ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » General Skepticism and The Paranormal
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 8th March 2019, 03:10 PM   #121
Frank McLaughlin
Thinker
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 209
Originally Posted by Steve View Post
There is nothing special about this particular 'medium'. Everyone who has ever claimed to be a medium is a fraud, with the possible exception of those who are mentally ill - they are just deluded. Any "evidence" filtered through a TV show is not worthy of the description. They edit and broadcast only what they want you to see. This show is no more real than Big Bang Theory.
And you base this on what exactly?
__________________
Formerly known as member frank3373
Frank McLaughlin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th March 2019, 03:15 PM   #122
Garrette
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 14,761
Originally Posted by Frank McLaughlin View Post
Watch the show. That's the perfect video to your point.

You don't get on weekly TV with 2 million viewers unless you can do something "that others cannot." And if it were shown that he was faking it, I would suggest to you, that would make the show even more incredible and his ability unique. (Even collusion with the TV production crew, would not be enough--the celebrities would also have to be in on the con and be able to fake emotion. Not likely).
I haven't read intervening posts since you responded to me, so apologies if I am covering ground already covered.

No. I will watch portions of a show or video you point out, but I will not watch an unspecified amount for unspecified acts you won't take the time to call out. This is far from my first venture into this sort of discussion, and I will not play whack-a-mole. That is what invariably occur if I choose my own video and explain how one or two or a dozen seemingly amazing things are not amazing after all.

So put your money where your match is: pick one or two that you find unexplainable, ones that if possible explanations short of actual mediumship are pointed out would cause you to reconsider your certainty.

As to your comment that no one gets 2 million viewers on a weekly show without doing something others cannot, you are simply wrong. How many alleged mediums have their own shows doing the same things others do? I can name four or five off the top of my head. How many talk shows of incompetent pundits populate the daytime major network schedule?

As to who would have to be in on it to make it work, you demonstrate lack of knowledge of at least two things:

1) It is not uncommon for more than the performer to be in on it, even if sometimes only tacitly

2) How easy it is to make it seem that such a conspiracy is required when in fact it is not
__________________
My kids still love me.
Garrette is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th March 2019, 03:21 PM   #123
Garrette
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 14,761
Originally Posted by Frank McLaughlin View Post
I was referring to science in general, not Henry. I don't believe Henry has undergone testing. Apparently, he doesn't care whether you believe him or not.

Scientists are often the last ones to accept a new idea whether that is the age of the Sphinx, continental drift, the appearance of pre-Clovis civilization in North America, what drugs post-menopausal women should be taking, the effect of a meat diet on health, the value of Ayurvedic medicine, the fact that the speed of light may change in a vacuum...I'm adding to this Tyler Henry's ability.

To paraphrase Richard Feynman, the first step in the scientific method is that you guess. I'm guessing. Testing happens each week on TV if you think about it.

Link: John Edwards, who does basically the same thing as Henry, has submitted to a series of studies at the Univ of AZ. Three of the studies are discussed in: "The Afterlife Experiments" by Gary Schwartz, Harvard Professor of Psychology, Surgery, Medicine, Neurology, Psychiatry. Bonus about the book is that it makes Randi apoplectic.
This is how far I've gotten since my last post.

In reference to the highlighted part, you've picked an exceptionally poor example. Not sure I still have the book on my shelf as I grew tired of it, but I read the whole thing and in support of a discussion on this very forum dissected it to display the rather gaping flaws in Schwartz's protocol. (He's not at Harvard, btw; that's where he got his PhD, but he was never a professor there).

In fact, through an intermediary, Professor Schwartz was on the verge of accepting my challenge to duplicate the John Edward results in his book. I say "on the verge" because when I insisted that it was contingent on being under the same controls with the same laxity of analysis, he backed out.
__________________
My kids still love me.
Garrette is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th March 2019, 03:22 PM   #124
Frank McLaughlin
Thinker
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 209
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
You've provided no evidence. You simply keep banging on the flabbergasting presumption that it must be true, otherwise it couldn't be put on television.
The evidence is the show itself. An enormous amount of evidence. You needed me to tell you that?

No...I said if the show is false, someone will come forward given the large number of people required to produce a TV show, the large number of successful, no nonsense people who are read each week, combined with the reputation of this particular production company Michael Corbett Productions. If fraud, someone will come forward. And given the nature of Henry's readings, fraud would be virtually impossible to bring off for reasons that should be obvious if you watch the show. How does he do it? He has an extraordinary ability whether what is going on is fraud or not.
__________________
Formerly known as member frank3373
Frank McLaughlin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th March 2019, 03:23 PM   #125
Garrette
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 14,761
Originally Posted by Pixel42 View Post
There's nothing new here. This guy is just the latest in a very long line to make such claims. No-one has ever been able to demonstrate them under controlled conditions.


Scientific testing certainly does not happen.


I've never been sure if Schwartz knows exactly what he's doing and is deliberately doing pseudoscience or is simply an extremely incompetent scientist. Either way his failure to control for the Forer Effect in his experiments renders them utterly worthless.


It actually disgusts anybody with any understanding of the scientific method and even a modicum of integrity.
My considered opinion after my Afterlife Experiments episode: He may well be a true believer, but he knows his analysis sucks but will convince the true believers anyway. No one with a PhD from Harvard could misapply basic statistics as he did without intending to.
__________________
My kids still love me.
Garrette is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th March 2019, 03:24 PM   #126
Garrette
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 14,761
Originally Posted by wasapi View Post
Garrette, I could be wrong, but I think he does some type of automatic drawing prior to his reading, and claims the drawing is related to the person he is 'reading'.
Thanks. Changes nothing, of course.
__________________
My kids still love me.
Garrette is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th March 2019, 03:26 PM   #127
Frank McLaughlin
Thinker
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 209
Originally Posted by Garrette View Post
This is how far I've gotten since my last post.

In reference to the highlighted part, you've picked an exceptionally poor example. Not sure I still have the book on my shelf as I grew tired of it, but I read the whole thing and in support of a discussion on this very forum dissected it to display the rather gaping flaws in Schwartz's protocol. (He's not at Harvard, btw; that's where he got his PhD, but he was never a professor there).

