D
deekod1967
Guest
I’m curious about biorythyms - are they scientific, what is the Church’s view?
Thanks
Derek.
Thanks
Derek.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
T
thechrismyster
Guest
James Randi is a magician and jack-of-all trades who was given a MacArthur Foundation “genius” grant. For many years, he has been trying to teach the public some basic skills of critical thinking. The Amazing Randi (his stage name) has done this by exposing the fraud and charlatanism surrounding claims of “psychic” abilities. Although he has uncovered many magicians and conjuros masquerading as psychics, he is best known for exposing the trickery of Uri Geller, the psychic superstar of the 1970s. Bursting on the scene with his grand claims of psychic powers, Geller captivated the media to an extraordinary degree. He was featured in newspapers, on television shows, and in major news magazines on several continents. Randi detected and exposed the common and sometimes embarrassingly simple magic tricks that Geller used to perform his psychic “feats,” which included bending keys and spoons, and starting watches—mundane fare for a good magician. Since the Geller exposé, Randi has continued to use his considerable talents in the service of the public’s right to know the truth in spite of itself by exposing the fallacies behind ESP, biorhythms, psychic surgery, extraterrestrials, levitation, and other pseudosciences, all marvelously detailed with great humor in his book Flim-Flam (1980; see also his book The Faith Healers, 1987, in which he exposed several bogus religious “healers” as frauds).
One of Randi’s minor diversions consists of demonstrating how easy it is to garner testimonial evidence for any preposterous event or vacuous claim. His technique is to let people be swallowed up in a trap set by their own testimonials. Randi makes much use of that fascinating American cultural institution, the talk show, often appearing as a guest in the guise of someone other than himself. On a New York show a few years ago, he informed the audience that, while driving through New Jersey earlier in the day, he had seen a formation of orange V-shaped objects flying overhead in a northerly direction. Within seconds, as Randi put it, “the station switchboard lit up like an electronic Christmas tree.” Witness after witness called in to confirm this remarkable sighting. Unfortunately for them, the “sighting” was only a product of Randi’s imagination. Callers provided many details that Randi had “omitted,” including the fact that there had been more than one pass of the “saucers.” This little scam illustrates how completely unreliable are individual reports that “something happened.”
In Winnipeg, Canada, Randi appeared on a radio show as an “astrographologist.” A week earlier, listeners had been told to send in their handwriting samples and birth dates. Three were chosen and were contacted so that Randi could assess the “readings” of their personalities. He was hugely successful, receiving ratings from the listeners of 9, 10, and 10 on a 1-to-10 scale of accuracy. Randi did eventually reveal the secret of his method to the radio listeners. He had read, word for word, the “readings” that astrologer Sydney Omarr had given to three members of the audience of a recent Merv Griffin Show.
On a different radio show, Randi demonstrated the basis of the popularity of another pseudoscience: biorhythms (Hines, 1998). One listener agreed to keep a day-by-day diary and compare it with a two-month biorhythm chart that had been prepared especially for her. Two months later, the woman called back to inform the audience that biorhythms should be taken very seriously because her chart was more than 90 percent accurate. Randi had to inform her of the silly mistake made by his secretary, who had sent someone else’s chart to her, rather than her own. However, the woman did agree to evaluate the correct chart, which would be mailed to her right away, and to call back. A couple of days later, the woman called back, relieved. Her own chart was just as accurate—in fact, even more accurate. On the next show, however, it was discovered that, whoops, another error had been made. The woman had been sent Randi’s secretary’s chart, rather than her own!
One of Randi’s minor diversions consists of demonstrating how easy it is to garner testimonial evidence for any preposterous event or vacuous claim. His technique is to let people be swallowed up in a trap set by their own testimonials. Randi makes much use of that fascinating American cultural institution, the talk show, often appearing as a guest in the guise of someone other than himself. On a New York show a few years ago, he informed the audience that, while driving through New Jersey earlier in the day, he had seen a formation of orange V-shaped objects flying overhead in a northerly direction. Within seconds, as Randi put it, “the station switchboard lit up like an electronic Christmas tree.” Witness after witness called in to confirm this remarkable sighting. Unfortunately for them, the “sighting” was only a product of Randi’s imagination. Callers provided many details that Randi had “omitted,” including the fact that there had been more than one pass of the “saucers.” This little scam illustrates how completely unreliable are individual reports that “something happened.”
