being fooled when you have nothing at stake is an exciting little pleasure, for some interesting psychological reason. That's why so many of these "psychics" have disclaimers that their spiels are "for entertainment purposes only" — it gives them an out, so what they're "really" charging their clients for is the "entertainment."

It's sad, too, because if people like John Edward would just admit that their act is all about cold reading — an impressive and valid skill — then we would be the first to sing their praises and admire their talents. But since they feel the need to pass it off as something it's not, we feel the need to call them on their bullshit.



eduardo vila, 2005.11.16 (Wed) 16:49 [Link] »

Congratulations on your extensive cover on the Alison DuBois subject, is always nice to see people making a hard effort to clear the fog of ignorance revolving the media and society in general.

I'm from Chile and the show 'Meduim' just arrived to our cable-tv network. I was inmediatly outraged on the fact that the show is making publicity for itself claiming to be based on a real life medium. So thanks with providing me with the facts.

By the way, if despite the essay above on "proving negatives" you still are unconvinced on why skepticism should be the default possition, let me refer you to this critical thinking guide:

http://www.csicop.org/si/9012/critical-thinking.html

For the guys at 2 Percent Company, this is the first time I've visited your page, but let me say that I've enjoyed it a lot. Again, congratulations and keep up the good work!!!



The Two Percent Company, 2005.11.16 (Wed) 18:22 [Link] »

Thanks very much, eduardo — we're glad you dropped by. CSICOP is always a good resource, and that article is a keeper.

We wish James Lett's elective course was available to us back in our college days. Hopefully, he's successfully empowering his students with minds capable of critical thought. And his FiLCHeRS acronym is a nice mnemonic to keep in mind!



xp, 2006.03.20 (Mon) 04:37 [Link] »

"As we always say, everyone is welcome to believe what they want to believe — for themselves. It is when others (like Allison DuBois, John Edward, or Nicholas Gonzales) take advantage of those beliefs, exploiting believers for money, fame or attention, that we take exception."

I don't agree with exploitation either; however, that's such a subjective thing to say that psychics are doing xploiting others, isn't it?

People are exploited everyday by their employers, marketing ads, their so-called friends, doctors, therapists, drug companies, and loved ones. You just don't like what psychics do even if they do help people. So you don't believe they help people in the way they say they do -- who cares??

"If you're truly interested in reconstructing the morals and the true value of our social structure, please understand that these bullshit artists — which, whether they have been charged with fraud or not, is what they are — are undermining your most admirable goals."

You are no longer a skeptic when you have made up your mind without having proof and it's clear you started, continued, and ended your rant with a predetermined conclusion.

As for a psychic giving one example of proof -- they do it all the time but it isn't enough -- it never will be. As for Rand's experiment maybe "that" psychic doesn't deal in "that" type of work. Not all psychics do the same thing. The other issue is "how" psychics do their work. How they tap into figuring stuff out. Again, who cares as long as they do!! There is no reason police would bring in a psychic to help detectives do their work.

Again, so maybe telepathy and connection to "something" beyond what can be tested doesn't work in the way metaphysical people says it does -- who cares?? It works. What people might want to do is stop focusing on the scientfic method and work on an alternative method to discovering the truth. How about proviing it does exist and yeah, I know you don't like that idea. Foo on you!! :-)



xp, 2006.03.20 (Mon) 04:40 [Link] »

oh and... since it DOES work -- something DOES work ... what would you like psychics to call themselves so the general public can buy their practical and highly intuitive services?



The Two Percent Company, 2006.03.24 (Fri) 18:32 [Link] »

Gee, xp, how many typical creduloid arguments can you cram into one comment?

People are exploited everyday by their employers, marketing ads, their so-called friends, doctors, therapists, drug companies, and loved ones. You just don't like what psychics do even if they do help people. So you don't believe they help people in the way they say they do -- who cares??

Yeah, we covered something very similar to this already. In a post about Air America, we found fault with the high percentage of bullshit advertisements that appeared on that station. Someone asked us what the difference was between, say, a commercial for medical quackery and a Geico commercial, or one for BP. Our reply:

If you buy car insurance from Geico, your car will actually be insured. If you buy gasoline from BP, your car will run.

However, the parents of an autistic child can buy truckloads of every "supplement" listed on Total Health's page on treating autism, and their kid will still be autistic.

We're drawing a distinction here between exaggerating to sell a functional product (which bothers us) and outright lying to sell a placebo as a cure for serious illnesses (which enrages us).

The same principle applies here. Sure, people are exploited by their employers, but presumably they get a paycheck for it.

Of course, some people may be exploited by their friends and loved ones and get nothing of any value in return. We agree, and we condemn them all as assholes. However, we have no fucking clue how that in any way makes the exploitation by self-proclaimed psychics any better. We suspect that you have no fucking clue, either (call us psychic, if you want).

You go on to say:

You are no longer a skeptic when you have made up your mind without having proof and it's clear you started, continued, and ended your rant with a predetermined conclusion.

Boy, are we getting tired of this flawed and useless argument. Just because we started this post with a decidedly skeptical slant does not mean that we started our research that way. In fact, most people who write about a position that they hold don't start their writing from a position of ignorance every time. What would you have us do, start each post we write with a "well, psychics could be real, so we've spent the last 10+ years looking into their claims, and found the following, and as such, we don't believe them" introduction? Fuck, that's stupid. Please — please — stop and think before you slap that asinine statement down on someone's site again.