In fact, through an intermediary, Professor Schwartz was on the verge of accepting my challenge to duplicate the John Edward results in his book. I say "on the verge" because when I insisted that it was contingent on being under the same controls with the same laxity of analysis, he backed out.
Why did he back out? What was his objection?
__________________
Formerly known as member frank3373
Frank McLaughlin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th March 2019, 03:30 PM   #128
Garrette
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 14,761
Originally Posted by Frank McLaughlin View Post
Cold reading involves--I think--reading a person's facial expressions. Henry makes a point of not looking at his subject prior to the reading while he is settling down and during the reading itself. I have not ever seen him glance up at who he is reading....he keeps his head over to the side.
....so we can rule that out since to do a cold reading one would need to be looking intensely for very subtle changes.

Have you ever seen a clip of a cold reader? It is comical when you watch. The the questions, the stopping and starting, changing mid-sentence. Henry does none of that.

The kinds of information Henry reads that makes Henry so impressive, are things not obtainable through research. His asking a woman if she had gall bladder surgery, and it turned out she had a severe gall bladder attack, not surgery. You can't look that up, and if you could, it would take an exceedingly long time to figure out say my father's name, my aunt's nickname, even if you could.
....so we can rule that out (unless there is collusion with the production company. Given their reputation I think it unlikely but I have to admit quite possible.
You are wrong about what cold reading is. Yes, I've watched cold readers. Yes, I've done cold reading. Yes, it can be amazingly persuasive, so persuasive that the subject will sincerely swear there was no way outside the paranormal I could do what I did. And frankly, I'm not all that good at it. I've seen some who are superb.
__________________
My kids still love me.
Garrette is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th March 2019, 03:35 PM   #129
fibbermcgee
Scholar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 102
Here's what you're fighting folks. Some years ago Shermer got an audience together for the purpose of cold readings. He told them up front that he wasn't psychic, that he had studied so he knew how to ask the questions he needed and that it was not difficult and had nothing to do with speaking with the dead etc.,etc.

The show went well, Shermer said. He was surprised when several people told him that he really had "the gift" he just didn't realize it.
fibbermcgee is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th March 2019, 03:39 PM   #130
Garrette
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 14,761
Originally Posted by Frank McLaughlin View Post
Could be true, not necessarily true. I believe a reason Theresa Caputo does not have a show is because she got many people wrong, and when she did hit, the information was commonplace, so people stopped watching.

The production company could have started faking it for Theresa--obviously this stuff makes money--but faking it is a very dangerous road to go down if you are trying to attract audience to your network.

There are two kinds of Medium hits: (1) your Mother tells me you had a bicycle you loved as a child, which turns out to be true and (2) your mother kept a giant bowl of buttons on a shelf in her bedroom closet. The first does not impress. The second establishes that the ability is real and not done from a cold reading. It makes up, statistically, for dozens of misses.

If the guest's footage is unusable, I'd expect to eventually hear from that celebrity guest. Great way to enhance notoriety. Google Theresa, and you see a wall of complaints from audience members. Don't find that with Henry.
The second hypothetical has the same value as the first; it only seems not to. This is true if there is one reading only and it hits. It is even more certainly true when there are lots of reading from which the medium and/or the television company get to choose what to televise.
__________________
My kids still love me.
Garrette is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th March 2019, 03:45 PM   #131
Garrette
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 14,761
And for the record, the name is John Edward, not John Edwards. While it is an easy error to make, one would not expect it to be made by someone putting forth Mr. Edward as an exemplar of good mediumship.


ETA: I've caught up in the thread now. So far I see the vague claim without evidence or example about Henry's ability accompanied by a complete lack of knowledge how magical performers duplicate such effects along with a lack of knowledge about how reality shows work and what constitutes evidence.
__________________
My kids still love me.

Last edited by Garrette; 8th March 2019 at 03:47 PM.
Garrette is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th March 2019, 03:46 PM   #132
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 16,687
Originally Posted by Frank McLaughlin View Post
Are you serious? I made a statement.
Yes, I'm serious. You're trying to cram counterclaims into your critics' mouths that they never made, and respond to those instead of the objections they actually have. Instead of imagining that your critics have made arguments that are easy for you to refute, why don't you address the actual arguments they have made?

Quote:
Strawman. I never said there was.
Effectively you did. We point out that Tyler Henry's show is likely following the same pattern as other shows of the genre. But then you accuse that of being fraud, and say it would be entirely unconscionable for a reputable production company to engage in such behavior, and cite what you believe is an extreme risk in doing so. Where's the risk, if no one can hold them liable for what they're doing?

Then you go on to say that you will only accept a whistle-blower from the production as evidence that Henry isn't really talking to dead people. The straw man that you're trying so desperately to foist on your critics is the notion that unless Tyler Henry is for real, the "fraud" that he's perpetrating would be so heinous (but, I'll grant you, not necessarily illegal) that someone would be morally obligated to come forward. And since no one has, that must mean the show is genuine. Keep reading.

Quote:
I said your NDA point is moot because we have overwhelming evidence from the reaction of joy and happiness in the response to the reading from the celebrities.
Apples and oranges. You are claiming that if the show were fake in any way, a celebrity guest would have spilled the beans. I pointed out that an NDA would preclude this. Further, you are assuming that the celebrities are booked on the show as genuine clients of a psychic reader, and not as paid participants in a television show. Celebrities who have agents and managers and so forth don't even make an appearance on a doorstep without a full set of contracts, riders, and NDAs in place.

As for "joy and happiness," you sort of conceded that unfavorable results could be edited out, or just not aired. But then you tried to walk that back. This is why I asked what your actual experience is in film and television production. You seem to have a childlike naivete for how programs are made and marketed.

Quote:
At no point have I claimed anything was illegal.
It's a requisite premise to your argument. You said someone could disregard an NDA to disclose an occurrence of fraud. That is true only for a legally-actionable occurrence of fraud. Otherwise a contract is a contract. Simply experiencing something you didn't like or don't approve of doesn't negate an NDA.

Keep in mind that you're limiting your analysis to the premise that celebrity guests are booked as if they were ordinary public people having a private reading with a psychic, and that the only legal framework would arise from that situation. I'm expanding the analysis to include the possibility that celebrities are booked as a talent appearance, with the legal framework that implies. Since my analysis covers more possibilities, I consider it more sound.

Quote:
"A crew of a magic show" can't give away proprietary information--
Yes, and a contracted participant in a film or television production can't reveal proprietary information about how the show is made. It's exactly the same thing. Again, you're focused narrowly on celebrity guests as paying customers. I'm expanding the field to include a celebrity appearance for which they are paid an appearance fee, are put under NDA, and otherwise treated the same way they would for any other appearance on a television program.

