Pretend-psychic James Van Praagh is claiming success in predicting Barbara Walters’ recent medical problems. Get a load of this:
Two years ago, psychic James Van Praagh privately warned Barbara Walters about her health, only to be called out later on the TV icon’s daytime talk show, “The View” – and now, with Barbara headed for heart surgery, he has come forward to Access Hollywood to explain what happened.
“I felt very, very bad for her as anyone would,” James told Access’ Tony Potts of Monday’s announcement that Barbara would undergo heart surgery for a faulty valve. “A horrible thing to happen to anybody.”
However, he explained that he felt the news was “a validation of what I got for her at that time.”
[…]
“I tuned into her and I said, ‘Something is bad with your blood,’” James said of their backstage discussion. “It’s not moving correctly… you have to watch it. It might not be right now, it could be in the future.”
He also told her he sensed issues with her white blood cells and her back.
[…]
“She owes me an apology,” he continued.
Let’s review the facts. Van Praagh predicts that a 78 year old woman has something other than perfect health – specifically “something is bad with your blood.” Note: her blood. She immediately had medical tests done that showed there was no problem with her blood – so Van Praagh was wrong. Here is Walters from two years ago, explaining exactly why Van Praagh was wrong:
Two years later, doctors tell her that she needs surgery for a faulty heart valve. Note: heart valve. Something different. Van Praagh claims success. This wouldn’t have been an especially impressive guess even if he’d correctly predicted that a 78 year old had problems with a heart valve. But he didn’t even guess that. Check out this list of Blood Diseases and Disorders from the National Heart Lung and Blood institute – nothing about heart valve problems. And you wouldn’t expect to. Heart valve problems are not caused by bad blood:
There are a number of possible causes of heart valve disease. These include:
- rheumatic fever during childhood - this disease is no longer common in the UK but still affects people in developing countries
- a congenital deformity which means you were born with a defective valve
- ardiomyopathy - if your heart muscle becomes thickened or dilated, it can obstruct blood flow
- age - as you get older, your valves become less flexible, and more stretched or torn
Van Praagh was wrong.
What we have here is the typical situation where the “psychic” retroactively tries to fit his prediction to what actually transpired. In Van Praagh’s opinion, he was close enough to claim a hit because (presumably) the heart pumps blood and he saw problems with the blood. He’s also revising what he originally said – see how he now claims that he said “It’s not moving correctly…” Check out any source from two years ago and there is no reference to the blood “not moving correctly.” It’s all “problems with blood” and “an abnormality with her white cell count.”
Now Van Praagh claims Walters owes him an apology. Really? An apology? Let’s review what Van Praagh actually said about Walters two years ago:
"You don't have to be a psychic to know why Star [Jones] and Rosie [O'Donnell] left the show!
Meow. Nor do you need to be psychic to predict that a 78 year old woman might have some health problems. Although I do give him credit this time at least for not scoring a hit on Psychic Bingo – a rare occurrence for Van Praagh, to be sure.
If psychics were real, they would predict the winning numbers in the lottery and go live in the bahamas they wouldn't have to make vague guesses of the obvious only to miss many times
Posted by: Nico | May 15, 2010 at 03:00 PM
Yeah, he made that old fatal mistake of going one step too far and being just a little too specific.
If he'd stopped at "something is bad with your blood" then post-fitting "it's not moving correctly" now could almost be convincing (cough). But he just had to try for the bonus points and mention the white blood cells. Bugger.
This tactic is great when it works and highlights absolute failure when it doesn't - as has happened here.
Posted by: AndyD | May 15, 2010 at 10:19 PM
Let's hope Babs calls him out again rather than subjectively validate his bullshit.
Posted by: Ryan | May 16, 2010 at 11:30 AM
Why doesn't this man have his own show on Discovery or the History Channel? I'm getting a little tired of those Mythbusters always resolving their investigations - that kind of of crap belongs on PBS. If they don't start losing evidence, degrading samples, underexposing their film, and asking repeatedly if "anyone hears that?" - I demand Discovery fire those empirical bastards and give Mr. Van Preeeck their timeslots!!
Posted by: Chris | May 17, 2010 at 05:16 AM
I'd love to see Adam + Jamie take on someone like Praaaaggggh.
The trouble is, when they exposed him, the best you'd get might be "Do that again with Derek Acorah - he's a real psychic."
"Oh well, you're right - Derek is a fake after all, also. But wait till you test Sylvia Browne - she is 100% genuine, no doubt about it, positive."
"What? That is a surprise, I must admit. But you haven't seen the best yet - Alison Dubois is incontrovertibly a medium."
And so on.
Posted by: Big Al | May 19, 2010 at 04:16 AM
Did you catch that bozo on Chelsea lately? Not only did he re-iterate some of his original comments but he ADDED more. He specifically mentions that he said something about the heart in his conversation with her. New one to me.. but wow, does it ever make him seem like a psychic.
I guess I can go back and piece things together after events transpire and then I'll be one too!
Posted by: Bill | May 25, 2010 at 08:52 PM
"If psychics were real, they would predict the winning numbers in the lottery and go live in the bahamas they wouldn't have to make vague guesses of the obvious only to miss many times"
Heck, if psychics were real (and could do that), there probably wouldn't be lotteries!
Posted by: Lenoxus | May 26, 2010 at 06:49 PM
I believe in James and he should get 100% credit for the Barbara Walters health concern/prediction, So what if he didn't mention the heart directly-He did mention blood flow concerns and back pain(is this not related to the heart???) As far as the white blood cell thing...maybe that may yet come to fruition(lab results can change on a daily basis) Remember folks, he goes by his own interpretation of the feeling he receives at that moment/he doesn't claim to get it exact/merely opening our minds and hearts!!!Keep on doing what you do best,James.....All my Love, Joan Smith.
