This is easy when it's Johnathan Edwards in a fully crowded room. When it's Miss Cleo on the phone, however, the speaker has to use a few more tricks. Hiring people who are conversational on the phone helps.
Is there any current confirmed TIME TRAVELERS ON HERE NOW???
- Thread starter Kazper
- Start date
This is easy when it's Johnathan Edwards in a fully crowded room. When it's Miss Cleo on the phone, however, the speaker has to use a few more tricks. Hiring people who are conversational on the phone helps.
The_Observer
Member
- Messages
- 183
I loved your mention about the porn!..
The_Observer
Member
- Messages
- 183
I suppose the wording "body language" was misleading. It's a mixture of body and vocal language queues. You could both perfect the art in person and over the phone. I don't necessarily agree one is more difficult than the other for they both present different factors of difficulty. In person you are required to perform like an actor. YOUR body language matters just as much as your speech. Whereas over the phone, you don't need a poker face and you can mute the phone and laugh your ass off if you had to.
Peep on James Randi as he exposes psychics and magicians as frauds - mostly because what they are peddling is dangerous - to convince others that magic and supernatural is real which will lead them down the wrong path in life because science and technology is the answer. I hate charlatans.
MindUnderMatter
New Member
- Messages
- 12
James Randi needs to be debunked. His "challenge" leaves him as the only valid judge, with zero parameters involved. All he has to do is say that every psychic is fake and the world will accept it as the final authority. Which only proves that in order to crusade against anything, you must become it.
The_Observer
Member
- Messages
- 183
I respectfully disagree. Randi uses science as the parameter and logic and fact as the judge. Simply put, if you claim something you need to prove it scientifically for it to be a valid claim, and that's what Randi uses to debunk charlatans.
Kairos
Senior Member
- Messages
- 1,103
That's the fallacy of verificationism in a nutshell. It's a fallacy.
Proposition A: Any statement that cannot be scientifically proven is invalid.
Counter: Please provide scientific evidence that Proposition A is true.
Contradiction. Time to rethink your shit.
Proposition A: Any statement that cannot be scientifically proven is invalid.
Counter: Please provide scientific evidence that Proposition A is true.
Contradiction. Time to rethink your shit.
The_Observer
Member
- Messages
- 183
It's not any statement, but rather a statement surrounding an ability or technology without proof. You could easily say you fucked a horse last night and not be able to scientifically prove it so does that automatically make your claim invalid? No way, you're a total horse fucker now. By the way, I don't require proof, I totally believe you fucked a horse. It's not "out of this world" to presume such.
Now, if you claimed you could read my mind, damn straight I'm going to be skeptical, test you, ask you questions, and want you to prove it to me. Even if you can't SCIENTIFICALLY prove it, can you prove it with a simple test based on science? Randi does that too, for psychics that claim they can find hidden objects or read minds. Obviously there's no math involved, but you can devise a controlled environment to rule out external stimuli. Like the one guy that said he can move pages with his mind, Randi proved it was false by putting foam pellets around the phone book to show that the psychic is using the movement of air and currents rather than actual psychic powers.
Therefore your example is flawed and you need to "rethink your shit" as you so eloquently put it.
Kairos
Senior Member
- Messages
- 1,103
That is still verificationism. I took a shit today at 0730 EST. Do I need to prove that statement to you somehow? How would I prove it? Any photo I showed could be doctored, and you'd claim it was fake. I could have my girlfriend tell you that I definitely took a shit at that time, but you'd claim witnesses are unreliable.
Almost all the shit this guy claims to debunk is like that. LOTS of things are not scientific problems. They are investigative problems. You can use science to investigate, but science is not the determining factor.
What that guy does is just a cheap circus trick every bit as dishonest as the trickery perpetrated by many of the people he tries to expose. "Oh, you can't prove it scientifically, then it didn't happen!!" Get real.
Kairos
Senior Member
- Messages
- 1,103
Exposing frauds where it comes to various abilities is easy. You just ask them to perform the trick and look for how they did it. Hire some magicians to watch everything.
But I don't think some of this paranormal shit is conducive to just using it like you are turning on a light. It's not accurate and it's not on demand.
But I don't think some of this paranormal shit is conducive to just using it like you are turning on a light. It's not accurate and it's not on demand.
The_Observer
Member
- Messages
- 183
No you don't need to prove it, all humans take shits and we have the facts to back that up. If you wanted to prove it, a photo would suffice if taken by a third party - or you could scoop up the shit and mail it to me. You could also do a video documentation of you shitting, or provide all the facts and science behind why human's take shits, then prove you are a human by providing some DNA samples. I will require all of your hair, saliva, and blood, to verify you are human. Unfortunately this means you will die, but that's a risk I am willing to take.