Quote:
However, any celebrity can speak up and complain about a product if they have insight about fraud...
No, they cannot. If there is an NDA in place, there would have to be legally-actionable fraud for the NDA to be void. As I said, I have never done anything in film or television production that didn't require me to execute an NDA beforehand, so I would find it extremely difficult to believe that the guests booked for the show are not under NDA.

There is standard boilerplate language for disclaimers for psychic readings. It's not legal or medical advice, it may not meet your expectations, it may not be accurate, reliable, or complete, blah blah blah. I can't imagine a high-profile (i.e., a big target for lawsuits) mentalist agreeing to do a reading without at least such a disclaimer in place. That would be something agreed to privately between Henry and the guest; it wouldn't have to be publicly disclaimed.

In addition there is the possibility that the celebrities are engaged to "play themselves" on a reality show that has a clear agenda and requires them to act a certain way. Nothing in this show's scenario seems to preclude directing the participants.

Quote:
I never said anything about "legally questionable."
It's a necessary premise to the argument you were making. Your argument has no teeth whatsoever unless the actions of the production rose to the level of being legally questionable. An NDA would be void only if the action the production undertook was illegal. An NDA would not stop a party to it from disclosing evidence of an illegal action. But since nothing this production is doing is illegal, the NDA holds. You cannot disregard an NDA simply because you weren't satisfied with what happened to you.

Quote:
I said that any celebrity can complain about fraud or complain about the quality of the service provided. That's not covered under a NDA.
Why would you think that? Have you never heard of a non-disparagement clause?

Quote:
If during the reading a celebrity notices that Henry is wearing an earpiece...
Straw man.

Quote:
Right. And my argument is that if I am in a show that claims there are ghosts in a house, and I later find out that those ghosts were really not there, but artificially manufactured by a special effects team...
Another straw man.

Quote:
Wait. Tyler Henry hires a research team to explore my background, has somebody come to my house, interviews me under a false pretext to gain info ("we're taking a survey"), goes to my Mom's house and interviews her, and then gives me an expensive 30 minute reading in which he uses the secretly obtained information to fool me--and in the Universe that you live in this does not constitute fraud?
Yet another straw man.

Whether such a thing would constitute fraud depends on the precise wording of the promise made to you.

Quote:
How about instead I mull over your inability to follow a basic line of reasoning.
I understand your line of reasoning just fine. I'm pointing out what's wrong with it. That's the part you can't seem to cope with.
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th March 2019, 03:48 PM   #133
Frank McLaughlin
Thinker
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 209
Originally Posted by MEequalsIxR View Post
E! is by their own definition News, Entertainment News, Celebrity Gossip, Celebrity News and is "Your source for entertainment news, celebrities, celeb news, and celebrity gossip. Check out the hottest fashion, photos, movies and TV shows!"

The E in E! is entertainment and it is intended as an entertainment channel. That is if you find celebrity gossip, celebrity news and related drivel entertainment. Nowhere do they describe themselves as providing real mediums. The reason of course is because there are no real mediums.

Crew jobs in television require long mostly boring days with bursts of frenetic activity followed by more boredom and are exceptionally well paid even for the most mundane jobs. Benefits are about as good as anyone making an hourly pay gets anywhere for just about everyone (except extras) and on set work includes catering which is almost always limitless and very good. These jobs are hard fought and jealously guarded. If keeping your mouth shut about a fraud medium means keeping a 100k+ year job (that's for 26 weeks by the way) who would say anything.

Celebrities too have vested interests. Celebrity appearances are their bread and butter and they won't tip the boat and they make far more than the crew.

The industry is small and everyone knows everyone. Loose canons don't get hired - cause issues and you might as well move to Timbuktu.

The same standards mentioned upthread about no one exposing anything about this guy could be said about Yuri Geller, the Long Island fraud Theresa something and a whole host of others. Even Ancient Aliens isn't exposed by crew. For that matter wrestling isn't either and Vince McMahon admitted it was fake. Well, technically he called it scripted.
Most of what you say about E! is true for television in general. National Georgraphic ran a documentary on the flat earth organization and their Denver conference a few months back.

People don't expose ancient aliens or WWE because in general everyone knows it is fake or that it is only suggesting possibilities (ghosts and aliens could be real, and people love thinking about it). With aliens, there is nothing to expose unless a TV channel tried to pass a body off as an alien body, then someone probably would step forward.

There is a false equivalence to suggest that no one stepping forward to claim Wrestling is fake is the same thing as no one stepping forward if there was a show that claimed a certain hospital was curing everybody's cancer. Or that a guy was faking out all these celebrities pretending to talk to your Mother. If Henry is fake some group is going to step forward, and I bet it likely a Christian group somewhere is offering good money if you do.
__________________
Formerly known as member frank3373
Frank McLaughlin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th March 2019, 03:52 PM   #134
Frank McLaughlin
Thinker
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 209
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
Yes, I'm serious. You're trying to cram counterclaims into your critics' mouths that they never made, and respond to those instead of the objections they actually have. Instead of imagining that your critics have made arguments that are easy for you to refute, why don't you address the actual arguments they have made?



Effectively you did. We point out that Tyler Henry's show is likely following the same pattern as other shows of the genre. But then you accuse that of being fraud, and say it would be entirely unconscionable for a reputable production company to engage in such behavior, and cite what you believe is an extreme risk in doing so. Where's the risk, if no one can hold them liable for what they're doing?

Then you go on to say that you will only accept a whistle-blower from the production as evidence that Henry isn't really talking to dead people. The straw man that you're trying so desperately to foist on your critics is the notion that unless Tyler Henry is for real, the "fraud" that he's perpetrating would be so heinous (but, I'll grant you, not necessarily illegal) that someone would be morally obligated to come forward. And since no one has, that must mean the show is genuine. Keep reading.



Apples and oranges. You are claiming that if the show were fake in any way, a celebrity guest would have spilled the beans. I pointed out that an NDA would preclude this. Further, you are assuming that the celebrities are booked on the show as genuine clients of a psychic reader, and not as paid participants in a television show. Celebrities who have agents and managers and so forth don't even make an appearance on a doorstep without a full set of contracts, riders, and NDAs in place.

As for "joy and happiness," you sort of conceded that unfavorable results could be edited out, or just not aired. But then you tried to walk that back. This is why I asked what your actual experience is in film and television production. You seem to have a childlike naivete for how programs are made and marketed.



