Author Topic: "Psychic" Sally Morgan Sues Critics for £150,000 After Refusing $1 Million to Pr  (Read 11701 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline StallChaser

  • Pope
  • ****
  • Posts: 476
  • (Haseen on the old board)
Well, science does tend to have extremely powerful psychic-blocking powers.

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QlfMsZwr8rc" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QlfMsZwr8rc</a>

Offline Radiation

  • ILLUMINATI...ASSEMBLE!
  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 1289
  • Gender: Female
  • Just Radiation, I am so uncreative
While I do believe that there are people with "psychic powers" (I actually prefer to call them "sensitives." My mom is a sensitive and I have seen her ability in action.) I do think that it is extremely rare and most that are actual sensitives tend to not want to show off their ability or even gain fame from it. My mom absolutely hates having this ability after an incident that happened long before I was born.

I can't remember the story that well and I will have to ask her about it, that is if she is willing to because it was pretty traumatic for her.

As for people like James Hydrick, Uri Gellar, John Edwards, I think that those people are actual phonies. As for Sylvia Browne, I think she has some sort of ability but I also think that she may have been corrupted by her fame.
Quote
"Radiation, were beauty measured by the soul instead of the body, you would be legendary on the status of Helen of Troy. Be strong." -The Sandman

Offline StallChaser

  • Pope
  • ****
  • Posts: 476
  • (Haseen on the old board)
I can't buy into the idea that there is such thing as psychic powers without any real evidence.  Some people can catch extremely subtle cues and respond without even realizing it, but it's not psychic in the sense of a supernatural force/particle/message or whatever that's causing it.

I'd love to be psychic, if only for the ability to make a killing in the stock market and never have to work again.

Offline TheL

  • The Cock Teasing Teacher
  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 2220
  • Gender: Female
  • Fly like cheese sticks.
I can't buy into the idea that there is such thing as psychic powers without any real evidence.  Some people can catch extremely subtle cues and respond without even realizing it, but it's not psychic in the sense of a supernatural force/particle/message or whatever that's causing it.

I'd love to be psychic, if only for the ability to make a killing in the stock market and never have to work again.

I wouldn't mind being psychic if it also meant I could turn it off.  I do not need to know everyone else's every thought and emotion, or to be bombarded with horrifying visions of every possible future.  Nobody does.

For me to enjoy a book about people with ESP, at least one of the following has to apply:
1. There are in-universe limits (only one sort of ESP, or telepathy with only one other person, or telepathy works only if you consciously choose to "send" thoughts).
2. The person has learned how to "tune it out."
3. The ability comes and goes randomly, in bits and spurts (like Trelawney's precognition in the Harry Potter books).
4. The character is driven insane by zir powers, especially if zie came by them as an adult instead of having them from birth.

Otherwise, it looks painfully Mary-Sue-ish and makes me wonder if the author has really thought about the implications of psychic abilities at all.
« Last Edit: February 12, 2012, 10:04:04 am by TheL »
"Half the reason that I like foreign music is because I can kid myself that "Shake dat ass" is more poetic in Hindi."
--Sanda

Move every 'sig.'  For great justice!

Offline Witchyjoshy

  • SHITLORD THUNDERBASTARD!!
  • Kakarot
  • ******
  • Posts: 9044
  • Gender: Male
  • Thinks he's a bard
I can't buy into the idea that there is such thing as psychic powers without any real evidence.  Some people can catch extremely subtle cues and respond without even realizing it, but it's not psychic in the sense of a supernatural force/particle/message or whatever that's causing it.

I'd love to be psychic, if only for the ability to make a killing in the stock market and never have to work again.

<nitpick>

Technically, if the powers do exist, they would in fact be limited and have an explanation that makes it, in fact, not supernatural.

</nitpick>

Sorta like how there's some thought that it's possible for a brain to tune into and give off certain radio waves, which would make something like a hive mind possible for insects and such.

@TheL

You would like Babylon 5 (which is a TV series and not a book, though)  The telepaths are anything BUT Mary Sue plot devices, they require line of sight, and the first thing telepaths have to learn is how to block out other people.  And sometimes they go insane when their power gets too much.
Mockery of ideas you don't comprehend or understand is the surest mark of unintelligence.

Even the worst union is better than the best Walmart.

