I don't get it. I'm sorry, how can you call "more fires" a prediction? That's like saying "another earthquake in California" that shows nothing but she's paying attention to history. And when she was on Coast making these predictions didn't she say fires in California AND the midwest? I don't recall huge fires in Michigan.
I want to be blown away...tell me when the next earthquake will hit in Maine. When will fires sweep across the everglades? I want to know when there will be a shark attack on the coast of Lake Erie. Tell me something unexpected and I will admit psychic ability.
From Comments, Anonymous
I don't recall Evelyn Paglini's exact words. The gist of it was "much worse than usual", and much of the reporting was along the line of "worst fires in history" ... so I'm willing to give her a hit on that one. I don't see that it is necessary for her to get every prediction correct to be given credit for the ones she does get right. You're right a couple of them seem obvious. They weren't all obvious, nor were all the details necessarily obvious. You didn't seem to take notice of her hit on the stock market correction ... or some of the other big misses.
From the way you talk, I don't think you'd settle for "something unexpected" ... you want everything to be something unexpected, and they all have to be hits before you'll admit psychic ability. Well that isn't what is being claimed by predictive psychics, not even close. It doesn't work that way. They all admit a range of error. None of them claim to be omniscient. Clearly that is not the case, or there would be no argument, would there?
If physicians and psychiatrists were judged the way certain skeptics want to judge psychics, we would have no medical profession. We sure as heck wouldn't have any pharmaceuticals (whether that might be a good idea or not, given the abominable tragedies in that business of late, must be argued elsewhere). We don't expect 100% efficacy and accuracy from the medical sciences. Why do some expect that level of exactitude from media psychics, whose work is arguably far less critical to our well being?
I've made my own position on these predictions clear ... they are for entertainment only, nobody should take them seriously. In fact, I started tracking them from the perspective as a truly skeptical observer. I'm told the word skeptic comes from Greek skeptikos "look about, consider, observe". I noticed that the media darlings of the psychic world didn't have anyone truly tracking their predictions. And they were far more negative and apocalyptic than I felt was either likely to be accurate, or ultimately healthy. So I decided to have a closer look at them. It's fun, entertaining, and hopefully people read past them to what really matters here. I hope people will have another look at what lies behind the predictions of their favorite psychics. That doesn't mean I don't think they each have some measure of talent. I just want to see where it shakes out, and it makes interesting reading.
When I look at the future, I'm forecasting, not predicting. I make it clear that subsequent events can (and often do) alter outcomes. That's the point of looking forward. Can I go to a better position than I might have reached if I hadn't stopped and had that forecast? What can I change? So like most working psychics (as opposed to some of the media darlings), I'm not in it to "blow you away" (though I have occasionally been known to do that). If you were one of my clients, that would be your job! You're supposed to blow me away. You're the one who does the hard work of bringing your potential into the world. All I can see is your potential. I can't always see if you will have the stones to bring it about, or exactly how you'll get there.
One thing I think we can agree on. I don't believe it is healthy to spend too much time dwelling on what might happen in the future. It's definitely not healthy to believe that the future is set in stone. If we carry any spark of personal responsibility, we have to believe that our actions can change the path of destiny. The here and now is what really matters most.
Showing posts with label skeptics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label skeptics. Show all posts
Friday, January 04, 2008
Sunday, April 29, 2007
No agape for psychics in Philadelphia
City inspectors in Philadelphia shut down more than a dozen psychics, astrologers and tarot-card readers after learning about a decades-old state law that bans fortune telling for profit. More --->
This is a timely warning for anyone in the "psychic business" that antiquated laws and attitudes still rule in many parts of the USA. Hopefully the ACLU and some of the affected businesses will sue to repeal this unfair law. In my opinion it is an infringement and a violation of the civil and spiritual rights of the people of Philadelphia.
I am as concerned as anyone about hoaxers and frauds in this business, and I believe that the police should be called in wherever there is evidence of "curse removal" or similar scams going on. I want to see hoaxers hammered - hard. But if we were to apply the same broad-brush tactics to medicine or psychiatry, we'd be closing down hospitals willy-nilly just because of the presence of a few quacks. In my personal experience with the medical establishment and with psychics, I have to say I have encountered as many frauds and quacks in medicine as I have in psychic fairs.
Canada has a federal law dating back to the 1800's outlawing "witchcraft", which forbids anyone from "pretending to tell the future". In Canada, it is rare that there is any attempt to enforce it. Periodically fundamentalists invoke that law to try to get psychic fairs and businesses shut down. I was present at on fair in Calgary, where the week before we'd been forced to get "fortune teller" licenses at $200 a pop. Then the police reluctantly showed up to try to shut the show down, with a small gaggle of placard-waving protestors behind them. The irony was not lost on police that we had city-issued licenses for the activity they were wanting to shut us down for. We put up signs saying readings were for fun and entertainment purposes only which satisfied the police, and the issue was dropped.
