|
Commentary archive #4 |
|
|
|
29th November 2005 22nd November 2005 12th November 2005 28th October 2005 23rd October 2005 14th October 2005
|
|
29th November 2005 Of course in the dim and distant past when little was known about stars and planets it was perhaps understandable that astrological charts produced little more than vague generality, covered with a layer of obscurity and sprinkled with a light dusting of educated guesswork. But whilst science has progressed at a phenomenal pace astrology proudly remains the half-baked nonsense it always has. For a start Uranus was discovered in 1781 (Sir William Herschel). Did this momentous occasion result in improved astrological forecasting Neptune turned up in 1846 and Pluto as recently as 1930. Are there records that show the vast amount of astrological research that followed these discoveries None that I know of, and yet the life principle of Uranus is Deviation, through invention, independence, drastic change*. Similar and equally doubtful life principles apply to the other two as well. I think its also worth mentioning the amazing fact that we have no idea if many of the stars that pepper the sky, actually still exist. Sure the light is still travelling towards us but the stars that caused that light may have long since died. Isnt it a little surprising then that modern astrology is still, little more than vague generality, covered with a layer of obscurity and sprinkled with a light dusting of educated guesswork Since those far off days one thing hasnt changed: Todays astrologers, just like their predecessors can count on enough people, with enough credulity to provide them with a nice living. By some small way of illustration I have reproduced below four pieces of astrological wisdom for Virgos everywhere. These were lovingly compiled for the tabloid press by those at the very top (at least financially) of their trade. I have chosen Virgo as my own birthday falls within that period and presumably allows me to make some informed comment as to their accuracy. All these are for today (29th November 2005). Jonathan Cainer - Daily Mail(actually hes off at the moment so credit must go to Eric Francis) Dont worry that people seem not to understand you. You barely understand yourself. The advantage you have is that you believe youll get there one day. While you cant quite credit others with that possibility. This matters because you really do want and need to be accepted for who you are. And heres the catch. The more boldly you can be who you are, the more confident youll feel that other people get you. Its hiding inside yourself that results in your mistrust. And I have every faith that youll emerge exactly when the time is right. The next few weeks have something special in store for you. To find out more, call Jonathan:. My evaluation: Drivel. Still, perhaps I should cough up more money and call Jonathan for more of the same. Justin Toper Daily Express My evaluation: No arguments family based or otherwise, no acts of defiance, no performance of a domestic service. Okay its only general but its generally wrong. Mystic Meg The Sun My evaluation: Money for old rope. Who needs to work when you can get rich turning out mindless pap like this Debbie Frank Daily Mirror My evaluation: Mystic Meg seemed to think the Uranus/Sun connection would make me feel independent whereas Debbie suggests, a bit of fun might turn out to be more. These are all for the same bloody day! Not one of them agrees with the other. Presumably if I were predisposed to believe this claptrap I could make it all fit but Im not and it doesnt. Isnt it time we all grew up and consigned this most timeless of con tricks to the dustbin of history Ill get my coat. * Teach Yourself Astrology - Jeff Mayo |
|
|
|
22nd November 2005 Whereas on Most Haunted he usually limited himself to the occasional possession he can now easily pack in at least two per episode. His penchant for instant channeling remains unique among celebrity psychics. There are aspects of Ghost Towns strangely reminiscent of his previous series. Low camera angles shot spookily in black and white ensure viewers remain depressingly familiar with Dereks flaring nostrils. The residual energies are still there along with other 'Derekspeak' phrases such as, coming into the atmosphere (trans. turning up) and coming in visitation (trans. ghosts come and spy on you). Not only that, but he still uses favourite phrases that have stood the test of time. Lovely ladies and/or Gentlemen come into the atmosphere as do loving souls. Cancer The rest of the shows team is made up of Danniella Westbrook (a believer) and Angus Purden who is billed as an open-minded sceptic. As Ive yet to hear him say anything that sounds remotely sceptical Ill withhold judgement on that for now. The most onerous duty in their collective job description seems to be that they have to take Derek seriously. Part of the format includes Derek turning up on some poor sods doorstep offering to give them a reading. Like a spiritualist version of a Jehovahs Witness he descends uninvited in an attempt to convince you his invisible friends are real. The only positive thing about this segment is that Dereks obvious cold reading skills are laid bare for all to witness. The downside is that he tries to convince an otherwise rational member of society to start believing in fairy tales. Towards the end of the show some professory looking parapsychologist is asked to list the possibilities of what happened. Either Derek did really channel the spirit of a long dead person or perhaps it came from somewhere in his own subconscious mind. The two alternatives are not weighted so presumably we are meant to think that they both have equal merit. I would like to suggest a third possibility - Derek is just playacting. I think this is a good theory and fits in well with current scientific knowledge but apart from that I can offer nothing else in its favour. In summary then Livingtv continue to produce junk TV that promotes paranormal nonsense unfettered by any real sceptical input. Perhaps the cash cow that is Most Haunted is showing signs of running dry and this mutation will fill the coffers for a while longer. Still if you want to produce supernatural drivel Dereks certainly your man. Other stuff Daily Planet - Discovery Channel Canada The View from Number Eighty shows the eloquence of his scientific literacy as yet another attempt is made to overcome the laws of thermodynamics and Randis Commentary shows that were not all barking mad in the UK. |