Caladur's Active Character Sheet

Offline Cerim Treascair

  • My Love Is Lunar
  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 3092
  • Gender: Male
  • Get me my arbalest... explosive bolts, please.
@ Zachski:  My roommate keeps trying to get me to watch that... once I have work again, we're buying the box set.
There is light and darkness in the world, to be sure.  However, there's no harm to be had in walking in the shade or shadows.

Formerly Priestling

"I don't give a fuck about race...I'm white, I'm American, but that shit don't matter.  I'm human."

Offline MadCatTLX

  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 2095
  • Gender: Male
As for people like James Hydrick, Uri Gellar, John Edwards, I think that those people are actual phonies. As for Sylvia Browne, I think she has some sort of ability but I also think that she may have been corrupted by her fame.

For a second I misread "phonies" as something else, resulting in an amusing mental image. Also I would love to hear the story if you can get it.

Related: Twitchy twitchy twictha twitch!
History is full of maniacs, my friend, men and women of intelect, highly perceptive individuals, who's brilliant minds know neither restraint nor taboo. Such notions are the devils we must slay for the edification of pony-kind. Even if said edification means violating the rules of decency, society, and rightousness itself.
                                                                                                                                                             -Twilight Sparkle, MAGIC.mov

Offline Meshakhad

  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 2205
  • Gender: Male
  • The Night Is Dark And Full Of Terrors... Like Me
Maybe she foresaw that the pound was going to do much better than the dollar?
G-d's Kingdom Is A Hate-Free Zone

Quote from: Reploid Productions
Pardon the interruption, good sir/lady; there are aspects of your behavior that I find quite unbecoming, and I must insist most strenuously that I be permitted to assist in resolving these behaviors through the repeated high-velocity cranial introduction of particularly firm building materials.

Quote from: Meshakhad
GIVE ME KNOWLEDGE OR I WILL PUT A CAP IN YO ASS!

Offline Yaezakura

  • The Pokemon Mistress
  • God
  • *****
  • Posts: 561
  • Gender: Female
  • Little Lesbian Gaming Goddess
    • A Mayor's Tale - The daily trials of an Animal Crossing Mayor
Pretty sure the only thing she foresaw was that a lawsuit might lead to money, while the test could never lead to money. And it hardly takes a psychic to see that particular future.

Offline Sigmaleph

  • Ungodlike
  • Administrator
  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 3615
    • sigmaleph on tumblr
I can't buy into the idea that there is such thing as psychic powers without any real evidence.  Some people can catch extremely subtle cues and respond without even realizing it, but it's not psychic in the sense of a supernatural force/particle/message or whatever that's causing it.

I'd love to be psychic, if only for the ability to make a killing in the stock market and never have to work again.

<nitpick>

Technically, if the powers do exist, they would in fact be limited and have an explanation that makes it, in fact, not supernatural.

</nitpick>
<counter-nitpick>
The definition of supernatural is not "unexplained". If tomorrow scientists discover there is (say) a fundamental "psychic field" which can only interact directly with human brains and allows direct transmission of thoughts with proper training, that would (if you ask me) fully deserve to be called supernatural, no matter how well explained it is.

To the extent that naturalism is a coherent world-view, the distinction between natural and supernatural has to be different from explained vs unexplained or following natural laws vs not following them. Otherwise, naturalism becomes either trivially false or trivially true.</counter-nitpick>

On topic! I hope she loses so bad she is never taken seriously again even by the craziest new-ager, but also somehow the Daily Mail ends up giving £150,000 to the JREF.
Σא

Offline Yla

  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 809
  • Gender: Male
Just say that you do not use your abilities to gain money because that would be unethical. Tadaa! Then again I guess that would mean that they have to stop making money by faking to be a psychic...
Apart from what Lithp picked, a lot of the do make lots of money off gullible people.
That said, I've stopped trying to anticipate what people around here want a while ago, I've found it makes things smoother.
For I was an hungred, and ye told me to pull myself up by my bootstraps: I was thirsty, and ye demanded payment for the privilege of thine urine: I was a stranger, and ye deported me: naked, and ye arrested me for indecency.

