Marlon asks, "Why should a student give his money away to something that is not real."

Marlon, if you would inform yourself by going to either of the two government Web sites I cited, you would see that each year THOUSANDS of students give their money away for "Ph.D.s" and other degrees that are "not real."

Some don't realize that the "degrees" they are buying are bogus. Others don't care -- their intent is to "earn" academic credentials that will fool the uninformed.

Hi aaskolnick,

You said, "Some don't realize that the "degrees" they are buying are bogus. Others don't care -- their intent is to "earn" academic credentials that will fool the uninformed."

I believe that the people you discribe excist.

However, I was talking about Barbara her own healing school. If you don't start feeling better during her programm, and if you don't start seeing and feeling the aura, and it's anatomy etc like she discripes it why should you then give your money to it...

I don't have the disire to prove to you the aura excists...I don't have the desire to defend her school...I only hope to help people by broading their vision, and I intent to do that with love. Because if I don't do something with love, that part that doesn't love is a part of a problem and not a solution.

Love and blessings,
Marlon

My Marlon, you continue to refuse to see what's put right in front of you! Not only is Barbara's "Ph.D." and her "D.Th" degrees bogus -- the "B.S." degree she sells to her own students is just as bogus!

You asked why any student would throw their money away in a bogus degree program. I told you: some are too foolish to realize the degrees are bogus; others know, but they wish to deceive others by claiming to have academic credentials without actually earning them.

Such deceptive conduct doesn't bother you, although it clearly should.

So please don't keep claiming to be such an enlightened and spiritual person. Enlightened and spiritual people don't deceive or mislead others and they don't condone others who make a business by deceiving or misleading others.

Hi hi,

You only focus on that "degrees" wich aren't recognized in some states. I admit that!!! And about her bachelor degree that isn't recognized... I couldn't find that on one of the sites but... I'm not talking about recordnizion anymore.

I am talking about what I have learned from Brennan and my own experiences with her teaching. And because of that experiences with it I respect her and her school.

I think I am spiritual because I try to be fair to myself with everything, sometimes I succeed in this, sometimes not... and I think being fair to yourself it the core of a spiritual life. Enlightened is something different but I think that in essence I am enlightened just like everyone else. I remember more and more...

And...now I am defending meself in kind of a way and I that wasn't what I wanted to do...

I want to be happy... rather than having the "right" on my side.

Have a nice evening,
Marlon

Well, that's the difference between us: you believe things that make you "happy" and I believe things that are "right" and factually true. If believing in ghosts and psychics make you happy, to you they're real. For me, they're delusions that some people turn to for comfort.

You've shown a willingness to dismiss facts that don't support your comforting beliefs -- such as the fact that people who proudly display bogus degrees, and in turn sell bogus degress to others, are not ethical people.

It's not so important what you or I believe. What is important is what you and I are able to prove with credible evidence. And the evidence you cited to defend your belief in Natasha Demkina's "X-ray vision" does not stand up to reasoned scrutiny.

Citing Barbara Brennan as an example of a real honest psychic only showed that you don't understand the difference between truth and fiction. Honest people don't use bogus degrees. That's a fact.

You say "being fair to yourself is the core to spiritual life." I say that is bilge. Being fair to others and to the truth is the core to spiritual life.

"Being fair to others and to the truth is the core to spiritual
life."

You said is beautifully!

she's russian for christ's sake!!! they would do absolutely anything for a roll of toilet paper. make that dirty vodka chugger pay for lying to the world. give rocky balboa a call and tell him "the russian" wants a rematch.

true, false, whatever.....all i have to say is that i pity people who can only see the world in black and white.
what really kills me about these scientists is the condesention and sarcasm that laces every word leaving their mouths on these matters.
just because you cant get your narrow mind around it doesnt mean its not true.
from the documentary its clear that she has helped people, whether it is a divine gift or intuition or just dumb luck, and that is what counts.
this world is cold enough....maybe some people just want something beyond that to believe in.

oh and one more thing.....i have to laugh at all these scientists who believe in whats "right" and "factually true".
how many theories of days gone by that scientists thought were "right" and "factually true" has since been proved very much WRONG. the world is changing all the time and could it not be even remotely possible that our brains are too?? maybe some people can do things that others cant?? but in your worlds of statistics and clinicalism you cant expand your minds enough to even consider that. but thats your choice. instead you make comments which are dripping with disdain and clearly look down on those who choose to disagree with you.

for me the issue isnt whether she has a gift or not, it simply highlights the narrow-mindedness of many people.

its a pity really....but to each their own.

