|
Support Science Not Superstition
|
|
|
|
Psychics and the NZ Police
Readers' Comments:
Add a Comment
Commenting on this article is via email, so there will be a delay between making a comment and seeing it appear. 'Unsigned' posts will be marked 'Anonymous'. Your email address will not be disclosed, nor will your surname if provided. If you wish your full name published, or a link to your website, simply request this in your email. Unlike many other internet forums, we do not require you to register or join our club before you are allowed to comment. We realise that this restriction simply insulates forums from negative views, since many refuse to bother joining a group they disagree with just to disagree with it. |
|
Comments:
Surely the police of New Zealand must be ashamed of Detective Levy and this programme!
You spend far to much time with your hand, you need a good woman to talk to.
Thank you BYG for your insightful analysis of our article. However, after giving your rebuttal due consideration we feel it is not the cogent argument it first appears.
Seriously though, we're surprised that after spending time reading our article — and surely you must have or else how else could you consider our view flawed — that you don't bother to mention even one of our many mistakes. We're continually dismayed at the level of debate offered by those who support psychics.
Great work on that programme analysis. I think it is Vicky Hyde who uses the apt term exploitainment for these programmes.
I think you are now at the stage where you could identify and formally name all the many human biases at play that lead to the errors (you do mention one or two).
For example, I like the term "clever Hans effect" for consciously or unconsciously responding to cues given by people who know the correct answer. Those senders of information (e.g. the detective) may not be aware of the nodding head, smiles, etc.
The original clever Hans was a horse who could "do" arithmetic as long as he could see his master. Worth looking up the original report - I have only seen many references to it (mostly psych texts, but most recently in a "horrible science" book my daughter got out of the library).
I strongly recommend you read parts of "Social Psychology" edited by Baumeister and Bushman 2008. I am sure some of the biases and habitual human perceptual distortions describe and label some of the effects you describe. I consider this very readable, comprehensive, up to date and enlightening text book a "must read" You will find from this book that the human distortions and errors of judgement you describe are all too common, have precise names and have been proven scientifically to be widespread.
Having understood these problems, the hard part is to do something effective in helping others overcome them without inciting more bias. A serious problem is that people like the detective, the psychic stars and programme makers are likely to have very high self esteem.
The crucial study on self esteem is by Baumeister, Smart and Boden (Relation of threatened egotism to violence and aggression: The dark side of high self esteem Psychological Review 103 (1996) 5 - 33. This study tells you more than the social psych text on what to expect when you criticize those with high self esteem. There is more in Prof Sutherland's text on Irrationality, the enemy within 1992 Constable and Co Ltd (Penguin 1994).
So I suggest caution in confronting anyone who has the power to improve things but at a cost to ia's (his or hers) self esteem. Unless you can remove that person from the position of power (usually impossible), even having incontrovertible proof of ia's stupidity is not enough to be effective.
With that in mind, how about identifying some of these people and giving us their email addresses. Deb might be a waste of time because you may only achieve the result of her being a little more effective in her defending the indefensible.
Director of programmes TV2 isn't it? would be the most important and potentially most effective surely to talk to with a view to persuading ia (him/her - isn't English tedious? Do you speak Maori, Spanish, or Italian?) not to show another series?
I do know a previous TVNZ head and will have a chat to him about all this next time I see him. I doubt if he would have let this drivel run.
Cheers. Keep up the good work.
hi, as per the kay stewart case, you can access the doc compound from the main park, i do it all the time in summer. The track runs from roughly where kays car was.
Hi Sarah, thanks for the information. I have a few questions if you wouldn't mind.
Unfortunately I have not been to the park, but the Sensing Murder program implied that there was no track to the DOC compound. None of the maps and photographs of track signposts that I've seen indicate the existence of a public track. And just to be perfectly clear, you are referring to the DOC compound on the main Coast Road and not the public Visitor Centre inside the park?
Is this track signposted, and where are the signs if it is, near where Kaye's car was? What is this track called? Would the signs have been there when Stewart went missing? Are the public expected to use this track, or are the signs merely for information purposes? Is the track similar to the well known tracks, same difficulty and well maintained? Would the public see it as just another public track?