It's a requisite premise to your argument. You said someone could disregard an NDA to disclose an occurrence of fraud. That is true only for a legally-actionable occurrence of fraud. Otherwise a contract is a contract. Simply experiencing something you didn't like or don't approve of doesn't negate an NDA.

Keep in mind that you're limiting your analysis to the premise that celebrity guests are booked as if they were ordinary public people having a private reading with a psychic, and that the only legal framework would arise from that situation. I'm expanding the analysis to include the possibility that celebrities are booked as a talent appearance, with the legal framework that implies. Since my analysis covers more possibilities, I consider it more sound.



Yes, and a contracted participant in a film or television production can't reveal proprietary information about how the show is made. It's exactly the same thing. Again, you're focused narrowly on celebrity guests as paying customers. I'm expanding the field to include a celebrity appearance for which they are paid an appearance fee, are put under NDA, and otherwise treated the same way they would for any other appearance on a television program.



No, they cannot. If there is an NDA in place, there would have to be legally-actionable fraud for the NDA to be void. As I said, I have never done anything in film or television production that didn't require me to execute an NDA beforehand, so I would find it extremely difficult to believe that the guests booked for the show are not under NDA.

There is standard boilerplate language for disclaimers for psychic readings. It's not legal or medical advice, it may not meet your expectations, it may not be accurate, reliable, or complete, blah blah blah. I can't imagine a high-profile (i.e., a big target for lawsuits) mentalist agreeing to do a reading without at least such a disclaimer in place. That would be something agreed to privately between Henry and the guest; it wouldn't have to be publicly disclaimed.

In addition there is the possibility that the celebrities are engaged to "play themselves" on a reality show that has a clear agenda and requires them to act a certain way. Nothing in this show's scenario seems to preclude directing the participants.



It's a necessary premise to the argument you were making. Your argument has no teeth whatsoever unless the actions of the production rose to the level of being legally questionable. An NDA would be void only if the action the production undertook was illegal. An NDA would not stop a party to it from disclosing evidence of an illegal action. But since nothing this production is doing is illegal, the NDA holds. You cannot disregard an NDA simply because you weren't satisfied with what happened to you.



Why would you think that? Have you never heard of a non-disparagement clause?



Straw man.



Another straw man.



Yet another straw man.

Whether such a thing would constitute fraud depends on the precise wording of the promise made to you.



I understand your line of reasoning just fine. I'm pointing out what's wrong with it. That's the part you can't seem to cope with.
You are writing to yourself at this point--I could not read another word cloud--because you don't address my arguments. And drop the Strawman stuff. It make me think I'm writing to a ninth grader.
__________________
Formerly known as member frank3373
Frank McLaughlin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th March 2019, 03:56 PM   #135
Garrette
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 14,761
Originally Posted by Frank McLaughlin View Post
Why did he back out? What was his objection?
Sorry. Missed this at first.

Schwartz did not respond, even when I emailed him directly. The intermediary stopped responding, too. Since the lacks of response coincided with my insistence on the same protocol, i.e., nothing more strict than had been used with Edward before, that that was the reason.
__________________
My kids still love me.
Garrette is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th March 2019, 03:58 PM   #136
Garrette
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 14,761
Originally Posted by fibbermcgee View Post
Here's what you're fighting folks. Some years ago Shermer got an audience together for the purpose of cold readings. He told them up front that he wasn't psychic, that he had studied so he knew how to ask the questions he needed and that it was not difficult and had nothing to do with speaking with the dead etc.,etc.

The show went well, Shermer said. He was surprised when several people told him that he really had "the gift" he just didn't realize it.
This is fairly common. It has happened to me, too, and as I have said I'm not really all that good at it.
__________________
My kids still love me.
Garrette is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th March 2019, 04:00 PM   #137
Garrette
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 14,761
Originally Posted by Frank McLaughlin View Post
You are writing to yourself at this point--I could not read another word cloud--because you don't address my arguments. And drop the Strawman stuff. It make me think I'm writing to a ninth grader.
He actually does address your arguments, more thoroughly than most.

But to stay on that point, you have yet to present one or two incidents you feel are unassailable in regard to what Henry does.
__________________
My kids still love me.
Garrette is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th March 2019, 04:15 PM   #138
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 16,687
Originally Posted by Frank McLaughlin View Post
The evidence is the show itself. An enormous amount of evidence.
That's braindead circular logic. That's like saying "Transvestite space chickens built the pyramids," and then pointing to the pyramids as the evidence of the chickens. What you haven't provided is "evidence that the Medium I am discussing is not fake." That is, evidence that your explanation for the observations is the best among all others.

The show is a body of observations that people set out to explain. You propose to explain the observations by saying Tyler Henry is a real medium who really talks to dead people. Okay, but the observations themselves aren't evidence that the explanation for those observations is the right one. A few observations consistent with a lady having been sawn in half is not evidence that she really was sawn in half. And we know, in fact, that it's the wrong explanation in that case.

Your critics have shown that other explanations more parsimoniously account for those same observations, and all you've got for them is denial. Henry's claim occurs against a richly embroidered backdrop of people doing exactly the same sorts of things he does, using tricks that they're quite willing to explain. They can arrive at the same observations using those methods. Plus they can show the mechanism of arrival.

This is basic propositional logic.

Quote:
You needed me to tell you that?
Yes, in general people require arguments to be stated explicitly, so that they don't have to guess at what someone else is thinking.

Quote:
No...I said if the show is false, someone will come forward given the large number of people required to produce a TV show...
Asked and answered.

Quote:
If fraud, someone will come forward.
Unless it is legally-actionable fraud, they cannot come forward because they are under NDA. If we agree that whatever deception may be involved is not unlawful, then your argument fails forthwith.

Quote:
And given the nature of Henry's readings, fraud would be virtually impossible to bring off for reasons that should be obvious if you watch the show. How does he do it?
Begging the question. You've been given countless examples of other supposedly amazing feats that have ordinary explanations, and other television shows that present those feats commercially for entertainment. And your sense of wonderment seems fueled by a colossal ignorance of what actually goes on in the world of commercial film and television production.

Quote:
He has an extraordinary ability whether what is going on is fraud or not.
Most of the magicians, mentalists, and stage performers I have worked with have extraordinary ability. The question is whether Tyler Henry's extraordinary ability is that he can talk with dead people, or that he can fool people into thinking he's talking to dead people, or that he can attract enough eyeballs to make celebrities want to go on his show and play along with the whole speaker-for-the-dead gimmick.