Posted by: Joan Smith | September 09, 2010 at 09:27 PM
Yes, what does it matter if one who claims such amazing supernatural power can't actually manage to discern what was wrong, wishy washy hand waving by mentioning blood flow is good enough. By that rationale he could have predicted almost any ailment given how blood is pretty ubiquitous in the body.
Yep, it's completely wrong now but how could that possibly matter, because it might be right later on at some undetermined time. Since when was any self respecting prediction a stickler for trivialities like details. Why wait for evidence to come along when you can substitute wishful fantasy for fact instead. Oh and lab results do not spontaneously change from day to day.
By that line of reasoning everything can be taken as true whilst we faithfully wait for the currently lacking evidence to coma along, and wait, and wait.
Then what use is he or his alleged ability?
Bamboozling people? It's not like he even manages cold reading that well.
Your post is honestly just a string of weak apologetics for his stunning failures, tell me, is there anything that could possibly prove to you that he really has no supernatural ability? I mean he gets stuff completely wrong and that only seems to make you believe him all the more.
Also why are you here? Do you honestly think anyone is going to look at your post and go, "gadzooks, I never realised that an accurate prediction could be totally wrong and yet still be completely right, oh and accuracy doesn't even matter, heck nor is evidence, not when we can pretend it will eventually come along..., at some stage..., later."
Posted by: Darth Cynic | September 10, 2010 at 11:44 AM
The intertoobs can be outright befuddling for the Joan Smiths of the world, my good Sith.
She used "All my Love" as a complimentary close..... to a blog comment, for fuck's sake.
She probably thinks "James'" abilities extend to being instantly aware of anything posted anywhere on the internet, as long as it's addressed to him (and signed "All my Love").
Posted by: Arren | September 11, 2010 at 10:15 AM
What does your scientific methodology say about anecdotal evidence?
If you can use this as an example to 'prove' that James is a fake, then and Joe Blow or Peter Pan can use a 'hit' by James to 'prove' he is the real deal.
This forum is sloppy and inconsistant. Please stick to your scientific methodology when presenting evidence - not shoddy heresay.
Hugs and kisses,
Peter pan.
Posted by: Peter Pan | October 20, 2010 at 09:47 AM
James is a fake. he faked his way into becoming world famous with a stellar international reputation; he faked his way into having his own T.V. show; into writing several best selling books. But what's probably eating most craws around here is that all this faking has resulted in millions of dollars for James which are real as the look of envy and jealosy on your face.
But alas there is hope. If James can fake his way into millions through deception so can you. After all, we're talking about men of science who have the answers to everything so this should be a walk in the park for any of you.
So go for it. The best way to expose James as a fraud is to duplicate his success and then write a book about how you faked your way into getting there. This is the best way to expose james for what he is, as you'll be richer beyond your wildest dreams as well.
Any takers, or is that a bit of clucking I hear in the background?
Posted by: Peter Pan | October 21, 2010 at 06:35 AM
That it is scientifically speaking, worthless. An entirely subjective experience distilled through the bias of the individual relating the story. A story that could among other things be the result of ignorance on a subject, misidentification, poor recall or complete fabrication. Stories are utterly undependable as reliable scientific data because they are so open to pollution both accidental and deliberate. For instance your claims of being saved by quacks from cancer on two occasions could very easily be a complete lie on your part just so you can put it up to the skeptics. Or you might have left out important details, like you were actually on the chemo etc. We don't live in your head and are not privy to the full details of the case and what doctors did or did not say. We do have plenty of other people who having elected to take on chemo and other meds have their lifespan extended or cured. Whilst those fooled by the unproven fantasies of sCAM and eschew all real medical intervention often die ( What's The Harm ).
Your reasoning is sloppy and your ignorance profound, seriously, you should lay off the attempts at being self superior as you are beginning to look rather foolish.
This wrong prediction by Praagh is just one of many that would appear to suggest that his alleged powers if real are so inconsistent and undependable, as to make them no different to chance guesswork. This failure of Praagh's is also no mere anecdote, there is a televisual record, there are the medical checks - by real doctors not snake oil quacks - and Praagh's own non denial statements. So no it's not a case of the negative being a mere story, it's a clear case of failure on Praagh's part. A world apart from believer claims that something the alleged psychic said was correct, a case that with some digging usually points to an incident of cold reading missed by the believer.
Besides, it is up to Praagh or believers to prove the claims they are making with unambiguous scientific evidence. It is not incumbent on skeptics to disprove the claims, however we are often more than happy to point out the flaws in so called evidence.
I see you've got posts elsewhere on here, some even take wounded issue with what you term to be 'childish' or 'juvenile' insults directed at you. Yet you proceed to be condescending, self superior, taunting, ignorant and also insulting in a childish and juvenile manner. If one is going to piss and whine about the other kids being mean, one should try and not put ones foot in ones mouth at the same time.
As for your absurd suggestion that to tackle Praagh we must emulate Praagh, it's called ethics stupid. We could hardly be upset at Praagh bilking folks out of their hard earned by pretending he has some link to the beyond, by doing exactly the same thing. However there are others who do the whole cold reading thing, acknowledge that they have no powers and are also quite successful like Derren Brown.
Oh dear, I'm rather sorry Pan but just because that's the straw man version you'd like to imagine every last skeptic is, well your personal fantasy does not become reality merely because you wish it. I don't like him because he to me is a dishonest individual leeching off peoples grief. I certainly do not dislike him merely because he is rich, just how he made those riches. Similar to how I dislike criminals who dupe marks out of their hard earned in ridiculous pyramid schemes, or violent criminal enterprise; or am I just jealous of them too?