Might I ask why you would use this track? The program suggested that the compound was a maintenance facility and not a place the public would, or should, go to.
Thanks for your help.
Dude y so hateful these people are just trying to honestly help @ least they make they actually try to make an effort to do something and of course their gona get paid for it its there work man u waste alot of time and energy wining and moaning about something u obvisously have not experienced so then have no idea about. u just nick picked the whole series for nothing!!!!
Question??
Have u ever had any kind of esp or unknowen phenomenon happen to you?
To answer your questions, I have no time for psychics and mediums, or the leeches that make TV shows about them, because they are lying to us simply to make money. In the process they are misleading a worrying number of the public, filling their heads with fairytales, fantasies and delusions that were popular superstitions in medieval times. More often than not, the people that can least afford it are lining the pockets of these charlatans.
Even if these idiots have deluded themselves into believing they are talking to dead people, their sincerity and desire to help means nothing if, rather than produce results, they just make their clients poorer, both financially and in their knowledge of the real world. And let's remember that they have not solved one single murder worldwide. I don't know why people like yourself trust and defend those that fail time after time.
And no, I haven't experienced ESP or some phenomenon that I thought might be supernatural or psychic in origin. Twenty years ago my cassette tape of Bat Out of Hell disappeared from my car, which some may claim is an unsolved mystery, but I don't suspect gremlins or anything similar. I suspect a human thief.
I don't think anyone has experienced ESP or what you call 'unknown phenomena'. Throughout history people thought they were experiencing gods and fairies and demons and witches. They were mistaken, ignorant of how the world and their mind worked, giving magical explanations to natural events that they couldn't explain. We have explained away gods, fairies, demons and witches, and these psychics need to catch up with modern knowledge.
You imply that since dead people refuse to speak to me, and since I haven't experienced spooky things, I am thus unable to comment on the subject. In your words, I can have 'no idea about' them. But let me ask if you believe unicorns exist? I assume you have an opinion, but I also assume you have never seen one, and therefore by your own argument you can not comment on whether they exist or not. However I think you'll agree that you can know a great deal about things we have never experienced. I'm sure you have opinions on many things you have no personal experience of — murder, rape, life on other planets, child starvation in Africa, heart transplants, genetic engineering. But once again, if we accept your argument, your lack of personal experience means you can't voice a competent opinion on these topics. Simply seeing a murder or viewing African starvation on TV doesn't count, no more than me meeting a psychic or watching one on TV. You have to experience it personally.
However I suspect that you don't really believe any of this, except as it relates to my view it seems. I'm sorry, but your argument makes no sense. It is merely a naïve attempt to silence a view you don't agree with.
If you want me to take psychics and mediums seriously, and obviously you do, then you need to produce reasons why I should. Why do you believers in spooky things always imply that you have evidence to support your claims, evidence that would shoot us down in flames, but you never produce it? Since you are criticising our articles I assume you've actually read them. So why don't you start by at least detailing the pieces we got wrong? Then why don't you explain why the psychics with the assistance of the dead people still couldn't produce one single piece of evidence that solved a murder? Explain why every cent spent on these psychics wasn't wasted and why we should turn to them rather than the police? If you can't, at least ask those that you worship to step up with the proof. We demand that our surgeons, engineers and pilots produce their qualifications and evidence of their skills before we trust them, so why are psychics unwilling to answer their critics, and why do believers support them in this secrecy?
Simply saying that psychics really talk to the dead is as worthless as me insisting that the moon is made of green cheese. They don't and it's not. If you have any real evidence to the contrary I'm willing to listen.
Excellent response SB but I fear your seeds of wisdom may have been cast on completely barren ground.
Most of the feedback I get from http://www.smpi.co.nz/ (shameless plug) is positive and supportive (even from many believers) but it always puzzles and amuses me that the negative feedback I receive invariably accuses me of being angry and hateful. What is angry and hateful about inviting people to provide credible evidence of their incredible claims in an open and honest manner? I would have thought that this is merely a common sense request. The offer of $20,000 each just to undertake such testing (win or lose) and a further $20,000 each if they are successful is purely an incentive and not a condition of testing. If they don’t want this money for themselves or a worthy charity of their choice then they aren’t obligated to accept it.