Your argument is that Henry's ability is true mediumship, but you can't provide any evidence for that, or any argument that rises above credulity, ignorance, circularity, and question-begging.
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th March 2019, 04:17 PM   #139
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 16,687
Originally Posted by Frank McLaughlin View Post
[Y]ou don't address my arguments.
Yes, I do -- thoroughly, and in detail. The verbosity you're complaining about is the necessary consequence of my thoroughness. I think you just want an excuse to ignore people whom you can't answer.

Quote:
And drop the Strawman stuff.
Your arguments rely heavily on straw men. If you don't want that to be the refutation, don't deploy them.

Quote:
It make me think I'm writing to a ninth grader.
Has it worked for you in the past to insult people who can provide good reasons for disagreeing with you?

Last edited by JayUtah; 8th March 2019 at 04:22 PM.
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th March 2019, 04:18 PM   #140
Frank McLaughlin
Thinker
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 209
Originally Posted by Garrette View Post
And for the record, the name is John Edward, not John Edwards. While it is an easy error to make, one would not expect it to be made by someone putting forth Mr. Edward as an exemplar of good mediumship.


ETA: I've caught up in the thread now. So far I see the vague claim without evidence or example about Henry's ability accompanied by a complete lack of knowledge how magical performers duplicate such effects along with a lack of knowledge about how reality shows work and what constitutes evidence.
The evidence or example can be found in the weekly show.

Henry's claim is not vague. Perhaps mine is because it has not been established what exactly is going on--only that there it is something extraordinary.

>expect it to be made by someone putting forth Mr. Edward as an exemplar of good mediumship.

I'm not putting forth John Edwards. Tyler Henry. I did reference a study that used him as a subject. But attempt at ridicule duly noted.

>complete lack of knowledge how magical performers duplicate such effects along with a lack of knowledge about how reality shows work

Why don't you educate me as to how a magical performer can duplicate what Henry does. I'd love to see that. I predict you won't get within a hundred miles. If magicians could do what Henry does, they'd be doing it. And Henry would be out of a job as hundreds of magicians would love to be on TV in front of 2 million people.

I don't watch much TV, but I would guess different reality shows work differently. The reality show that had National Geographic interviewing at the recent Flat Earth conference is playing by a different set of rules than "Realtors who sell Hollywood mansions to the stars." And I expect Henry's production company has their set of rules. I assume their set and the Nat Geo set of rules has integrity high on the list.

BTW as long as you are giving spelling lessons on Edwards name, might I suggest that writing "how a magical performer" means that the performer is magical, not that he or she is a magician.
__________________
Formerly known as member frank3373
Frank McLaughlin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th March 2019, 04:19 PM   #141
Frank McLaughlin
Thinker
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 209
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
Yes, I do -- thoroughly, and in detail.



Your arguments rely heavily on straw men. If you don't want that to be the refutation, don't deploy them.



Has it worked for you in the past to insult people who can provide good reasons for disagreeing with you?
I missed the part where you had good reasons for disagreeing. I think those reasons do exist, just that you haven't found them yet.
__________________
Formerly known as member frank3373
Frank McLaughlin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th March 2019, 04:27 PM   #142
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 16,687
Originally Posted by Frank McLaughlin View Post
I missed the part where you had good reasons for disagreeing.
They're in the posts you seem to be saying you lack the patience to read.
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th March 2019, 04:34 PM   #143
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 16,687
Originally Posted by Frank McLaughlin View Post
The evidence or example can be found in the weekly show.
Circular reasoning. An observation is not evidence of the truthfulness of some hypothesis that was formulated to explain it.

Quote:
...only that there it is something extraordinary.
To people who aren't accustomed to the techniques that pertain to some given field, many feats in that field could be considered "something extraordinary."

Quote:
I'm not putting forth John Edward.
Except that you did, then walked it back, then walked it forward again and chided all the other readers for not reading scientific studies regarding Edward's ability that you refuse to cite.

Quote:
Why don't you educate me as to how a magical performer can duplicate what Henry does.
Why were all the previous examples insufficient?

Quote:
I don't watch much TV...
And from that I infer that you really have no idea how television programs are made. Hence your authoritative-sounding declarations of what would follow if the show were not about really talking to dead people are just so much hot air.

Quote:
I assume their set and the Nat Geo set of rules has integrity high on the list.
Begging the question.
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th March 2019, 04:44 PM   #144
Garrette
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 14,761
Originally Posted by Frank McLaughlin View Post
The evidence or example can be found in the weekly show.
Apparently not since you can't seem to find any of it. Assume I follow your path for a moment, will you be okay with me presenting a miss as something to debunk and then accepting I have debunked it? Maybe not a miss but one of those generic cold reading statements you mentioned; if I debunk that will that be sufficient?

I doubt it. You will accuse me of having cherry picked. I'm trying to avoid that. It's the whack-a-mole game I repeatedly run into and which you are trying to force on me here. You have two options in presenting evidence, and repeating versions of "watch the videos" isn't one of them:

1. Pick one or two or three hits you say cannot be explained except by real mediumship

2. Admit that just one or two or three hits is insufficient evidence but rather the totality of the hits is the proof. In which case you face the much harder task of showing your work in how you arrived at the implied statistical conclusion

To put it in other words, suppose I watch the videos, even all of them, and I come back here and say "He's a fraud. Watch the videos for proof." Would you accept that?

Originally Posted by Frank McLaughlin
Henry's claim is not vague. Perhaps mine is because it has not been established what exactly is going on--only that there it is something extraordinary.
Precisely. It has not been established what is going on.

Which actually leads to a third option: Rather than tell me what the most impressive hits are or what the statistical calculations are, tell me what the protocols are. Tell us the test conditions, precisely. Hand-waving references to what the audience might do in regard to fraud you have not established are not sufficient.

Originally Posted by Frank McLaughlin
>expect it to be made by someone putting forth Mr. Edward as an exemplar of good mediumship.

I'm not putting forth John Edwards. Tyler Henry. I did reference a study that used him as a subject. But attempt at ridicule duly noted.
You're not putting him forth now because others have pointed out the flaws in Schwartz's study but you did put him forth before, and you misreported the name repeatedly. And, yes, it was mild ridicule, and well earned. Far more well earned than the aspersion you have cast at your critics here.

