Mailbag: Real Live Psychic!

Austin,

Your skepticism only exists because you fail to open your eyes. Kelli found my deceased brother. During the process of searching for him, I was speaking on the phone with her and she could see through my eyes and describe real-time what was happening right in front of me. She was in Indiana and I was in Texas at that moment. You need to study math and physics. Ants see in 2D, while we see in 3D, yet we co-exist in the same environment. How do you know what you look like to an ant? Don’t you understand that some humans are able to see into other dimensions — the 4th and 5th and possibly beyond. When the Spaniards arrived in South America, the natives couldn’t see the ships, but they could see the part in the water from the them. Their Shaman meditated on the site for days until he was able to see a boat. Don’t you see how your mind has to open to the possiblity of things outside of what you now understand and consider possible for you to be able to process any new imagery or sensations? Intellectualizing everything as a justification for your belief system doesn’t mean you’re right. One should always be open to what can be possible. I have seen it first-hand with Kelli.

Your skepticism only exists because you fail to open your eyes.

I’ll open my eyes to testable predictions and verifiable actions.

You need to study math and physics. Ants see in 2D, while we see in 3D, yet we co-exist in the same environment.

Ants only see in 2D? Please provide proof of this claim – preferably citations from reputable biology texts.

Don’t you understand that some humans are able to see into other dimensions — the 4th and 5th and possibly beyond.

No, I don’t “understand.” Please provide proof of your claims.

When the Spaniards arrived in South America, the natives couldn’t see the ships, but they could see the part in the water from the them.

Please provide proof of this claim.

Intellectualizing everything as a justification for your belief system doesn’t mean you’re right.

True, but your failure to provide proof for all these grandiose claims means that I don’t have any good reason to reconsider my position.

Austin, You’ve got to be kidding me. It sounds like you’re too lazy to do any research. Pick up a book. How about using your own database on about.com…? I’m assuming you’re not a college grad and probably have never even had a single bio, history, or math class at that level. It’s college 101. Try it.

It sounds like you’re too lazy to do any research.

No, it’s that I haven’t any interest in doing your work for you. You made the claims and you are responsible for supporting them. It is not my responsibility to try to find proof for you. If you don’t care enough about your beliefs, opinions, and assertions to support them with verifiable references, then you shouldn’t expect anyone else to care enough about them to given them a second look — much less do research on them.

Pick up a book.

I read two to three books each week. I’ve yet to read any that would support your claims.

I’m assuming you’re not a college grad and probably have never even had a single bio, history, or math class at that level. It’s college 101. Try it.

Try reading my bio.

This is one of the most knee-slapping exchanges I’ve ever seen on this site. First, she says that Austin “intellectualizes” everything, but doesn’t read books? What does any of this have to do with math or physics? What makes her think that a college education will cause people to believe more of what she believes? If anything, college educated people are LESS likely to believe in this sort of thing.

Austin, you are a very caustic person! The manner in which you communicate your skepticism seems designed to incite defensiveness, frustration and anger in individuals who thought they were simply initiating a cordial conversation with you or expressing their own feelings and beliefs. You appear intent on turning everything into an argument and having the last word in that argument. It’s pitiful, really, and speaks volumes of who you are. I doubt you are a happy person other than when you are trying to antagonize other people. Belittling others does make some people feel bigger, perhaps it does the same for you.

So..your turn! Go ahead, belittle me, try to incite me. I’ll let you have the last word.

Maria, i’ve been reading Austin’s work for a few years, and i’ve never seen him as caustic. He’s remarkably polite even to people who are rude (Jack Savage).

The rest of us, might not be so kind.

Austin can’t incite anything in anyone that isn’t already there. The truth is that most believers are so accustomed to no one daring to question there beliefs. That’s an indicator of being privileged. In the US, Xians are used to running the show and it just seems natural to them that it should be so.