As for finishing with hugs and kisses, bog off you insincere clown.
Posted by: Darth Cynic | October 21, 2010 at 09:21 AM
Dearest Darth.
Your public service to mankind is to ridicule James? How can we ever repay you?
No doubt his actions and the actions of other fakes will now cease - all because of you.
If you realy gave a hoot about serving the public good you and all the other master minds on this blog will band together and replicate the 'tricks' that James pulls off to achieve the same level of success and fame that he has achieved - then expose him for the fraud that he is by revealing all the tricks of the trade that enabled him to do what he does - and that you were able to do as well.
I feel the pain you are experiencing through James' cruel intent and actions towards others so I have no doubt you will do more than just ridicule and take the necessary action as I have suggested to put an end to James and all the future James' in waiting. Mocking alone is not enough. Go out an do it! James is a mental midget compared to the likes of you.
Glory awaits and the public will applaud!
What are you waiting for? Oh yes, you are a coward, and a hypocrite as well.
Hugs and Kisses.
Posted by: Peter Pan | October 21, 2010 at 10:40 AM
Just a preliminary link, Peter, not a full response to your unimaginative "challenge", but here's something you should probably read, including a share of the links at the bottom of the page:
"Cold reading" from the Skeptic's Dictionary.
Just so that you know what it is, instead of just a buzzword for you to mindlessly scan for.
I will be looking for cold reading videos later, but I've got a life outside this website to tend to for a while.
And please, spare us the unoriginal subject changes about being shocked that we're actually human beings instead of the Hollywood stereotype woos write about to project all their closed-mindedness on.
Speaking of closed-mindedness, here's a video about what open-mindedness really means.
Posted by: Bronze Dog | October 21, 2010 at 01:57 PM
Thanks for the link to open mindedness Bronze. Astounding to you as it may seem, but a child could have written that video. You are a fool if you think that you and only you are aware of what open mindedness is, and that others need you to teach them all about it. We do not. I think this frightens you the most, that I cannot be so easily dismissed as you would like me to be. I represent an area of truth that you refuse to acknowledge, often to the exclusion of 'open-mindedness'. You engage in a fierce battle - not for truth, but to seek any validation that you may be right, at the expense of the truth.
Now it's your turned to learn about open-mindedness.
Google 'Carl J. Jung', Near Death Experience. World Renowned Psychiatrist and 'former' Atheist.
Read about his experience. Be open minded. I'm sure he is at least as clever as you and probably a lot more so. Is he a quake? Will you take what he says seriously? You should. He's been there. You need to listen to what he says.
Maybe, just maybe he has seen a bit of what you refuse to acknowledge as the truth. He cannot be so easily dismissed.
Posted by: Peter Pan | October 21, 2010 at 02:44 PM
Sir how dare you! You have gone entirely too far with your response and have angered me greatly with your insolent disrespect. Why, why I'm fit to bust a vein so taken with apoplectic rage am I. Each sentence of your masterful prose, each subtle barb against me, it was like the death of a thousand written cuts...
Now be honest, is that not the fantasy you were indulging in as you wrote that "Dearest Darth" piece? Were you not giggling to yourself as you imagined your condescension and sarcasm driving this luddite skeptic into fits of sputtering impotence? Alas, back in the real world, skeptics do not conform to whatever preconceptions you may have, those straw men foils exist solely in your mind. So your piece, dripping as it is with condescension and sarcasm only had me laughing at you and not vacillating between fury and bamboozled impotence. But enough digression on your failure to unsettle me.
Oh don't be silly, I am under no illusions that my words here or elsewhere will suddenly erase all psychic foolery. Nor have I ever claimed such, nor have I ridiculed Praagh for that matter as best as I can tell. However my words and others might reach some people, and if some people are swayed away then that is a great achievement in and of itself. Much like - but not identical mind - donating to charity, your money is not going to erase world hunger in an instant, it will help some people though and that's why we do it. As for your sarcastic praise, it is as subtle as a sledge hammer, such a transparent attempt to elicit an angry emotive response for you to then seize upon is rather poor.
I see you missed that mention of the word 'ethics', I'm sure you're familiar with its meaning but a good dictionary should illuminate you if you're not au fait with the term. Besides, I'll do what I deem myself best able to do and in what time I have available, just because Pan has declared 'X' as the only option does not magically make it so, who elected you leader?
Apparently empathy is also something you are less than familiar with.
As I have already mentioned your suggestion is absurd, an unethical waste of time that would prove nothing. Derren Brown does exactly the same thing and makes absolutely no claim to psychic powers, states unambiguously that he has no power, that it's combinations of cold and hot reading with some knowledge of psychology. Have all the psychics disappeared? No, they just make excuses, just like Joan above made them, just like Praagh does when he gets it wrong. Never mind the fact that it's up to Praagh and co to scientifically prove their claim, and not the other way round. Also what's this whole "mental midget compared to the likes of you?" You think we're all cowardly fools beneath your towering intellect, we could never do anything that would convince you. You keep telling us how we have failed before we ever began.
A hypocrite? Well this should be good, where?
As for your beloved coward taunts. This is not the school playground, perhaps you would like to join the adult world some time, assuming you are an adult that is.
The chutzpah is indeed strong with this one, seriously lad, bleating about being lectured to then saying "Now it's your turned [sic] to learn about open-mindedness." Do you even read what it is your typing? However Mr Bronze was not implying that everyone needs him and him alone to teach them about the open mindedness which only he knows, he was trying to educate you and you alone in this context. And what is your response to some potentially helpful info offered in good faith? You get all snotty, a high handed dismissal and straight to muttering indignantly about nasty skeptic folks having the audacity to speak about your sacred cow. Yep, that's the hall mark of open-mindedness that, telling everyone else that they are just wrong and only you are enlightened.
