"She must be some kind of Russian fraud," was the first thing I said to Yana and Natasha. We were riding in a bus through rural Mexico and they played a Discovery Channel show about Natasha Demkina, a girl who claims to be able to see through human bodies and diagnose their medical conditions. Here is Wikipedia on the girl. I found this article revealing:
…a lot of text messages were being sent between her and her companions during the test, something the scientists had expressly forbidden.
Here is another skeptical account, and here. Here is a good Bayesian discussion. Here is the Amazing Randi. No, I do not believe in the paranormal, nor is her record even close to perfect, but still the girl seems to have a remarkable ability to read clues from ailing human beings. (She doesn’t seem to be interested in seeing through animal bodies or for that matter inanimate objects.) I am glad to hear she wants to become a doctor. What I find odd is her apparently unique ability to pull off this fraud; is there not free entry into the sector? I also find it interesting that the Discovery Channel finds this story "true enough" to broadcast in some countries, but not others.
Clever Hans, the horse that could do arithmetic, was in fact skilled at reading what the questioner thought was the right answer, not at knowing arithmetic.
He couldn’t do the problem if he couldn’t see the questioner.
No medical horses, though.
What I find odd is her apparently unique ability to pull off this fraud; is there not free entry into the sector?
I guess one possibility is that the great majority of people don’t want to commit fraud. (That sounds flip, but I’m serious.)
It’s interesting that you are all quite certain that these kinds of phenomena do not exist. . .
“I also find it interesting that the Discovery Channel finds this story “true enough” to broadcast in some countries, but not others.”
I find it fascinating that the US falls in implied category of “too skeptical.” We do right by Silvia Brown and the “They Don’t Want Ya to Know” guy.
Is the girl is homely or flat-chested?
Matthew, it’s interesting that you are quite certain that these kinds of phenomena [probably] do exist — without credible evidence for their existence.
Doesn’t it trouble you that every time we take a very careful look at paranormal claims, they prove false or unsubstantiated?
Some defenders of supernatural belief call this the “shyness effect” (things-that-go-bump-in-the-night are bashful and don’t want to be examined by persnickety scientists). People with their heads screwed on right call this “special pleading” or “a load of bunk.”
BTW Andrew,
How interesting that you choose to use the word “supernatural” to describe these phenomena, when practically every researcher into these topics eschews that description or the belief that these things are somehow “outside nature”. I can only infer that you are attempting to slur researchers by conflating them with religious zealots when many of them (such as Dr. Dean Radin) are avowed atheists and vocal opponents of religious belief.
Matthew, the burden of proof is on the claimant. (Being that it is illogical to demand proof of nonexistence.) So please provide indisputable proof that any paranormal phenomenon is real. This of course means an observation that is repeatable by others — regardless of their beliefs.
Naturally, the work of devout believers like Dr. Radin, though it may be accepted as proof by other devout believers (like Nobel laureate Brian Josephson), does not cut it. To be convincing evidence, an observation has to be reproducible by non-believers as well.
It’s amazing the amount of crazy beliefs in this world.
Recently my sister-in-law went to see a “soul reader” — apparently some new variant of the palm reader. It was just painful to listen to. Her description of the event was a mix of cold reading plus some inside info.
My sis-in-law works for a prominent country music singer, and had been recommended to this “soul reader” by the singer’s hairstylist. Despite this fact, my sis-in-law (who otherwise is a bright, successful girl) was impressed the psychic guessed her career and could describe her boss.
A couple other “hits” … The psychic correctly predicted they were planning on children soon (wow, a married couple in their late 20s .. what are the odds.) She also guessed her grandparents had been or ill or had died.
I’m willing to pass off much psychic crap as harmless (especially if a cute girl wants to read my palm or aura or whatever), but the fake medical treatments make me very, very angry. That’s just evil.
Jim, amen. You’re dead on about that. The mere fact that the palm-reading-like “diagnoses” Natasha Demkina provides her clients may send them for unnecessary, often expensive and not always harmless medical tests is reason enough to condemn what she does. And then there’s the harm she causes by either making them worry unnecessarily or — even worse — providing them false assurance that there’s no problem when there actually is.
To see how easy it is to provide a cold reading that can convince most people you are a true psychic, listen to the very first cold readings I ever performed, back in 1986 on WGN-AM radio “Extension 720 with Milt Rosenberg Show.” I knew NOTHING about the two callers – that is until they revealed so much with what they said and how they said it. (I’m a bit more clever than any horse named Hans.)
http://www.aaskolnick.com/ext720.mp3
Could you imagine what I could do with a little more practice (and a hell of a lot fewer scruples)? I could start my own religion and live in the lap of divine luxury. If not here, certainly in Russia.
askolnick, can you please make corrections to the wiki page if you haven’t already?
Cliff, I gave up trying to do that almost two years ago. I was outnumbered by paranormal believers who insisted that self-published Internet rants and articles from sleazy tabloid newspapers are credible sources (despite Wikipedia’s rules to the contrary). No matter how many times I took such out, they put it back in. I finally stopped contributing to Wikipedia. Wiki’s uncontroversial articles are usually o.k. But controversial subjects that attracts determined propagandists? Forget it. Trying to undo their damage is a painful waste of time. One may eventually get one or two vandals banned, but what’s the use? They soon return posting from another computer under another name (or even anonymously – most of the time, Wikipedia allows anonymous editing!).
From Ambrose Bierce’s The Devil’s Dictionary:
CLAIRVOYANT, n. A person, commonly a woman, who has the power of seeing that which is invisible to her patron, namely, that he is a blockhead.
花蓮租車
花蓮租車
花蓮租車旅éŠ-TTA租車公å¸-æ—…éŠç§Ÿè»Š
花蓮旅éŠæ™¯é»ž
This might be true.There are people who possess great power.You may want to try some Online Psychic Readings and you might be surprised on what you may find there.
Comments on this entry are closed.