Wow Stephanie,

Of all the responses on this subject I find your response the most beautiful...without any doubt! "true, false, whatever.....all i have to say is that i pity people who can only see the world in black and white." I couldn't say it any better!

Wow!!

Marlon

I saw the programme on Natasha Demkina which was shown on Channel 4 in the UK last night. I was interested in it both because of its topic and the probability problem it posed, as I am a professional Statistician myself.
The problem of the chance of Natasha correctly matching a given number of people with their correct diagnoses if she were guessing is a classic known as the 'matching problem'. For those who want a reference, Feller's An Intro. to Probability and its Applications, Chapter IV will give you the full gory details, but the essential result is on page 107. I got out my calculator and found that the chance of Natasha passing (5 or more correct) if she were guessing would be about 1 in 230, whereas the chance of her guessing 4 or more if she were guessing would be about 1 in 55. It is true that conventionally, that if a result could have occurred less frequently than 1 in 20 times by chance, Statisticians consider that there is something of interest in the data. CSIOP evidently set a higher standard of evidence than that usually required because of the implications if the claims of Nayasha are true.
Watching the programme, I was sympathetic towards Natasha, as I am sure most people were, and I noted that the investigators were in no way abusive to her. I was struck both by professional physicians in Russia at all becoming convinced of her gift (though not all have been), but I wondered about her hesitancy in the test situation and her inability to diagnose the metal plate. My personal opinion, for what it is worth, is that if Natasha has a special gift (the idea of which I am not opposed to on principle), it may be best for her to use it discreetly. It may be that such gifts do not lend themselves to this kind of investigation, and that Providence has so disposed things that deception, belief and scepticism will always be possible in this world, for to have it otherwise would fail to respect our free will adequately, and undermine the value of this world as the arena of our soul-making, which necessarily involves the coooperation of our free will.
Good luck to Natasha, whatever she does.

Actually, Stephanie, narrow-minded and closed-minded people are those who refuse to examine evidence that contradicts their beliefs. Their need to believe is stronger than their desire to know the truth. Scientists who are willing to examine the evidence presented by so-called psychics are certainly not narrow-minded or closed-minded. In the past, I've asked dozens of believers in the supernatural what evidence would change their minds about their beliefs. Every single one of them just stared blankly at me and quickly changed the subject. None of them wanted to answer, because they didn't want to admit no evidence could ever change their minds. Their minds are made up and closed solid. Compare that with what my colleagues and I did: We said to Natasha, match five or more subjects correctly and you will change our minds about your abilities. We examined the evidence. The evidence did not support Natasha's claims. Our minds are open. I'm not so sure about yours, considering your open distain for facts and truth.

I agree with most of Miland's comments. His statistical analysis is sound (unlike the miscalculations repeatedly posted earlier in this thread). I would only question his last speculation that "such gifts may not lend themselves to investigation." Such a philosophy ruled the Dark Age, when people were enslaved by superstitious beliefs that they were told were beyond critical examination. No area of the universe or anything in it should be beyond examination. That certainly includes people who charge others large amounts of money to perform "miracles."

In response to Miland's and askolnick, I would say that in order for ME to change MY mind, she would've had to "match five or more subjects" on two seperate occasions. 1 in 230 is a long shot, but long shots come through sometimes. People get lucky and I won't accept a supernatural explanation for something that could be reasonably explained as a chance occurance. People win the lottery (1 in 45 million, I think) but I wouldn't credit the winner with any skill or special "gift", I just think they got lucky. Now excuse me, I have to go buy my winning lottery ticket now (I've got a system)

JoeSixpack is right to say that Natasha's scoring 5 or more matches correctly only once would not have been sufficient to prove she posesses supernatural powers. That's why we described our test as only a preliminary examination and agreed that if she scored 5 or more matches correctly, we would conclude further testing would be warranted. But she didn't score sufficiently high enough to warrant further study. In addition, our other observations led us to conclude that Natasha has no special vision, but is only performing "cold readings" -- a technique that is commonly used by astrologers, palm readers, and other fortune tellers to convince clients they have special powers to see what cannot be seen.