In Winnipeg, Canada, Randi appeared on a radio show as an “astrographologist.” A week earlier, listeners had been told to send in their handwriting samples and birth dates. Three were chosen and were contacted so that Randi could assess the “readings” of their personalities. He was hugely successful, receiving ratings from the listeners of 9, 10, and 10 on a 1-to-10 scale of accuracy. Randi did eventually reveal the secret of his method to the radio listeners. He had read, word for word, the “readings” that astrologer Sydney Omarr had given to three members of the audience of a recent Merv Griffin Show.
On a different radio show, Randi demonstrated the basis of the popularity of another pseudoscience: biorhythms (Hines, 1998). One listener agreed to keep a day-by-day diary and compare it with a two-month biorhythm chart that had been prepared especially for her. Two months later, the woman called back to inform the audience that biorhythms should be taken very seriously because her chart was more than 90 percent accurate. Randi had to inform her of the silly mistake made by his secretary, who had sent someone else’s chart to her, rather than her own. However, the woman did agree to evaluate the correct chart, which would be mailed to her right away, and to call back. A couple of days later, the woman called back, relieved. Her own chart was just as accurate—in fact, even more accurate. On the next show, however, it was discovered that, whoops, another error had been made. The woman had been sent Randi’s secretary’s chart, rather than her own!
T
thechrismyster
Guest
Randi’s biorhythm and astrographologist scams are actually examples of a phenomenon that has been termed the P. T. Barnum effect (Barnum, the famous carnival and circus operator, coined the statement “There’s a sucker born every minute”). This effect has been extensively studied by psychologists (e.g., Dickson & Kelly, 1985), who have found that the vast majority of individuals will endorse generalized personality summaries as accurate and specific descriptions of themselves. The Barnum effect makes it easier to generate testimonials and, of course, shows why they are worthless. There are certain sets of statements and phrases that most people see as applicable to themselves (many of these phrases have been studied by psychologists; see, e.g., Dickson & Kelly, 1985; Hyman, 1981; Marks & Kammann, 1980). Anyone can feed them to a “client” as individualized psychological “analysis.” The client is usually very impressed by the individualized accuracy of the “personality reading,” not knowing that the same reading is being given to everyone. Of course, the Barnum effect is the basis of belief in the accuracy of palm readers and astrologists.
What Randi is trying to do in these little scams is to teach people a lesson about the worthlessness of testimonial evidence. He consistently demonstrates how easy it is to generate testimonials in favor of just about any bogus claim (Randi, 1983). For this reason, presenting a testimonial in support of a particular claim is meaningless. Only evidence from controlled observations is sufficient to actually test a claim…
Excerpted from How to Think Straight About Psychology, 6/e, chapter 4, pp. 61-70. © 2001 by Allyn & Bacon. Reprinted by permission.
What Randi is trying to do in these little scams is to teach people a lesson about the worthlessness of testimonial evidence. He consistently demonstrates how easy it is to generate testimonials in favor of just about any bogus claim (Randi, 1983). For this reason, presenting a testimonial in support of a particular claim is meaningless. Only evidence from controlled observations is sufficient to actually test a claim…
Excerpted from How to Think Straight About Psychology, 6/e, chapter 4, pp. 61-70. © 2001 by Allyn & Bacon. Reprinted by permission.
D
deekod1967
Guest
Thanks! - so I assume the Church dissaproves then?
P
puzzleannie
Guest
the Catholic Church has no position, as this has nothing whatever to do with faith or morals. it also has nothing whatever to do with spirituality, so anyone making claims about applying such a theory to one’s spiritual life is not a reliable guide.Thanks! - so I assume the Church dissaproves then?
- Status
- Not open for further replies.