If “these people are just trying to honestly help” why do they refuse to share their apparently incredible abilities in a way that could help to understand and improve them for the benefit of humanity? How does a ridiculous “The name begins with a J or a K” charades game for a name that is already known (or all the other party tricks) "honestly help" anything other than the fame and fortune of the self-proclaimed psychics and Sensing Murder producers? (there I go being angry and hateful again ;-)
Now a really mysterious and unexplained phenomenon is how Anonymous managed to spell anonymous and phenomenon correctly.
FYI - Everyone knows that the moon is made of YELLOW cheese.
Hey Tony, yes, I also suspect that my reply will fall on deaf ears, but I can't let them think that they may have said something insightful. These silly replies are obviously why the psychics and mediums themselves never reply to critics like you and I. They've learnt, or more likely been told, that if you can't say anything that supports your claims and doesn't make you look intellectually challenged, then just keep your bloody mouth shut.
I understand that some people might disagree with me on various topics. However I have little time for those that think that they can influence my view simply by saying, 'You're wrong' or 'You don't understand', and not going on to offer some form of explanation as to why I'm wrong or that might help me understand. Geez, I'm not psychic!
Just as chocolate wouldn't exist without chocolate lovers and Mills and Boon books without romantics, psychics wouldn't survive without idiots. Idiots saying that they're talking to someone's dead granny, and idiots that believe them.
As for the spelling mystery, I introduced the word 'Anonymous' as the poster didn't reveal their name. Due to the spelling and grammar in the comment my guess is that the correct spelling of 'phenomenon' was just one of those freakish accidents we hear about. I would have spelt it with an 'F', but what do I know?
Hi John, It's always a delight to read your site, and your thoughts on the subjects that you cover.
I apologise in advance for bringing up points that you've surely already covered.
One thing I've always wondered about the like of the Sensing Murder crew, is why they don't apply their purported abilities in a more constructive way, rather than on a 2-bit TV show that's only purpose is to make money by exploiting vulnerable people, and ignorant people.
If they are able to reveal new information, or indeed, any information at all about a crime, why waste their time on 20 year old murder cases? Why don't they apply themselves to a fresh murder case where this information may have a significant effect on the outcome of the investigation? If they can lead investigators to the location of a murder 20 years after it's happened, why don't they do this for a murder that happened recently?
Obviously, these are rhetorical questions to you and I, but they're questions that these "psychics" would do their utmost to avoid answering.
Imagine if a psychic was able to pinpoint the location of Irena Asher the day after she went missing. Or if they could have lead investigators to the scene of Ben Smart and Olivia Hope's murder shortly after it happened. (Wonder if Scot Watson [would] be in jail?)
It's been clearly documented over the last 4 or 5 decades why police forces don't entertain these people any more. It's not because of fear, or of a conspiracy, nor is it because they are closed minded. It's simply because these people have demonstrated time and time again, that they have never helped solve any crimes, ever. Often, they only hamper investigations with their incorrect predictions. This isn't my opinion, this is fact which has been documented by people far more intelligent and informed that I am.
When discussing these subjects, I like to bring up Derren Brown. He can perform tricks that are just astounding and almost impossible to believe. He could easily wipe the floor with the likes of Webber and Cruikshank, and could easily convince a fairly intelligent person that he possesses supernatural skills. But he doesn't possess any supernatural skills, and thankfully, he openly admits it.
I don't know whether it's progress, but it's interesting to note that you can purchase episodes of Sensing Murder on DVD, from the $5 bins at the Warehouse and there's a reason why it's been cancelled in every other country that it's been produced in. It's because it's a load of bullshit.
Hi Damian, thanks very much for your comments. There's not much I can add to your observations. If only the typical Sensing Murder viewer could think this clearly the show would have been cancelled after the first season. The 'psychics' would be unemployed and getting much needed help from psychiatrists, and the gullible and ignorant would be financially better off having not paid for their services or to attend their travelling freak shows.