The so-called "high standard of evidence" in this case is clearly warranted. The girl claimed that she can see clearly into people. She spent FOUR HOURS examining the people, which would have given her ample time to pick up cues as to what is wrong with them. After that much time, even 100% accuracy wouldn't have impressed me.

If she, as is claimed, can see clearly into people, then for the simple features she was looking for, she should have been 100% correct after looking for a few minutes. It's like if I claim that I can identify coins in glasses of water. If I could clearly see the coins then I'd be able to give a 100% correct answer in seconds. If it takes me four hours to look at the coins, and even then I only get 4 out of 7 correct.

The test showed that she achieved results much greater than would be achieved by random guessing. But, this is not just a black and white situation where either she's guessing randomly, or she is truly able to use x-ray vision. Alternative explanations include that she, after six years, has grown adept at guessing people's health conditions by observing their external appearance, movements, etc. This would be a good explanation of a higher than expected, but not perfect diagnosis. And, I would quote her FOUR HOUR examination of the subjects, and continual communication with others (e.g. by cell phone) as evidence that this is what she is doing.

If she can truly see fine details inside a person, then we'd expect 100% accuracy. 4/7 just does not cut it, and suggests an alternative method of diagnosis other than random chance, and other than being able to clearly see into people. Even if experiments were repeated many times, obtaining a strongly statistically significant result, this would only show that she is doing "something", not that she has paranormal powers. To show that she has paranormal powers requires an experiment that can distinguish between paranormal powers and diagnosis by observation of the external characteristics of the subject.

Ross-c, these are excellent comments. That is exactly how the other investigators and I saw the problem and how we came to the conclusions we did.

askolnick, you let her examine the subjects for FOUR HOURS?!?!? And let her use her cell phone? Hell, I may have been able to do as well as she in that case. What were all the test conditions?

Hihi,

You ("skepps") say that the " believers" are avoiding evidence etc. but in much cases (and also in this case) I notice that the "skepps" are avoiding things!

You only respond on the "lacks" in our stories. You don't see the story as a whole and don't look at our whole experience.

That's the problem with the whole world. A lot of times we are focused too much on details. Focussing on details is oke but not at te cost of our picture of the whole. In my opinion everything would change if we would concentrate more on the whole.

If we give then thousend reasons why we believe or know that the paranormal excist, you find that reason that is the "weakest" in your opinion.

I don't say that I know everything, but I have my own reasons to believe in the paranormal. I am sure it excists. But what is evidence for me isn't nessesary evidence for another person. That's oke...but you should know that reality is in my opinion experience. What is reality without experience? In my opinion reality as we know it doesn't excist without experience. It is the experience that is our reality. What makes my reality different that yours...it that what we experience.

That is one big different between my believe and the believe of most skepps. You only take something for real if many people are experiencing the same thing in ways wich you can accept! And if you don't like it what many people say they experience, you whipe it away.

Reality has everything to do with experience. In kind of a way everything you experience is reality.

We shouldn't focus so much on whats real and what's not. That realy depends on experience. We should focus on what works and what not! What do we want...what do we want achieve in live. Do we want to help the ill people. Maybe some aura readers can help us...who knows...and if one can't help us...maybe another...maybe they experience different things and call it one and the same. Maybe one sees after-images and another sees realy a subtile energy that is connected to our health. It is really a mather of experience...and as we become better aware of what we want to achieve in live, we start to focus on how to achieve it...if some kind of meditation, visialisation, an healing ore whatever can help you achieving your live goal, why not? You dont' have to believe that these things are real. They will become real for you when they start helping you in achieving what you want. They start to be real for you if you notice they work. You can do someting with it. And maybe you will realize that the experience of that other person and his discription of what he experienced wasn't so strange at all. (smile)

As stated by Marlon,

If we give then thousend reasons why we believe or know that the paranormal excist, you find that reason that is the "weakest" in your opinion.

