Pyschic schmychic

What do you do when friends pay money to see a 'psychic'? Do you spend time trying to convince them otherwise or do you just accept it and try and explain some of the hits afterwards?

I had often thought about this in the past and had always come down on the side of the former. Then I actually got some friends who paid money to see one and now I'm in the latter.

In fact, I'm now almost past the latter to the stage where I'm not even going to try and explain it because it turns out it doesn't actually matter what anyone else thinks.

And it's not like these people are unintelligent - they're not. These are clever people with good jobs, but seem willing to believe that someone who can make some educated guesses about them is able to see the future or talk to dead people.

The thing that got me (and led to a fair proportion of time speaking about it) was the disclaimer the 'psychic' gave up front - to paraphrase, 'this reading is accurate for today but you may make decisions in the future which will alter this and threfore you cannot come back to me and say this didn't come true'.

To an open-minded person I would have thought this would have raised a massive warning flag - and I like to think my friends are pretty open-minded. But no, this was accepted without question.

This so-called psychic just gave themselves the biggest out in the world and yet neither of my friends even considered this as a bad thing.

And then we got onto the hits - those things which were apparently so accurate that only someone who had special abilities would be able to know them. And yes, some good guesses were apparently made - but nothing beyond the bounds of some decent cold reading and a little research.

So I moved on and asked about things that didn't make sense. One of my friends said the 'psychic' had mentioned a name which didn't mean anything. I thought this would surely raise the alarm bells.

Nope, how wrong could I be. This just meant the person might not have come into their lives at this point, or maybe it was a reference to a family member they weren't aware of. Just great.

So, with tail firmly between my legs, I gave it one last shot. Both still have tapes of their visit to the 'psychic'.

I asked them to listen to the tape with a piece of paper in their hands and to mark all the things that were accurate and could apply only to them, things which were accurate which could apply to lots of other people and things which were inaccurate.

I'm figuring it's never going to be done.

So what do you do if a friend tells you they're going to see a 'psychic'? As much as it grates and goes against everything I stand for, in the future (at least with these friends) I might just bite my tongue.

TVNZ's psychic step too far

I'll wait with baited breath for the accusation of being 'closed-minded' and the pearl of wisdom that 'science can't explain everything' because those are the two things I read and hear most when I write or speak about psychics.

But sometimes it's worth hearing that rhetoric because the story is much more important, and that's the case today.

I imagine many of you are familiar with the disappearance of west Auckland todder Aisling Symes and the police search to find the two year old.

Stories like this really tug on my heart strings, particularly with two young-ish kids of my own.

I can only imagine the pain the parents are going through at the present time, particularly their desperation to hear anything which could help re-unite them with their baby.

But even knowing that the decision of TVNZ to put self-proclaimed 'metaphysical researcher' (ie psychic, medium) Deb Webber in contact with her parents is beyond the pale, in my opinion.

Media columnist John Drinnan wrote about the story eloquently in the NZ Herald this morning, so I recommend jumping over there and reading his words.

But the only thing I don't agree with Drinnan on is his characterisation of TVNZ's role as unsettling. I'd go way beyond that. It's utterly disgraceful.

Psychics, in my opinion, fall into two categories - those who know they aren't psychic and are deliberately using hot and cold reading techniques and those who seriously believe they have the ability to talk with dead people but are just good cold readers and intuitive.

I have no reason to doubt Webber doesn't seriously believe she has the gift of talking to the spirits.

But that doesn't mean she is and it certainly doesn't mean TVNZ should be facilitating any kind of meeting with parents who will be struggling to deal with the situation they find themselves in.

What makes it worse is TVNZ have a relationship with Webber because of her part in Sensing Murder, a show which to my knowledge - and of course I'll amend this should someone provide evidence to the contrary - has never resulted in the solving of an unsolved case.

The state broadcaster then used the knowledge they had filmed Webber and she had 'some information' on the case to ask "how seriously are police likely to take that information" at a media conference.

Unfortunately Drinnan's piece doesn't say what the police response to that inappropriate question was.

Is it too much to hope the police aren't going to waste precious resources on what is likely to be nothing more than an educated guess based on the history of these types of disappearances?

The last thing this devastated family need to hear is the words of a person who has been caught talking with the spirits of dead people who didn't exist.

