BBC exposes three psychic mediums

It's fun to watch these three charlatans summon the ghost of a fictitious manager of a phony chocolate factory, set up by BBC 3 television. (Via Cynical-C)

[#1 posted by Maximillian, July 17, 2009 10:49 AM]

I'm reminded of when Penn & Teller did this on there show: Bullshit.

[#2 posted by Anonymous, July 17, 2009 10:58 AM]

Great video, amazing (coming from Brooklyn) to see such good sportsmanship from these hacks. Try that with Americans and I guarantee a little more confrontation at the end.

[#3 posted by sirkowski, July 17, 2009 11:04 AM]

She's got ectoplasm coming off her nose. lol

[#4 posted by demidan, July 17, 2009 11:14 AM]

I agree with Anonymous, great sportsmanship, and sense of humor. Just think how a American Evangelical faker would react i bet a fist or two might fly.

[#5 posted by gbv23, July 17, 2009 11:18 AM]

Does not invalidate the research of Dr. Gary Schwartz and others

[#6 posted by takeshi, July 17, 2009 11:20 AM]

The chocolate factory is/was not phony. Great setup and execution here.

[#7 posted by GuidoDavid, July 17, 2009 11:24 AM]

Outraged newagers asking Dawkin's head and blaming science for the ills of the world in...

5

4

3

2

1

...

[#8 posted by Anonymous, July 17, 2009 11:28 AM]

"Does not invalidate the research of Dr. Gary Schwartz and others"

He does a good enough job of that on his own.

[#9 posted by Anonymous, July 17, 2009 11:52 AM]

"Does not invalidate the research of Dr. Gary Schwartz and others"

Maybe not, but this does:

http://www.csicop.org/si/2008-02/hall.html

[#10 posted by Anonymous, July 17, 2009 11:56 AM]

Hmmm, black/white, off/on.

I like to see phonies exposed for what they are, but to think that there isn't anything out there that we don't understand... I don't have that much hubris.

And before I get jumped on here, I'm not saying that there are ghosts, because we haven't proven that there aren't. I'm just suggesting the possibility that one can abide by what science has proven (and even what it suggests) and also have interest in the "other."

[#11 posted by Brett Burton, July 17, 2009 11:59 AM]

@1

"I'm reminded of when Penn & Teller did this on there show: Bullshit."

I believe you mean THEIR show.

sorry. the their, there, they're thing drives me nuts.

[#12 posted by manicbassman, July 17, 2009 12:07 PM]

just wonder when the BBC will grow a set and take on the charlatans in the Labour party...

[#13 posted by Anonymous, July 17, 2009 12:16 PM]

It's a fair cop.

[#14 posted by Moriarty, July 17, 2009 12:29 PM]

The sorts of people who care about the outcome of controlled tests are not the psychic's customer, anyway. (Or the "American Evangelical faker's" audience.)

[#15 posted by wil9000, July 17, 2009 12:30 PM]

Sadly, self-delusion trumps reason every time. Be it psychics, truthers, birthers, scientologists, or weneverwenttothemooners, once they've truly bought into the program, and started believing their own propaganda, nothing can shake their faith.
Have some Kool-ade.

[#16 posted by Brainspore, July 17, 2009 12:35 PM]

@Wil9000:

Don't tell me you drank the "Jonestown members drank Kool-Aid" Kool-Aid. (It was actually "Flavor Aid," a competing product.)

[#17 posted by Anonymous, July 17, 2009 12:55 PM]

Uh, I'm pretty sure the plural is "media."

;)

[#18 posted by blondesareeasy, July 17, 2009 12:58 PM]

I do hope someone takes on Reiki soon. Or is that "Rieki?"

I've lost a few friends to the madness.

[#19 posted by Slicklines, July 17, 2009 1:00 PM]

Cool enough, but as GBV23 @ 5's post makes all too clear, an essentially useless undertaking. The credulous mind is not subject to the bounds of rational thought. There simply is no experiment possible which would change the mind of a single true believer. If every medium in the world came out and admitted they were fakes, I seriously doubt they would be taken at their word by their audiences.

[#20 posted by Brainspore, July 17, 2009 1:06 PM]

Charlatans have been pulling this stuff for thousands of years and others have been calling them out on it for just as long. The battle for minds may never be won but the important thing is to be on the right side.

[#21 posted by LavenderNotes, July 17, 2009 1:22 PM]

@BRAINSPORE: Don't people always think they're on the right side?