Ahh the 'you're too frightened, gambit, true because, well merely because the true believer asserts it to be so. Look, as long as your tossing out assertions, poor sarcasm and dodging evidence 'n' problematic questions, dismissal is quite easy. As for engaging in fierce battle, what in the hells are you on about? You came here, you're the one engaged in a battle to convince all us troglodytes about how wrong we are and how whatever quackery you've chosen - but never identified - to believe in is the bona fide truth. You're the one after validation lad, I just come here to keep informed on the world of woo and ran into you casting insult and ignorance about. I don't come here to strut about flaunting my keen intellect, I just add my two cents for whatever they are worth, when folks like you come tearing through to do battle with the hated doubters.
Btw whats a quake when it's at home?
Hugs 'n' kisses my backside.
Posted by: Darth Cynic | October 21, 2010 at 06:51 PM
Oh Darth, again you give me a great deal of amusement in reading your rants. You are so easily unnerved.
But you will be unnerved further when you google 'Carl J. Young' , Atheist, near Death Experience.
Yes, the same Carl Young who is the world renowned Psychiatrist and Atheist who died. Then came back from death and spoke convincingly of the experience he had while dead - (Hence near Death Experience) and spoke of the Glory of the afterlife that awaits us all as a result of that experience while dead. You notice I am not swaying from this topic as to not give you an out so you can avoid learning -open mindedly no doubt - about the wonderous mysteries of the universe mini minds like you cannot possible begin to imagine.
So off and do your research on Mr. Jung - a far greater man of science than you could ever be - who acknowledged the ignorance and shortcomings of his belief systems - just like yours - upon return to his once dead body.
So resarch and learn. You will be amazed at your ignorance but delighted with what you will learn. No, you and yours are not masters of the Universe. If you up to the task of challenging this belief boy doing your homework then you will defer to the knowledge and experiences of the great Mr. Jung and concede that he is enlightened and you are a better man because of it. And best of all, you will have me to thank.
No, I will not hug and kiss your bum as you would like. I think you've had too many male tongues up your bum hole as it is. Best let Mr. Yakaru continue with that one.
Hugs and Kisses anyway,
Peter Pan.
Remember - Carl J. Jung...
Posted by: Peter Pan | October 21, 2010 at 08:04 PM
So you seemed to recognize earlier that anecdotal evidence is worthless, Pete, and then you pull out this bit about Jung's subjective near-death experience as if it's supposed to be convincing? Here's the problem:
1. Subjective experiences are subjective. To the subject, they may be quite convincing. To anyone else, they are hearsay. Jung's story holds no more water for people other than Jung than anyone else's story, real or fictional. Because when it's a subjective experience, we on the outside have no way of distinguishing between the two.
2. Talking about Jung's status as a former atheist and a brilliant psychologist is a worthless argument from authority. Even those who are very smart can be mistaken. Linus Pauling is one of very few people to have won two Nobel prizes, and was a brilliant chemist. He also thought that megadoses of Vitamin C would cure cancer. The evidence showed him to be quite wrong. We have no reason to think that Jung's psychological expertise made him any kind of special authority on the afterlife.
3. On the contrary, we have lots of reasons to believe that Jung was mistaken regarding the reality of his experiences. The qualities of near-death experiences have been thoroughly studied in recent decades, and every aspect of them can be recreated by altering the brain state through drugs, electromagnetic fields, or oxygen deprivation. All the typical features of near-death experiences have been recreated in people who were nowhere near death. We have quite a lot of reason to think that the particular features of NDEs are the result of brain functions in certain stressful situations, and not indicative of some greater reality any more than dreams or drug-induced hallucinations are indicative of some greater reality.
What it comes down to is that we can either believe that Jung was infallible in his perceptions and interpretations of those perceptions, and that there does indeed exist some supernatural afterlife and some aspect of the mind that can somehow exist apart from a physical brain in order to inhabit that afterlife, or we can believe that Jung was misled and mistaken. One requires a lot of things for which we have no good evidence, the other requires only that we believe what we know to be true through ample evidence. Occam's Razor dictates that, until evidence validates the first hypothesis, we should accept the second.
Posted by: Tom Foss | October 21, 2010 at 10:36 PM
One other thing: enlightened or not, Jung is no longer a "better man." Better compost, maybe. He got a lot nearer to death in 1961 than he ever had before, and he doesn't appear to be coming back for a third go-round.
Posted by: Tom Foss | October 21, 2010 at 10:38 PM
Peter:
And how, precisely, does that invalidate the content of it? Qualia Soup was talking about very basic concepts, after all. And I would consider it appropriate to show to children.
It sounds to me like you don't have any sort of meaningful criticism of the video, so you just plucked out a random insult out of sheer desperation to sound smart.
Where the hell did you get the idea that I thought that? Oh, right. My hypothesis is because your Absolute Authorities say I believe that.
Don't tell me what I believe.
It's ironic that you were the one who came in with the messianic complex thinking that you'd show up us skeptics by exposing us to the exact same boring old cliches that countless other trolls have. You have delusions of grandeur. The best I can hope for is to contribute to the team effort it takes to convince some anonymous lurker. I'm certainly not going to convince someone like you who lets television stereotypes rule his life.
You might want to look up Freud and "psychological projection."
Riiiiight, says the guy who doing the stalker troll act by making up shit about our personal lives and motives to make himself feel better. What's next? Are you going to accuse us of being gay, pedophiles, or *gasp* female? I've been through this game before.
I've already tried giving you some idea of what it would take to prove me wrong, but you're not interested in that. You're only interested in repeating straw men (lying about what we believe) than actually debate us.
