John Edwards a fake or the real deal?

  • Thread starter Max
  • Start date
John Edwards is a highly gifted and successful psychic fraud. He uses classic techniques of deception, working from specific to general information, to impress his audience. However, upon closer examination, his track record is quite poor and his techniques can be easily replicated. He has been debunked by skeptics and his actions have the potential to cause emotional harm to vulnerable individuals who believe they have made contact with their deceased loved ones.
  • #36
Some people just have superior gifts of reading others, watched one of his shows the other night and noticed a lot of guesswork to build a repertoire with group he spoke too.

Who knows?
If he's giving families comfort through spiritual means he's no different than a priest nodding for the collection plate.

Not sure which one I'd prefer.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #37
Perhaps 'Poverty, chastitiy and obedience' could make a difference. Many of these 'performers' make a lot of money.

That, said, there have been some very power and money-hungry clerics.
 
  • #38
NobodySpecial said:
John Edward: But I'm a psychic.
Stan: No dude, your a douche.
Stan got it wrong, I'm afraid. John Edward IS a Psychic because all psychics are the same. It's just that Psychics don't actually do what they claim to do - or at least they don't do it in the way they claim.

If J.E. also makes a lot of money, he is also an exploiter of needy persons. But I have to ask whether he is any worse than a very highly paid Cosmetic Surgeon in that respect?
 
  • #39
sophiecentaur said:
Stan got it wrong, I'm afraid. John Edward IS a Psychic because all psychics are the same. It's just that Psychics don't actually do what they claim to do - or at least they don't do it in the way they claim.
We can't claim this. We can't claim that there ARE NO psychics that talk to the dead. Best we can claim is that no psychics we have yet come across can do what 'A Psychic' is supposed to be able to do. So, the definition stands, A Psychic one with the bona fide ability.
 
  • #40
Fair point. I should be more rigorous than that. But it is, surely, up to 'them' to prove that my statement is false. Otherwise anything goes.
Actually, the Wikipedia definition reads like this:
"A psychic (pronounced /ˈsaɪkɨk/; from the Greek ψυχικός psychikos—"of the mind, mental", also called sensitive[1]) is a person who professes an ability to perceive information hidden from the normal senses through extrasensory perception (ESP), or is said by others to have such abilities.

That says nothing about bona fides.
 
  • #41
sophiecentaur said:
Fair point. I should be more rigorous than that. But it is, surely, up to 'them' to prove that my statement is false. Otherwise anything goes.
Actually, the Wikipedia definition reads like this:
"A psychic (pronounced /ˈsaɪkɨk/; from the Greek ψυχικός psychikos—"of the mind, mental", also called sensitive[1]) is a person who professes an ability to perceive information hidden from the normal senses through extrasensory perception (ESP), or is said by others to have such abilities.

That says nothing about bona fides.

If a psychic claims to be able to read minds / speak to the dead / whatever power they claim to posses, it is their responsibility to prove said claims in a satisfactory way. What you have to realize is that as soon as we have an explanation as to how the 'trick' is done that doesn't involve any mystical power, then the claim is effectively proven false. Even if they deny that's how it's done, they would then have to give more evidence to show that isn't the technique they are using.

To say "well you've given an explanation of X that doesn't involve magic, but the way I do X does use magic" doesn't prove your claim. This is what a lot of people in the field do. They simply write-off the explanations given but don't give anything to show that the expanation doesn't apply to them.
 
  • #42
I think that, bearing in mind that the majority (or totality) of Psychics cannot prove they are genuine, then the definition of a Psychic is, surely, one who is not genuine - possibly well meaning or deluded but not for real.
 
  • #43
sophiecentaur said:
I think that, bearing in mind that the majority (or totality) of Psychics cannot prove they are genuine, then the definition of a Psychic is, surely, one who is not genuine - possibly well meaning or deluded but not for real.
Your own definition uses the concept of 'genuine' and 'real'. i.e. psychics that haven't proven themselves (even if that's all of that) are not 'genuine' or 'real'.
 
  • #44
sophiecentaur said:
I think that, bearing in mind that the majority (or totality) of Psychics cannot prove they are genuine, then the definition of a Psychic is, surely, one who is not genuine - possibly well meaning or deluded but not for real.

Psychic has it's definition. It is what it is.

People call themselves it, but that doesn't make them so. It's called being a fraudster.

I can walk around calling myself a car mechanic if I want, but that doesn't make me one and it certainly doesn't alter the definition of what an actual car mechanic is.
 
