wdog

I tried to find some web info debunking that damned pet psychic sylvia fitzpatrick on tv. could not find much, does anybody have any info? I need to shut some people up.

thanks

Viti

You know people that think psychics can communicate with pets? LOL...what needs debunking, that's the silliest thing I have ever heard?

Corwin

Just from what I've seen of the commercials? She's a reasonably skilled and intuitive animal and human psychologist. (Amateur.) She's basically doing what stage mentalists call a 'cold reading,' mostly of the owner. The fact that she's supposedly interpeting for a pet adds some complexity to the reading, so she probably has at least a vague understanding of animal psychology, at least for major species. (For example, understanding the concept that a dog and a wolf are NOT the same thing... physically or mentally...)

She's no more supernatrual than John Edwards.... although I will say that since she isn't just cold reading about dead relatives to a human, what she has to do is somewhat more difficult.

He's a hack con artist. If she wasn't conning her listeners I'd probably call her a skilled stage magician and intuitive psychologist. As it is, however....

freemonkey

What's more difficult? How can she be proved wrong if she says, "Sparky thinks you don't spend enough time with him" or "Fido is still feeling some emotional hurt from the time when he was yelled at for chewing something he wasn't supposed to"?

Veil of Fire

"LOL...what needs debunking, that's the silliest thing I have ever heard?"

I thought freethinkers REJECTED the idea of putting the conclusion ahead of the evidence?

Viti

Get over it Veil of Fire....freethinking does not mean falling for con artists or believeing any silly claim anyone makes.

Anunnaki

Would you care to show us some of this evidence?

infidelchic

<a href="http://www.randi.org/jr/113001.html" target="_blank">http://www.randi.org/jr/113001.html</a>

Corwin

She does have to respond to the animal to some extent, and having a very basic understanding of animal psychology helps. (Trying to tell a python owner, for example, that the snake is telling her he wants prekilled food... wouldn't work very well since any python owner knows most snakes prefer live food. If they haven't killed it most of them won't eat it.)

[Edited to add]

I guess the base argument is that what she does is slightly more difficult, since instead of conning one gullible, very likely bereaved person, she's conning one gullible, but otherwise mostly emotionally stable... (as much as anybody at least) and a relatively unpredictable animal.

[ July 16, 2002: Message edited by: Corwin ]</p>

Veil of Fire

That's not a justification for your rabid disbelief. That's an appeal to ridicule. The SECOND one in a row, I might add.

Lady Shea adopted a conclusion without caring to hear if any evidence otherwise even existed. A position I see far too often on this particular board. Whether or not a pet psychic is a fraud, an Appeal to Ridicule is not an acceptable 'reason' reject ANY claim.

I didn't say there was or was not any evidence. I did not support or rebuke the original topic. I'm merely pointing out that a so-called 'freethinker' is resorting to the lamest of 'debunking' tactics usually only seen coming from the most desperate of Young Earth Creationists: "You really believe we came from monkies? Hah!"

***

[edit: I'd also like to note that Randi's article is exactly the same thing; a giant Appeal to Ridicule. And y'all wonder why I think he's just as much of a fraud as the people he claims to be 'investigating'. At least give the poor schmucks an opportunity to prove themselves. Deciding you already have a conclusion and rejecting the notion that any kind of test is necessary is Dark Ages philosophy repackaged for a modern day.]

[ July 16, 2002: Message edited by: Veil of Fire ]</p>