You're right about Derren Brown. He's far more impressive than these silly psychics, and he admits it's all a trick. Believers in psychics should be concerned that their favourite psychic, even with their special powers, can't appear anything but childish with their silly performances. Some morons no doubt will argue that Brown really is psychic and is in denial. It's amazing the stupid arguments people make to defend psychics.
Many believers that I've spoken to uncritically swallow the psychic crap because they have this simple but unexplored belief that souls exist, usually from a religious upbringing, and a naïve belief that what we see on 'factual' TV programs, in books and on the internet can be believed. If a show like Sensing Murder matches a cherished belief like the existence of souls, then any skepticism is suppressed. It's not that these people can't be skeptical. If you tried to sell them a really cheap laptop at the pub they'd be as skeptical as hell, correctly assuming it was probably stolen. But if they believe in souls and psychics, then no thought goes into questioning the show. If you can get these people to try and support their underlying beliefs, then often you can get them to look at psychics in a new light. But only those that want to know the truth can enter into rational debate. Those with dogmatic beliefs can not lift the veils of ignorance. And in my view, religion is the underlying reason that people are accepting of psychics, mediums etc. If they had no concept of souls and a heaven full of dead people and angels on clouds, then psychics would seem as silly as bananas in pyjamas.
And yes, I had to have a little giggle when I noticed Sensing Murder DVDs in the bargain bins. Mind you I'd rather see them in the rubbish bins, but it's one step closer.
Hi John, I just wanted to send you a quick email and say, as a devout Atheist myself, your site is great! I discovered it quite by accident actually but I am very glad I did!
I am in the UK, Scotland to be precise and my Hubby and I watched a very interesting programme called "Sensing Murder" last night - a re-run obviously, on satellite TV. I spent most of the programme about the disappearance of Kaye Stewart screaming at the telly! Especially when they clearly tried to con viewers from the beginning. Do they think we are all stupid!? I thought it was hilarious how they made a big deal about bringing psychics in to work with police for the first time ever blah blah - when the psychics had previous knowledge of the case, they still tried to make it sound like this was all some amazing thing that was true psychic ability! The part I screamed at the TV the most was when they came to this locked gate and we were told that this was as far as they could go ... Errr ... HELLO! The guy was with the police!! If the police can't get access through a locked gate in connection with a possible murder enquiry then I don't know who would! You could have hopped over the gate for that matter - it was hardly Alcatraz for goodness' sake! Also, if the psychic was so sure this was where her body was taken why didn't they head up this path when the gate was open!? It was ridiculous. I know you have covered all these points so very much better than I could ever word it, but I just had to re-iterate how ridiculous I thought it all was!
Anyway, I was furious when the programme finished with absolutely no conclusion atall, I had been almost expecting them to say at the end Kaye's body had been found or this person they supposedly named had been arrested ... whatever, but it was just left a complete cliff hanger and I did suspect this was because no-one could possibly have taken any of this seriously but it still irked me, shall we say, that the programme just ended like that! Since I knew the programme had obviously been made a while ago (over a year ago I now understand) I decided to have a look on the internet today and see if anything had progressed or Kaye's body had been found .... only to discover no progress whatsoever has been made and that the place the psychic claimed her body was has been searched and no leads atall have come from the "information" given by the psychics! Oh and in fact the guy that was apparently named has been completely discounted from the case. Well, what a surprise! That poor family, put through all of this nonsense and pain for no reason except some sick programmes need to "entertain". What a farce. While having a look on the internet I came across your site and your article and really enjoyed it - I really couldn't have put it all better myself (obviously!).
I haven't quite got through it all it yet but wanted to email anyway, I have added it to my favourites and I look forward to browsing it later and agreeing with every word you say!
Keep up the good work!