Originally Posted by Frank McLaughlin
>complete lack of knowledge how magical performers duplicate such effects along with a lack of knowledge about how reality shows work

Why don't you educate me as to how a magical performer can duplicate what Henry does. I'd love to see that.
When you show me what he does, i.e., your claim, I'll be happy to. Of course, you'll have to reconcile that with this statement of yours:

"it has not been established what exactly is going on--only that there it is something extraordinary."


Originally Posted by Frank McLaughlin
I predict you won't get within a hundred miles.
Then you have no reason not to pick the best instances of what he does. Whatever that is.


Originally Posted by Frank McLaughlin
If magicians could do what Henry does, they'd be doing it.
They do, just not as a fraud. Do you know the name Ian Rowland? He's only one of many who do this kind of thing for a living but again, not as frauds.You should see the names on the magic and mentalism books in my library or the list of such performers I've seen.

Originally Posted by Frank McLaughlin
And Henry would be out of a job as hundreds of magicians would love to be on TV in front of 2 million people.
Not as frauds, no.

Originally Posted by Frank McLaughlin
I don't watch much TV, but I would guess different reality shows work differently.
Your guesses count for little.


Originally Posted by Frank McLaughlin
The reality show that had National Geographic interviewing at the recent Flat Earth conference is playing by a different set of rules than "Realtors who sell Hollywood mansions to the stars." And I expect Henry's production company has their set of rules. I assume their set and the Nat Geo set of rules has integrity high on the list.
As do your assumptions.


Originally Posted by Frank McLaughlin
BTW as long as you are giving spelling lessons on Edwards name, might I suggest that writing "how a magical performer" means that the performer is magical, not that he or she is a magician.
What mainstream dictionary are you using that omits my usage? Merriam-Webster does not, nor does OED.

When I err, I'll take corrections and admit it, but I suggest you check a bit more before attempting it next time.
__________________
My kids still love me.
Garrette is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th March 2019, 04:49 PM   #145
xjx388
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 6,866
Originally Posted by Frank McLaughlin View Post
Are you serious? I made a statement.







Strawman. I never said there was.







Ahhh....you are going to word cloud me. Let's revisit some of what I said.



I said your NDA point is moot because we have overwhelming evidence from the reaction of joy and happiness in the response to the reading from the celebrities. An NDA isn't why they don't step forward--they don't step forward because they are happy with the product. The NDA is irrelevant.



At no point have I claimed anything was illegal. "A crew of a magic show" can't give away proprietary information--you can't tell Pepsi how Coke is made as I said.



However, any celebrity can speak up and complain about a product if they have insight about fraud, Coke is using dirty water was my example.



I never said anything about "legally questionable." I said that any celebrity can complain about fraud or complain about the quality of the service provided. That's not covered under a NDA. If during the reading a celebrity notices that Henry is wearing an earpiece and is on the phone secretly with the celebrity's mother, speaking up to complain would not violate an NDA because the technique in use was different than what was agreed upon.



>My argument is that Henry's show is produced the same way every other reality television show is produced, including many others that allege supernatural or magical content.



Right. And my argument is that if I am in a show that claims there are ghosts in a house, and I later find out that those ghosts were really not there, but artificially manufactured by a special effects team in order to fool 2 million television viewers, I can speak out with impunity. Perhaps not about how the ghosts were manufactured, but the fact they were not there.



>Nothing about this constitutes fraud.



Wait. Tyler Henry hires a research team to explore my background, has somebody come to my house, interviews me under a false pretext to gain info ("we're taking a survey"), goes to my Mom's house and interviews her, and then gives me an expensive 30 minute reading in which he uses the secretly obtained information to fool me--and in the Universe that you live in this does not constitute fraud?



>I'll leave you to mull over the asinine naivete of that insinuation.



How about instead I mull over your inability to follow a basic line of reasoning.


I’ve thought about this and I agree: this is fraud, plain and simple. He is presenting himself as someone who can commune with the dead. He makes no disclaimers on his show that it’s “for entertainment only.” Now, anyone with half a brain and a minimum of scientific understanding knows that communing with the dead is impossible. Therefore he is perpetrating a fraud. So is his production company and E!.

The problem is that, as you say, his clients aren’t likely to sue him because he has fooled them.

Now here you are, trying to convince us that he’s for real. You have been fooled as well. No one here can help you with that, unfortunately. Your protestations that, “a reputable production company wouldn’t engage in fraud,” hold no water. It happens all the time. Bernie Madoff had no problem engaging in fraud and he had a wonderful reputation for decades. And because this touches on the subject of belief and First Amendment protections, there are significant protections for this particular kind of bull caca. Tyler, et al, are basically free to engage in their deception.

IMO, what they are doing is rather sick. “Grief Vampire,” is a great term. But it’s a free country and you are free to believe whatever you want. I would love for this to be true. I would love to hear from my dad again. But I’m not naive enough to fall for some huckster who presents a “message from beyond,” because I know that such a thing is impossible. I know that every other medium has been shown to be a fraud. I know the techniques they use and my own emotional vulnerabilities and biases. I won’t be fooled.

But you do you, Frank.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
__________________
Hello.
xjx388 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th March 2019, 05:15 PM   #146
Garrette
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 14,761
And because I was bored, I watched the reading of Sofia Vergara. A very obvious mix of both cold and hot reading. The funny bit was it wasn't the hot reading part that Vergara picked up on, but it's obvious what Henry was going for.

And there you have it, Frank. I've watched a video. It's proof he's a fraud.

Or is it not sufficient for me just to claim it?
__________________
My kids still love me.
Garrette is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th March 2019, 05:51 PM   #147
Steve
Illuminator
 
Steve's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 4,834
Originally Posted by Frank McLaughlin View Post
And you base this on what exactly?
Reality.
__________________
Caption from and old New Yorker cartoon - Why am I shouting? Because I'm wrong!"
Steve is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th March 2019, 05:53 PM   #148
MEequalsIxR
Critical Thinker
 
MEequalsIxR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Posts: 375
Originally Posted by Frank McLaughlin View Post
[snip]

There is a false equivalence to suggest that no one stepping forward to claim Wrestling is fake is the same thing as no one stepping forward if there was a show that claimed a certain hospital was curing everybody's cancer. Or that a guy was faking out all these celebrities pretending to talk to your Mother. If Henry is fake some group is going to step forward, and I bet it likely a Christian group somewhere is offering good money if you do.
The fact is TV production costs money. For one minute over eight hours everyone on set gets a bump in hourly rate and then catering has to be provided every so many hours. Guests (celebrities) are paid a day rate usually and over eight hours more money. So to keep costs in line there is a shooting schedule and certain things have to happen at certain times. NOTHING is left to chance. Host talks to guest for x minutes and out of that y minutes is edited out for z minutes of screen time. It may look like two people are talking but in fact the conversation has been scripted in some way - possibly a general idea this and this this will be covered or possibly word by word but no one speaks without having some idea in advance of what will happen. The one exception is news interviews but sometimes even those have a general format.

