c4countdown

Michael Wallace wrote:So what is the standard excuse for not proving your abilities if you're a psychic? Is it just that their powers are a bit random so they might not work all the time?

Well, that would be perverse mischief.

Occasionally people do consent to testing, presumably because some people do genuinely believe they have psychic powers. When they fail the tests they're quite baffled, and usually say something like what you suggested.

Did anyone catch the second part of Jonathan Meades' series on France? Some splendid broadsides (as ever) on various targets, but one nicely crafted gem: "Faith, of course, is a euphemism for gullibility" (not entirely inappropriate in this discussion). Later on in the programme: "The idea that gods and prophets are anything more than low-level human inventions seems to me so frail and so preposterous that they are not worth considering as part of a belief system. But as a psychopathology worthy of infinite investigation, there is nothing quite like them."

Rarely do I feel the inclination to transcribe quotes from TV scripts, but Meades' barbs are so good, this isn't the first time I've done it. But link that with thoughtful and sometimes extremely funny visual invention, and it's some of the best TV around.

Anyway, back to Sally Morgan... I must admit I'm quite looking forward to a trial (though I suspect it won't get to that in the end), as I guess that it would be quite a good focus for robust comment on her, er, 'abilities'.

Mark James wrote:

Michael Wallace wrote:So what is the standard excuse for not proving your abilities if you're a psychic? Is it just that their powers are a bit random so they might not work all the time?

I've heard that some are afraid to prove it conclusively because the powers that be wouldn't like it and they'd be experimented on or killed or something.

Shame.

Yay, Skeptico is back. This guy is always a great read. I urge everyone to play Cold Reader Bingo.

Mark James wrote:Yay, Skeptico is back. This guy is always a great read. I urge everyone to play Cold Reader Bingo.

Thank you - good link. A potent mixture of humour and anger. The 'Woo' award to Michigan Republicans for amending a bill that now allows for bullying for religious reasons is eye-opening - a Democrat senator's response at least gives some glimmer of hope of reason, though the comments under the Youtube video give a scary glimpse of America's dark, very dark, religious (under-)current. Scary stuff.

Jon Corby wrote:Nice.

Priceless.

Ben Wilson wrote:

Jon Corby wrote:Nice.

Priceless.

Indeed. But why didn't the journalist say that Sally just gave a reading for a fictional person at the actual show?

Jon Corby wrote:Nice.

A nice follow-up to this.

Jon Corby wrote:

Jon Corby wrote:Nice.

A nice follow-up to this.

Thanks for the stupid mobile version.

This marks an interesting change from the norm. Psychics have, for obvious reasons, generally acted as if they are above resorting to legal means. If they fight this (and I think they will) it could be very significant.

Charlie Reams wrote:This marks an interesting change from the norm. Psychics have, for obvious reasons, generally acted as if they are above resorting to legal means. If they fight this (and I think they will) it could be very significant.

I can't for the life of me imagine how a 'psychic' could possibly win a legal case.

Ben Wilson wrote:

Charlie Reams wrote:This marks an interesting change from the norm. Psychics have, for obvious reasons, generally acted as if they are above resorting to legal means. If they fight this (and I think they will) it could be very significant.

I can't for the life of me imagine how a 'psychic' could possibly win a legal case.

Well, I could (in that the legal case would ultimately be about something entirely disconnected from psychic ability), but I'm baffled as to how she can win in this instance. According to Lucy's description earlier I think she'd have to prove that the "right-thinking" public have generally lowered their estimation of her. Even if we stretch the definition to include the clots who believe her, well, they still believe her. Everyone else doesn't and never did. Generally speaking, that is.

Psychic pair fail scientific test
By Sean Coughlan
BBC News education correspondent

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-20145664

Fun. I enjoyed ""Psychic energy" was not likely to work in the setting created for the experiment, she said, and her success rate was usually very high."

She said there were fraudsters operating as psychic mediums - but that it was wrong for scientists to think that such mediums "were all the same"

It looks like an ideal test to prove just that.

Michael Wallace wrote:Fun. I enjoyed "Psychic energy" was not likely to work in the setting created for the experiment

Why didn't someone ask her why she agreed to take part in it then?

Ben Wilson wrote:

Charlie Reams wrote:This marks an interesting change from the norm. Psychics have, for obvious reasons, generally acted as if they are above resorting to legal means. If they fight this (and I think they will) it could be very significant.

I can't for the life of me imagine how a 'psychic' could possibly win a legal case.

I notice that the article I linked to here has now been taken down. Did this legal case ever get off the ground? I assume not.

Oh wow, my workplace is (despite my objections) organising a trip to see Sally at a local theatre in about 5 weeks' time. I'm so tempted to go just to actually see what goes on. I'm wondering if there's anything I can do to catch her out, but I'm not sure I can come up with anything that would work that wouldn't just leave me looking like a shouty nutter. Any ideas? I mean, it's temping to set up a fake Facebook account or something and start splabbing my detailed woes all over her pages, mentioning which show I'm coming to, but they must be wise to people setting them up like that. And I'd guess they'd try and background check details, and any fake web pages I set up will show up as being newly published? Dunno.

Jon Corby wrote:I'm wondering if there's anything I can do to catch her out.

I wonder how many people go for exactly that reason, and, at £25 a pop, how much she's made off them.

Mark Deeks wrote:

Jon Corby wrote:I'm wondering if there's anything I can do to catch her out.

I wonder how many people go for exactly that reason, and, at £25 a pop, how much she's made off them.

Haha yeah, quite a few probably. My work would be subsidising the ticket so I can feel slightly better about that at a very personal level.

I'm in two minds. People have gone to her shows with the intention of catching her out but even when they do successfully her fans seem to take no notice of it. I'd be tempted to do it purely for my own entertainment though, especially if it's on your company's buck but, having said that, I still wouldn't like the idea of her getting the money even if it's not mine.

Sucks hard. I'm not happy. She will use this to legitimise her con. What will have happened specifically Lucy, I don't understand really how could it all hinge specifically on the earpiece thing - is the method of deception really so much more important than the deception itself? It seems to be like being sued because you reported that somebody shot someone with a different type of gun to the one they actually used.

Yeah, it is disappointing The Guardian have written an article about it and why it's not the same as just saying that psychic powers don't exist. In any case, reading what I've read, it seems that the Daily Mail caved in rather than the judge ruling against them, although you'd probably only do that if it was likely to go against you.

The Guardian article refers to “being able to prove Morgan did not believe in her own abilities”. I would think “getting information through an earpiece” would go a long way towards that. James Randi has a noble history of exposing such people.

Worth a look:

http://mylespower.co.uk/2014/05/18/a-ra ... lesbrough/

Amazing. I enjoyed finding myself imagining the photography lady from the audience as Consuela from Family Guy.

But the narcotics and suicide readings? I'd expect that kind of thing in a "Psychic Sally loses the plot in Middlesbrough, subsequently found naked on motorway clutching a photo of a teddy bear" article but it sounds like she was doing it worryingly seriously.

Charlie Reams wrote:This marks an interesting change from the norm. Psychics have, for obvious reasons, generally acted as if they are above resorting to legal means. If they fight this (and I think they will) it could be very significant.

The unintentional comedy in that 404 message is fantastic.

hahaha!