  • #45
DaveC426913 said:
We can't claim that there ARE NO psychics that talk to the dead.
Why not? Assuming you want to make a scientific inquiry into whether or not psychics exists, the default position, or null hypothesis, is that there are no psychics. As I understand it, that is a claim you can make that is backed by science.

You seem to be confusing this with whether or not we can know (i.e., a justified true belief) that there are no psychics, which may be a discussion point based on a person's philosophical leanings. Philosophy aside (sorry), in my opinion it is meaningless to say something like "we can't know that there are no psychics", because that would mean I can't say that pink elephants don't hide in the clouds either.

Does that make sense?
 
  • #46
gnurf said:
Why not? Assuming you want to make a scientific inquiry into whether or not psychics exists, the default position, or null hypothesis, is that there are no psychics. As I understand it, that is a claim you can make that is backed by science.

You seem to be confusing this with whether or not we can know (i.e., a justified true belief) that there are no psychics, which may be a discussion point based on a person's philosophical leanings. Philosophy aside (sorry), in my opinion it is meaningless to say something like "we can't know that there are no psychics", because that would mean I can't say that pink elephants don't hide in the clouds either.

Does that make sense?

We can only say, there is no scientific evidence that "psychics" exist and can talk to the dead, and there is no scientific model suggesting that such things are possible.

We can never prove a universal negative - e.g. there are no psychics.

oh yes, and you said it: A null hypothesis
 
Last edited:
  • #47
I hope it is clear that a hypothesis is not a priori, fact.
 
  • #48
Ivan Seeking said:
We can only say, there is no scientific evidence that "psychics" exist and can talk to the dead, and there is no scientific model suggesting that such things are possible.
Yes, but why qualify that with "only"? What I was trying to get at was that this is as good as it gets. Or bad, if you're a "psychic". Lack of scientific evidence is the strongest possible indication that something doesn't not exist, or does not work.
Ivan Seeking said:
We can never prove a universal negative - e.g. there are no psychics.
And, except for in mathematics, you can't prove most of the positive scientific claims either. What you can say is: this is our claim or hypothesis, and this is the evidence that backs it up. That's not to say that you've arrived at the Truth, only that you've gotten as close as possible with the available knowledge we have. And---although it's technically right---for all practical purposes, the fact that you can't prove that there are no psychics is meaningless in my opinion.
 
  • #49
gnurf said:
Why not? Assuming you want to make a scientific inquiry into whether or not psychics exists, the default position, or null hypothesis, is that there are no psychics. As I understand it, that is a claim you can make that is backed by science.

You seem to be confusing this with whether or not we can know (i.e., a justified true belief) that there are no psychics, which may be a discussion point based on a person's philosophical leanings. Philosophy aside (sorry), in my opinion it is meaningless to say something like "we can't know that there are no psychics", because that would mean I can't say that pink elephants don't hide in the clouds either.

Does that make sense?

Yes, as jj said, psychic has its definition. While there are no instances of psychics present, that does not change the definition.


Note that you use the conventional definition yourself:
...the default position, or null hypothesis, is that there are no psychics...
Allow me to make a direct substitution without changing the meaning of your quote:
...the default position, or null hypothesis, is that there are no people who can actually speak to the dead...
If we went with your definition of psychic (people who fake speaking to the dead), then what you tried to say is:
...the default position, or null hypothesis, is that there are no people who fake speaking to the dead...
.. .which is of course not true.
 
  • #50
gnurf, the way I look at subjects such as is this is as follows:

Until evidence for the existence of X is present, I dismiss it.

There is no evidence for god/ghosts/psychics, therefore I dismiss they could ever exist in the first place.

Until I see evidence showing their existence, I have no reason to believe otherwise.

A lack of evidence does not mean something may exist and it doesn't prove something doesn't exist. It simply means we have no basis to think it exists in the first place.
 
  • #51
jarednjames said:
gnurf, the way I look at subjects such as is this is as follows:

Until evidence for the existence of X is present, I dismiss it.

There is no evidence for god/ghosts/psychics, therefore I dismiss they could ever exist in the first place.

Until I see evidence showing their existence, I have no reason to believe otherwise.

A lack of evidence does not mean something may exist and it doesn't prove something doesn't exist. It simply means we have no basis to think it exists in the first place.
Best explanation I've seen.
 
  • #52
DaveC426913, I think it was with sophiecentaur (?) that you discussed the definition of the word 'psychic---not me.
 
  • #53
jarednjames said:
gnurf, the way I look at subjects such as is this is as follows:

Until evidence for the existence of X is present, I dismiss it.