Learning what would convince me would require that you go off your mainstream sitcom stereotypes. Try unplugging the TV and learn to interact with human beings, not bigoted stereotypes.
Here's something to hopefully get you to think: You are not shocking. You are not new to us. You are boring me. Psychics, alternative medicine, and Creationism are boring because they haven't come up with anything new or surprising in centuries.
If you want to make me change my mind, show me something I DON'T expect.
Ah, the contemptible familiarity of Jung. Gee, didn't see that coming.
1. Human brains are subject to all sorts of mistakes and distorted perceptions. But you wouldn't care about that Lord God Peter Pan. After all, you're infallible in your perceptions and thus don't have to worry about the human capacity for self-deception and physical malfunction.
2. As others have provided alternative explanations, this is the part where most trolls who talk like you start screaming the mating call of the woo: "Impossible, impossible, impossible!" Because it's heresy for us to use our imaginations and available evidence to come up with alternative explanations. The universe is limited to the woos' imaginations, where they keep the universe in an ever shrinking little black and white box.
I mention a bag of tricks fake psychics could use people, along with the implied human capacity for self-deception, and the psychic's fans start shouting, "Impossible, impossible, impossible!"
And now, to hopefully break you out of your indoctrination of how your Absolute Authorities claim skeptics think, I will say something you will inevitably deny that I ever said:
The existence of psychic powers is NOT impossible.
It's merely very improbable in my book.
So, you still interested in me providing a video of a cold reading session, or have you decided like so many others of your camp, to declare it impossible to fool someone into thinking someone has psychic powers a priori? Because if you're going to do that, I don't see much reason to keep chasing after a goal post you'll be keeping in constant motion.
Posted by: Bronze Dog | October 22, 2010 at 05:54 AM
Cluck.
Mr. Bronze age you are very disappointing. You are exactly as I thought you would be. Same old recycled arguments. With such a small mind there is only room bit for a few.
You have a problem with the experience of one Mr. Jung? No doubt. His experience would scare the heck out of me too if I were you. You have built a life around a specific world view. There is too much at stake in being wrong. The need for you to be right is far greater than the need to find the truth. I pity you Bronze. You have backed yourself into a corner whereas I am free to go about and explore. You have left yourself no option but to fall back into your support pack and mock those who provide valid observations and evidence that are threatening to you. You belittle. You are condescending. All because of the world you have created for yourself and the corner you have backed yourself into. Fortunately there are many who do not need to have you concede a point for that point to be legitimized. They are legitimized despite your blessing. This leaves you out of the loop. This is why corresponding with you is so much fun. This is why you get so worked up. This is why I do not. You are the opposite of what you claim to be.
Glad to see you cannot disprove Psychic Abilities. Disproving something that exists is impossible. All that's left now is your pack and to mock. Good work.
Posted by: Peter Pan | October 22, 2010 at 08:29 AM
Wow, Pete. All those words, and yet you said absolutely nothing. Next time, try putting some content in your comments.
Posted by: Tom Foss | October 22, 2010 at 08:40 AM
Hi Tom.
Nice to have you join the discussion in support of Bronze Star. Packs never fight alone. They fight in, well, packs. You participation was predicted by me in other postings of me which explains my position quite well. No need for me to repeat it here. You can read all about it in the post above.
Just out of curiosity, do you 2 go to the bathroom together?
Yes, Bronze God was struggling and was certainly in need of assistance from one of his co-dependant supporters. But I'm not sure if you've helped him any though. Quite frankly I think you've only succeeded in adding to his miseries. When his ship is sinking the last thing he needs is someone like you to drop anchor. Surely your not the best of the rest? Bronze - if you are not going to fight your own battles at least bring in someone who is not going to shoot you by mistake. It's like going hunting with Dick Cheney.
Posted by: Peter Pan | October 22, 2010 at 08:55 AM
Pardon me, am I supposed to craft completely original rebuttals every time someone presents a fallacious argument I've heard hundreds of times over?
If you want me to be original, don't make unoriginal arguments.
Your desperation shows up once again in the form of projection.
We present ADDITIONAL possible explanations in addition to your explanation. And because we can use our imaginations to come up with those additional possibilities while you can only imagine one, somehow we're the limited ones?
Do you seriously think the universe is restricted only to what you specifically can imagine? Why is imagination a precious commodity that only you are allowed to use?
Gee, I didn't know that pointing out that humans are all fallible was so closed-minded. How dare people like me brainstorm other possibilities! How dare we use our imaginations and experiences with self-deception to suggest Peter Pan could be wrong! How dare we think for ourselves and come to a common conclusion Peter Pan doesn't agree with!
And whiny baby complains about the fact that more than one person disagrees with him. Of course, whenever it's one of us against multiple woos, they try to use peer pressure, bandwagon arguments, and arguments that popularity is an indicator of truth.
Is it really so alien of you to think that people with common interests would become friends.
Oh, wait, that's right. We're talking to a guy who rather quickly jumped to the conclusion that we're jealous of some cookie-cutter fraud's money because he can't imagine humans like us having compassion for one another. He's so unimaginative, it never occurs to him that we don't like liars, we don't like thieves, we don't like con artists because they hurt other people for their own selfish gain.
I suppose next you're going to tell us that Nigerian lottery scams are perfectly fine because they give people (false) hope.
Peter, grow up and talk about the subject at hand. If you can present an argument to the effect that brain dysfunction and self-deception are unlikely to have happened to Jung, do so. Implicitly shouting "impossible, impossible, impossible!" by refusing to acknowledge the fact that we presented an alternative explanation isn't going to get you anywhere.