|
|
|
12th November 2005 And theres the rub Im supposed to do the explaining. Well Im writing this ready for the next time it happens. To save time Im including ghosts as both Mediums and ghosts seem to be forming an ever closer relationship. Nomadic bands of Most Haunted wannabes all feel obliged to take along a local Medium who will pick up on residual energies just like Acorah does. I sense an awful smell coming into the atmosphere. Reasons to be sceptical part 1.
Im betting that even back then there were a few sceptical people around and perhaps they asked for some evidence to back up this unlikely claim. Im guessing now but probably one suggestion from the tribal priest might have been, Well its up to you of course but youll be stoned to death if you dont believe it. I imagine that this was a pretty compelling argument at the time and anyway then, like now, the sceptic was asked to come up with a better answer. Well eventually they did and it was called the Big Bang theory. This still left the vexing question about how we, i.e. humans, got here but eventually Charles Darwin put us on the right track evolution by natural selection. Are you with me so far Well at this point there is hardly anything left for this God thingy to actually do and allowing for the fact that nature, and therefore evolution, was a nasty, brutal system, if there was a Creator of some kind we can be fairly certain that he, she or it wasnt very nice. If some sort of life after death is a possibility, then at some point on our journey from mollusc to Homo Sapien we must have acquired a spirit body which was presumably given to us by the afore mentioned God thing. It cannot have developed as a natural part of evolution and therefore can only have had a supernatural origin. In others words,
So whereas once this answer was given to explain the natural world, i.e. something that obviously existed, it is now given to explain the supernatural, which makes it a somewhat circular argument.
No one should be impressed by such an argument. The simpler explanation is that from nought point bugger all after the big bang right up until now is the whole thing was an entirely natural process. I mean natural as opposed to supernatural. The evidence for evolution is overwhelmingly strong. Not enough possibly to persuade George W. Bush but pretty good nonetheless. The only other suggestion being.
There is another point we might consider while we are at it. All the evidence we have suggests that consciousness is dependent on the physical brain. You get a knock to the head and bingo you lose consciousness. People suffer some terrible trauma to the brain, or maybe it is starved of oxygen for too long and the result is severe mental disability. Its not like you just get problems with speaking, hearing or feeling following brain damage and that your mental faculties otherwise stay intact, because they dont. In fact there are many things that work on our brain such as a whole host of narcotics, one example being the mind altering drug L.S.D. To summarise Reasons to be sceptical part 2. Another useful question is whether Mediums have ever been caught cheating. Oh yes, and how! In addition lets ask if it is possible that we could make perceptual mistakes when we think weve seen a ghost You betcha. Can cold reading been used to duplicate Mediumistic readings Damn right. So what is it that persuades people that some man or woman can actually talk with the dead It usually boils down to just one thing, He told me things he couldnt possibly have known. And thats about it. So Im supposed to ignore well established scientific facts and concentrate on explaining how someone could possibly know that their husband liked gardening and had a blue jacket. All my suggestions are dismissed out of hand and Im supposed to concede defeat on nothing other than the trivial babblings of a Medium, as related to me by the imperfect the memory of the sitter, who in all probability is desperate to believe anyway. Imagine if you will a set of scales with known scientific facts on one side and my inability to explain your reading on the other. Wadaya think My last word is for Mediums everywhere. You are not really talking to dead people. There are no dead people capable of listening to you. You know you cannot prove your gift and that you are relying on the ignorance and desperation of those who come to you seeking solace. There are people right now trying to make our world a better place and were learning more about ourselves and the Universe all the time. You are not helping by dragging us back into superstition and darkness. Other stuff Meanwhile Derek Acorah has received yet another bashing in the press this time courtesy of Ally Ross in The Sun. I have emailed the paper to ask if I can reproduce the story here but no word as yet. Randi also wades in with this week's Swift. Is Derek's star finally beginning to wane We can but hope. This week The View at Number 80 has stuff on Allison Dubois, Intelligent Design and finally Hindus have something to feel pissed off about. Last of all Brendan Kilmartin of The Supernatural World very kindly asked me to do an interview. The result of which is here. |
|
|
|
23rd October 2005 The Game's Up - Most Haunted Exposed!