The celebrity guests (I am not so sure why being a celebrity is important or impressive but that's another discussion) are paid for an acting gig. The production company calls the agency said celebrity is represented by and arranges a contract and a rate. If that person has to be flown in than those arrangements are negotiated as well. The person knows in advance what the gig (paid job) will be and what is expected. Just the same as when some celebrity endorses a product. They may not use it they may not even like it but they are paid to hawk it and that's what they do.

It is a paid job. They can accept it or reject it but once accepted they are paid to provide a service and that service is to look surprised, impressed and convinced. Possibly even gushing ad nauseum about how wonderful it all was. That is how celebrities make a living and most make a very very good living. Few people who make millions a year would be willing to give that up to object to some aspect of a paying job. They might not come back next time but they will give the performance they were paid for.

As is right. You pay someone for something you expect that something.

Plus it puts their face in the public spotlight and they are perceived as relevant. Who cares about some celebrity no ones heard from in two years.
__________________
Never trust anyone in a better mood than you are.
MEequalsIxR is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th March 2019, 05:54 PM   #149
wasapi
Philosopher
 
wasapi's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 6,403
Originally Posted by Garrette View Post
And because I was bored, I watched the reading of Sofia Vergara. A very obvious mix of both cold and hot reading. The funny bit was it wasn't the hot reading part that Vergara picked up on, but it's obvious what Henry was going for.

And there you have it, Frank. I've watched a video. It's proof he's a fraud.

Or is it not sufficient for me just to claim it?

I seemed to have missed anyone as well known as Vergara. I believe the fact someone in her family was murdered, a fact I believe is easily known.
__________________
Julia
wasapi is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th March 2019, 05:55 PM   #150
Garrette
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 14,761
Watched the Macklemore reading, too. That was less impressive than the Vergara one.

Yes, Frank, I could duplicate this, probably do better. The caveat is that it is under the same conditions, i.e.,
-My subject is famous
-It is done in their home
-I get to edit the video
-I have as much notice going in as Tyler Henry does
-The crew, subject, and subject's family observers are placed under whatever
restrictions they would be if Tyler Henry were doing the readings

If this man is not a fraud then he is indistinguishable from one. I've done better completely cold, and as I will say again, I'm not really that good.
__________________
My kids still love me.
Garrette is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th March 2019, 05:57 PM   #151
Garrette
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 14,761
Originally Posted by wasapi View Post
I seemed to have missed anyone as well known as Vergara. I believe the fact someone in her family was murdered, a fact I believe is easily known.
That's the hot read he was trying for but Vergara didn't bite. Instead she fit her aunt in as the hit and was astounded at the supposed miracle of her dying from a knee operation. What really happened is that he started out saying "leg swelling" OR "fluid retention." It was only after her reactions that he combined the two and never said anything about an operation.
__________________
My kids still love me.
Garrette is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th March 2019, 06:01 PM   #152
MEequalsIxR
Critical Thinker
 
MEequalsIxR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Posts: 375
Originally Posted by Frank McLaughlin View Post
The more overriding issue is whether a very successful TV Production company with a reputation to uphold and a relationship with E! to save, would bother committing massive fraud with a young kid who could turn on them at any time. If there is fraud, somebody will come forward.

Henry's waiting list two years ago was 15,000 people for a 30 minute session. He does not need publicity.
Not fraud it's entertainment.

TV production companies are in the business of producing television - it's produced content. There is always a person behind the curtain pulling the levers and you're not supposed to notice or acknowledge them.

Produce means cause (a particular result or situation) to happen or come into existence.
__________________
Never trust anyone in a better mood than you are.
MEequalsIxR is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th March 2019, 06:14 PM   #153
Garrette
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 14,761
I could do the bulk of what is shown of Tyler Henry's readings simply by using Wikipedia, Facebook, and Twitter. Throw in either a time-consuming electronic search of public records of the subject, family, and associates, or a less time-consuming paid searches of those for $10 a pop, and I could exceed what Henry does.

Heck, I could do a fair amount of what he does without any hot reading at all. Cold reading will work when I control the editing.
__________________
My kids still love me.
Garrette is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th March 2019, 06:15 PM   #154
Axxman300
Illuminator
 
Axxman300's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 3,705
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
I don't know if I qualify as a ghost hunter because I don't believe in ghosts. And never did.
In my book you'd be well qualified.

Ghost and Psychics are not only cut from the same Victorian Era cloth, they share the same office. A lot of good science applied badly has gone under the bridge since the 1850's and no honest researcher can claim there is certifiable evidence for the existence of ghosts or psychic abilities of any kind.

Relative to this thread, in my experience what is considered psychic ability is just advance deductive and perceptive skills. I worked in retail sales for 20 years, and there were guys I thought were psychic. When I'd joke about it they'd tell me they could "read" people by their clothes (especially shoes), jewelry, language skills, and basic body language. I'm talking about salesmen who could sell you the shoes on your feet for twice the price and make you feel like a shrewd buyer. Leaning to read women's jewelry took practice, but things like charm bracelets and pendants can tell you a lot about their personal lives.

Point is that with a little study of human nature, body language, and accouterments anyone could could do a "Cold Psychic Reading".
__________________
Disingenuous Piranha
Axxman300 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th March 2019, 06:17 PM   #155
Axxman300
Illuminator
 
Axxman300's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 3,705
Originally Posted by wasapi View Post
WOW! 3 hits out of 4! Just uncanny. How much do I owe you?
I didn't even mention the junk drawer in your mother's kitchen.
__________________
Disingenuous Piranha
Axxman300 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th March 2019, 06:18 PM   #156
Garrette
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 14,761
Originally Posted by Axxman300 View Post
In my book you'd be well qualified.