But instead of defending yourself, you sling mud at the Hollywood stereotypes you were indoctrinated into believing. We press the core issue, and you cowardly retreat into schoolyard taunts and desperately try to change the subject to us. We're irrelevant to the validity of the arguments, ideas, and evidence being discussed. So are you. Stop the dick waving contest and present evidence. Otherwise, you're beginning to sound like a particular troll named Gabriel I tolerated on my blog for nearly a year.
He refused to acknowledge my actual position, copy-pasting in screeds about his camp's manufactured stereotypes and straw men of my side.
He had a fetish for making fun of my personal life, as if that were somehow relevant to the argument. It pretty much boiled down to this: "Some random guy on the internet named Bronze Dog doesn't have any frequent flier miles, therefore my conclusion based on my biased memory of noisy data is true!"
He refused to acknowledge any alternative explanations I offered, pretending that I never said anything at all.
I pity you and your small, shrinking, black-and-white box of a universe. Anything you haven't explained, you label "magic" and refuse us the right to be curious. Suddenly, those unexplained things become "unexplainable," or in other words, impossible to explain.
You don't even know what my position on the issue is, do you? You can't imagine someone holding a position you didn't invent for them.
So, big question: Peter Pan, are you or are you not, even hypothetically, capable of deceiving yourself?
Posted by: Bronze Dog | October 22, 2010 at 09:58 AM
I'm going to assume that you realized my first paragraph above was tongue in cheek and not serious, as for the rest, I'd hardly call it a rant but you term it in whatever manner makes you feel happy. If it massages your ego to think that your words are driving us all insane with it's brilliance then you go right ahead, won't make a blind bit of difference to me or the real world. Like that assertion of me being unnerved, is your view so narrow, so closed off that in your world there is only one kind of skeptic? This buffoon straw man that angrily and impotently shakes his fist at a thing merely because it discomfits their world-view, an individual so dull that they are literally incapable of expanding their horizons. That's just a product of your own imagination along with notions of me being unnerved. Or perhaps you would like to back up that assertion, so come along now, prove your claim.
As for Jung, I'm as unimpressed with him and arguments from authority as the rest, and yes, you can go right ahead and call that cult-like group think or whatever suits you.
Ummm clearly, for here you are obviously replying. Nor do I need an out provided by you, I can and will eventually ignore you when it becomes too repetitive. Also you might look to reading what you type. To tell me that you won't allow me to avoid learning - even-though there is nothing you can do to compel me to do anything - and in the same sentence note that a mini mind like mine is incapable of imagining such things. Well it seems a tad contradictory to me.
Perhaps you would point to where any of us has made that claim, or are you just making pointless and obvious observations? What next, the astounding news that were we to jump in a pool 'o' lava we would not survive?
Even though I'm sure you would be familiar with it, there is the chance that you are not aware of that colloquialism. It means in this context that I doubt your sincerity and think little of the sentiment.
What strikes me about these is why you would possibly think they were in any way worth typing. Its presence suggests that you hope to inflame us by impugning our sexuality - even though you don't know our genders, orientation or inclinations. Why do you think that we would care about your barb based on your assumptions? Are you a homophobe as well as resolutely blinkered?
Then Pan you say "You belittle. You are condescending. All because of the world you have created for yourself and the corner you have backed yourself into."
Yet this is the entirety of your argument, you constantly assert that we have small, or mini minds, that we are incapable of imagination, pointless sexual assertions, that we're a cult, and that if we only just did as you tell us to do then we would all be so much better off. You might be imagining that you're some sort of heroic intellectual champion putting us all in our place, all I see is a bleating buffoon running out assertion and play ground taunts. One that seems to not fully grasp the language given your contradictions and misuse of terms like 'hypocrisy'.
I'll strap myself in for this one, please demonstrate how we are 'worked up'.
So far it is just you who became sanctimoniously indignant over being given a link on open-mindedness, you who keep calling us cowards, you who has stooped to playground gay jibes, you who came onto a skeptical blog to harangue us unenlightened fools. It looks like someone is worked up alright, you. Otherwise you would not be bothered with coming onto a skeptical blog to show us the error of our ways despite your suggestions that we are irredeemable, especially if you don't think our input matters and can be left from the loop. By your own words you have no reason to be here.
Posted by: Darth Cynic | October 22, 2010 at 10:04 AM
Breath Darth, breath!
My good god you are long winded. Can you figure out a way to say what you need to say without dragging it on for so long. If it was interesting that would be one thing. But you put me to sleep half the time.
I have no problem with someone sticking their tongue your bum if that's what you like. But please don't ask me to do it.
You also should'nt get yourself all worked up when telling me you don't get all worked up. You only get yourself all flustered and you end up talking too much. It's all rather self defeating would'nt you say?
I'm here because I'm here, because I'm here because I'm here. You can sing along too if you wish.
You have'nt thrown the best you've got at me yet have you? Although you've provided of rope to hang yourself wish, I'm granting you a stay of execution in hopes that there is something more about you than what you present.
Try harder with that Carl Jung thing as to make your point a little less ludicrous. Try adressing what he said, and what he experienced. Remember, he was one of your gang at one point. If he is a quake, well then so are all of you. Choose your words carefully. You've provided more than enough rope already. Any more and I can open up a shop.
All my love,
Pete.
Posted by: peter pan | October 22, 2010 at 10:53 AM
I admit I'm getting worked up (how, exactly, does my emotional state affect the validity of my ideas, again?) but NOT in the way that he thinks.
He's been trying since post one to dehumanize us.
He thinks that we're incapable of friendship or altruism.
He thinks we're only motivated by greed.
He thinks humans are strictly limited to television stereotypes.
