Esp trick

Discussion in 'Other Stuff' started by johnyudodis, Jun 30, 2014.

  1. johnyudodis

    johnyudodis New

    Joined:
    May 6, 2014
    Messages:
    272
    So apparently this is used to disprove esp, something I'm not really familiar with. Anyone know how this trick is done?
     
  2. I don't have time to watch the video but magicians cannot do what psychics do UNDER THE SAME CONDITIONS PSYCHICS DO THEM.

    The excerpts below are from the following web page (which has links to references and sources):
    http://sites.google.com/site/chs4o8pt/skeptical_fallacies#skeptical_fallacies_magic

    ...

    ...

    ...
     
  3. MysticG

    MysticG New

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2013
    Messages:
    184
    Regardless of ESP, how can a magic trick disprove anything?

    Suppose I couldn't swim, but I created an illusion to make it look like I was swimming. When I revealed that it was a trick, would it be right to say that I had disproved swimming? And then to say that all who have ever claimed to swim are frauds?
     
    Lusikka, David Bailey, Typoz and 3 others like this.
  4. johnyudodis

    johnyudodis New

    Joined:
    May 6, 2014
    Messages:
    272
    Funny you should mention that there is lol I used it when I was younger and wasn't a strong swimmer in which you put your hands on the floor of the pool/ocean and hold your body up whilst kicking your legs and crawling forwards making it seem as though you are swimming. Now I'm gonna start a one million dollar challenge for someone to prove to me that swimming is not woo. Excuse me, gonna go debunk Tom Daley as a charlatan
     
    Sciborg_S_Patel likes this.
  5. malf

    malf Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2013
    Messages:
    4,049
    I agree on the whole. However, what if you claimed that you could walk on water...? Would it be useful if someone else recreated that as an illusion?

    Isn't the point that ESP 'looks' magical to begin with?
     
  6. I think a lot of this comes down to what people think of as implausible. Going to back to Weisman's quote, that remote viewing is already proven but ECREE, it's not clear that many people in the world would think remote viewing was necessarily revolutionary or extraordinary.

    For some the idea that consciousness can come from non-conscious matter would be the more implausible claim.
     
    MysticG likes this.
  7. MysticG

    MysticG New

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2013
    Messages:
    184
    Sure, I don't mean to say it is useless to show that there alternate ways to do things. My only issue was with the idea that one could dismiss a claim (or call it disproved) just by creating an illusion that simulates the effect. I intentionally used a very basic skill (swimming) to demonstrate how that logic doesn't work. Any claim (ESP, water-walking, etc) would need to be evaluated on its own merits, regardless of the illusion.
     
  8. JCearley

    JCearley New

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2013
    Messages:
    512
    There is no difference at the conceptual level between disproving swimming and disproving water walking. The only thing that makes a debunk attempt a failure is when people accept the absurdity of the attempt, which is based on a bias that says you know people can swim. Biases are at work to remind one that a claim seems more silly than the other, perhaps because you have swam in the past but are not willing to re-run the test right now to verify that. If someone were to believe in water walking and swimming, they might see the debunking attempt to be just as silly as someone trying to prove swimming didn't exist.

    If I say that x = 3 + 1 and you say that x = 6 - 2, the perceived result may be that x = 4 however this does not prove the means I used to reach 4 involved a 6. All you have done in that situation is prove that there is another way of creating a 4.

    With common aphorisms like "correlation != causation" and "you can't prove a negative" being tossed around in other contexts, it amazes me that so many people are keen on passing around debunking attempts for anything. Debunking is explicitly trying to prove a negative, and saying that if two results correlate then they must have been caused by the staged event.
     
    MysticG and Sciborg_S_Patel like this.
  9. malf

    malf Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2013
    Messages:
    4,049
    I get that... but it's the 'magicness' of esp and walking on water that makes us gasp and enjoy the trick. Nobody gasps at somebody swimming and there is the difference.

    I guess it comes down, at least in part, to the absence of a mechanism. If we are to postulate esp without a mechanism, only for a magician to come along and show us a mechanism to acheive the same effect, can we be forgiven for invoking friar William and his blade.
     
  10. steve001

    steve001 Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2013
    Messages:
    2,053
    Since we're talking about tricks here's two I like.

     
  11. wpb

    wpb Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2013
    Messages:
    247
    Reproducing an alleged psi effect by ordinary means does not disprove psi, but it does negate the claim "it could only be psi".

    Pat
     
  12. steve001

    steve001 Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2013
    Messages:
    2,053
    Here's the crux of the question. Why consider in the first place psi?
     
  13. wpb

    wpb Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2013
    Messages:
    247
    I think probably because of the commonality of experiences which seem to challenge ordinary explanations. Things like dreaming about your Uncle, then finding out he was involved in an accident, or thinking about a friend just before they call you on the phone.

    Then there are the more dramatic but less common claims, like macro PK. Personally, I can't take such anecdotes as being evidential, but neither can I dismiss them out of hand.

    Finally, there's the results obtained by parapsychologists. There are knowledgeable people on both sides of the divide concerning the validity of those results, but again I can't simply dismiss them.

    Oh, and also, it's fun. :)

    Pat
     
    Sciborg_S_Patel likes this.
  14. K9!

    K9! New

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2013
    Messages:
    1,597
    Because it fits in with a model of consciousness (ie. mind does not equal brain) that may better explain the collected body of evidence.
     
  15. Formal Dining Room Set

    Formal Dining Room Set New

    Joined:
    May 3, 2014
    Messages:
    631
    magicality
     
  16. steve001

    steve001 Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2013
    Messages:
    2,053
    The best answer among laypeople of them all you gave is that it's fun. The people I wonder about are folks like k9. I read her reply and I constantly wonder why they think that? She and folks like her see only one possibility.
     
    Last edited: Jul 2, 2014
  17. wpb

    wpb Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2013
    Messages:
    247
    Well, she did use the word "may" in her reply.

    Pat
     
  18. MysticG

    MysticG New

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2013
    Messages:
    184
    Is this a joke? This is the most ironic thing you have ever said. Or can you really not see you are perfectly describing yourself? Jung would call this an example of projecting your shadow onto others.

    I swear, I could print out all of your posts and build a monument dedicated to closed-mindedness - You are the pillar of faith in materialism - the avatar of model-theistic thinking - the patron saint of small-mindedness. There is no one on this forum who even comes close. You show as much blind faith as any fundamentalist religious believer I know.

    After 900+ posts, you still speak as if you just found this forum and have no idea what it's about. I know you read the words, but I can't see any evidence that you think about any of them. Every single post you make is an affirmation of your prior beliefs. Most of us are here to learn and explore ideas. If you aren't into that, maybe this isn't the forum for you. Fundamentalism doesn't go over very well here.

    I have seriously (no really, seriously) wondered if your account is meant as some type of satire to make fun of skeptics. I am still not sure that it isn't.

    (For some ungodly reason, I clicked the button to "view ignored content" - a decision I regret.)
     
  19. Formal Dining Room Set

    Formal Dining Room Set New

    Joined:
    May 3, 2014
    Messages:
    631
    So K-9 is a um... female?
     
  20. steve001

    steve001 Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2013
    Messages:
    2,053
    I fear that "may" may be lip service. I think I see a lot of conviction in her words.
     

Share This Page