[#22 posted by Brainspore, July 17, 2009 1:30 PM]

@Lavendernotes:

Sure, unless a clever person convinces them otherwise. Personally I like the side that tries to convince people through critical thinking.

[#23 posted by SomeGuy, July 17, 2009 1:31 PM]

Brett @9

Great (or is it grate?) job of grammar policing.

You are two, to good at that!

[#24 posted by Xopher, July 17, 2009 1:56 PM]

BlondesAreEasy 18: I don't believe in Reiki either, and neither do any of the people I've used it on, but you know what? All of them felt better after I did it than they did before, even the ones who were all "oh, come on, that's not going to work."

I don't understand it. But when I put my hands on the pain spot, it reduces the pain. I have no idea why, but as long as it keeps on working, I'm going to keep doing it.

(Btw, I'm not being sarcastic. I do NOT understand how Reiki can possibly work, and I'm rational enough that this bothers me greatly; also, I'm well aware that the plural of 'anecdote' is not 'data', so my experience with Reiki does not constitute evidence of its effectiveness. Even so, why not do it if it works, even part of the time? And if it's just the power of suggestion...why not use that to reduce someone's suffering?)

Also, remember that acupuncture was considered hokey "yeah right" crap 30 years ago. Now it's generally regarded as effective (with ample real science done to show that it is), even though no one knows how it really works or why.

[#25 posted by peruvianllama, July 17, 2009 1:57 PM]

@15: And it's not just "them" and "their" faith. The power of cognitive dissonance is such that, for any of us, regardless of where we lie on the skeptic/believer spectrum, once we start acting and saying things that place us in any given camp, it becomes exponentially more difficult to do or say anything that will contradict our previous stance.

For a (very) good read on the subject, check out "Mistakes were made (but not by me)" by Tavris and Aronson.

[#26 posted by Xopher, July 17, 2009 2:03 PM]

Brainspore, no, everyone always thinks they're right, unless they truly have no opinion.

Say you are convinced that the moon is made of unripened (i.e. "green" and bubbling) cheese. By fair means (showing you the photos taken of it by the Apollo astronauts; scientific data etc.) or foul (tricking you with lies and rhetorical flourishes, I dunno, I'm not as good at that part) I convince you that it's made of rock and covered with dust.

You've completely changed your opinion, and yet all through you believe you're right. After I'm done with you, you now believe you used to be wrong ("Green cheese? What a silly I was!"), but you still, as before, believe you're right.

That's why it's important to distinguish between always believing you're right (the near-universal mental phenomenon described above) and believing you're always right, which afflicts a smaller, though still appallingly large, number of people.

[#27 posted by peruvianllama, July 17, 2009 2:12 PM]

@26: Not to wax too epistomological here, but:
Does the latter condition really afflict such a small number of people? Whether you believe absolutely in the power of psychics to guide you through life, or the power of rational/critical thinking, doesn't the conviction fall under believing you're always right either way? That is, though you might occasionally be led astray ("I thought they were a true psychic, but now I see that they were fake all along!", or "I thought the study's methodology was correct, but now I see the error!"), you still fundamentally have access to The Best Tool For Accessing Knowledge Of The Universe?

[#28 posted by Xopher, July 17, 2009 2:28 PM]

@27: No, the number of people that I'm Always Right syndrome affects is not small, but it's not universal. For example, those of us who've been wrong over and over sometimes get our own fallibility pounded into our heads!

Personally, I think that Doubt is a cardinal virtue. I doubt everything but my own fallibility (doubting your own fallibility is a logical trap, as a moment's thought will reveal). By always being alert to the fact that I may be wrong, I keep checking, and thus I'm right more often than I would otherwise be.

[#29 posted by Antinous / Moderator, July 17, 2009 2:42 PM]

the number of people that I'm Always Right syndrome affects is not small

The larger problem is the number of people with Everyone Else Is Always Wrong Syndrome.

[#30 posted by shadowfirebird, July 17, 2009 2:48 PM]

Call me picky if you must, but is someone a charlatan if they genuinely believe that they have psychic powers that they do not posess?

There is a real difference between someone pretending to have psychic powers that they do not, and someone believing that they have psychic powers that they do not ... intentions.

It matters to me.

[#31 posted by Anonymous, July 17, 2009 4:23 PM]

"#24 POSTED BY XOPHER, JULY 17, 2009 1:56 PM Also, remember that acupuncture was considered hokey "yeah right" crap 30 years ago. Now it's generally regarded as effective (with ample real science done to show that it is), even though no one knows how it really works or why.