He thinks we're incapable of imagining a larger universe than he is, despite the fact that we repeatedly came up with more possibilities for explanations for some phenomena than he did.
He thinks that because he subscribes to a repressive, unquestionable authoritarian model of epistemology, we must also belong to a repressive authoritarian that is an equal and opposite mirror image of him.
He thinks we're incapable of thinking and feeling things other than what he declares.
Look at his posts in the medicine topic: He thinks that because I want to put a leash on his fox (Big Altie), I must be a slave of another, ever-so-slightly more tame fox (Big Pharma). Of course, I want both foxes on a short leash so that they can't get into the henhouse. It never occurs to him that I want to work with a guard dog whose loyalties lie with the chickens. I want to tame those foxes and keep them under close scrutiny at all times, even if we manage to completely tame them.
Oh, and analogy to make it blatantly obvious: Attacking a Republican idea does not make us Democrats or vice-versa. Not all conflicts involve just two sides.
When we see something weird and unexpected, we investigate. We ask questions he's afraid to. When we form a theory about how something works, we are required to set falsification requirements in that theory: If a Crocoduck were to show up one day, the current theory of evolution would be falsified and require modification. Of course, this is nothing new: Evolution has been continuously modified for the past 150 years.
If you can't come up with hypothetical disproof of your hypothesis, we have no reason to take it seriously: If there's no evidence that can prove you wrong, there's no possibility of *gasp* changing your mind.
But Peter Pan wouldn't know about falsificationism. He's stuck in ancient anecdotalism and the assumption that humans are infallible gods (and simultaneously, via Orwellian Doublethink, too dumb and conformist to defy his rigid categories). He thinks that his imagination and his imagination alone sets the limits of what is possible and what is not possible.
We humbly disagree: Humans make mistakes. I'm pretty sure I've made quite a lot, myself. (Of course, I could be mistaken about being mistaken on some issues.)
Because humans make mistakes, we have to diligently practice science and skepticism to have any confidence in our beliefs. The universe is NOT limited to our weak, human imaginations. We're capable of saying, "We don't know, yet" and follow it up with "let's see if we can find out!"
Peter Pan would rather we stay in the dark ages when Absolute Authorities declared what is and is not possible. He wants to be able to forbid inquiry into any topic that makes him uncomfortable. He wants to stamp out our curiosity. He wants his so-called mysteries to be sacrosanct so that he can hold them out like useless baubles and be praised for being "deep" by knowing about something weird.
Of course, he can't have people like us "vandalizing" his collection of puzzles by trying to solve them or even contemplate solutions. He thinks the mysteries of the universe are his private property.
Posted by: Bronze Dog | October 22, 2010 at 10:55 AM
We already did. We argued that an alternative explanation involves self-deception and known forms of brain malfunction. Of course, there's also other possibilities.
Why do you pretend that we never said anything about it?
What does that have to do with anything? Oh, wait, right. Bandwagon fallacy. Appeal to popularity. Fallacious appeal to authority. Because membership numbers are more important than quality of evidence. It doesn't matter what's true, all that matters is who's the most popular.
It's funny that people like you bring up ex-atheists as if you think we consider them capital-A authorities. I reject such notions outright.
Anthony Flew didn't convince any of us: His reason for believing in god was an argument from lack of imagination. To summarize, "I, Anthony Flew, cannot imagine how life got complex, therefore I conclude a magic man did it."
If a Creationist making that argument won't convince us, neither will an ex-atheist making that argument. A logical fallacy is a logical fallacy is a logical fallacy.
It doesn't matter who presents an idea, a piece of evidence, or whatever.
Your desperation shows clear as day every time you try to change the subject to something as irrelevant as the people making the arguments.
So:
True or False?: Jung is a mortal human being capable of accidentally deceiving himself.
True or False?: Jung's brain was capable of temporarily malfunctioning while under life-threatening stresses.
Posted by: Bronze Dog | October 22, 2010 at 12:03 PM
Minor edit to the first True or False question: Jung was a mortal human being capable of accidentally deceiving himself.
Posted by: Bronze Dog | October 22, 2010 at 12:11 PM
Peter Pan is clearly about as mature as his ageless namesake. What's the matter, Pete? Have the thimbles run dry?
To the adults: I think it's clear which bridge Peter lives under. The question now stands: starve him, or roast him?
Posted by: Tom Foss | October 22, 2010 at 02:43 PM
I was thinking about asking those very simple true/false questions over and over again until Peter answers. I'm feeling downright ecstatic now that I found a very, very simple way to force him to realize how cornered he's made himself.
I only see three outcomes right now, and they're all very bad for him. My money's on stalling.
Posted by: Bronze Dog | October 22, 2010 at 03:10 PM
Yes and?
Why?
First your amused now you're asleep, make your mind up.
Oh, how merciful of you, my stars I'm so fortunate that I'm not going to be subjected to your scathing intellect. But please, by all means, I insist that you go ahead and hang me with all that rope I've provided you, you might even proof read it before posting it so it even looks coherent.
Why would I repeat the contributions of others, in fact why do you patently ignore those contributions?
Well that sure is me told, I'd better take real care choosing my words in future, maybe I'll follow your fine example, "Although you've provided of rope to hang yourself wish."
Now how about instead of casting threats about you actually make good on your claim to hoist me by my own petard. While your at it you could also illustrate where anyone claimed to be a master of the universe, why you still don't get that colloquialism, why you are obsessed with our orientation and sexual inclinations, show where we are worked up, where I was a hypocrite and explain all those points made by Mr Bronze and Mr Foss. Shouldn't be any trouble for you, so no more excuses, destroy me.
