Errors from Skeptical debates

[British Sceptic]

with reference to Derren Brown,

doesn't the fact he can produce results with a better statistical average than most psychics prove a point with knowledge, training and practice anyone can perfrm psychic feats.

Arent these psychic abilities just something else we do not understand.

similar to watching paul daniels as a kid we were awe struck until penn & teller busted the tricks.

so arent psychic tricks just parlor tricks being busted by Derren?

we only ever believe it because we don't know how its done and as sceptics we demand to know the trick or else we call it fakery!

then when the trick is shown, it is proven to be fakery!

regards,

Den.

[seren]

I've used the Derren Brown argument before. However, I don't ever claim that it disproves the existence of psychic powers. What happens is that someone says "But I've seen stuff that can't be explained any other way! They MUST be psychic!". Derren Brown's antics are a handy illustration of what's wrong with that kind of thinking. His effects highlight the huge leap from "I don't understand how that was done" to "It must be real magic powers" that people often take. It's just opening people up to the possibility of a non-psychic explanation by example.

Furthermore, I don't make anything of supposed NLP or psychological techniques, mainly because they're irrelevant. How he does it (or claims to do it!) is not important, it's that he doesn't use magical powers that's the point.

[Cuddles]

Arent these psychic abilities just something else we do not understand.

Not really. The thing about psychic abilities is that we understand them pretty well, it's just that many people refuse to believe the explanations.

The real problem is that, as Seren says, just because it can be done without magic doesn't necessarily mean it is in every case. Just as with UFOs, people will say that while you might have an explanation for one instance, the same explanation doesn't work for another. Of course, this doesn't mean there is actually any magic involved, it just means there is a different, perfectly mundane, explanation, but for some reason an awful lot of people seem ot have difficulty grasping that.

[Mike Hall]

I don't think Derren has ever claimed to use NLP, has he? (Can anyone cite him mentioning it?)

I agree that Derren's claim be using psychology, subliminal messages, etc is just misdirection - he's actually a skilled cold reader, mentalist and illusionist.

But then I don't think that's inconsistent with anything Derren says?

[Admin]

I don't think Derren has ever claimed to use NLP, has he? (Can anyone cite him mentioning it?)

I think he uses one technique from NLP (watching eye movements when people are recalling things) but whether he really uses it is another matter! He mentions it in his book Pure Effect (IIRC).

He said something like: NLP has a couple of things going for it but it's 95% bullshit.

I think many people assume he uses NLP but he probably doesn't. He uses standard mentalism techniques but 'spices up' the explanations.

[Admin]

so arent psychic tricks just parlor tricks being busted by Derren?

we only ever believe it because we don't know how its done and as sceptics we demand to know the trick or else we call it fakery!

I would say that most psychics don't use tricks. Of course there are bound to be some who know they're faking it and they may use trickery to enhance what they do but most psychics probably believe in themselves and their ability.

They're falling for the same psychological biases that their clients do however and these are well understood.

[Dr B]

I've used the Derren Brown argument before. However, I don't ever claim that it disproves the existence of psychic powers. What happens is that someone says "But I've seen stuff that can't be explained any other way! They MUST be psychic!". Derren Brown's antics are a handy illustration of what's wrong with that kind of thinking. His effects highlight the huge leap from "I don't understand how that was done" to "It must be real magic powers" that people often take. It's just opening people up to the possibility of a non-psychic explanation by example.

Indeed - and that's exactly how to use the 'Derren Brown' type arguments.

If you imagine a basic experiment of psychic power - that has a serious design flaw - which could explain the specific results - then the reasonable position is that as such a flaw could explain the results via a mechanism with far fewer (if any) untested assumptions and leaps, then it is likely that it is the explanation. In this sense a possibility becomes a probability in light of the nature of the claims being made. Note - we have not proven that it was the way it was done, just that it is by far the most reasonable position to take.

One then improves the methodology and looks to see if the effects remain. What Derren is a good example of is how accurate one can be via none-paranormal means. Now, for the psychics to be truly psychic - they need to be as good as derren (under strict controlled conditions) or better than him.