The headline refers to the shows producer Karl Beatties apparently thumping his sound man and pretending it was a phantom. Happily the fake Asylum gets a mention which, as I have stated repeatedly was just a convalescent home and nothing at all to do with incarcerated patients dying in torment. The article also reveals the truth behind the Kreed Kafer and Rik Eedles stories (anagrams of Derek Faker and Derek Lies respectively), they were from the imagination of Ciaran himself in an attempt to trap Acorah a trap which obviously worked. Dereks hilarious possessions also get mentioned which Ciaran describes as, showmanship and dramatics. The article raises another question: Is Ciaran the only person on the entire show with the personal integrity to tell the truth Richard Felix famously said that if anything was shown to be fake he would walk. After the asylum farce I emailed Felix twice challenging him to be as good as his word. I never received a reply. Perhaps hes walking as I write, I wonder Personally I find it inconceivable that anyone on the show wasnt aware of the asylums true history so perhaps we should expect a mass walkout. Embarrassingly the show is scheduled to run tonight with Acorah & Co on the trial of Jack the Ripper and for all the wrong reasons it should make interesting viewing. Its Acorahs last appearance before he is replaced by barber Gordon Smith who is Hailed as the UKs most accurate medium . Well see. Along with the exposure story theres an amusing piece by Jane Simon. She wonders how an Ethiopian who supposedly lived 2,038 years ago (Acorahs guide Sam) managed to learn perfect English. Acorahs partially coherent answer was, When you leave the physical plane of life theres no barrier of language because its universal. I take him to mean Esperanto has finally found its niche.
|
|
23rd October 2005 Acorah rebuffed And of course we have Derek Acorah (minor celeb) courting favour with Robbie Williams (major celeb). Now Robbie, if newspaper reports are to be believed, is not exactly a hard line skeptic. For example a report in The Daily Mirror ( 20/09/2005) claims that Robbie is a bit of a UFO buff and he is quoted as saying; "I think they are definitely on their way, seriously. Mark my words. From now until 2012 - watch out, kids. In another Mirror snippet we discover he is a bit of a medium himself; The Daily Mirror 21 October 2005 ROBBIE: I CAN SEE THE DEAD By Cameron Robertson ROBBIE Williams claims he sees ghosts and could have been a medium. The star, 31, said: "I think I have powers. "I've seen things - my sister's dog jumping up at her feet when it had passed away years before. "Security locks opening and closing in front of my eyes. TVs switching on and off." And had his pop career flopped he could have become "a holistic man of medicine and spirituality", he claimed. Robbie also said he dreamt of hosting a TV show on the paranormal like author Arthur C Clarke. I cant help wondering about the accuracy of these reports, even if we assume they are true perhaps they were just off the cuff comments. However Robbie must have some interest in the subject because he invited Derek Acorah over to his Chelsea penthouse. I got this next report from www.robbiewilliamsoz.com which says it came from The Sun in which Derek gives his account of the meeting. The subtle headline is; I HELPED ROBBIE WILLIAMS TALK TO HIS DEAD GRAN Casting discretion to the wind Derek Acorah tells us, "Robbie invited me to his apartment in London . He was really friendly and started calling me Degsey immediately. "We chatted and he told me how much he loved the programme. He said he had given Most Haunted DVDs to lots of friends including Robert De Niro, Danny DeVito and Billy Crystal and that they were all hooked on the show. "We sat chatting for while but I noticed he had something on his mind, I sensed he needed reassurance so I offered to do a reading. "I was able to contact a couple of his loved ones, including his grandmother, whom he dearly loved. It was very emotional, he was moved to tears. But he was thrilled that I was able to make contact. She told him some personal things he said only she would know. "And he was gobsmacked when his gran gave her opinion about a women he had asked on a date. Well if you cant tell the world about a personal meeting what can you do However in a Times article this week we get a somewhat different perspective. Here Robbie Williams is being interviewed by Caitlin Moran. In part of this interview Williams gives his account of the same meeting. First we are told. Acorah came up with little more than what a search would yield on Williamss dead relatives, albeit rendered in a blaze of peerlessly camp Scouse dramatics. Not quite "moved to