More time than i can count, some Xian has tried to shove their faith in my face. Sometimes at house. If i went door to door saying “religion is brainwashing”, how long would it be before i’m spitting out my teeth?

Your invitation to incite you paints you as a martyr, a form of passive aggression. “Oh we poor persecuted Xians! We’re a mere 90% of the population in the US and yet some guy on a website questions our beliefs.”

This site is designed for debate and discussion. If your faith is so weak that it can’t stand scrutiny, maybe you should investigate your beliefs… or find a site where everyone congratulates each other for letting a bronze age book control their lives.

The Austin Cline on the forum is quite different from the Austin Cline who writes the marvelous essays.

No, John, it’s the same person. It’s just that on the forum you find out what it’s like when skeptical questions applied to others here get applied to your own assertions. I’d say that there is a real problem when standards you like seeing applied to others are annoying when they are applied to you.

Todd, Thank you for explaining this site perfectly and Austin I can only “hope” that you never change! Congrats!

There is one born every minute. Show me a psychic and I’ll show you a con-artist. Your first tip off is when they ask for money.

Is there something in the water that makes people like Stanley irrational and superstitious.
Annie if you try just a little real knowledge you can break free of your delusions.

If she is so good how come she is not in Florida to help find Caylee,or in Portugal to find Madeline,or anywhere else there is a missing child.She could make a lot of money getting rewards and helping families to have closure.I don’t see one so called medium or Physic out there doing anything.I think they are all a carnivale sideshow.Seeing is believing.So show me make me a believer.

Having had hundreds of these mediums read for me, I have been disappointed with almost all of them. However, Kelli is real.

Anyone else reminded of Life of Brian?

You are the Messiah! And I should know, I’ve followed a few!

I think it was Jay Leno, or perhaps Robin Williams, who wonders why we never see the headline, “Psychic Wins Lottery.”

“Having had hundreds of these mediums read for me, I have been disappointed with almost all of them.”

Fascinating! So, lets say that “hundreds” means just 200, and let’s say that each medium charges just $20, that means Annie has spent a minimum of $4,000 going again and again to psychics, even though she has “been disappointed with almost all of them.” Wow! Is she just an idiot, or is there some other explanation?

She’s just like a guy paying good money again and again and again to people who say they can make him as attractive to women as Brad Pitt — surely any *normal* person with a brain would give up after wasting, say, $3,500, and realise that it cannot be done, and that his delusion is just costing money, and not bringing happiness. I guess some people prefer to hang on to a delusion and keep dreaming that the impossible might happen one day. This seems to be Annie’s approach.

Austin,

You never fail to entertain. It is amazing to see the turn in the timbre of the e-mails once you dared to question the abilities of these so called psychics. There is certainly one simple way to correct the problem. i don;t know if Randi is still doing the million dollar challenge, but there are many otyher such tests out there. All this woman need do, si subject herself to rigorous testing and show that she has the gift, and I will be the first one at her door to find the car keys i lost last week.

Perhaps she could simply have her own John Edwards show where she shows her skills. She could easily put up the money herself based on the profits she should reap on the other side of such a demonstration. Or even easier, she could simply predict the outcome of the Powerball and be set for life.

Funny the psychics never think of that. Of course they have all kinds of reasons why none of this could ever work.

Also funny how Ammie talks about how this person was able to see her room through her eyes and explain her surroundings even though she was thousands of miles away.

Sounds a lot like marketing schemes where investment companies sent out letters to blocks of people. One block is told that a stock will go up and the other that it will go down. They then remail to the people who got the correct message until they are left with a group of mailees who think they are geniuses.

Sounds to me like the woman guessed right and now has a convinced client for life. All they need is a handful of baffoons and they can milk them for the rest of their life.

Although the woowallahs would try to make much of it, Sornord (14), ‘Psychic Wins Lottery’ wouldn’t prove any unusual ability. Though the headline ‘Psychic wins lottery yet again! – fighting proposed ban on further entry’ would certainly justify further investigation.