You may BELIEVE all the new-age hogwash you like, but you KNOW nothing. Evidently not even the definitions of those two words. Just because you BELIEVE something and could give even 10 billion reasons WHY you believe it, doesn't make it fact. Your weakest point, if that's even the case, probably gets debunked first and most often because it's the most obvious and therefore quickest way to move towards making a point.

Reality doesn't equal experience, or vice-versa, as your experiences as interpreted by you are subject most likely to whatever "new-age" drugs your taking to promote your inner chakra-aura-healing abilities that week. What flavor was your kool-aid by the way? If what's evidence for us isn't evidence for you that's because you don't know the meaning / definition of the word evidence. What would be more correct to say would be that just because YOU think something is evidence doesn't necessarily make it such. Look up the definition.

Everything you experience is reality. Your a major fan of LSD aren't you? Obviously we don't believe something just because a lot of other people are experiencing it or we'd be on the other side of this argument, huh? Evidence which would result in proof would make us believe. What evidence does exist on this matter serves only to debunk the claims made.

Go back to the hippie-compound and tell them all about how we are so close-minded... maybe over the "Kool-aid" induced LSD trip tonight you can all come up with some more magic to cure us all of our inability to be more gullible.

Marlon,

PS - You should check into DNA perfection... I bet you'd be real big on that as well. Get that done and you might then be SUPER-ENLIGHTENED! She missed the metal plate in the head after making the claims that were made??? Just that one miss and NO MORE information is required to show it's not real. I've got a $15 metal detector that could probably do just as well as she did... Come on Marlon, they're the ones who claimed small metal objects, past fractures, etc etc could be detected... not us. SHE / IT failed... get over it!

Quote: (PS - You should check into DNA perfection... I bet you'd be real big on that as well. Get that done and you might then be SUPER-ENLIGHTENED! )

I think that if I would be super enlightened I wouldn't be a bit irritated now because some people don't agree with me. Haha... But If I annoy people with writing things as (have a good day, ore smile) I suppose I'd better not do that again.

Why do you find my discription of reality is nonsense, cause that's what it comes down on, isn't it?

In the dictionary (Dutch) stands:The discription of reality is: "The real existence of something" / " the here and know".

Know we can only inteprit reality with our senses. And our experiences has much to do with our senses. Why should the one thing we sense be reality and the other not. Is only the physical reality real? Why? That isn't the meaning of the word reality.

About Natasha...I can imagine that you don't believe in her gift because she missed the metal plate...but then your looking at a part and not at the whole.

Marion,

We find your description of reality a nonsense because we have a tool called "science" which is the best tool we have for distinguishing sense from nonsense. It's by no means perfect, but it certainly beats other tools such as "superstition", "jumping to conclusions" and similar.

If I was unaware of magnetism or similar phenomena, then I would be inclined to disbelieve that a small metallic object could attract another metallic object through a barrier such as a thin sheet of glass. However, skeptical as I would be, if someone gave me a magnet, and allowed me to experiment with it, then I'd soon discover that there was some attractive force. I'd try different sheets of glass, other barriers, see that the magnet attracts other metallic objects, and eventually I'd be convinced that the magnet was able to attract some metals. Therefore I'd conclude that the claim for the existence of magnetism was sense, not nonsense. If I gave the magnet to another "magnetism skeptic" then s/he could then convince themselves of the reality of the effect. And, if magnetism was a new discovery, there would be huge numbers of cases of people demonstrating that the effect is real.

However, when I see claims for such phenomena such as the efficiacy of homeopathic remedies, all I see is that when people try to verify these claims, and do so using proper methods and experiments, the results suggest that the claim is incorrect. Hence I classify such claims as nonsense.

There is a problem in society in general that the vast majority of people simply do not have the education and "tools" required to adequately separate sense from nonsense. Arrogant as this may sound, once someone studies science properly, and undestands how it really works (including an in-depth knowledge of statistics), there is no other conclusion that can be made.

It only takes a quick read of one of any number of books, such as _Methodological Errors in Medical Research_ by Bjorn Anderson (ISBN: 0-632-02137-3) to see that even among trained medical researchers publishing in medical journals, a large proportion don't have sufficient training to design experiments adequate to separate sense from nonsense. And that explains a lot of what we see in the real world.