Ghost and Psychics are not only cut from the same Victorian Era cloth, they share the same office. A lot of good science applied badly has gone under the bridge since the 1850's and no honest researcher can claim there is certifiable evidence for the existence of ghosts or psychic abilities of any kind.

Relative to this thread, in my experience what is considered psychic ability is just advance deductive and perceptive skills. I worked in retail sales for 20 years, and there were guys I thought were psychic. When I'd joke about it they'd tell me they could "read" people by their clothes (especially shoes), jewelry, language skills, and basic body language. I'm talking about salesmen who could sell you the shoes on your feet for twice the price and make you feel like a shrewd buyer. Leaning to read women's jewelry took practice, but things like charm bracelets and pendants can tell you a lot about their personal lives.

Point is that with a little study of human nature, body language, and accouterments anyone could could do a "Cold Psychic Reading".
One of the more unintentionally insidious aspects of this is that there are people who are naturally adept at such things without realizing it and who have gotten into the psychic schtick with full sincerity.
__________________
My kids still love me.
Garrette is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th March 2019, 07:13 PM   #157
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 16,687
Thumbs up

Originally Posted by xjx388 View Post
He is presenting himself as someone who can commune with the dead.
Making a claim he knows to be false does not by itself constitute fraud in the legally-actionable sense. More is required. But if we're not going by the legal standard, then I agree a common-sensical label of fraud could easily be applied.

Quote:
He makes no disclaimers on his show that it’s “for entertainment only.”
Such a representation would need to be made only to prospective participants. And while the language "for entertainment purposes only" appears in the boilerplate that many mediums use, it does not strictly have to appear. It's just a shorthand that covers a lot of ground amounting to "Don't take this seriously." To apply for a private reading with Tyler Henry, you previously had to agree to a sort of terms of service which was disclaimed out the wazoo. It boiled down to his not being responsible for the consequences of any advice he gives, your understanding that he's not qualified to give advice that would ordinarily require licensure, your not taking his claims as complete, accurate, or reliable, and his not promising to meet any expectation you might have. That latter part means that if you expected to commune with dear departed Aunt Gertie, and instead just got a redux from the PI's report, you had no basis for a legal claim. If he required that agreement before, it is reasonable to suppose he requires it now from the people he reads on his show.

Quote:
Therefore he is perpetrating a fraud. So is his production company and E!.
While IANAL, it is fairly easy to look at the elements of legally-actionable fraud and test them informally against this scenario. Here are the elements of it where I live, in Utah.
  1. A statement must be made which is (a) factually false, (b) known to be false by the person making it, or made with reckless disregard for the truth, (c) about an important fact.
  2. The alleged fraudster intended that the person(s) to which the statement was made would rely upon it.
  3. The person reasonably relied upon it.
  4. The person suffered damages as a result of relying on the statement.

To prevail in court, these generally have to be argued particularly. This language is abridged from Utah's civil code, so the standard of proof is preponderance of evidence.

Now in the case of the person Henry is reading on the show, we presume his former standard disclaimer applies. Element 2 is clearly precluded by the terms of service. Element 3 is mostly precluded, because a reliance that ignores all the warnings in the terms of service is not reasonable. Since you have to prove all the elements, the claim would fail.

And if the celebrity appears as a contracted appearance, that sidesteps the notion of fraud altogether. The celebrity agrees to participate in what is essentially a theatrical performance.

The viewers of the program probably wouldn't have standing to bring action, because the particularity requirement defeats it.

If I watch a television show where Person A pretends to contact the deceased father of Person B, and I am not personally associated with either A or B, then the deception fails to be about an important fact. I'm merely a spectator. I have no dog in the fight -- dead or alive. I may be intensely interested, but I imagine that has a limited legal effect and would run afoul of various reasonableness tests.

In some jurisdictions, pleading intent can be done generally. I don't have to prove that E! intended specifically that I, JayUtah, rely upon claims made by Tyler Henry. It's exempt from the particularity requirement. I can just prove a state of mind generally. But the general state of mind I would have to prove is that E! intended its viewers to rely upon the claim that Henry really talks to the dead, to the effect that legally cognizable damage occurred. "Relying" upon the claim simply to make time to watch the show, for example, doesn't count.

I would also have the burden to prove that reliance upon supernatural claims -- made on a network that bills itself as entertainment, gossip, and so forth -- was in fact reasonable. That doesn't sound easy. Compare that to a false evacuation order broadcast on television under a well-known news organization banner. That would be a better example of reasonable reliance that would approach fraud.

As a viewer, there are only a limited number of ways I can sustain legally cognizabale damage as a reasonable consequence of reliance upon Henry's claims of necromancy. The claim "I can speak to the dead" is legally different from the claim "I can speak to your dead father" in terms of particularity. In the hypothetical case of the evacuation order, damage to my property or injury to my person incurred during a hasty (but unnecessary) flight from the city would be legally cognizable damages. Under Utah law I could also recover for emotional distress, but as a separate cause of action not covered by fraud.

I think you'd have a hard time proving fraud here, but it certainly seems like fraud.
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th March 2019, 07:16 PM   #158
Steve
Illuminator
 
Steve's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 4,834
Originally Posted by Frank McLaughlin View Post

Complete lack of knowledge howmagical performers duplicate such effects along with a lack of knowledge about how reality shows work
.
Magical performers do not exist. Performers are just ordinary people.
__________________
Caption from and old New Yorker cartoon - Why am I shouting? Because I'm wrong!"
Steve is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th March 2019, 07:24 PM   #159
wasapi
Philosopher
 
wasapi's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 6,403
It is interesting to me that the well known male mediums on TV, including this guy, want to project a non threatening image. A guy down the street persona. It is a schtick they have.

This guy, Tyler Henry, projects an innocent, fresh-behind-the-ears, mama's boy. Yes, he lives with his mother. And yes, he came out as gay. Oh the shock. So over all, the kind of sweet, young, shy, fresh-face young man is someone to trust!
__________________
Julia
wasapi is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th March 2019, 07:44 PM   #160
8enotto
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: Mexico
Posts: 505
Hot reading the medium, funny.

He does seem to be carefully picked to present an image.

The ones on the late night programs here in Mexico are not pretty boys but older fat guys using big screen TVs as set backdrop. Pretty stern looking some of them.

The rest is the same cold reading but slightly more vague as they're over the phone. Or plants to convince us to set up a reading in Mexico City .
8enotto is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » General Skepticism and The Paranormal

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:53 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.