Richard Wiseman

[titch]

ye for her my slappers are not big enough

 

[colpepper1]

Do not hit link if you suffer from epilepsy, angina or good eyesight:
A Rationalist

 

[Anome]

So is it her purple hair or her mature appearance that bothers you most?

By all means, debating her actions or statements is reasonable, but do we have to resort to picking on people for appearance?

 

[titch]

Going back to scargies point about wiseman exposing mumbo jumbo,after my little sister died my big sister went to pieces,it was horrible to see but when she said she was going to visit a medium she had heard good things about and cost £20 i told her not to waste her money as they where all frauds and said if she felt the need she should go to a spiritualist church that only asked for a donation.but in my wisdom i managed to convince her not to go at all.

Now she is on tablets and i cant help thinking if i had kept my big gob shut and let her go to see a medium she would be in better shape.It strikes me that wisemen, blackmore and all that ilk seem to think it would be better if we got rid of the superstitious,non rational side of us,but we are not computers and maybe we have that side for a good reason.

This is a point i have been wanting to make about mediums for a while but been to scared to put down ,let the flaming begin .*runs for cover*

 

[_Lizard23_]

Do not hit link if you suffer from epilepsy, angina or good eyesight:
A Rationalist

That is bang out of order. I expect you are a fucking Adonis/Aphrodite, are you? Cheap, nasty, vapid, grubby, irrelevant, immature and downright offensive comment.

 

[_Lizard23_]

Going back to scargies point about wiseman exposing mumbo jumbo,after my little sister died my big sister went to pieces,it was horrible to see but when she said she was going to visit a medium she had heard good things about and cost £20 i told her not to waste her money as they where all frauds and said if she felt the need she should go to a spiritualist church that only asked for a donation.but in my wisdom i managed to convince her not to go at all.

Now she is on tablets and i cant help thinking if i had kept my big gob shut and let her go to see a medium she would be in better shape.It strikes me that wisemen, blackmore and all that ilk seem to think it would be better if we got rid of the superstitious,non rational side of us,but we are not computers and maybe we have that side for a good reason.

This is a point i have been wanting to make about mediums for a while but been to scared to put down ,let the flaming begin .*runs for cover*

Bereavement is a horrible, difficult thing. I'm not over keen on doctors giving out antidepressants like smarties, but they can help people get through a difficult patch until they get themselves back on their feet.
It's hard to see how being lied to by cynical con-merchants or indoctrinated into some threadbare cult of necromancy when they are at their most vulnerable can help anyone in the long term, in my opinion.*

*NB I may not have the looks to hold a valid opinion.

 

[coaly]

I vote Lizard for the expert hand slapping queen!!

 

[colpepper1]

Do not hit link if you suffer from epilepsy, angina or good eyesight:
A Rationalist

That is bang out of order. I expect you are a fucking Adonis/Aphrodite, are you? Cheap, nasty, vapid, grubby, irrelevant, immature and downright offensive comment.

I just thought Trinny and Susannah might, you know, give her a few tips on getting the right look to make didactic statements on belief? Perhaps autumn colours or the right accessories? Pink and green just aren't doing it for me.

 

[colpepper1]

Now she is on tablets and i cant help thinking if i had kept my big gob shut and let her go to see a medium she would be in better shape.It strikes me that wisemen, blackmore and all that ilk seem to think it would be better if we got rid of the superstitious,non rational side of us,but we are not computers and maybe we have that side for a good reason.

Seems to me there are two options. One says you are worm food, nothing you do is of any importance except in an abstract sense and you won't reap the benefits of it anyway. The other says life is a process, this one is a bit crap but work at it because it isn't all there is and if you do it well there are unimaginable rewards.

Now if myself or a loved one were struck down with a terminal condition (a condition we're all in after all) the second sounds much more interesting than the first. In pure marketing terms the first one is at a definite disadvantage and has work to do on its pitch. When my final hour does arrive and I'm surrounded by the weeping hordes, will I take comfort in Wideman and Blackmore's suggestions about a nice recycleable cardboard coffin and an ornamental shrub, or someone telling me colpepper hasn't been a bad old stick and the dear departed are waiting to welcome me to Arthur's bosom?

Call me rash but as the bell chimes and cock crows an eternal hearth has a definite ring to it.

 

[Dr_Baltar]

Ah, the desperate straw-clutching of the selfish hearted; that being a good and decent human is not an ends but a means, that there must be rewards and eternal pats on eternal heads for good behaviour. It sounds like the philosophy of the playground to me and not the kind of fantasy wish-fulfillment any self-respecting adult should indulge themselves in. Bring on the worms, I say. Fertilising a decent shrub will be reward enough for me.