Hi Sarah, thanks very much for your positive comments. Like you I have also done a lot of screaming at the telly when viewing 'Sensing Murder' (and many other similar programs). And like you I can't understand why many people can't see it for the worthless rubbish that it is. You were surprised that the episode reached no conclusion and that no culprit has since been found, yet every episode of every series ends this way, and yet still the morons who support the show claim that the psychics are really making a difference. The show's popularity is so great that again this year we in New Zealand are going to be subjected to a fourth series where yet again no murder will be solved. I know this to be a fact because the series was filmed some time ago and the police haven't arrested anyone for some unsolved murder that the show will cover. If the psychics had given the police information to solve a murder, there is no way the police would sit on this information for months until the show goes to air. On the contrary, the TV producers would want it known that they had finally helped solve a case, which would generate great publicity for their upcoming series. It's actually a little depressing to realise that NZ is one of the few countries, maybe the only one, where 'Sensing Murder' is still being produced and that it's due to gullible NZers.
So it's always pleasing to discover that there actually are other intelligent people on this planet, since much of what is on TV and much of what I hear from associates leads me to believe that skepticism in things such as the paranormal and religion is valued as much as a steam-powered cell phone. To that end it is also refreshing to hear you proudly admit that you're an atheist. I get a little annoyed with people that rubbish religion, claiming that they can easily see all the problems with it, then in the same breath say that there must still be 'something' out there though.
Like I'm sure you already do, and like us here, don't just scream at your telly, point out to your friends, family and associates just how silly these programs are.
Hi John, I've just found your website and I'm interested mainly in the "sensing murder" subjects. I have to admit that I am a 'kind of' believer. I'm not a religious person but i do believe in some sort of "after life" even though i've never experienced anything more than deja-vu. I think for many people, myself included, we like to think that there is more to death than once you're gone there is nothing more. I don't believe there is anything wrong with this kind of thinking and for many people it's healing. I think mediums/psychics can have their place, and if they help someone through a difficult time (like they did for my step mom when she lost her son) then let them do it.
Since reading a number of your discussions on 'sensing murder' I have more or less made up my mind that it is crap, but part of me still hopes that there maybe some truth and that they can at least help maybe one family. Which I know will never happen.
Since i've been reading your website an episode of 'sensing murder' (i think) came to my mind where they focused on just the psychics and the terrible childhoods they have all suffered, be it through abuse or bullying and their near death experiences. Now i'm doubting these stories, are they just another ploy to drag us further in to the lies and make us feel sorry for the psychics or to make them seem more believable?
When the new series airs next week, i'll be watching much more closely. I've also marked your website in my favourites and will read more with interest.
Hi Lyndsey, I'm glad that you've 'more or less' decided that Sensing Murder is crap. As each new episode concludes and still no murderer is exposed or body found I hope you will become even more convinced. Completely ignore what strange revelations the mediums make on the program and keep asking yourself one single question: After claiming to be in direct and clear communication with the murder victim, have they solved the case? As I say, ignore what information they say they will pass on to police. By the time the show screens on TV the police will have had plenty of time to examine their new leads and check for bodies. Have you seen on the TV News that a murderer has been arrested or a body found through information provided from the Sensing Murder mediums? Spooky goings on and bleeped out names on the Sensing Murder program is just crap reality TV if no murder has been solved.
I'd like to comment on some other things you mentioned. You said, I am a 'kind of' believer. I'm not a religious person but i do believe in some sort of "after life". You say you're not a religious person, but unfortunately it is religion that created the concept of an 'afterlife'. Only religions push an idea of immaterial souls and an afterlife, a heaven, a hell or a place where the souls of the dead congregate. No scientific theory or naturalistic explanation of life and the universe supports the notion of an afterlife. Although you may no longer follow any religion, I suspect you are nevertheless unknowingly clinging to a religious idea, and most people when they try and describe this afterlife do so in religious terms. Most mediums and believers in mediums either specifically or vaguely make reference to God or gods or types of heaven and describe souls as immaterial entities outside the natural world, that is, the supernatural.
You go on to say that 'I like to think that there is more to death than once you're gone there is nothing more'.