tears" then Disappointed that his faith in Acorahs ability to contact the dead appeared to have been misplaced, Williams thanked him, saw him out of the flat and resolved not to see him again. Acorah, however, had other ideas. The next thing I know, Williams says, lighting another cigarette while scratching at his broken arm, he rings up and goes Robbie! Robbie! Ive just been on the phone to the head of LIVINGtv and he says and listen Robbie, this is true he says that you can do whatever you want. Whatever you want! Make any show you like! And Im on the other end going, erm, I think I could get ABC if I wanted, to be honest. Ill be OK, Derek. Still nice of Derek to offer Robbie a bit of a hand up. There goes the Arthur C. Clarke thing. Still, Acorah didnt give in. Having failed at brokering the pivotal LIVINGtv deal, a week later he rang Williams to tell him that hed arranged a dinner for himself, Williams and my great friend, Uri Geller. Wow! He passed up the chance to see the bent spoon trick. You know, that one Uri never seems to do on TV anymore. Just imagine spending and evening with both Geller and Acorah. Personally Id rather poke myself in the eye with a stick. Theres more. Despite Acorahs pleading, Williams did not turn up for this paranormal tête-à-tête. I thought, Im not talking to you, you ****ing idiot. Youre outside the circle of trust. Next thing I know, Williams says, rattling his belt buckle with his knuckles in a surge of nervous energy, hes promoting a DVD in a double-page spread in the Daily Mirror, going Yeah, I got (contacted on the other side) Robbies nan. And when Robbies in America , his friends watch my DVD. Robert de Niro, Robin Williams, Dustin Hoffman. Robbie does a face of scandalised boggling. IVE NEVER MET THEM! he shouts, slowly, as if communicating with a deaf idiot on the other side of the Thames . I DONT KNOW DUSTIN HOFFMAN! And hang on a minute YOURE ALSO SELLING A DVD USING MY DEAD NAN !" Robbie sighs. Go Robbie! Which sums up the whole distasteful encounter. If you could actually talk to the dead and if you actually got in touch with someones dead relative is it a nice thing to do to use this as part of your sales promotion No it bloody well isnt. Such an encounter would be deeply personal. Full credit for Robbie for seeing right through this charade. Im even tempted to buy his new album. Tell you what Robbie next time you're up this way do drop in and we'll give Dustin and Robert a call and we'll all go down the pub. I think I could get you a slot on Karaoke night if you're interested Any song you want! The advantages of not having an open mind Some parapsychologists seem to perpetuate this idea. They have to maintain an air of open-mindedness as they feel it would be perceived as "unscientific" to do otherwise. Dont misunderstand me many parapsychologists do a great job in investigating paranormal claims but others are doomed to present an ever open mind which can give quite the wrong impression. Ill take mediumship as my example. If you ask someone, Do you think X can communicate with the dead then the scientific answer will probably be, Well Id have to test them. Whereas I just say no theyre not. On the face of it this looks like the scientist is keeping an open mind while nasty old dyed-in-the-wool skeptic (me) is obviously a close-minded bigot. The point is you cant stay open-minded forever. When you first look at something then of course you should be open-minded in your search for the truth but when you have researched the subject in some depth then you are entitled to come to some conclusion. With post-mortem communication we might consider the following;
You get the idea. That sort of stuff. So at this point I consider that, as the probability of an afterlife is somewhere between slim and nothing anyway, mediums are probably not a genuine phenomenon. I should emphasise here the importance of weighing the evidence carefully and to help with this process you would use usual critical thinking tools. Having arrived at my conclusion it does not necessarily rule out the possibility of my being incorrect but something, some additional piece of evidence needs to turn up in order to persuade me to change my mind. This evidence would need to be very great indeed and simply testing one medium is not going to carry much weight at all. So when I hear about various celebrity mediums such as, Colin Fry, Tony Stockwell, Derek Acorah, Gordon Smith, James Van Praagh and John Edward I do not say, Well without testing them I cant be sure if they are genuine or not. What I say is that the chances of them being genuine are even less likely than a tadpole becoming the next Pope. The onus is on them to supply me with hard evidence. In fact the