There is no evidence for god/ghosts/psychics, therefore I dismiss they could ever exist in the first place.

Until I see evidence showing their existence, I have no reason to believe otherwise.

A lack of evidence does not mean something may exist and it doesn't prove something doesn't exist. It simply means we have no basis to think it exists in the first place.

Evo said:
Best explanation I've seen.
Right. But.

Let's just keep in mind that this decision is not objective. You make highly subjective calls about what you will accept as evidence.

You'll accept the word of a few scientists that something has been discovered, but you will dismiss the word of 100 million people that something else exists.

And no, I'm not claiming it's a popularity contest. I'm claiming you trust certain people.

(You have not seen evidence that neutrinos exist, you have a trust in the reporting system that other people have seen it exist.)
 
  • #54
DaveC426913 said:
Right. But.

Let's just keep in mind that this decision is not objective. You make highly subjective calls about what you will accept as evidence.

You'll accept the word of a few scientists that something has been discovered, but you will dismiss the word of 100 million people that something else exists.

And no, I'm not claiming it's a popularity contest. I'm claiming you trust certain people.

(You have not seen evidence that neutrinos exist, you have a trust in the reporting system that other people have seen it exist.)

But the decision is based on information that is produced through the application of the scientific method. This method is specifically designed to eliminate subjectivity from the results. I don't trust certain people---I trust the scientific method to produce the most reliable information there is.
 
  • #55
jarednjames said:
Until evidence for the existence of X is present, I dismiss it.
Yes, and rightly so. I mean, what exactly is the difference between a) something that is undetectable and b) something that does not exist?
 
  • #56
Actually Dave, you are assuming to know what I'll accept as evidence.

For the record, I don't accept human 'witness' testimony as a valid source of evidence - regardless of who gives it.

There is a difference between a scientist who can produce evidence - mathematically, or otherwise - on demand and a person who is simply claiming something to exist with nothing more than various anecdotes to back them up.

I work somewhat like physics forums. There must be some form of published evidence - mainstream paper or the like - in order for me to take something seriously.

If every person on the surface of the planet told me that god existed, unless they could provide evidence to back this up I wouldn't listen. It's not about who says it, it's about what evidence they have behind them. As above, for me witness testimony isn't a valid source of evidence.
 
  • #57
gnurf said:
Yes, and rightly so. I mean, what exactly is the difference between a) something that is undetectable and b) something that does not exist?

If it's undetectable it exists, we just can't detect its presence.

I'm not arguing that something does or doesn't exist. I'm saying that unless you can prove it does, I dismiss that it ever could.

Did X-rays only come into existence when we were able to detect them?
 
  • #58
gnurf said:
But the decision is based on information that is produced through the application of the scientific method. This method is specifically designed to eliminate subjectivity from the results. I don't trust certain people---I trust the scientific method to produce the most reliable information there is.
And you decide to trust the people that deliver the information to you. And there's a lot.

At some point in the process, you must decide that you will trust. It is circular logic. I trust these peole because they are doing stuff I trust. (assuming I can trust them).


jarednjames said:
Actually Dave, you are assuming to know what I'll accept as evidence.
No I'm not. (Except inasmuch as you are not Descartes, since he is dead. He concluded he can know nothing except his own existence.)

jarednjames said:
For the record, I don't accept human 'witness' testimony as a valid source of evidence - regardless of who gives it.

There is a difference between a scientist who can produce evidence - mathematically, or otherwise - on demand and a person who is simply claiming something to exist with nothing more than various anecdotes to back them up.

I work somewhat like physics forums. There must be some form of published evidence - mainstream paper or the like - in order for me to take something seriously.

If every person on the surface of the planet told me that god existed, unless they could provide evidence to back this up I wouldn't listen. It's not about who says it, it's about what evidence they have behind them. As above, for me witness testimony isn't a valid source of evidence.
There is a lot of trust in a lot of people between the actual experiment and your eyes.


I'm not saying the trust is not founded. We all must trust certain systems in order to get anywhere in life or society would fall apart.

I simply ask you to recognize that your system (of what you accept and what you dismiss) is highly subjective, as well as prone to error, and - within a reasonable deviation - almost as arbitrary as the next man's.
 
  • #59
jarednjames said:
Did X-rays only come into existence when we were able to detect them?
I laughed when I read my question after I posted, because the answer was so trivial. The idea, anyway, was that none of the myriad of undiscovered physical phenomena that undoubtedly exist in the universe have any explanatory value as long as we don't know about them. Even though you'd be right, claiming that your grandmother's tumor was caused by X-rays in the year 1200 would be irrational.
 