Let me tell a fictitious story about chocolate. A man used to have the same thoughts regarding chocolate as some people have regarding life. He liked to think that there is more to chocolate than once you have finished the king sized block there is no more. However no matter how long he left the empty wrapper on the bench, it never refilled with chocolate. He eventually came to accept that his chocolate had gone forever, there is no more. Furthermore, no matter how much he enjoyed that chocolate, he now also accepts that his beloved chocolate is not living it up in some chocolate heaven. Of course he can still buy a new block of chocolate, just as new children are born, but the chocolate and children that he once experienced are no more.
In nearly every aspect of reality, people accept that once something is destroyed or eaten or consumed, then it is gone forever. They even accept that the majority of living things die without an afterlife. Once a goldfish or cow or whale dies, then that is the end, there is no whale heaven and we are not surrounded by invisible goldfish spirits. Yet when it comes to the death of humans, some people insist that different rules apply. However no one can ever explain why different rules should apply (unless they blindly refer to religion), nor can anyone produce any evidence that different rules do in fact apply. The simple and understandable desire to be immortal, to live forever, in no way offers support for life after death. We see examples of death everyday, from the death of animals in the wild and the death of pets to the death of strangers on the TV news and the death of friends and family members. But we never see examples of the continuation of life after death, of an afterlife, except for what can be called wishful thinking. Believing that psychic mediums provide proof of life after death is as naïve as believing that magicians provide proof of magic.
The universe has existed for around 15 billion years, and I imagine that you'll agree that you haven't been around that long. On the scale of things humans only arose yesterday. Are you annoyed or depressed that you haven't existed for those 15 billion years? So why do you think that you will exist, not just for the next measly 15 billion years, but for all eternity? Why would some supernatural being insist that once humans are born they must exist forever, and yet he was perfectly happy and content to run the universe for 15 billion years without any humans at all? Another way of looking at it is that your conscious state after your death will be the same as your conscious state before your birth. Do you remember what your 'life' was like before your birth? No. So why do you think you will remember it after your death?
People, especially religious people, insist that life has to have a beginning, but that it won't have an end. The universe must have begun at some time in the past, and every living being must have been born at some time in the past. Neither could have existed forever they claim. But then they contradict themselves by insisting that once born they will then exist forever. However pretty much everything we experience in the natural world had a beginning and has had or will have an end. What evidence or reason indicates that the consciousness of humans had a beginning but won't have an end? Considering that chimps are genetically 98% identical to us and are obviously conscious, sentient, self-aware beings, do chimps also go on to a chimp 'afterlife'? If not, why not? If you mention the idea that only humans have souls, you have again attached yourself to a religious claim.
It's a fact that our body is controlled by our mind, which is generated by brain activity. There is no evidence of a soul or spirit or immortal essence controlling our thoughts and actions. If our brains are physically damaged then our thoughts and actions are affected, usually quite negatively. No 'soul' takes over and keeps us in optimum physical and mental condition. If the essence that makes us individuals, our personality and our memories, is immortal and completely intact somewhere in our bodies, then why doesn't it help us when we get hurt or grow old? Why does the mind suffer from dementia and forgets who our friends are while the soul sits in the background and says nothing? Why does the all-seeing soul of a blind person refuse to tell him what it sees, and lets him stumble around in the dark? If there is an immortal soul lurking somewhere inside you, it is not YOU, it is merely a spy or peeping tom that is observing your life, and when you die your personality and memories will die with you. The soul that was in your body may then flit off to spy on someone else, but this soul was never what you and your friends and family thought of as YOU.
Let's imagine you die as a crippled, incontinent, 95 year-old with dementia. Do you really want to go through eternity in this state? People reply that their soul wouldn't be old, crippled, incontinent or suffering from dementia. Then this soul isn't them, it's just a default, generic human 'mind' that has their name stamped on it. Who gets to decide what memories, emotions and experiences are erased from your 'soul' to make you 'fit and healthy' for your stint in eternity? Can you imagine the soul of a 20 year-old soldier killed in WW2 being reunited with the soul of his 90 year-old wife who died 70 years later? And what happens to the souls of her other two husbands? Whose wife is she? And if an idyllic afterlife exists, why are we so concerned when hundreds and thousands are killed in natural disasters? Haven't they gone to a far better place, a place that Christians especially can't wait to get to? Why rescue some wretched soul from an earthquake and place him back into a life of poverty and suffering when we could ignore his cries and send him off to paradise? If his family miss him, then stop humanitarian aid and they will soon follow him. The more one thinks about immortal souls, the more complications arise and the sillier it all becomes.