If a psychic were to announce that they were predicting the winning number for the Powerball and they actually produced the winning numbers, that would be much more than news. I see what you mean if they just happened to be the winner, but had not announced the fact a priori.

I believe the odds against winning are about 195 million to 1, so i would be prepared to believe them if they just did it once. It would be an obvious choice though to see if they could simply do it again. That would definitely rule out almost all chance of blind luck, although the sheer numbers do that on their own.

A little research makes it sound like Annie is quoting from a film series called “What the bleep?”, which explores the possibilites of mystical and spiritual phenomena. It is largely discredited by the scientific community as bunk and pseudoscience. The story about the “invisible ships” is explored in more detail (and further debunked) in an article here:
http://www.forteantimes.com/strangedays/science/20/questioning_perceptual_blindness.html

Any further investigation of Kelli Faulkner on Google finds nothing, other than her own self-promotion. Her own website states that she was instrumental in solving the murder of someone else’s brother, a Ms. Tia Ridings. Searches for Tia or for Annie Stanley find further nothing. Wouldn’t TWO verifiable solvings of murder cases be national news? Wouldn’t there be SOMETHING on the internet somewhere? I know the internet is hardly the final authority on any subject, but I would have expected to find more than just NOTHING.

Annie, or Tia or any others who may see this, please provide any information on your brother’s case that would allow others to investigate it further. Where and when did this occur? How can we reach the law inforcement officers who were involved so that they can be asked to back up your claims? Were these events covered by any news media?

There is no justification in calling someone “caustic” just because they ask you to validate your outrageous and unbelievable claims (and I know that Annie was not the one who used that word). We would all like to believe that our world is full of magic and amazing, supernatural abilities. But, based on the amount of magic most of us have seen (zero), I think that skeptics are justified in asking for proof. It is a healthy way to build a supportable, respectable “belief system”, rather than just bullying people to agree with you by telling them to open their eyes.

any person starting out must doubt the veracity of claims that would contradict all of known physics. No other position is compatible with scientific and rational research.

When we insist on compatibility with “known physics” for something to be true, then we also need to be extra careful about our stand because the so-called “known physics” seem to keep changing all the time.

Ptolemaic geocentric astronomy was once the centerpiece of human understanding of the world but it was replaced by a heliocentric universe which itself has gone through countless changes since then and the sun has been relegated to an average star near the edge of a galaxy which itself is just one of countless galaxies and even that model is still undergoing changes at a breakneck speed.

When Johann Kepler theorized that the sun and the moon had something to do with the tides, he was severely criticized by Galileo for “dragging astronomy down to the level of astrology” and yet a latecomer named Isaac Newton came up with a theory called gravity which proved that Kepler was right and Galileo was wrong.

Yet some departures from Newtonian gravity caused an obscure patent office clerk named Einstein to come up with yet another theory called Relativity which explained the anomalies. However, Einstein himself then became one of the major roadblocks to even newer theories such as Quantum physics and Uncertainty.

When P.A.M. Dirac first postulated his theory of antimatter, one of his colleagues called it so absurd that it would be useful for capturing wild elephants in Africa. All one had to was to post Dirac’s dumbfounding theory at their watering hole and it would so hypnotize the animals that it would be a simple matter to capture them.

Cantor’s theory of Transfinite Numbers was so severely criticized by his professor Kronecker (”the Doubter”) that he almost had a nervous breakdown.

Similarly, Subrahmanyam Chandrasekhar’s theory of steller collapse was so ridiculed by his professor Eddington that he had to change his field of study although his groundbreaking theory paved the way for the development of the theory of Black Holes.

When eminent physicists like Otto Hahn, Niels Bohr and Albert Einstein were openly declaring the impossibility of unleashing nuclear energy, a (then) unknown scientist named Leo Szilard dared to conjure up the possibility of chain reaction with earth-shaking (literally) consequences.