Unfortunately I can't bring you Eating Media Lunch's deliciously satirical take on Webber and her ability to speak with non-existant spirits because the Sensing Bullshit segment has been removed from YouTube due to "use violation".

In my opinion the search for young Aisling should be left to the professionals and not because the spirits are telling me so.

Common decency is.

Here are some links if you want to read some more about psychics and the Sensing Murder television show:

Skepdic on psychics
CSI's story on 'psychic' John Edward
Skeptico's psychic debunking
Sensing Bullshit
Sensing Murder

Skeptical, not cynical

First up, I'm incredibly excited about the launch of Sciblogs. My experience of New Zealand as an immigrant leads me to believe we often punch above our weight and it's great to see the Science Media Centre continuing that in an area close to my heart.

There are many great Kiwi bloggers writing about science and how it impacts on our lives and to have so many aggregated in the one place is a great achievement.

I was honoured to be asked to contribute to Sciblogs and delighted to be able to accept. For one thing in such esteemed company it's a nudge for me to write many more posts and keep a high standard.

We have our own scientific challenges in Aotearoa (just listen to talkback radio for a week and hear how many pseudoscientific adverts, advertorials and comments there are) and I look forward to writing about many of them in the future.

So welcome to a fantastic new phase for nz skeptic!

I hope many of you will be reading this blog for the first time so feel free to browse some of the (small) archive to get a better idea on what I write about.

But today I want to deal with one of the things skeptics are often accused of - and that's being overtly cynical rather than skeptical.

Of course there are many cynical skeptics - but this is a good time to point out one of the basic tenets of science, that correlation does not mean causation.

I could spend three hours writing and re-writing exactly why I think a cynic and skeptic aren't interchangeable but this passage from the Skeptic website's A Brief Introduction section says it far more eloquently than I could:

Some people believe that skepticism is the rejection of new ideas, or worse, they confuse “skeptic” with “cynic” and think that skeptics are a bunch of grumpy curmudgeons unwilling to accept any claim that challenges the status quo.

This is wrong.

Skepticism is a provisional approach to claims. It is the application of reason to any and all ideas — no sacred cows allowed.

In other words, skepticism is a method, not a position. Ideally, skeptics do not go into an investigation closed to the possibility that a phenomenon might be real or that a claim might be true.

When we say we are “skeptical,” we mean that we must see compelling evidence before we believe.

Of course requiring evidence brings skeptics into direct conflict with anyone or anything that has or requires faith, but let's not jump too far ahead just yet.

I'll be writing about many things which will undoubtedly annoy people and provoke a strong reaction. This isn't my intention. I'm merely sharing the opinion I've formed based on my reading and research.

But the greatest thing about the internet is that people can disagree with me and we can debate the issues.

So when we get into the substantive posts about homeopathy, psychics and other woo areas then feel free to comment and tell me why you disagree with me.

And, being a skeptic rather than cynic, it means if someone points me to new information then I may even be forced to change my mind.

Now there's a challenge!

nz skeptic open for business

This blog has been a long time in preparation.

It started as being part of a personal blog, but I quickly realised the subject was too important to deal with as a small part of that kind of blog and it died quickly.

But every time I read a story about the phony psychics of 'Sensing Murder' (or 'Sensing Bullshit' as the wonderful Jeremy Wells calls it), the latest cancer-curing vitamin product or how wonderful homeopathy is in the New Zealand press I cringe because I'm just letting it go by without comment.

So as well as picking up on international skeptical news (courtesy of my favourite skeptical outlets, The Skeptics' Guide To The Universe, The James Randi Educational Foundation, Skepchick, Science Based Medicine, Pharyngula, Bad Astronomy, NeuroLogica Blog, Skepticblog, The Skeptic Zone) I'll be looking at what's happening in Aotearoa and what's being reported in our press.

My desire isn't necessarily to convert anyone to my way of thinking - all I want to do is ensure people have as much information as possible so they can make well-informed decisions.

Throughout this blog's lifetime I'll be sharing more personal information about myself as and when it pertains to the skeptical subject at hand, but if you do a Google search on me you'll be able to find out more about me should you wish.

My first post of substance will be up tomorrow and I'll be having a look at the so-called 'weight-loss wonder' Hoodia gordonii.