Actually, it isn't supported by science. The most recent, and one of the best studies, just showed that "real" acupuncture is no better than sham acupuncture. Acupuncture is mostly likely a placebo effect that, as a placebo, reduces the subjective impression of some kinds of pain, just as do sugar pills.

Check the acupuncture section of Science based medicine:
http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?cat=8

And the most recent podcast of Quackcast:
http://www.quackcast.com/spodcasts/files/531077e7df3f72608dba5105d99c51b9-32.html

...acupuncture is not a proven form of medicine.

[#32 posted by Antinous / Moderator, July 17, 2009 4:27 PM]

And there are studies where placeboes are more effective than real drugs. Show me three studies, all funded by non-profits, that have the same results, and I'll believe something.

[#33 posted by Anonymous, July 17, 2009 4:47 PM]

Well that's just mean. :)

[#34 posted by Anonymous, July 17, 2009 5:35 PM]

At the end of the day... how does any of this- right/wrong, real/fake, etc. actually help us become more truly happy or help make the world a better place to be?

If some people believe in paranormal stuff and it enhances the joy of their life- leave them to it. If others feel better being on the more left-brain logic end of things- leave them to it. All spokes lead to one hub.

One thing we can all learn from 'new age' folks is that there is always more to life than we perceive at any given moment- and choosing to open up to that can be a profound source of wisdom, joy, experience and growth.

[#35 posted by Ian70, July 17, 2009 5:52 PM]

@30: Charlatanism may not include absolute delusion, but if the end result is the same then I see no other name to use.

Whether you believe you can faith-heal someone's liver cancer, or you believe you can fool someone into thinking that you've just faith-healed their liver cancer, the end result is the same: "you haven't healed their liver cancer, you arsehole."

Hmm, "arsehole" might be a good term to include both purposeful charlatans and the critically delusional.

[#36 posted by jfrancis, July 17, 2009 7:03 PM]

When you put that much energy into conjuring up fake bait it becomes psychically real. The mediums are picking up on that. Perfectly understandable.

Actually I don't believe any of that, but if I were a busted psychic, that's what I would say.

[#37 posted by Anonymous, July 17, 2009 7:26 PM]

"At the end of the day... how does any of this- right/wrong, real/fake, etc. actually help us become more truly happy or help make the world a better place to be?"

Golly, I don't know, maybe by inventing and or discovering virtually every major medical advance of the past century, and thereby doubling the effing average life expectancy over said same time period for a start? But you're right, all of this "knowing" and reliance on "objective evidence" and "facts" is just as good as any other woo method of understanding the world right? Let's just treat that bowel cancer with some aquamarine quartz and laying on of hands, rather than 200 mg of iv cyclophosphamide daily. After all, what's the difference. Carl Sagan must be spinning in his grave.

[#38 posted by M, July 17, 2009 7:38 PM]

@#9--I read your link. It's a bit unclear to me, but I think I understand. You tell me if I got it right:

According to the author of the article, if I claim to play the piano, and then fail to play the piano in a test, then that proves that no one can play the piano.

That's what she means, right?

[#39 posted by M, July 17, 2009 7:44 PM]

@37--

Wait a second. Are you taking a body count on the benefits of science, because if you are, you forgot all of the people killed by modern weapons, industrial pollution, automobiles, environmental cancer, and all of those other things your good buddies in the scientific community have brought us.

Come back when you have a REAL total.

[#40 posted by jetfx, July 17, 2009 8:45 PM]

@39

Even with all the destruction, we still have way more people now than we did before science living longer lives.

But responding to #34's original comment, believing in and spreading untruths can lead to a lot of unhappiness when reality comes crashing down. Part of living a happier life is understanding the world. We would be happier the less bullshit flying around. Just imagine. It's easy if you try.

[#41 posted by Patrick Arcee, July 17, 2009 8:56 PM]

M, you raise an interesting point @39

If our weapons were magic-crystal based, our factories tweaked for feng-shui not productivity, automobiles based on yogic-flying principles, etc...

Tools would work so poorly that we would become less efficient, not have extra time/effort to waste, and we'd be forced to figure out what's really important.

Since I *haven't* been forced into enlightenment though, I'm going to go try again to repair computer #3, because even though it's always been awful I just know if I keep working on it some day it will love me...

[#42 posted by Keeper of the Lantern, July 18, 2009 3:01 AM]

#31 said...

