“Real Psychics” Television Show on Paranormal TV
Paranormal TV presents “Real Psychics”! In this episode, international psychic medium Dawn Carr joins the guys on “The Booth” radio show from WXBR AM 1460 to answer questions and make predictions. With Keith Hayes, Frank Czarnowski, Ken Diesenhof and producer Kevin Tocci, it’s never a dull moment and a fun time was had by all! Video courtesy of Paranormal TV: www.paranormaltv.tv.
@VampireBloodiKiss there´s no such a thing
It surprises me people actually believe this stuff! If she actually is amazingly accurate the production crew are using stooges – otherwise there wouldn’t be a worthwhile show.
She’s not a real ‘psychic’.
@Robikus You suspect too many things.
@ebrobaru Then address the points I’ve made on DB. From your arguments I suspect Randi is where you get your information on science since it is so far off.
@Robikus I never said that Randi was a scientist, nor he. Don´t try to deviate the conversation
@ebrobaru The fact that this needs to be explained to you shows you really don’t understand the scientific process as well as you have been led to believe. James Randi is not a scientist.
@ebrobaru Some experimentation lends itself to DB and some does not. In medical studies its very useful since you need a control group to measure the substance being tested for against. In other experimentation it would not add to the validity of the result. It depends on the type of experiment.
@ebrobaru Please explain then how a double blind experiment can be preformed in astronomy? Making a point here that not all experiments can include a DB element. How would you propose DB be used in the predictive caller test? Really, 1 of 4 people is calling a subject, the subject guesses or uses intuition to predict who is calling and the results measured. If you had a second group what would they have to do to be ‘blind’ in this respect? In this experiment the 25% ratio is the measure.
@ebrobaru Bullocks!
@Robikus Now you are using the same fallacy as them in those “studies”. It´s not up to you to decide if db is used or not, otherwise the study is void
@ebrobaru No, you missed the point, it is not as mandatory as some would say. You are using it in attempt to score a point in an argument but you apparently don’t understand the role of DB in science. When a random result of 25% is the ‘chance’ result and 45% is the actual result why do you need a DB study? The maths are the DB in a sense. You are good at ‘argument’ but poor with the facts. You could be a great philosopher but I’m afraid you’d make a poor scientist.
@ebrobaru No, you missed the point, it is not as mandatory is some would say. You are using it in attempt to score a point in an argument but you apparently don’t understand the role of DB in science. When a random result of 25% is the ‘chance’ result and 45% is the actual result why do you need a DB study? The maths are the DB in a sense. You are good at ‘argument’ but poor with the facts. You could be a great philosophy but I’m afraid you’d make a poor scientist.
@Robikus so because they are not taught, then they shouldn´t be used? Sorry, but your logic is flawed
@ebrobaru See, numbers and data show what’s really going on, not just rants from conjurers.
@ebrobaru Besides you are putting too much emphasis on DB, Sheldrake has used it, but in cases where you have a ‘random’ expected by mathematics, it would seem unnecessary. :”A survey of science departments at 11 British Universities confirmed that blind procedures are rare in most branches of the physical and biological sciences. They are neither used nor taught in 22 out of 23 physics and chemistry
departments, or in 14 out of 16 biochemistry and molecular biology departments.” -Sheldrake
@ebrobaru Well three I’m aware of, actually many more lesser known than Sheldrake, Radin and Bem. Again, show some numbers or you are just whining.
@ebrobaru There are three reproducing those kinds of numbers. Where are your numbers?
@Robikus No, those studies were not double blind. You are on the science of science? Sure, whatever you say. I wonder why nobody else, in any study, has been able to recreate those numbers you mention.
@ebrobaru Once again, the studies were double blind, and peer reviewed. I’m on the side of the scientists, you’re on the side of conjurers like Randi. Give it up, you’ve lost this argument by failing to show any data where as I have shown data proving psi and discussed numbers. YOU LOSE!!! Now go whine to someone else who may be dense enough to swallow your swill.
@Robikus No, those are not serious studies. Serious studies are double blind and peer reviewed, unlike these two. You are the one claiming something, then it´s up to you to prove it, not the other way around
@ebrobaru The studies I’ve mentioned are serious studies. Radin and Sheldrake are peer reviewed. And again, no numbers. Where are these studies and to they they take the sheep/goat effect in consideration? You are all talk and no data.
@Robikus check any serious study and you´ll see. I mean serious, not the ones you mention
@ebrobaru Show some numbers, real numbers, and you may have a point, until you can show numbers you are not doing science, you are just being a whiny little be-outch.
@ebrobaru Independent study typically means not funded by a corporation or entity who could profit from the result. Most scientist would lose their jobs and be ousted from their position for doing such work. A college study by a tenured scientist is independent as I see it. I think you’re grasping at straws at this point, I can tell you would say any study that shows positive results for psi is bias, that’s the way psuedo-skeptics work.