onus is on them to supply humanity with hard evidence but the sad fact is that they dont. Despite all their posturing and attempts to appear all spiritual and superior they have absolutely nothing to back up their claims. So no, I am not open-minded about mediums: all the credible evidence tells me such claims are nonsense. Which of course raises another question: Are they lying Here we depart from scientific enquiring into the world of litigation, you see you just cant go round calling people liars. Perhaps they are deluded, perhaps they have some psychological illness but as to whether they are actually lying it is a matter of opinion and opinions can be wrong. So I dont call them liars but what I do say is that no medium, which includes all those named above, have ever provided sufficient evidence (by a wide margin) to give me the slightest reason to suppose they are genuine and until they do I say unambiguously that I do not believe them. To quote Penn & Teller they're just talking bullshit. Other stuff Shameless plug. I have given an interview to Skepticality which you can listen to here. I was interviewed by Fraser Cain, who was very nice to me and let talk incessantly. Derek Colanduno continues to improve and will hopefully be returning to Skepticality sometime soon. Meanwhile Swoopy continues to keep the flame going. If you havent been to this site before then thats your next stop (after the DVDs). You can also listen to interviews with Randi, Bob Carroll, Dr Michael Shermer and many others. I really must get around to discussing the Incitement to Religious Hatred Bill. Meanwhile go to No.80 and read, Intense Dislike Anyone |
|
|
|
14th October 2005 If it sounds like a duck... The same reasoning would apply if just before my headache disappeared I had eaten a banana and claimed that was what cured me. Would you eat a banana now every time you got a headache based on my opinion You would be wise not to. Okay so you dont believe someone and insignificant as me but supposing Mick Jagger said it I mean hes famous and everything so perhaps that would carry more weight. Alas no, because singing with The Rolling Stones doesnt make you an expert in evaluating the medical effectiveness of subtropical fruit does it Perhaps you would be more impressed if a GP said it. Whilst it could be argued she might be better informed than Mick it doesnt follow. So what would count A randomised double-blind clinical trial would be a start. Now bearing this in mind tell me why I should be impressed that Peter Hain (Secretary of State for Wales) thinks homeopathy works based on the fact that his son who had asthma and eczema got better after taking a homeopathic (i.e. water) treatment According to the Guardian thats what he claims. Naturally he has heartily endorsed the United Kingdoms most famous rationaliphobe* Prince Charles in this bid to get us, via the NHS, to pay for this pointless, unproven, ineffective and obviously crackpot pseudomedicine. Hain was speaking at a one-day conference held in St Jamess Palace for the Princes Foundation for Integrated Health, specifically the network of GP Associates some of whom, Im assuming, have signed up to the Princes magical world view that homeopathy works. By contrast a recent trial of homeopathy in the Lancet (reg. required) the findings were summarised as follows; Biases are present in placebo-controlled trials of both homoeopathy and conventional medicine. When account was taken for these biases in the analysis, there was weak evidence for a specific effect of homoeopathic remedies, but strong evidence for specific effects of conventional interventions. This finding is compatible with the notion that the clinical effects of homoeopathy are placebo effects.` So in the blue corner we have Prince Charles, Peter Hain and X number of General Practitioners and in the red corner we have a scientific study. Perhaps youre still inclined to go with the blue corner in which case what was it that convinced you What actual evidence, anecdotes apart, do you find so persuasive The bases of homeopathy, like curing like and that the treatment becomes more effective with increasing dilutions are nutty enough without the coup de grace of clinical trials but I really start to worry when government ministers offer their public support on the basis of personal experience rather than scientic research. *Going with the tendency to add the suffix phobe to everything, e.g. homophobia, Islamophobia, etc. I made this word up. If it gets into the OED I want the credit. The Association for Skeptical Enquiry
|
|
|
and loss of body weight return to take their rightful place in Dereks cold reading lexicon.
I thought it was about time I gave 
Pig headed or pig ignorant