"Acupuncture is mostly likely a placebo effect that, as a placebo, reduces the subjective impression of some kinds of pain, just as do sugar pills."

You're clearly not a trained scientist. You've made a number of sweeping statements that betray an ignorance of both specific scientific facts as well as a general ignorance of how science works.

Let's start with your statement above. The placebo effect is far more than a simple "reduced subjective impression of pain". The placebo effect (ie, a perception on the part of a patient that their treatment is working) kicks off numerous processes in the body (including endorphin production) that have physical, measureable effects on the body, some of which can indeed produce healing. At the very least, Accupuncture leverages some of these processes, and the meideval Chinese were aware of it and even quantified it. (Go look through some of Joseph Needham's works for detailed discussions.)

At the high level, it is also almost completely meangingless to say that "accupuncture isn't scientifically proved to work". Work for what? No peer-reviewed real journal in the world would publish any study or paper that would attempt to determine accunpuncture's usefulness in every possible application (there are thousands).

But let's take one single application, shall we? Go obtain Science in Traditional China, but Joesph Needham. In Figure 19, page 89 (1st edition, Harvard U Press), look at the photograph of accunpuncture used as an anesthetic for open heart surgery. I'm (slightly) interested in hearing how mere "placebo effect" (even given the more general definition of mine above) alone could be responsible.

(Needham, by the way, was a Cambridge Biochemist and wrote the seminal work in Neurophysiology earlier in the 20th century.)

[#43 posted by Anonymous, July 18, 2009 6:24 AM]

To #11, I have a steering wheel sticking out of the fly of my pants-It is driving me nuts too!!! hahahaha

[#44 posted by nil8r, July 18, 2009 2:02 PM]

Bravo #10, Anonymous:

I like to see phonies exposed for what they are, but to think that there isn't anything out there that we don't understand... I don't have that much hubris.

I agree. I think it's important to look at things scientifically, but remember, science is the exploration of the knowable and the provable and not everything is. Some skeptics seem almost religious in their fervor.

Be that as it may, it's very worth checking out a British illusionist named Derren Brown. In his TV4 special "Messiah" he shows how possibly innocent 'psychics' can be lead through different cues to receive the impressions he is sending. He goes to the Untied States, where he's relatively unknown, and succeeds at getting 4 out of 5 'experts' in the field to endorse him as he uses illusion, cold reading and suggestion to appear psychic.

In another special, "Seance" he shows how completely innocent people can convince themselves they have the ability to channel.

Not only is Brown's work an order of magnitude more interesting to watch, he is a lot more compassionate.

[#45 posted by Anonymous, July 19, 2009 6:30 AM]

It's nice that the Beeb does some critical work on these sorts of things.
I love the rationalizations and goal-post shifting that happens.
The worst part is that a lot of people will see these 'mediums' and want to contact them specifically for readings.

[#46 posted by Anonymous, July 19, 2009 6:41 PM]

@GBV23:

this might not invalidate his research. but that doesn't mean it's not bullshit/pseudoscience anyway.

-rampantidiocy

[#47 posted by Anonymous, July 20, 2009 12:43 AM]

"#42 POSTED BY KEEPER OF THE LANTERN, JULY 18, 2009 3:01 AM #31 said... "Acupuncture is mostly likely a placebo effect that, as a placebo, reduces the subjective impression of some kinds of pain, just as do sugar pills." You're clearly not a trained scientist. You've made a number of sweeping statements that betray an ignorance of both specific scientific facts as well as a general ignorance of how science works."

I just love how you make sweeping assumptions. Clearly if you are a trained scientist you aren't very objective on this issue :rolleyes:

The placebo effect is far more than a simple "reduced subjective impression of pain". The placebo effect (ie, a perception on the part of a patient that their treatment is working) kicks off numerous processes in the body (including endorphin production) that have physical, measureable effects on the body, some of which can indeed produce healing. At the very least, Accupuncture leverages some of these processes, and the meideval Chinese were aware of it and even quantified it. (Go look through some of Joseph Needham's works for detailed discussions.)

Yes, KOTL, Placebo Effect is a complex phenomena. That doesn't mean that Acupuncture is anything other than Placebo Effect. Does that mean Acupuncture has no use? No. But it does mean that the supposed magic mechanisms of Acupuncture--the influencing of invisible, undetectable energy flows of "Qi" along imaginary "Meridian Lines" are superstitious nonsense and can be discarded--you know, through that process known as **science**, the process you get all indignant and condescending over but don't seem to actually follow.