However, we will say that, based on your own words, you seem to have come to our site with a preconceived notion that psychics are real. Our guess is that it didn't matter one bit what you found on our page, your mind was already made up. We aren't the closed-minded ones here, xp. You are.

From here, you descend into a typical line of credulous crap:

As for a psychic giving one example of proof -- they do it all the time but it isn't enough -- it never will be. As for Rand's experiment maybe "that" psychic doesn't deal in "that" type of work. Not all psychics do the same thing.

Yes, xp, that's called "moving the goalposts," and frauds do it all the time. Oops, my claim failed? Well, the spirits must have lied to me. My predictions were all wrong? Hey, that's not how it works. Fuck, xp, is there any line of shit that you aren't prepared to believe? In addition, if you knew anything about Randi's challenge, you would know that he sets up customized tests based 100% on the specific claims of the person accepting the challenge. That's right — the person being tested gets to explain what they do and how it works, and the test is designed accordingly. "That" psychic doesn't deal in "that" type of work? The test is always specifically tailored to the "type" of work they "do." Get your head out of your ass and educate yourself before you open your remarkably obtuse piehole, xp.

You demonstrate your complete credulity here:

The other issue is "how" psychics do their work. How they tap into figuring stuff out. Again, who cares as long as they do!! There is no reason police would bring in a psychic to help detectives do their work.

It doesn't work, xp. That's the whole fucking problem. Not one psychic has ever shown their powers to be real. Not one. Ever. We, and other skeptics, have done the research. Have you?

We do agree with your last sentence, though — that there is no reason police would bring in a psychic to help detectives do their work. We suspect that you left out some words and that you really didn't mean that, but we're feeling generous, so we'll give you a point there anyway. Don't let it go to your head — you're still a moron.

You then say:

Again, so maybe telepathy and connection to "something" beyond what can be tested doesn't work in the way metaphysical people says it does -- who cares?? It works. What people might want to do is stop focusing on the scientfic method and work on an alternative method to discovering the truth. How about proviing it does exist and yeah, I know you don't like that idea. Foo on you!! :-)

Stop focusing on the scientific method? Foo on us? Hey, xp — get a fucking clue. :-)

The stupidity and arrogance of that statement is massive, and we really have no patience for anyone stupid and arrogant enough to use it. You don't like the scientific method? Well, why don't you tell us your ingenious method that works better? Oh, you don't have one? Then shut the fuck up. Do you know why you don't have one, xp? Because the scientific method is the single most valuable tool that humans have, and it is responsible for virtually every important advancement we have made as a species. Yet you want to set it aside as a silly waste of time because fraudulent psychics don't pass scientific muster. If you want to understand more about how fucking stupid this statement makes you sound, go read Skeptico's post on the subject. Then fuck off. Seriously, fuck off.

You end with:

oh and... since it DOES work -- something DOES work ... what would you like psychics to call themselves so the general public can buy their practical and highly intuitive services?

Wow, your argument by capitalization is really effective here, xp. However, you are dead wrong — nothing "DOES" work when it comes to psychics, no matter how tightly you close your eyes and wish for it. You're simply assuming your premise with no evidence, and using it to support your ridiculous argument.

As far as what psychics can call themselves so the public can buy their make-believe services...hmm, how about they call themselves "bullshit artists"? That way, people know exactly what it is that they're buying. It just probably doesn't look as good on a letterhead. Moron.



Sally Knowels, 2010.12.19 (Sun) 00:21 [Link] »

There is a woman, magicklady, laura bushnell, who pulls the same lies on unsuspecting people.
Bushnell's con is that she has the breast milk of the Virgin Mary, and it is still liquid! She tells people she channels the virgin mary, and she tells people that she can make a fountain of water come out of her hand, she calls it the "nectar of giving." Please expose this phony, and all the phony stuff in her so called book, life magic.
Bushnell reminds me of dubois. Mean, liar, self important bitch, who needs to be stopped from ripping people off with her fake "psychic" abilities.




— • —


— • —

Enter your comment below

Name —
E-mail —
URL —
Remember me?
Subscribe to this Rant? (We'll notify you of new comments.)

Comments —
(Allowed HTML: a href, b, i, br, ol, ul, li, blockquote)



Please Post only once; if you do not see your comment immediately, Refresh the Rant page.
Your comment will autopreview above, if you have Javascript enabled.

Read the Two Percent Company's Comment Policy before diving into the deep end.


To subscribe to this Rant without commenting, fill in your e-mail address below:




|
[ - ]


Terms of Use — • — Privacy Policy — • — FAQ
[ - ]
| Protecting our Civil Liberties
ACLU
EFF: Support Bloggers' Rights!
Individual-i

Bullshit Busters
JREFSkeptic's Dictionary
QuackwatchSnopes.com
SymantecMcAfee
SophosSnopes.com

|
[ - ]
[ - ]
|
|
[ - ]
[ - ]
|
Buy 2%Co Products
2%Co Stores


Visit the 2%Co Wish List
|
[ - ]
[ - ]
|
Amazon.com


Recommended by us:


Recommended to us:

|
[ - ]
[ - ]
|
|
[ - ]
[ - ]
| Where can you find 2%Co?

Site MeterGlobe of Blogs
Atheism OnlineThe Truth Laid Bear
BlogwiseBlogarama
BlogsharesTechnorati

2%Co Search Rankings

Link to our Rants
2%Co Rants


Link to our Allison DuBois: Debunked! collection
Allison DuBois: Debunked! (2%Co)


The 2%Co Rants powered by
MovableType
|
[ - ]