 

[colpepper1]

Not at all selfish, pure pragmatism. Nothingness or somethingness. Nothingness stretches my imagination beyond the point of comprehension. Pink and green hair stretches my aesthetic judgement until I stop hearing the message and want to shout 'It is NOT 1980 and you are NOT at Greenham Common. Now grow up and get an account at Jaeger'. Basic Darwinism.

 

[coaly]

She's free, (like the rest of us)... to choose whichever colour of hair she wishes. Having a go at her for it, will simply give you, and your countryside disappearing staring folk, punishment in the afterlife. Your shoulder chips may drag you into an all time low if you aren't more careful squire.

 

[colpepper1]

She's free, (like the rest of us)... to choose whichever colour of hair she wishes. Having a go at her for it, will simply give you, and your countryside disappearing staring folk, punishment in the afterlife. Your shoulder chips may drag you into an all time low if you aren't more careful squire.

I'm not familiar with this cult. Do you really believe the codification of appearance has no bearing on the message? I betcha there's some damned good science to suggest it has. I expect a psychologist to wear something more empathetic to her audience than a circus wig.

I don't feel challenged by her, just slightly nauseous at a pastel explosion telling me how it is. If her aim is to rub salt in the wounds of belief by looking scary and doctrinaire, she has succeeded. A little sobriety, or something nice from Issey Miyake, goes a long way when delivering bad news.

 

[Dr_Baltar]

Not at all selfish, pure pragmatism. Nothingness or somethingness. Nothingness stretches my imagination beyond the point of comprehension.

It is a hard one, I'll grant you. Using imagination to try and conjure up what nothingness would be like is a somewhat self-defeating exercise. However, it would seem that whatever you remember before your birth is exactly what you'll remember after you're pushing up the primulas.

It's all kind of irrelevant though, isn't it? If I'm right, you won't exist to be disappointed. And if you're right, I'll be pleasantly suprised (unless The Supreme Being is the kind of guy to hold a grudge, then I might have some explaining to do).

 

[colpepper1]

Ah, the desperate straw-clutching of the selfish hearted; that being a good and decent human is not an ends but a means, that there must be rewards and eternal pats on eternal heads for good behaviour.

But reward and punishment are intrinsic behavioural traits since Cain slugged Abel, or aberrant early hominids were pegged out at low tide by their fellows. I agree it's not consistent, bad things happen to good people and villains often get away with it, but behavioural reciprocity seems to be a deeply seated emotional construct.

Given that's the case it's not surprising supernaturalists portray similar requirements of an afterlife.

 

[Anome]

Do not hit link if you suffer from epilepsy, angina or good eyesight:
A Rationalist

That is bang out of order. I expect you are a fucking Adonis/Aphrodite, are you? Cheap, nasty, vapid, grubby, irrelevant, immature and downright offensive comment.

Much better put than my own feeble attempt above.

 

[Timble2]

I suppose colpepper1 doesn't like the fact that Susan Blackmore actually spent many years, investigating paranormal phenomena, was a witch (Wiccan?) before concluding that a lot of the phenomena probably aren't objectively real.

It's a case of tackle the man (or woman), not the ball. A lot of us have possibly ill advised style choices.

 

[colpepper1]

I'm quite aware that Susan Blackmore was a believer in supernatural magic, etc. There's a consistent theme of sceptics believing one thing then the opposite in a binary way. Lots of people search for easily accessible truths, I find their underlying motivations fascinating. I'd bet a large number of Dawkins' supporters are ex-believers who feel themselves let down by what they previously viewed as a reliable overview.

What is it that sets someone on course to be a witch? What are they looking for and what systemic failure in witch practice leads them into the reassuring but equally occluded world of psychology? Why do people feel let down by religion and opt for something they see as its polar opposite?

Speaking as someone predisposed to see very few absolute truths, or at least ones that infer anything beyond their own internal logic, the leap between science and religion seems itself an illusory opposition.
The debate almost always returns to a + or - approach, belief or disbelief, true-false opposition that tells us more about the personalities involved, especially their desire to promulgate their newly discovered truth, than it does about the efficacy or likelihood of the paradigm in question.

 

[escargot]

Susan Blackmore actually spent many years, investigating paranormal phenomena...

I first saw her a couple of years ago on a quite old Discovery programme about some paranormal subject or other. Sorry to be vague, but it was a good while ago.