Even though the situation was resolved amicably, the repulsive law remains on the books in Canada, and it is periodically dragged up by religious groups or skeptics to harass psychics. If this law outlawed any other religious belief and forbade "prophecy", there would be an outcry across the country. But it is still okay to persecute "witches" and those who would pursue faith and spirit independent of an organized faith. Psychics beware ... Salem is not that long past us.
This is a timely warning for anyone in the "psychic business" that antiquated laws and attitudes still rule in many parts of the USA. Hopefully the ACLU and some of the affected businesses will sue to repeal this unfair law. In my opinion it is an infringement and a violation of the civil and spiritual rights of the people of Philadelphia.
I am as concerned as anyone about hoaxers and frauds in this business, and I believe that the police should be called in wherever there is evidence of "curse removal" or similar scams going on. I want to see hoaxers hammered - hard. But if we were to apply the same broad-brush tactics to medicine or psychiatry, we'd be closing down hospitals willy-nilly just because of the presence of a few quacks. In my personal experience with the medical establishment and with psychics, I have to say I have encountered as many frauds and quacks in medicine as I have in psychic fairs.
Canada has a federal law dating back to the 1800's outlawing "witchcraft", which forbids anyone from "pretending to tell the future". In Canada, it is rare that there is any attempt to enforce it. Periodically fundamentalists invoke that law to try to get psychic fairs and businesses shut down. I was present at on fair in Calgary, where the week before we'd been forced to get "fortune teller" licenses at $200 a pop. Then the police reluctantly showed up to try to shut the show down, with a small gaggle of placard-waving protestors behind them. The irony was not lost on police that we had city-issued licenses for the activity they were wanting to shut us down for. We put up signs saying readings were for fun and entertainment purposes only which satisfied the police, and the issue was dropped.
Even though the situation was resolved amicably, the repulsive law remains on the books in Canada, and it is periodically dragged up by religious groups or skeptics to harass psychics. If this law outlawed any other religious belief and forbade "prophecy", there would be an outcry across the country. But it is still okay to persecute "witches" and those who would pursue faith and spirit independent of an organized faith. Psychics beware ... Salem is not that long past us.
Friday, January 26, 2007
Sylvia Browne Controversy
I have been seeing a lot of stories about Sylvia Browne’s wrong prediction about the kidnapped boy who was recently found alive. Sylvia Browne has been wrong before, most notably on the Coast to Coast Show during the mining disaster.
This time however, Sylvia Browne has said "I cannot possibly be 100% correct in each and every one of my predictions. I have never claimed to be." Fair enough. Mediums and psychics are not perfect. We're human, we make mistakes. Just because she made a couple mistakes, that does not mean she doesn't have a legitimate psychic gift. There are odd times when I can't connect with certain people and situations ... yet most of the time it is clear to me that there is more than coincidence or “good guessing” at work in my intuition. I give Sylvia Browne the benefit of the doubt. In her many media appearances she has often had some stunning “hits”. These particular “misses” were tragic. The most recent case was obviously painful to this boy’s family, and it’s fair to ask if such emotional and tragic situations should be explored in the informal setting of a television show. This is one reason I don’t do informal “readings” when I make media appearances.
It is reasonable for the press to ask if a psychic has a real gift or not. I always knew within a few minutes into a reading when I was "on" or "off". It was obvious to me and to my client. When watching Sylvia Browne, John Edwards and James Van Praagh, I have always been struck by how certain they all seem, how direct they are, and how they all seemed to tell, not ask, at least most of the time. I believe they all have real psychic abilities. I have questioned some of that certainty though. Is it reasonable to bluntly tell a kidnapped boy’s parents that you feel he is dead, so matter of fact? Right or wrong, there are gentler ways to release that kind of impression. I did face this challenge once myself, with the parents of a missing boy. I described where I felt he would be found. I told them I could not connect with him, and felt he was likely in spirit. I could not be certain he was alive or dead, but I could not give them false hope. It was probably the hardest reading I ever did. In the end, I was right, but being right brought no comfort. In cases like this, I think Syvlia Browne would agree, most psychics would be glad to be wrong.
It is also reasonable for the media to question the fees of “top tier” psychics. I don’t advertise “readings” anymore, I rarely do them. I think a reasonable fee is $30-60 for a short reading for most psychics. Then again, most psychics are not best-selling authors who are on television regularly and who are swamped with requests for private readings. I don’t know what Sylvia Browne’s satisfaction policy is, but during my time as a consulting psychic, I offered a money-back guarantee, and during that time I could count on one hand the number of clients who asked for refunds. I encourage consumers to ask about these policies before they agree to any reading. Psychics do deserve to be paid for their time, celebrity brings a premium, but I think the bar for satisfaction should be higher when the fee is $700 for 20 minutes.