And, of course, we are all familiar with the story of Charles Darwin.

This story has repeated itself again and again. From Wegener’s theory of Continental Drift to Douglass’ Tree Rings were all initially discarded by contemporary scientists and such being the history of scientific progress we need to be skeptical about the infallibility of “known physics”.

However, there is an entirely different way of looking at the possibility of psychic phenomena.

Let us consider our power of sight. It is actually much more complex than strikes us at first. At one end, there are animals and insects without any vision at all and somehow they manage to live their lives. Then there are higher creatures with light-sensing organs but not vision as we know it. Then there are those who can form pictures but have no sense of color (which includes some humans). The majority of us enjoy binocular vision along with the ability to perceive color but who can tell that it is the last step in the progression of dimensions of perception? So, if there happen to be mutants among us who are endowed with extra degrees of perception then we would be hard-pressed to conceive them until we acquired them ourselves by the Evolutionary process.

So it is not entirely impossible that some humans may indeed possess extra degrees of perception which enable them to perceive things the rest of us can not and it is a topic for serious research.

DaveInLV said:

When we insist on compatibility with “known physics” for something to be true, then we also need to be extra careful about our stand because the so-called “known physics” seem to keep changing all the time.

While what you say is true, I think you’ve misread what Austin was saying. He did not insist that in order for something to be true that it must comply with known physics*. Instead he said that when a claim that would contradict all of known physics is made then there is reason to doubt. Doubt is not synonymous with total or outright rejection of a claim. Instead it is a caveat that while investigation may be required it should be done with cautious, reasonable and justified skepticism.

So it is not entirely impossible that some humans may indeed possess extra degrees of perception which enable them to perceive things the rest of us can not and it is a topic for serious research.

It may not be entirely impossible that there are people that possess extra degrees of perception, even to the extent that they could be described as psychic. However, the dearth of actual evidence in support of it suggests that the probablity of any such person existing is so low as to be nonexistent. The same goes for most if not all paranormal phenomenon. Until there is truely supportive and compelling evidence** that such occurences are real the proponents of the paranormal cannot reasonably expect legitimate scientists to drop everything and study their favored fantasy ad infinitum.

* I would further add all of known science.

** And no, anecdotal or personal experience claims do not constitute supportive or compelling evidence, even if the numbers are in the thousands or millions. This is especially so when there are more objective and rational explainations for the experience (which sadly includes simple delusion or fabrication on the claimant’s part) and the given explaination requires unquestioned acceptance of the claim on the audience’s part. Anecdotes and personal experience may be enough to justify hypothosis for further research and study but it is not enough to base theory on. Greater levels of evidence and data are required for that.

@Al Jeremy

he said that when a claim that would contradict all of known physics is made then there is reason to doubt

It would have helped though if it was explained exactly which laws of physics were contradicted by specific psychic claims.

DaveInLV said:

It would have helped though if it was explained exactly which laws of physics were contradicted by specific psychic claims.

He said nothing of laws of physics but “all known physics”. Granted, that would include laws, but not limited to laws. If you feel that you must make a criticism of Austin’s post in this vein you could make the accusation that his use of the phrase “all known physics” was an act of hyperbole. However, to go off on a tangent based on that alone would do nothing to address his main argument.

@ Al Jeremy

Since Austin always asks people to prove their statements – and quite rightly so, I might add – I am only trying to clarify what he himself exactly meant by claims that would contradict all of known physics and to provide some concrete examples thereof for our benefit. That would give us a starting point for meaningful and objective discussion of this fascinating subject.

that would include laws, but not limited to laws

Since I am unsure of what remains of physics if its laws are taken out as you have seemingly suggested, I would appreciate some clarification of that as well.

I am only trying to clarify what he himself exactly meant by claims that would contradict all of known physics and to provide some concrete examples thereof for our benefit.

