If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Arizona Star)   Professor says psychic really is conversing with the dead, based on bringing back really meaningful quotations like "I don't walk alone" and being 77 percent accurate on predictions   (dailystar.com) divider line 294
    More: Unlikely  
•       •       •

7540 clicks; posted to Main » on 17 Jan 2005 at 7:26 PM (9 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



294 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all
 
2005-01-17 11:19:42 AM
i knew this would happen

/just sayin'
 
2005-01-17 11:29:25 AM
Bah. People like this piss me off.
 
2005-01-17 11:29:27 AM
UA professor Gary E. Schwartz has put Allison Dubois' psychic abilities to the test. "There is no question this is not a fraud," he says.

Wouldn't that mean that it IS a fraud? Since no one is questioning that it isn't?

/grammar, aaah!!!
 
2005-01-17 11:34:40 AM
Why aren't these people rich picking lottery numbers?

/Just sayin'
 
2005-01-17 11:37:24 AM
And of course he refuses Randi's challenge. Claiming "I refused for the same reason all serious scientists in America and Europe have refused. The process of this prize lacks scientific credibility and integrity." What scientists? Name any of them. If they are so serious, and have dealt with paranormal or psychic or related phenomenom they are most likely not that serious. But if they are, they must have published. Did they publish in a peer peviewed journal? What was the general consensus of their work? They refuse because they are liars and frauds at worst, confused and mistaken at best. And I always hear from these psychics and related shucksters that his plize lacks "scientific credibility and integrity" or something similar. How so? What methods does he use that are in violation of the scientific method. When has someone presented him with a paranormal or psychic phenomenom and he has refused to pay out? Or are these concerns just flak to hide the fact that they claims are worthless?
 
2005-01-17 11:44:24 AM
i've noticed there is a lot of die hard skeptics on fark.
while i am one as well, i think there are many things that cannot be explained, and some even disproved with science. but the one fault with science is it does not take into account what it has not discovered yet. not to mention the politics involved - new ground-breaking discoveries tend to disprove old theories and end careers.

i guess what i'm sayin' is don't be so quick to believe, but also don't be so quick to denounce.
 
2005-01-17 11:44:30 AM
That would be Dr. Venkman TheOmni

/Who you gonna call?
 
2005-01-17 11:45:12 AM
Perhaps by keeping her predictions vague and obscure she lowers her chances of being discovered to be a fraud.
 
2005-01-17 11:52:35 AM
Looks like Jonathan Edward will have to pass the torch on the "Biggest Douche in the Universe" thing.
 
2005-01-17 12:20:34 PM
Among other things, Dubois told Schwartz "the deceased was telling me that I must share the following - I don't walk alone," a seemingly innocuous piece of information, but critical to him.

"My friend had been confined to a wheelchair in her last years - there is no way Allison could have known that," he said.


This is comedy gold, folks. The woman makes a clear "miss" -- the phrase "I don't walk alone" in reference to a woman confined to a wheelchair -- and he interprets it as a "hit".

This is very common in bad science. If you have no standards on what exactly constitutes a hit versus a miss, no proper experimental controls, and no blind third party scoring the results, it's easy to be 80% accurate.

Losers. Both of 'em.
 
2005-01-17 12:22:21 PM
"Human Energy Systems Laboratory"? My BS detector just went off the dial.

It's humps like this that make academia look bad.
 
2005-01-17 12:44:22 PM
The Omni is my new hero. If only cause i now don't have to do so much typing to call this guy a fraud and a charlatan.
 
2005-01-17 01:17:56 PM
I'll belive it when someone collects Randi's million dollar challenge. The main reason no one has claimed Randi's million is that most 'psychics' use optional starting and stopping points for collecting data. Of course, in a *real* scientific setting, this is not allowed.
 
2005-01-17 01:46:01 PM
namaste: You are simply wrong. What about 'science' doesn't take into account that which hasn't been discovered? Of course it does. 'Science' is just practicing the scientific method, which is based on observation, not on anything we 'already know' unless they have been thoroughly subjected to the same process. It exists for the REASON of discovering new things that we can take into account, it doesn't ignore evidence. The 'politics' you speak of only apply to academia, which has nothing to do with science.
 
2005-01-17 02:15:40 PM
We're studying the effects of negative reinforcement on
clairvoyant activity.


The effect? I'll tell you what the effect is...IT'S PISSING
ME OFF!
 