Offline Lithp

  • Official FSTDT Spokesman
  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 1339
Quote
<counter-nitpick>
The definition of supernatural is not "unexplained". If tomorrow scientists discover there is (say) a fundamental "psychic field" which can only interact directly with human brains and allows direct transmission of thoughts with proper training, that would (if you ask me) fully deserve to be called supernatural, no matter how well explained it is.

To the extent that naturalism is a coherent world-view, the distinction between natural and supernatural has to be different from explained vs unexplained or following natural laws vs not following them. Otherwise, naturalism becomes either trivially false or trivially true.</counter-nitpick>

<Counter-counter-nitpick>

I prefer the term "paranormal" to that. Paranormal is perfectly accurate, if not very precise. "Supernatural" implies that it exists beyond nature, which if it can be detected, that's sort of nonsensical. The difference between naturalism & spiritualism isn't "explained vs. unexplained," so much as "do you have an opinion on things outside of nature." If something IS truly supernatural, there shouldn't be anything to explain. If you have a near death experience, precognition, the ability to see ghosts, etc. you have something natural, there just may or may not be more to it than "bullshit or hallucinations." It doesn't really make sense to call your hypothetical psychic field an example of the supernatural just because that's what it would be considered today. If it can be empirically verified, why draw that arbitrary distinction? What makes it different from calling a modern electrical system magic, no matter how well it can be explained? That's what it would have been considered at one time.

In other words, naturalism should always do what it was made to do, which is to study nature. If something can be studied in nature, it is natural. This makes the supernatural inherently unfalsifiable, but hey, that's because most who claim it want it to be that way.

Another way to counter naturalism is the illusion of reality, a la Descartes, so it's not as though there's no theoretical counterpart to it.</counter-counter-nitpick>

Offline DiscoBerry

  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 1081
    • Has the Hadron Collider Destroyed the Earth Yet?
On the one hand psychics.

On the other The Daily Mail.

Whatever happens, schadenfreud will ensue.

Bullshiters reporting on a bullshiter...BullCeption

Offline Witchyjoshy

  • SHITLORD THUNDERBASTARD!!
  • Kakarot
  • ******
  • Posts: 9044
  • Gender: Male
  • Thinks he's a bard
Quote
<counter-nitpick>
The definition of supernatural is not "unexplained". If tomorrow scientists discover there is (say) a fundamental "psychic field" which can only interact directly with human brains and allows direct transmission of thoughts with proper training, that would (if you ask me) fully deserve to be called supernatural, no matter how well explained it is.

To the extent that naturalism is a coherent world-view, the distinction between natural and supernatural has to be different from explained vs unexplained or following natural laws vs not following them. Otherwise, naturalism becomes either trivially false or trivially true.</counter-nitpick>

<Counter-counter-nitpick>

I prefer the term "paranormal" to that. Paranormal is perfectly accurate, if not very precise. "Supernatural" implies that it exists beyond nature, which if it can be detected, that's sort of nonsensical. The difference between naturalism & spiritualism isn't "explained vs. unexplained," so much as "do you have an opinion on things outside of nature." If something IS truly supernatural, there shouldn't be anything to explain. If you have a near death experience, precognition, the ability to see ghosts, etc. you have something natural, there just may or may not be more to it than "bullshit or hallucinations." It doesn't really make sense to call your hypothetical psychic field an example of the supernatural just because that's what it would be considered today. If it can be empirically verified, why draw that arbitrary distinction? What makes it different from calling a modern electrical system magic, no matter how well it can be explained? That's what it would have been considered at one time.

In other words, naturalism should always do what it was made to do, which is to study nature. If something can be studied in nature, it is natural. This makes the supernatural inherently unfalsifiable, but hey, that's because most who claim it want it to be that way.

Another way to counter naturalism is the illusion of reality, a la Descartes, so it's not as though there's no theoretical counterpart to it.</counter-counter-nitpick>

In other words, any sufficiently advanced technology (or any insufficiently explained natural phenomenon) is indistinguishable from magic.

Hell, if people could suddenly learn to make fire just through mental power or manipulating of existing energies, it would probably have a scientific explanation, which would make it not supernatural or magical.

...Though it'd still be called magic just because that's something we've associated the word "magic" with.  Or pyrokinesis.
Mockery of ideas you don't comprehend or understand is the surest mark of unintelligence.

Even the worst union is better than the best Walmart.

Caladur's Active Character Sheet