To be honest, your first post that I responded to didn’t appear that this is what you wanted at all. It seemed that, instead, you wanted to comment about something Cline said that Cline never actually said.

Since I am unsure of what remains of physics if its laws are taken out as you have seemingly suggested, I would appreciate some clarification of that as well.

You could start with hypotheses and theories. Physics has those just as much as any other field of science.

@ Al Jeremy

To be equally honest, I found so much to disagree with the broadbrush statement claims that would contradict all of known physics that I hardly knew where to begin.

First off, that statement was clearly the crux of the entire article because if there was any doubt about its veracity then the rest of the article would be moot. However, so far I have not seen any corroborative facts or instances about exactly which claims or which “known physics” were being referring to, something I found rather disappointing because I thought anybody making such a statement would measure up to his own standards and do exactly that.

Second, the word “psychic” itself always causes some confusion because it appears to be a catchall term for any extraordinary power displayed (or claimed) by a human being. Telepathy, Clairvoyance, Remote Viewing, Ability to act as a Medium, Telekinesis etc. all seem to be bundled in a single word and consequently often the baby gets thrown out with the bathwater. Which also raises some questions about other extraordinary powers exhibited by many humans such as unusual proficiency in math, music or feats of memory and how to pigeonhole them.

Third, as I had tried to demonstrate in my first post, physics (or perhaps science would be a better term in this context) is not quite as straightforward and rigid proposition as many seem to believe and many of our scientific advances have resulted not from strict adherence to current scientific notions but rather contradicting, modifying or even discarding them which have often resulted from observed facts.

Discarding facts simply because they contradicted one’s preconceived notions reminds me of an old Laurel and Hardy movie in which the duo went to Africa on a safari. When a bear raided their camp at night and proceeded to drag Laurel away, Hardy refused to respond to his pleas for help because every book he had read (”all known physics”?) said that there were no bears in Africa.

Fourth, the term all known physics itself is a questionable one because it would imply that the person making that statement not only happens to know all currently known physics, which is quite an extraordinary statement by itself, but has also compared them with the psychic claims.

Fifth, as for scientific research, I have presented elsewhere some leads about serious scientific research (mostly on telepathy) conducted in the Soviet Union which also prompted the CIA and NSA to engage in similar activities. Duke University has also reportedly been involved in serious research in this area.

You could start with hypotheses and theories.

All scientific “laws” are theories and subject to change (except perhaps mathematics). Besides, I am afraid, it is a very vague argument and it can only get us into an even deeper hole. Anyway, if Austin himself cares to back up or clarify his statement as he always asks from others, I will be most interested. Otherwise I hardly see how you and I can second guess what he had in mind and further discussion therefore would be quite pointless.

To be equally honest, I found so much to disagree with the broadbrush statement claims that would contradict all of known physics that I hardly knew where to begin.

You may well have had good reason to find disagreement with that statement but that doesn’t justify going off on what can only be considered a strawman argument. Initially I tried to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you simply misread that phrase and point out what was written. By now, since you keep going back to it, I can no longer assume that.

First off, that statement was clearly the crux of the entire article because if there was any doubt about its veracity then the rest of the article would be moot.

Funny, I thought the crux of the entire article was that there was no reason to automatically accept claims of the paranormal because not only is there a serious dearth of evidence to support those claims but proponents of such claims also refuse to provide any as well as to point out the fallacious thinking involved in those that do accept such claims.

However, so far I have not seen any corroborative facts or instances about exactly which claims or which “known physics” were being referring to, something I found rather disappointing because I thought anybody making such a statement would measure up to his own standards and do exactly that.

You may want to contact Austin directly via e- mail then. The article was written two years ago and was simply recycled. Asking him for such support here may not be all that productive as he may not even be looking at the comments section of this article. Indeed, the last time Austin commented in this section was over a year ago.