2005-01-17 02:21:33 PM
I see stupid people...
they're everywhere...
they walk around like everyone else...
they don't even know that they're dumb
 
2005-01-17 03:00:51 PM
Have had this lying around the past coupla years:


 
2005-01-17 03:11:38 PM
MisterSpim:

namaste: You are simply wrong. What about 'science' doesn't take into account that which hasn't been discovered? Of course it does. 'Science' is just practicing the scientific method, which is based on observation, not on anything we 'already know' unless they have been thoroughly subjected to the same process. It exists for the REASON of discovering new things that we can take into account, it doesn't ignore evidence. The 'politics' you speak of only apply to academia, which has nothing to do with science.

follow me here for a sec. lets take it back a couple hundred years. if i were to postulate that i could talk to someone on the other side of the world speaking into a little box it would be scientifically impossible. no way to do it. but then we discovered radiowaves. hence, it was now scientifically possible. before we discovered radio waves, science concluded it could never happen.

my point is even though according to science as it is today any type of communication with the dead, or these so-called psychic powers are impossible, it doesn't mean they don't exist. we simply didn't find the right medium to measure it yet.

and you're right about the politics part, thats a good distinction.
 
2005-01-17 06:05:27 PM
50 dollars a gram?

frig, if the shiat was that expensive, i'd be out clubbing baby seals for spare change, too.
 
2005-01-17 06:06:35 PM
and here's where i act like the above comment belongs in this thread, and not an entirely different one.

so...when the psychic was talking to the polar bear...

these are not the droids you are looking for
 
2005-01-17 06:12:51 PM
This professor is a fraud. These experiements are a fraud. He cannot have proved what he said he proved.

The fact is, the dead people who are talking to this woman are smart enough to realize when they're being tested, and they obviously aren't going to let some scientist prove they exist.
 
2005-01-17 07:30:53 PM
The abilities of Allison Dubois - who claims she can see dead people, receive information from them, and even hear the thoughts of the living - are showcased in the new NBC Monday night show, with actress Patricia Arquette.

Oh, a television show was based on it? then it MUST be true!
 
2005-01-17 07:33:54 PM
"That's extraordinarily high accuracy, and Allison always scored in the near-80 percent range," Schwartz said. "That clearly puts her among the best of the best."

No psychic medium is 100 percent accurate, he said.


That's because they're 100% full of shiat.
 
2005-01-17 07:34:55 PM
namaste:

How many people in the past, before radio, were claiming to talk to people on the other side of the world, but when they were tested, failed miserably? And then came up with lame ad hoc explanations for their failures?

Big difference.
 
2005-01-17 07:35:32 PM
Wheee, here we go again:

"Prove X exists."
"I don't have to, I know it exists. And if you weren't so closed-minded you'd see the TRUTH as well."
"So you have no evidence at all?"
"I have enough evidence to convince myself, but it's not the sort of 'evidence' that your flawed western science would accept."
"Well, can you give me an example?"
"No, first you have to believe in X, otherwise the negative vibrations (or bad karma) of your skepticism will prevent you from seeing!"
"This is stupid. X goes against all known laws of physics, and there's no evidence at all."
"I'm sorry you feel threatened by the TRUTH I bring, but I really don't care if you believe it or not. I know what is TRUE, and one day your feeble scientists will catch up with me, if they can throw off their mental shackles."
"Hmm... well, why don't you just go to James Randi and claim his million dollar prize?"
"I'm not interested in money / The powers don't work when skeptics are near / I don't want the publicity / [ insert other standard lame excuse]"
 
2005-01-17 07:37:53 PM
Headline should read:

Professor validates random number theory by using a psychic and a deck of cards
 
2005-01-17 07:39:59 PM
Where's your faith people?!

oh wai
 
2005-01-17 07:40:39 PM

I'd hit it though...
 
2005-01-17 07:42:38 PM
No lie: I'm more than a skeptic, but on this same note, my wife and a friend were goofing around on a Ouija board and that farker took off, I mean, faster than either they or their subconscious minds could've guided it . I took "dictation" as it were for over an hour and it was truly mind boggling.

Not scientific proof, but pretty wild to watch. They were completely freaked out as well.
 
2005-01-17 07:43:11 PM
that fat green-eyed vampire chick is really startin to freak me out.
 
2005-01-17 07:45:10 PM
I'd just like to say that I agree with all the sane people and anxiously await the first dissenting opinion.
 
2005-01-17 07:48:19 PM
craigzy
I wonder if Drew is noticing a drop in clicks since her pictures been up. A truly scary fat ugly chick.
 
2005-01-17 07:49:00 PM
 
2005-01-17 07:49:37 PM
i agree. the vampire chick is bothering me. wasn't she on there last week too? sports-by-brooks previews are getting repititive, time for some new talent!
 
2005-01-17 07:49:58 PM
Assuming (it's a heck of an assumption) that the professor is correct in that Dubios' results are 80% accurate in double-blind tests, I think he is making an error in assuming she is "speaking to the dead people". All of the information in her tests was verified true or false by a living person. Telepathy with the living, reading the subject person's mind, seems a little less implausible than communication with the dead.