But let's take one single application, shall we? Go obtain Science in Traditional China, but Joesph Needham. In Figure 19, page 89 (1st edition, Harvard U Press), look at the photograph of accunpuncture used as an anesthetic for open heart surgery. I'm (slightly) interested in hearing how mere "placebo effect" (even given the more general definition of mine above) alone could be responsible. (Needham, by the way, was a Cambridge Biochemist and wrote the seminal work in Neurophysiology earlier in the 20th century.)

Hey, remember how open heart surgery means you have no ability to make a vacuum in your chest and can't breathe on your own? The "open heart surgery" he described was no such thing. The use of Acupuncture for surgical anesthesia in China has a horrifying history. It was promoted by Chairman Mao and was a political imperative--and it even worked on a few people with extremely high pain tolerances, but you need to learn the real story about acupuncture anesthesia before passing along nonsense and revisionist Maoist Propaganda as fact.

See Chinese Medicine in Early Communist China, 1945-63: a Medicine of Revolution by Kim Taylor, and also, http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?cat=8 , especially the 4 part series "“Acupuncture Anesthesia”: A Proclamation from Chairman Mao "

To get at the crux of the issue, let's see what some of the Chinese, themselves, have writen on the subject. Keng Hsi-chen and T’ao Nai-huang, two mainland chinese doctors, wrote a 1980 essay, cited in Medicine in China by Paul Ulrich Unschuld:

"The pushing of acupuncture anesthesia into large areas of clinical application cannot be separated from the peculiar historical conditions in our country of that time. During the period of the ‘Cultural Revolution,’ acupuncture anesthesia served politically as a standard to judge progress or backwardness, revolution or nonrevolution. Physicians and patients were under the pressure of the political requirements of that time. They had no choice but to have exceptional courage in order to carry out or undergo surgery, especially as the patients who felt pain could not cry out. Some resorted to shouting political slogans during surgery in a loud voice. At one place, the chairman of ophthalmology was enthusiastic about acupuncture anesthesia, and he tried the knife at his own eyelid. Finally he reached the conclusion: the effects are not good, it should not be extended. He wrote a report to higher authorities and as a result he was labeled one with three hats [i.e., an intellectual not interested in practice] and met the criticism of the masses. Under this type of political pressure, not a few people made statements against their will and acted against their conscience. Thus, in some hospitals the rate of acupuncture anesthesia utilization reached 20 percent, but among these, 80 percent were ligation operations. In other hospitals before clinical application of acupuncture anesthesia, the patients were given already sufficient amounts of anesthetic drugs through injection and then, in addition, needles were pierced into their ears pretending acupuncture anesthesia. Only joy was reported but no sorrow; one did not dare to tell the facts. This of course had decisive influence on how the concerned leadership department passed correct decisions regarding the real situation of acupuncture anesthesia.... … Our opinions expressed here are not taken out of thin air. We, the authors, have in the past, from 1969 through 1977, as part of our work in the hospital, conducted more than thirty thousand surgical operations under acupuncture anesthesia as an exploratory practice in order to warmheartedly promote acupuncture anesthesia. This represents about 1.5% of all cases of surgery under acupuncture anesthesia in our country. This tremendous amount of practice has led us to publish the opinions offered above. Also, these opinions are not really our own original ideas, they are extensively discussed and acknowledged among medical personnel of anesthetics and surgery. It is just that due to the political pressure of the past period, nobody dared to state them openly."

And, yes, ANTINOUS, sometimes placebo out performs "real" medicine, or at least performs the same but with fewer side effects. Sometimes "real" medicine doesn't perform as expected. That's why we **do** placebo controlled, double blind clinical trials, to find out. The trick is what do you do with the data? In science you try to confirm the findings and then act on them once they are confirmed, by, for instance, discontinuing the treatment that has been disproved. That isn't what happens with "alternative" medicine. In spite of overwhelming negative results the politically charged NIH CAM program has not declared any "alternative" medicine to be useless. That's not science being objective, that's politics trumping science. Same goes for acupuncture, where you have people like KOTH reacting virulently to the fact that acupuncture is not proven medicine, but is instead an ancient superstitious modality that performs no better than sham acupuncture.

[#48 posted by efnord, July 21, 2009 2:16 AM]

#47 POSTED BY ANONYMOUS, JULY 20, 2009 12:43 AM

This.

[#49 posted by Anonymous, July 22, 2009 1:32 AM]

I like how they really don't care when their shenanigans are exposed, since they know there'll still be millions of fools ready to believe them anyway.