Second, the word “psychic” itself always
causes some confusion because it appears to be a catchall term for any extraordinary power displayed (or claimed) by a human being. Telepathy, Clairvoyance, Remote Viewing, Ability to act as a Medium, Telekinesis etc. all seem to be bundled in a single word and consequently often the baby gets thrown out with the bathwater.

Which “baby” would that be? These extraordinary powers have never been displayed without some form of trickery involved or with any way to actually validate the claim. At any rate, your claim that the word “psychic” leads to confusion due to its use as a catch- all term is wrong. There is no confusion as that is largely what the word means in common usage. If I said I was psychic you might want further detail as to what scpecific power I allege to have, but you would know that I am claiming to possess particular powers of a supernatural or paranormal nature.

Which also raises some questions about other extraordinary powers exhibited by many humans such as unusual proficiency in math, music or feats of memory and how to pigeonhole them.

This does not follow. While such verified exhibits illustrate how much is left to learn about ourselves there is no justification to start looking for supernatural or paranormal explanations. Further, the to- date unexplained origin of such abilities do not substantiate lumping them in with claims of powers we have yet to see any legitimate displays of.

Third, as I had tried to demonstrate in my first post, physics (or perhaps science would be a better term in this context) is not quite as straightforward and rigid proposition as many seem to believe and many of our scientific advances have resulted not from strict adherence to current scientific notions but rather contradicting, modifying or even discarding them which have often resulted from observed facts.

Which I demonstrated had nothing to do with what you have claimed you were responding to. The self- correcting nature of scientific knowledge is not a reason to refrain from doubt when presented with claims that would contradict what we currently know.

Discarding facts simply because they contradicted one’s preconceived notions reminds me of an old Laurel and Hardy movie in which the duo went to Africa on a safari. When a bear raided their camp at night and proceeded to drag Laurel away, Hardy refused to respond to his pleas for help because every book he had read (”all known physics”?) said that there were no bears in Africa.

Again, since I’ve already pointed out that such was never claimed in the article, yet you are still beating that dead horse, why should I or anyone else not think you are just railing against a strawman argument?

Fourth, the term all known physics itself is a questionable one because it would imply that the person making that statement not only happens to know all currently known physics, which is quite an extraordinary statement by itself, but has also compared them with the psychic claims.

Again, you will need to contact Austin directly about that.

Fifth, as for scientific research, I have presented elsewhere some leads about serious scientific research (mostly on telepathy) conducted in the Soviet Union which also prompted the CIA and NSA to engage in similar activities. Duke University has also reportedly been involved in serious research in this area.

And? Pointing out that organizations and institutions, no matter how prominent, engaged in certain actions in no way lends credibility to the claims that form the basis of those actions. This is little more than an argument from authority. By the way, whatever came from that research? You may have “presented” such research “elsewhere” (though not here apparently) but did you bother to present the results? What are those? Where are the peer- reviewed articles? Which scientific journals are they printed in?

All scientific “laws” are theories and subject to change (except perhaps mathematics).

I’m afraid not. A scientific law is defined as such- a statement of a scientific fact or phenomenon that is invariable under given conditions- while a scientific theory is defined as – a set of facts, propositions, or principles analyzed in their relation to one another and used, especially in science, to explain phenomena.

Besides, I am afraid, it is a very vague argument and it can only get us into an even deeper hole. Anyway, if Austin himself cares to back up or clarify his statement as he always asks from others, I will be most interested.

Again, if you are that interested you could always contact him directly.

Otherwise I hardly see how you and I can second guess what he had in mind and further discussion therefore would be quite pointless.

You could start off by responding to what was actually written in the article, which is something you have so far avoided.

I’d say that there is a real problem when standards you like seeing applied to others are annoying when they are applied to you. — Austin Cline on August 19, 2008 at 3:48 pm

As with John, I, too, have noticed how wobbly your logic gets whenever you disagree with me. I chalk it up to coincidence.