Also, Dubois seems to heavily use flattery, such as the description of Chopra's father as "extremely handsome", or telling people things to the effect of "you must miss them so much, they were such a good person" and so on. Flattery makes the subject more kindly disposed towards a con artist (or politician), and so makes a con far more likely to succeed.

I'd want to see a test where all the questions are yes/no and aren't subject to anyone's opinion, except possibly that of the "dead person", but still have emotional resonance for the "dead person". Pay students to bring in answers to a questionnaire and pictures of their dead relatives to be copied and indexed, and put in a folder for the experiment. Also put in a certain number of pictures of living people. For each one, ask her "Is this person alive or dead?" "Did this person own one or more pets?" "Was one of the pets a dog?" "If so, was it a small dog?" "Did this person usually write with their right hand?" "Did this person die north or south of here?" "Did they die east or west of here?" Then, after the experiment, compare the answers.
 
2005-01-17 07:50:07 PM
2005-01-17 11:29:27 AM
knucklebreather



UA professor Gary E. Schwartz has put Allison Dubois' psychic abilities to the test. "There is no question this is not a fraud," he says.

Wouldn't that mean that it IS a fraud? Since no one is questioning that it isn't?

/grammar, aaah!!!

Nope.
Look at it this way:

There is no question that [she is authentic].

now, substitute [she is authentic] by [she is not a fraud]
since [she is authentic] = [she is not a fraud]
 
2005-01-17 07:50:38 PM
This study seems like a crock, but I can't dismiss the idea of psychic powers completely.

I recently met a complete stranger on a bus (I got on and sat next to her, not the other way around), and she struck up a conversation. I didn't particularly want to talk, but she did. She did virtually all of the talking, and never intimated that she was psychic, nor did she try to sell me anything. She kept talking about things in my life, or in my past, and seemed to know that this was stuff that would hit home. She talked to me as though everyone is psychic and just *knows* stuff about the other person. It was truly uncanny, and I don't believe at all in the paranormal. Maybe she was just reaaaally good at reading people, but she knew: I played piano, my brother and various other family members are violinists, I wasn't from here (not a leap), I'd lived in Brazil . . . she turned out to be Brazilian, and kept asking questions about my experiences and places I'd visited that were dead on. She knew a bunch of other things, too.

It was wild. But, she never claimed to be psychic, and she didn't seem to be trying to impress me or anything.

I don't buy John Edwards and his ilk for a second. Everything in that article was adequately vague - and geared at people who wanted to believe - to be completely fakeable.
 
2005-01-17 07:50:56 PM
McDork, care to share the results?
 
2005-01-17 07:52:25 PM
dfbimaging, craigzy<

There's a thread for that sort of stuff (and the link is right below the PotD for a reason).
 
2005-01-17 07:52:57 PM
follow me here for a sec. lets take it back a couple hundred years. if i were to postulate that i could talk to someone on the other side of the world speaking into a little box it would be scientifically impossible. no way to do it. but then we discovered radiowaves. hence, it was now scientifically possible. before we discovered radio waves, science concluded it could never happen.

Science doesn't conclude that anything can never happen. Science deals with empirical evidence, and attempts to create theories that account for them. Whether or not scientists made statements about talking to someone on the other side of the world is irrelevant to the issue at hand.

Science doesn't claim that psychics are frauds. It merely requires them to prove their claims before accepting it. The fact they have been unwilling and unable to prove their claims suggests that their claims are invalid. But all it would take is one of them to prove otherwise. By all means, step forward if you're the one with evidence.
 
2005-01-17 07:56:01 PM
McDork

OMG, your Ouija board story reminded me of stuff we (sisters and cousins) did as kids.

We asked the board questions -- a lot of them were, many were vague, or at least nothing we remember -- who will have kids, how many, etc. But we also asked specific questions -- how many pearls are on Grandma's necklace (I asked that question and had no way of knowing the answer).

Key up Twilight Zone music -- answers on specific questions were always correct.
 
2005-01-17 07:57:53 PM
Just how Allison Dubois could have faked what she told Phran Ginsberg about her teenage daughter Bailey - who died in a car crash two years ago - baffles Ginsberg.

"We were in separate states; we never met. I had no idea who was doing the reading. This was done by phone, and I was not allowed to speak," said Ginsberg, who lives in Lloyd Harbor, N.Y.

The first thing Dubois said was that she saw a photo of her daughter hugging her sister at a party. At that moment, Ginsberg was looking at a photo of the scene.

"Then she told me Bailey wished me 'Happy Valentine's Day.' And that didn't make sense, because it was October," she said. But later that day, she took the photo from its frame, and on the back Bailey had written "Valentine's Day Dance."

"Right then, I knew Allison was the real deal," Ginsberg said. Dubois also had described the accident and Bailey's fatal head injury.


"How could she know this? I just can't see any way she could fake that - she didn't know my name. She didn't know Bailey's name. I see absolutely no other way. This has to be real."