I certainly understand these desires regarding an afterlife. I'd love to be immortal, I'd love to be able to fly like Superman and for there to be pots of gold at the end of rainbows. But this is just wishful thinking. All the evidence suggests that all these things are just stories we tell children, and they have never been found in the real world, no matter how much we wish they were real and no matter how much we search for them.
I also understand that belief in an afterlife helps some get through the death of a loved one, and that mediums might assist this healing, but I maintain that this 'recovery' is achieved by lying to people. Adults often comfort young children by telling them that their pet dog wasn't actually killed in that horrible accident but has simply gone off to live on a farm, which is what all dogs dream of doing. This may save some impressionable young children from stresses and trauma that their young minds can't handle, but we all know that these stories are fiction, and that when they mature we know that we must eventually tell them the truth. For them to function as adults they must be told the truth, and we would condemn adults that tried to hide the realities of life from their mature children. Your dog is dead and not living happily on a farm, Granny has died and you won't be getting a call from her from some spa, Santa isn't real and the Tooth Fairy doesn't travel the world buying discarded teeth. As much as these stories comfort the young, they are false. The fact that children might wish them to be true does not make them true. Belief in an afterlife is just one final story that adults need to accept was just a story, invented long ago when man was ignorant and superstitious. Most adults are extremely annoyed when they discover other adults have lied to them, that their partner wasn't visiting a sick friend but having an affair, that their life savings aren't safe in the bank but have been embezzled by their accountant, that they are being made redundant not because there is no work but simply because their boss doesn't like them. Lies might keep them ignorant and happy, but most people want the truth. Learning to handle the truth is part of what being a mature adult means. Controlling adult behaviour with lies is no different from adults controlling the behaviour of children as Xmas approaches with threats of Santa not coming if they don't behave. Comforting adults by lying to them might be the easiest method, but I would rather be told the truth and be helped to deal with reality, than cocooned in a fantasy.
You also said that, 'I think mediums/psychics can have their place… [but] I don't agree however with the amount of money they take or the way they exploit families'.
The trouble with this for me is that once people accept that psychic mediums are genuine and/or offer a valuable service, then you can't expect them not to charge for this service, as even doctors and psychologists do. And the more skilled these individuals appear to be, then the more in demand they will be, and the more they will charge. As long as people believe psychic mediums are real, then they will charge high fees, it's simple supply and demand, and because they aren't genuine, people will continue to be exploited by them. Like you I am annoyed by the way the psychic mediums on Sensing Murder exploit grieving families, but let's remember that these psychic mediums are the best that Australasia has to offer. I always find it strange when people say that the countries best psychic mediums are fake but the little old lady they know is the real thing. If they are fake and simply conning people, then what chance is there that some old lady that just gives free readings to her friends is a 'real' medium? People that are truly good at something soon start charging for their services. If no one is prepared to pay then this means that they are not very good. If anyone is likely to be a real psychic medium then it is those on the likes of Sensing Murder. If they're fakes or deluded, then they all are. If we allow and support small time mediums in the community then some will eventually find their way onto TV and then start demanding higher fees.
And yes, I saw that episode that focused on the personal lives of the mediums. Most if not all were shown to be poorly educated, to have learning disabilities and to suffer from what professionals would describe as mild forms of mental illness. They also seemed to have suffered from sexual, mental and/or physical abuse. If these people had said that they talked to aliens or leprechauns then every professional and layperson would agree that their damaged mental states and harmful experiences growing up explain why they are having these delusions. In fact I suspect that most professionals would still insist that their claim of talking to ghosts is still a delusion best explained by their mental state, but some members of the public, because they also believe in ghosts and spirits, ignore the fragile mental states of these mediums and accept their delusions as real. Rather than help convince me that these mediums were really seeing dead people, the episode showed me that they really need psychiatric help.
