"Genuine" or knowing fraud?

[CalamityKate]

Please be clear - by "genuine" I mean "deluded and as such, genuinely believes has mediumistic ability".

So I'm interested to hear whether you all think that ALL "mediums", particularly the well-known ones, are knowingly fake or if some of them really believe they can do what they claim to do.

Me, I think that Sylvia Browne (vile creature and the worst of the lot IMO), John Edward and Sally thingy (forget her surname now) are knowingly fake, but I'm undecided on Colin "Ickle mole man" Fry. I wouldn't be at all surprised if, despite the trumpet incident, he thinks he's the real deal.

Opinions?

[Admin]

The problem with this is that we can't know simply because, somewhat ironically, we can't read other people's minds!

My opinion is that once self-proclaimed psychics start using their 'powers' as their source of income (they run psychic/healing businesses etc.) then it must become obvious to them that what they're doing isn't real as they hone their practises to whatever makes the most money.

Celebrity psychics are an extreme case of this. Whether they still have some genuine underlying belief that they have some ability who knows but they surely must be fully aware that what they do isn't real.

When celebrity TV psychics issue 'love cards' to members of their audience before the show asking them to fill in the details of the person they hope to 'come through' and then these deceased people miraculously do come though during the show, they are clearly involved in the trickery.

Although I'm sure there are plenty of people who genuinely believe that they have some psychic powers, I'm not too sure how confident they are that these powers are truly genuine.

Whenever they come on here proclaiming their powers/abilities and we ask them to participate in testing they never agree. That suggests to me that no matter how much such people want to believe, deep down they probably know it's all false. But the belief is more precious to them than the truth so they avoid confronting doubt.

[FarSideOfTheMoon]

I personally don't believe that someone can sustain a showbiz career without being completely fraudulent. The pressure to deliver something to fill a certain amount of time can only be satisfied by using the guaranteed techniques of cold/hot reading.

When we see mediums put under controlled situations as part of testing, they have many excuses as to why they can't perform. They never need to invoke these excuses on TV or in the theatre (well, they sometimes invoke smaller excuses when getting something wrong, but the cold reading can allow them to recover in front of a sympathetic audience).

Whilst I believe that there are some mediums who think they have genuine powers, and occasionally will use techniques like cold reading to make sure they can still deliver something when their powers fail, I think once you get into the professional television or theatre market, you have to deliver, so you need a range of techniques to do this. And by that point, although some of these people may have weird beliefs, I think they are all knowingly acting in a devious way.

[Cradle Cap]

I think some really believe that they can do it, and they're the successful ones. I think they still indulge in fraudulent practices but don't necessarily think of them as being fraudulent, but rather to help 'warm up' or 'provide a better service'.

[FarSideOfTheMoon]

Please be clear - by "genuine" I mean "deluded and as such, genuinely believes has mediumistic ability".

So I'm interested to hear whether you all think that ALL "mediums", particularly the well-known ones, are knowingly fake or if some of them really believe they can do what they claim to do.

Me, I think that Sylvia Browne (vile creature and the worst of the lot IMO), John Edward and Sally thingy (forget her surname now) are knowingly fake, but I'm undecided on Colin "Ickle mole man" Fry. I wouldn't be at all surprised if, despite the trumpet incident, he thinks he's the real deal.

Opinions?

Have you ever seen Colin Fry doing 'Magnus'. That leaves me in no doubt what he is up to. He makes Gary Mannion look good!

[Trinoc]

Perhaps we are approaching this from the wrong angle. We are assuming that these people believe there is a simple dichotomy between being able objectively to do psychic things, and not being able to do them. It may seem obvious to us rationalists that for a given testable statement x, either (x) or (not x) is true, but not both ... but a lot of people don't think that way. In many areas of life, but particularly in things like psychic abilities or religion, we hear statements like "Well, it's true to me". Maybe it simply isn't a valid question to ask whether these people believe objectively that they have these abilities, since the idea of an unambiguous, objective reality "out there" is alien to their way of thinking.

[ZERO]

"Well, it's true to me".

Sounds like the current argument in the vaccination thread. It might be an attitude common to most believers.

[Trinoc]

Sounds like the current argument in the vaccination thread. It might be an attitude common to most believers.

I find it rather more plausible than the idea that they are all deliberately being bloody minded in the face of the evidence. Of course there are people like that, but surely not everybody ... that would be just too depressing.

(But of course that's no guarantee that it's not true ... or maybe it's just "not true to me" ...)

[DrS]

A kind of personal truth, you mean? I've heard people speak like this, along the lines that "my truth" might be different from yours, but they're both "truths" ...

[bindeweede]

A kind of personal truth, you mean? I've heard people speak like this, along the lines that "my truth" might be different from yours, but they're both "truths" ...

A couple of years ago, a member of this forum explained "post modern relativism" to me. I might have got this wrong, but it seems to come down to the New Age idea that truth is relative - we all have our own version of it.

Sillybilly stuff, I'd say. (To put it extremely mildly!)

DrS here is the thread, which you actually posted on. Apologies!

http://www.uksceptics.com/forum/show...ern+relativism

[DrS]

Oh dear!

None the less, I think I can stand by the comments, in that I do see a difference between a belief-type truth (it's warm today) and an objective-reality truth (the table is made of wood).

Perhaps in the context of this thread, we could argue that even if there were a cast-iron method to assess whether psychics were in contact with anyone, they would not believe any resulting objective-reality truth if it conflicted with their own belief-type truth.

[Mulder]

Of the psychics I've met, none of whom are famous, all appeared to definitely believe in their own gifts. Their belief was, quite properly, based on their own evidence. Where they differed from many people here is that they did not subject that evidence to critical analysis. They had trouble seeing the difference between subjective and objective, their own experience and testable effects. Nor did they see any great need for critical analysis. They appeared to take the view that being right (at least some of the time) was all the proof they needed. Sadly, that previous sentence also applies to some paranormal researchers. They think that the important thing is how much apparently previously unknown (to the psychic) information is revealed is more important than where it comes from.

[Cradle Cap]

I've often wondered if it's a form of madness.

[Trinoc]

I've often wondered if it's a form of madness.

If you define madness as a way of thinking that doesn't conform to the majority, then it is we rationalists who are mad ...

[Cradle Cap]

Well, they hear voices in their head. That's a bit nuts...