How do you explain that?
 
2005-01-17 07:58:36 PM
doubleagent99

don't act so surprised. with billions of people in the world, it seems logical that you'd have nothing in common with a random person you met on the bus. the phrase "six degrees of seperation" exists for a reason - its amazing how you can pick someone at random and find parallels between their life and yours. this becomes more amazing when its someone who initially appears to be quite different - ie. they're a crazy bus loon, homeless, etc..

fact is we all have intertwining lives. surprising, but not pshyic, or even that unusual.
 
2005-01-17 07:59:40 PM
"Psychic powers, if real, are useless. Otherwise, over the course of human history, we'd have done something useful with them."

- Larry Niven.

If people really can talk to the dead/see the future/read minds.. Why did 3000 people die on 9/11? Why did over 100,000 die in the tsunami? The kind of people who claim retroactively to have seen these things in advance are the lowest kind of scum

/They belong in the special kind of hell, with child molesters and people who talk in the theatre.
 
nmx
2005-01-17 08:00:04 PM
Dubois? More like dubious.
 
2005-01-17 08:03:49 PM
Meursault

Easy. Their accounts are incorrect, and sided to lead up to no other possibility. Who knows how much information is being left out. Its not for the witnesses to decide what should be considered fact and not.
 
2005-01-17 08:05:33 PM
Prof. Gary E. Schwartz is famous for believing in anything, and that's why the media loves to report his latest "science" as though it were real.
 
2005-01-17 08:07:40 PM
McDork, care to share the results?

It was pretty esoteric shiat. A lot of "Love is here, god is here". In fact, whenever there was a break in a stream of conversation, whateverthehellitwas would toss one of those in.

Without getting too in depth and sounding like a crackpot, "it" called itself Michael. Michael went on a HUGE diatribe about what spirits are, what angels are, a whole breakdown of soul ages, the whole 9 yards. Then, a few months later, my wife found a book called "Messages From Michael" that recounted the story of a group of friends who would Ouija regularly and talk to a being called Michael. To freak us out further, nearly every detail of what "our Michael" spoke of, "their Michael" did also.

I dunno. I can't fix my own toilet. What do I know about the afterlife.
 
2005-01-17 08:07:56 PM
Well said, Bhruic, others. Additionally, to placate skeptics, Carl Sagan once remarked that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." In this case, as psychic communication remains controversial on nearly every level [e.g., how goes it work? What medium conveys it? Why have we been unable to detect both signal and receiver, or been unable to characterize what cells or brain structure processes it? Moreover, why have we been unable to prove the existence of life beyond death? What mileu would souls inhabit, and how would they communicate with us? etc.], so I want to see something a bit more robust than, "He was well-known to politicians."

Strange, invisible living things cause sickness, and somehow we proved their existence a hundred years ago. We can evaluate what composes stars millions of light years away; we have been able to describe the first moments of the birth of the universe. Sure, we might be missing something really big. But after so much effort gone into looking for existence of psychic abilities, is it really likely that irrefutable evidence of such abilities, given the widespread claim of their presence and use, has eluded science this long?
 
2005-01-17 08:08:40 PM
Hahaha, a lot of people need to wake up from their preconcieved ideas of what the world is. Want easy access to evidence of the spiritual world? One way to provide this is EVP and ITC, which is the basic premise for the new movie "White Noise". It involves picking up voices and pictures on electronic recording equipment, all very documented and unexplained, such as voices being registered that function below the capabilities of the human voice which is theoretically impossible, you can read more on http://www.evpvoices.com, http://www.aaevp.com.

Second, there is plenty of new UFO evidence that is amazing, if you've heard of the NASA tether experiment or a documentary released recently called UFO: The Secret NASA transmissions "The Smoking Gun", many phenomenon have been picked up in space and most can't be picked up but only in gamma and infrared radiation. You can find out more @ http://www.100megsfree4.com/farshores/nasaufo0.htm

More truth is that our civilization is based largely around our perceptions and nothing is more flawed and focused on so much as our clocks and Catholic Gregorian calendars. These false systems in place have led us into a false mechanical existance by denying a lot of facts about nature. For starters, the moon orbits the Earth thirteen times a year, every 28 days. A drastic shift from our irregular Christian bastardization. Become informed about the New Time and the natural cycles that have existed on our planet and in our minds @ http://www.tortuga.com and http://www.lawoftime.org.

Furthermore, there are our natural tools in existance that offer us a guided walk through the unknown. There are obvious conspiracies and immoralities in the government and how it wages it's "drug war" against it's people trying to experiment and come to terms with nature, God, and themselves. A great person, Terence Mckenna shared his views on psychadelic shamanism, he left this plane in 2001. His website the Deoxyribonucleic Hyperdimension is at http://www.deoxy.org.

Peace.
 
Displayed 50 of 294 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report