I doubt if I will watch much of the up-coming Sensing Murder series, except to laugh at it. Just as once I had convinced myself that Santa wasn't real and I now don't have to re-examine my convictions anew every Xmas, it is a waste of time and brain cells to watch Sensing Murder fail, episode after episode, for another pathetic season. I do try to learn from my experiences.
Good response.
For me, the issue is — humans have a consiousness. Like every other being, senient & otherwise on this lovely planet we inhabit, we have a consiousness because we have a a brain.*
When we don't have a brain (e.g. when we are dead) we are NOT consious.
*The corollary is — if there is a brain, there is a consiousness. Which is why I am, by & large, a vegetarian.
I often wonder if the only use for psychics is to use established facts to scare guilt ridden bad guys into giving themselves away. Unfortunately not even this much has occured and the episode you mention was by far one of the most frustrating and definitely the least convincing considering their established prior case knowledge. As for the afterlife, there is plenty of theories and whilst it might be nice to be reborn young vibrant and energetic, i suspect i might have to put up with being reborn as a blade of grass as my individual atoms and molecules are recycled, personally i'm going for cremation to get maximum coverage through photosynthesis.
You "have no time for psychics and mediums, or the leeches that make TV shows about them, because they are lying to us simply to make money."
Our belief is that religion is nonsense, and actually provides the foundation that allows these frauds to flourish. If it weren't for a silly belief in souls and heaven and angels on clouds then mediums wouldn't exist. Does your question somehow relate to the mediums' blatant failure to solve this murder, or in fact any murder?
No, not much difference between these leeches and the ones peddling religion, except that the religious ones seem to be more accepted by the community and governments.
Yes Ken, the religious leeches are more accepted by the community and governments, and we're working at changing that too!
Hi all, just discovered your page. Obviously you are not very well informed about all the crimes that mediums, psychics, psychic investigators, and other intuitive people have solved throughout the world.
In my spare time I will endeavour to enlighten you. I will also provide the web links to the evidence that you so desperately require.
Many crimes are solved by mediums leads, its just not publicised, usually to protect the medium, psychic or investigator who has provided the leads.
I notice the comments stopped on this site at the end of March this year. Why was that?
Most likely no one has commented on this article since March because no one that disagreed with it could think of a good reason to challenge it.
You're right, we are not aware of a single well-documented crime worldwide that has been solved by mediums, psychics or psychic investigators. We've noticed that many of these people claim — in their books, websites and in public — to have worked with the police and solved crimes, but again, not a single one has been able to provide reliable evidence that they have.
You then appear to explain that we won't be aware of crimes being solved by mediums because 'its just not publicised'. If the legal system is suppressing the involvement of mediums to protect them, then how do you know of them? Why are the police revealing evidence of their successes to you but not to anyone else? Or why are mediums telling you that they have solved crimes but they don't want their critics to know this? Is it skeptics that they believe they need protection from?
If mediums fear the public learning of their involvement in investigating crimes, how do you explain TV programs like 'Sensing Murder' which highlights their involvement (as well as their abject failures)?
And if mediums were solving many crimes, wouldn't it make sense to reveal this fact, even if the identities of the mediums were kept secret? Surely the knowledge that mediums are regularly exposing murderers, rapists and other criminals would see a huge drop in crime? What better incentive to lead a lawful lifestyle than the knowledge that ghosts are watching you and will rat you out to the cops if you commit a crime?
We certainly do hope you get some spare time to enlighten us on these matters.
I would have thought that if there was anything in criminal psychic investigation police forces around the world would have set up psychic units decades ago. I mean why bother with all that tedious forensics and door to door routine if you could interview the murder victim or get a reading from a piece of evidence. The modern image of an investigation would not be people in white coveralls on hands and knees doing finger searches of a crime scene but a group of detectives standing in a circle holding hands.
Perhaps what Earthmother is telling us Phill is that the police have set up psychic units, they're just not allowed to tell us about them? ;-)
Return to Article
|
|
|
|
Support Science Not Superstition
|
|
www.sillybeliefs.com
Last Updated Oct 2011 |