I do wish the media would question more whether or not the psychic is taking advantage of people, creating a cult-like following. I worked towards empowering my clients to make their own decisions, rather than depending on me. At times I turned away clients when it seemed obvious they were becoming dependent upon me. If my personal belief system was at odds with a client's religious beliefs or their own intuitions, I stepped aside. I did not and do not want to have a "following". My goal is to not to build a following, it is to encourage leadership and personal responsibility. When I see famous psychics starting up their own religions and telling others that they should not trust their own visions if they are not in accord with the famous psychic … I start to get incredibly uncomfortable.
I’d also like to see the media take a closer look at the “skeptics” they drag on their shows whenever a high-profile psychic attracts their cynical attention. I am particularly concerned about CNN's affection for James Randi, and their unquestioning acceptance of his claim to be making a legitimate offer of an award of one million dollars for proof of the paranormal. There is a good analysis here of why this test is deliberately designed to be unwinnable, yet none of the mainstream media I have seen so far have challenged Randi on his claim. The mainstream media continues to give this so-called “skeptic” a pass even though his own methods fall far short of the scientific method.
Brandi
This time however, Sylvia Browne has said "I cannot possibly be 100% correct in each and every one of my predictions. I have never claimed to be." Fair enough. Mediums and psychics are not perfect. We're human, we make mistakes. Just because she made a couple mistakes, that does not mean she doesn't have a legitimate psychic gift. There are odd times when I can't connect with certain people and situations ... yet most of the time it is clear to me that there is more than coincidence or “good guessing” at work in my intuition. I give Sylvia Browne the benefit of the doubt. In her many media appearances she has often had some stunning “hits”. These particular “misses” were tragic. The most recent case was obviously painful to this boy’s family, and it’s fair to ask if such emotional and tragic situations should be explored in the informal setting of a television show. This is one reason I don’t do informal “readings” when I make media appearances.
It is reasonable for the press to ask if a psychic has a real gift or not. I always knew within a few minutes into a reading when I was "on" or "off". It was obvious to me and to my client. When watching Sylvia Browne, John Edwards and James Van Praagh, I have always been struck by how certain they all seem, how direct they are, and how they all seemed to tell, not ask, at least most of the time. I believe they all have real psychic abilities. I have questioned some of that certainty though. Is it reasonable to bluntly tell a kidnapped boy’s parents that you feel he is dead, so matter of fact? Right or wrong, there are gentler ways to release that kind of impression. I did face this challenge once myself, with the parents of a missing boy. I described where I felt he would be found. I told them I could not connect with him, and felt he was likely in spirit. I could not be certain he was alive or dead, but I could not give them false hope. It was probably the hardest reading I ever did. In the end, I was right, but being right brought no comfort. In cases like this, I think Syvlia Browne would agree, most psychics would be glad to be wrong.
It is also reasonable for the media to question the fees of “top tier” psychics. I don’t advertise “readings” anymore, I rarely do them. I think a reasonable fee is $30-60 for a short reading for most psychics. Then again, most psychics are not best-selling authors who are on television regularly and who are swamped with requests for private readings. I don’t know what Sylvia Browne’s satisfaction policy is, but during my time as a consulting psychic, I offered a money-back guarantee, and during that time I could count on one hand the number of clients who asked for refunds. I encourage consumers to ask about these policies before they agree to any reading. Psychics do deserve to be paid for their time, celebrity brings a premium, but I think the bar for satisfaction should be higher when the fee is $700 for 20 minutes.
I do wish the media would question more whether or not the psychic is taking advantage of people, creating a cult-like following. I worked towards empowering my clients to make their own decisions, rather than depending on me. At times I turned away clients when it seemed obvious they were becoming dependent upon me. If my personal belief system was at odds with a client's religious beliefs or their own intuitions, I stepped aside. I did not and do not want to have a "following". My goal is to not to build a following, it is to encourage leadership and personal responsibility. When I see famous psychics starting up their own religions and telling others that they should not trust their own visions if they are not in accord with the famous psychic … I start to get incredibly uncomfortable.
I’d also like to see the media take a closer look at the “skeptics” they drag on their shows whenever a high-profile psychic attracts their cynical attention. I am particularly concerned about CNN's affection for James Randi, and their unquestioning acceptance of his claim to be making a legitimate offer of an award of one million dollars for proof of the paranormal. There is a good analysis here of why this test is deliberately designed to be unwinnable, yet none of the mainstream media I have seen so far have challenged Randi on his claim. The mainstream media continues to give this so-called “skeptic” a pass even though his own methods fall far short of the scientific method.
Brandi
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