Anyway, she looked a little bizarre back then too, when she was still investigating that sort of thing with the belief that she'd be able to prove that it was real.

I immediately googled her and found that since that programme was made she had indeed repudiated her former belief in the paranormal because she had found no evidence to support it.

Anyway, I like her. Anyone whose life's work turns out to prove their own cherished beliefs to be wrong, who then stands up and says 'I was wrong and I can prove it!' has increased the sum of human knowldege and is a true scientist. 8)

 

[colpepper1]

Anyone whose life's work turns out to prove their own cherished beliefs to be wrong, who then stands up and says 'I was wrong and I can prove it!' has increased the sum of human knowldege and is a true scientist. 8)

That is a very important point and goes to the heart of this thing. Blackmore was looking for something she'd heard (witch magic) had a direct and quantifiable outcome from practice to observation. In other words she was using a methodology from the scientific world to prove a point about the supernatural one. She didn't find it and concluded science was the only course worth pursuing and would repeatedly subject every other supernatural belief to the same scrutiny.

That tells us a great deal about belief, but not necessarily belief in the occult. What made her so certain witchcraft resolved itself by the same logic as science? My (limited) knowledge of sympathetic magic is that it doesn't work like that.
In fact I'd suggest Susan Blackmore had turned on the most easily dismissed phenomenon by psychology as a way into paranormal as a whole. She was in fact, always a scientist, even when presenting herself as a witch.

 

[escargot]

She sounds better and better.

 

[coaly]

She famously did those tests on the temporal lobal epilepsy thing, using volunteers, to place in sensory deprivation, and inducing religious feelings, hallucinations, (auditory and visually), and a feeling of paranoia, all consistant with paranormal or religious experiences, but induced physically/psychologically. (remember the red room and the ping pong ball eye covers?) I remember her always appearing on science programs which were the most interesting.
colpepper1... did you watch professor Cox's universe program the other night? If so, did you smash the telly screen?

 

[Dr_Baltar]

Given that's the case it's not surprising supernaturalists portray similar requirements of an afterlife.

I wasn't suggesting it was surprising. Quite the opposite in fact. It's exactly what I'd expect from a species that's afraid of the dark. Be good or the bogeyman will get you. The likes of Wiseman, Blackmore and Dawkins are trying to help us stop being children afraid of our own shadows. I'm not sure why anyone would have a problem with that. Some might find the manner patronising, but the principle is sound.

 

[colpepper1]

colpepper1... did you watch professor Cox's universe program the other night? If so, did you smash the telly screen?

I don't own a television. As a way of reinforcing consensus reality and anaesthetising its consumers the telly has no equal. Was the professor's editorialising convincing?

 

[colpepper1]

Given that's the case it's not surprising supernaturalists portray similar requirements of an afterlife.

I wasn't suggesting it was surprising. Quite the opposite in fact. It's exactly what I'd expect from a species that's afraid of the dark. Be good or the bogeyman will get you. The likes of Wiseman, Blackmore and Dawkins are trying to help us stop being children afraid of our own shadows. I'm not sure why anyone would have a problem with that. Some might find the manner patronising, but the principle is sound.

My point was in response to your representation of reward and retribution as a construct only worthy of the nursery. Try punching a copper and see how superficial the idea is.

 

[Dr_Baltar]

My point was in response to your representation of reward and retribution as a construct only worthy of the nursery. Try punching a copper and see how superficial the idea is.

It is only worthy of the nursery (or those with playground-level mentalities). I don't punch coppers because I try and treat people with decency and respect, not because I'm afraid of the jail. And I certainly wouldn't expect to be rewarded for keeping my fists in my pockets.

 

[Dr_Baltar]

I don't own a television. As a way of reinforcing consensus reality and anaesthetising its consumers the telly has no equal. Was the professor's editorialising convincing?

Ah, a telly snob as well as a fashion one.

 

[colpepper1]

I don't own a television. As a way of reinforcing consensus reality and anaesthetising its consumers the telly has no equal. Was the professor's editorialising convincing?

Ah, a telly snob as well as a fashion one.

Absolutely. You'll never get those hours back again. Imagining nothingness is difficult but a week's TV runs it close.

 

[Dr_Baltar]

Absolutely. You'll never get those hours back again. Imagining nothingness is difficult but a week's TV runs it close.

You'll never get those hours of book reading back either, or whatever your alternative pursuits are.

 

[coaly]

I watched it online. 8)