Cheers,

Ross-c

PS: Marion, I'd like to make a challenge to you.

Some people in this thread have spoken of auras. I don't know whether you believe in auras or not, but please hear me out. Would you consider the following an adequate experiment to see whether or not people can truly see auras.

First, we'd need a number of people (lets call them 'seers') who claim to be able to see auras. Since this experiment is going to be based on consistency, the seers would have to trust each other's ability, so we'd allow them to talk to each other, do demonstrations, and establish that all of them (say 3 of them) do have this "power".

There would then be a session where the three 'seers' would agree on a number of properties of aura that differ between people, and how these are named. The three seers would be placed in separate rooms with no means of communication. New people ('subjects') whom the seers have not seen before would be shown to each of the seers in turn. The seers would describe the auras of these people in the terms previously agreed.

If the descriptions of the auras agreed to a degree such that random chance could be ruled out with 95% certainty, then it would be concluded that the seers can truly see the aura of the subjects, and hence that the aura exists.

Marion, do you think that this would be both a fair, and an accurate experiment to test for the ability of seers to see the auras, and therefore that the aura exists? Rather than just a yes/no answer, may I ask you to explain the reasoning behind your answer?

Cheers,

Ross-c

Natasha isn't lying. And CSICOP were highly unfair. I have so much to say on this matter but I'm not going to say it all. However, the scientists who tested Natasha called her "deluded" that is highly disrespectful, distasteful and in all honestly I find it repulsive. That is just pure discrimination. Just because she has a gift that they cannot see does not mean she is delusional. That is all. Thankyou.

A gift they cannot see because it didn't work?
I mean, if it had, they'd have seen the impressive rate of diagnoses, rather than a weak 4/7 after four hours.

Marlon, first you cite the supposed degrees your "Doctor" has, then when you are faced with irrefutable evidence that the schools which granted them are phonies, suddenly you say "Barbara Brennan holds a Master Degree in atmospheric physics. That is one thing. I do not know much about her other grades."

It's painfully obvious that you have drawn your conclusion without any actual EVIDENCE and that you are not going to let any EVIDENCE change your mind.

The facts are what the facts are and, unfortunately for your belief system, they don't support what you think. There comes a time when a reasonable person throws in their hand. I think you have long since passed that point. You're trying to bluff with a pair of deuces. Throw in.

Tali,

Natasha claimed to have a "gift", and claimed that this gift enabled her to look inside people. Her ability or inability to look inside people is something that can be objectively tested, and the evidence is that she can't. So, if she still believes that she can see inside people, then "deluded" is a fair judgement. Given the result of the experiment, the only ways that we can describe her is "deluded" or "a fraud". Which would you prefer?

Cheers,

Ross-c

I agree with Puck T Benson upthread, who calculated the proabilities randomly using a computer program. I did the maths on this problem another way, by writing a computer program to generate all 5040 (7*6*5*4*3*2*1) possible permutations of patients and symptoms, and getting the number of correct diagnoses - ranging from 0 to 7 - in each permutation, and totalling them up. These are the results (same as Puck's)

0 - 1854
1 - 1855
2 - 924
3 - 315
4 - 70
5 - 21
6 - 0
7 - 1

The probabilities associated with each score are these numbers divided by 5040. The probability of Natasha getting a score of 4 was thus 1.389%. Or 1 chance in 72 - not 1 in 50 or 1 in 55, as other people have said.

Ross-c said:

"Natasha claimed to have a "gift", and claimed that this gift enabled her to look inside people. Her ability or inability to look inside people is something that can be objectively tested, and the evidence is that she can't. So, if she still believes that she can see inside people, then "deluded" is a fair judgement. Given the result of the experiment, the only ways that we can describe her is "deluded" or "a fraud". Which would you prefer?"

Very well said, Ross. The bottom line here is that she claimed to have a "gift," she agreed to be tested, she was tested based on what she claimed she could do and she failed. End of story.

As Ross said, either she's a conscious fake or she's self-deluded. Pick one.

Comments: Page 2 of 24 pages  < 1 2 3 4 >  Last ›