True, I'd reckon that if he just comes back with more of his pompous infused duck and dodge then give em the ignore treatment. In fact ignoring him might be best, I'm sure all this is just massaging his ego as he fantasizes us all as bumbling Wile E. Coyote to his Road Runner. Why feed his delusions?
Posted by: Darth Cynic | October 22, 2010 at 03:45 PM
I'm new to this site and I've joined because I've had quite the opposite exerience that the seemingly infamous Mr. carl jung has had. It's quite ironic really that I should stumble upon this discussion since this is the very subject I was wanting to address. If Mr. Peter Pan cares to hear me out I would like to convey to him that I too have experienced what others have called a near death experience. I would be happy to believe what they told me I expereinced was true as I was a Christian when I suffered my heart attck and 'died'. I do remember sensations of feeling light and the thought occured to me that I feel like I'm floating in air. It appeared there were otherwordly beings around me as well. However, after coming to and thinking about the experience I had, I can only conclude that the experience I was having was what Darth was referring to as a malfunction of the brain. It would be a streatch for me to believe I was actualy out of my body as any rationale person with any ability to reflect and think about this experience would have to come to the same conclusion I did: That near death experiences are not real and explanations for these experiences can be found within the brain. I am convinced now that there is no life after death and there is no God. The lies I have grown up to believe are just those - lies. Peter, you are naiive. Unless you have the experience yourself you cannot know for sure. I had the experience so I know.
If others would like to add their expertice to validate what I have I would greatly appreciate it. To know it to experience, and to experience is to know. I have experienced so I know. Who else besides me thinks Peter Pan is an absolute dellusional quake?
Posted by: Rationale Randy: Attention. Peter Pan - you're n idiot!!! | October 22, 2010 at 05:19 PM
Thank you for your contribution Randy. I think you put Peter in his place. Having has the experience 1st hand you are better placed than anyone else to know what you are talking about. To be able to reflect upon and admit to the falsity of these experiences offers great merit to the argument againt these experiences being real. After all, who can argue against someone who had the experience? All others can guess but can never know. I defer to your experience and expertice. Cheers.
Posted by: Tom Foss | October 22, 2010 at 05:31 PM
Note to all:
"Peter Pan" aka "Rationale Randy: Attention. Peter Pan - you're n idiot!!!" aka David McCaig posting from British Columbia, Canada, has been banned due to using sock puppets - read the Comment Guidelines: it's the first thing that I said would get you banned.
Why anyone would post as a sock saying that his other sock is an "idiot" is perhaps hard to fathom (although probably the only true thing he has written so far), but regardless it demonstrates that he is only here to piss around and is not interested in any actual honest debate. I think that was obvious from the start, but now we have the proof.
Bye Bye David.
Posted by: Skeptico | October 22, 2010 at 05:52 PM
Don't forget "aka Tom Foss." That last one clearly wasn't me, as if the unintentional lolspeak in it wasn't obvious.
Posted by: Tom Foss | October 22, 2010 at 05:57 PM
Aha - missed that one. I thought it didn't sound quite right, but didn't put two and two and two together.
Posted by: Skeptico | October 22, 2010 at 06:01 PM
My suspicions were raised with his acknowledging me for something I never said. Then these last lines from the Rationale lad when he used the word 'quake'. To the best of my knowledge it has no meaning in this context and the only other person to do this was the Pan person.
Ah well, good riddance to such folks.
Posted by: Darth Cynic | October 23, 2010 at 05:10 AM
Shits and giggles. Definitely looks like I had his motivations down.
Posted by: Bronze Dog | October 23, 2010 at 08:14 AM
Well BD, he couldn't answer your questions without admitting he could be wrong if Jung could be wrong (therefore admitting we could be right). So he pulled a "You're Not Helping!" and busted out the sock trolls.
Why do woos constantly tell me I'm closed-minded when I'm completely willing to accept their notions (with convincing evidence) yet I have no recourse to convince them my position is superior?
And what do these trolls hope to get out of these conversations? Complete admission from the Skepticrowd that their way is the only way and we will no longer consider alternatives?
Posted by: Ryan W. | October 24, 2010 at 12:03 PM
Incidentally, to translate from idiot, I'm pretty sure by "quake," he meant "quack."
You know, this isn't the first time some idiot has sock-puppeted me. On this blog. I think we've all been doing this too long :).
Posted by: Tom Foss | October 24, 2010 at 06:54 PM
Not to mention he didn’t even get Jung’s name correct. It’s Carl G. Jung, not Carl J. Jung, as he kept saying.
I thought this bozo was a troll from the start, and that was confirmed by the two lengthy emails he sent me which literally (and I do mean literally) contained nothing but name calling (apparently I’m smug, ignorant, closed minded, ludicrous, easily debunked, simple minded, lame, have no clue, just not that smart, scared, cultish and co-dependent. Also I need to chill and get laid). That was it – many of those insults repeated numerous times, but nothing about anything I had written that was, you know, wrong. He admitted that his main enjoyment in life comes from getting banned from blogs. Seriously. Talk about needing to get laid.
Anyway, I had no intention of debating him, although kudos to those who did, and how patient you all were with him. Regarding the idea that skeptics need to duplicate Van Praagh’s success to expose him as a fraud – I’m surprised no one mentioned that this has already been done, more than once. The name Jose Alvarez aka Carlos who “channeled” a 2,000-year-old spirit and fooled millions on Australian TV, springs to mind. Many people still think “Carlos” was the real deal. Also there was Project Alpha, where Banachek and Mike Edwards fooled scientists with their fake psychic powers for four years. And don’t forget Ian Rowland who has fooled audiences with cold reading. He’s another one where, even when he reveals that it’s just cold reading, a number of people chose to believe he is actually psychic.
Posted by: Skeptico | October 24, 2010 at 07:00 PM