  • #60
If there is evidence for something, I accept it. If there is not, I dismiss it.

How is it subjective, other than with the requirement of evidence?

Just because I haven't seen the evidence for something, doesn't make that evidence any less valid. The evidence exists and that is what matters.

I only dismiss things there is no evidence for.
 
  • #61
Well, my own 2-cents worth:

I take all claims of psychics or paranormal subject matters with skepticism.
Yet, I am open to the possibility of such issues being real in some cases.

There are many documented cases of fraud, but zero scientifically documented cases of authenticity(that I know of)
Still, there are from time-to-time, reports from what appears to be upstanding, sober individuals witnessing a psychic reading or paranormal event having no "apparent" natural explanation.
So, I stay open on the subject.
 
  • #62
pallidin said:
Still, there are from time-to-time, reports from what appears to be upstanding, sober individuals witnessing a psychic reading or paranormal event having no "apparent" natural explanation.

Do you have examples of these events to show us?
 
  • #63
@ Palladin: How many of these examples which are not obviously fraudulent were repeatable on demand? Only that could constitute a serious scientific proof. And sobriety and upstandingness do not imply 100% reliability in a single unblind test.

If we had to treat every unlikely model as a possibility then where would that take us? It strikes me that, as history and Science have progressed, the only direction things have gone is towards the decreasing likeliness of this paranormal stuff being real. In the same way that Homeopaths keep saying that "more studies are needed", the proponents of the paranormal keep wanting "best of three" followed by "best of five" followed by "best of seven" because they just don't want to lose the game.
The balance of probabilities just falls further and further against the magic spells merchants. We just don't need any of it.
 
  • #64
jarednjames said:
Do you have examples of these events to show us?

Sure, just Google "paranormal events and law enforcement" or something similar.
 
  • #65
pallidin said:
Sure, just Google "paranormal events and law enforcement" or something similar.

Googled "paranormal events and law enforcement" and not one relevant result came up on the first page.

Perhaps you could provide some links for us to back up your assertion that some are unexplainable.
 
  • #66
sophiecentaur said:
And sobriety and upstandingness do not imply 100% reliability in a single unblind test.
.

Indeed, and it never will.
But, it does offer legitimacy for further investigation/inquiry.
 
  • #67
I'd also point you here:

http://www.ukskeptics.com/article.php?dir=articles&article=police_and_psychics.php

DEVON AND CORNWALL CONSTABULARY
Mon, 20 Feb 2006 23:28
Devon & Cornwall Constabulary do not use the "services" of psychics and any persons offering such services are routinely declined.

SURREY POLICE
Tue, 21 Feb 2006 07:52
We do not/have not used this method.
Jonathan Edwards, HQ Registry

CITY OF LONDON POLICE
Tue, 21 Feb 2006 10:11
Dear Sir or Madam, for your information, psychics have never been used by the City of London Police to my knowledge.
Kieron Sharp, Detective Chief Superintendent

And so on.

The police do not use psychics (at least in the UK).
 
  • #68
jarednjames said:
Googled "paranormal events and law enforcement" and not one relevant result came up on the first page.

Perhaps you could provide some links for us to back up your assertion that some are unexplainable.

Yes, I like the way you think.
Please allow me a little time to do this.
The Internet is so convoluted now. Should be able to find them though...
 
  • #69
jarednjames said:
The police do not use psychics (at least in the UK).
Maybe they read this: http://www.csufresno.edu/physics/rhall/jref/tam4p/10_BR_tam4.pdf" (pdf)
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Similar threads

The Limits of Knowledge: Is John Edward Real?
3
Replies
100
Views
7K
John Edward: A Genuine Medium or a Cold-Reading Fraud?
2
Replies
35
Views
11K
Is John Edward's 'Crossing Over' a Hoax?
2
Replies
56
Views
15K
I want to understand Wagner's Parsifal
Replies
1
Views
1K
Death, Nothingness and Subjectivity
Replies
3
Views
4K
[Thought experiment] The futility of consciousness and free will
Replies
6
Views
4K
Is the Earth Harp real (acoustically)?
2
Replies
40
Views
46K
Who is your nominee for wise person?
Replies
2
Views
3K
How do I convince dad not to throw me out of the house because I wont get any job
Replies
5
Views
2K
What are some interesting facts about America's history and government?
Replies
20
Views
3K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top