Click here to support the Daily Grail for as little as $US1 per month on Patreon

Oprah Medium Well-Done

By Gregon

Apparently yesterday’s instalment of Oprah concentrated on psychics and parapyschology. Interviewed on the show were psychic mediums John Edward and Allison Dubois, as well as parapsychology researcher Dr Dean Radin. You can read a rough summary of the various segments of the show at Oprah’s website, as well as view the trailer for the episode. Hopefully the show turns up on YouTube or similar (give me a heads-up, please!) sometime in the future, for those that missed it.

Great to see Dean Radin get some high-level exposure to the general public, and of course to see these topics discussed in a sensible manner without the environment or editing being ‘controlled’ by either the skeptics or mediums themselves. Interestingly, the poll on the Oprah website suggests that an overwhelming number of viewers are convinced of the reality of ‘survival’ or the supernatural – sounds like Randi and the team still have a lot to do in order to win over the general population.

Tying in nicely with this news, I have posted my review of Dean Radin’s Entangled Minds (Amazon US and UK) here on TDG (originally published in Sub Rosa). Definitely a book most TDGers should have on their bookshelf.

Greg
Editor
Greg is the owner-editor of The Daily Grail, as well as the author of a number of books including Stop Worrying, There Probably is an Afterlife.
Related

25 Comments

  1. Life After Death
    Comrades,

    You know, I’ve never understood Randi’s fascination with disproving these things. Either there is life after death, or there isn’t. Seems to me we’ll all find out sooner or later, so why worry about it?

    If folks take comfort in believing in a next life, or reincarnation, or whatever, how is that his business to disprove or diminish? He should worry about the state of his own Karma, before some skeptics start to question whether Randi exists…….

    Respects,
    Gwedd

    1. Comrades,
      Now why would
      Comrades,

      Now why would I possibly want to do that? Jump into a snake pit just for jumping? That site is an echo chamber and the posters simply waiting for the chance to pounce upon the apostate.

      Lookit: The opinions and visceral ruminations of the skeptic lot is no different than any religion. They worship at the altar of denial, with science as dogma, incontravertable and unapologetic. They seek to scourge the world of heretics, which to their closed minds is anyone who thinks differently than they do.

      The Gods created everything, and science is our way of trying to understand how they did it. They can no more disprove the existence of Gods or the supernatural than a believer can prove their existence. It’s a push.

      And yet, the world knows no fury like a zealot scorned, and to my mind, there is little difference between the skeptics and the Taliban. Both are extremists, brook no apostasy, and are as like to destroy those who disagree with their particular dogma.

      Me? I’m content to read, peruse the literature, enjoy some bourbon, and leave an offering for the Gods. We’ll all know soon enough who is on the winning side of the argument. Life is to short to contest such trivial things.

      I think an Englishman best summed it up some 4 centuries ago when he wrote:

      “There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.”

      So there you have it.

      Respects,
      Gwedd

      1. On the border
        Hello,

        You’re quiet right Gwedd, in the old days it was the church that went after anyone that dared to show ESP/PSI, apparently this was only Jesus or bible prophets territory. These days the sceptics…desparate materialists the lot of them, go after anyone showing their face and yes unfortunately lots of charlatans in the ring, just as in religion i might add.

        Anyone having serious powers will not promote them, it would attract too much attention from the dark forces, on this planet and yes beyond (the realm we percieve). There are no easy answers here, but if everyone on this planet would believe and make a serious efforts in the direction of ESP/PSI this world would quickly change. Those sceptics that vehemently hold on to those borders (remember the flat earth) are doing the human race no favor.

        A matter of choice;
        Intimidation, corruption and lies, or serenity, sharing and sincerity.

          1. Caution
            Lee,

            Please respond to the poster’s statements, and not to calling them ‘stupid’. It’s a personal attack with no points of merit.

            Kind regards,
            Greg
            ——————————————-
            You monkeys only think you’re running things

          2. external action remains superficial
            Hello Lee,

            I’m sorry you feel like that, i would expect you to understand that your belief in political action..left right, whatever has brought humanity nothing, we may not call them kings or duke’s anymore but president , unionleader or some other focal point, it remains the same, ordinairy people are implicitely disempowered.

            This superstitious nonsense as you call it, is the only way. People will have to seek and find empowerment in themselves, if one doesn’t recognise this in oneself one cant recognise it in the other and humanity will keep on exploiting the other.

            A matter of choice;
            Intimidation, corruption and lies, or serenity, sharing and sincerity.

          3. Prayer
            I assume from your stance on ESP that you also believe in the power of prayer? A recent study by Harvard University has found that group prayer has zero effect on the survival rate of coronary patients. If anyone could point me to any scientific study that shows that ESP/psi/prayer has any tangible effect I would be much obliged.

          5. citing the references…….
            Comrade Lee,

            It might be useful to those reading your comments for you to cite the study you reference. Anyone can comment about “a study done by xxxxx” but without a reference, then it’s just more words in cyberspace. In the legal world, it’s called hearsay.

            Might I enquire of you, however, just what seems to cause such animation in your response? Have you had some personal encounter with religion that creates this need to lash out, or is it a matter of scientific dogma versus religious dogma? If the latter, then you will soon find it to be a battle of attrition, where ultimately neither side will win. At least in this life……

            I see it this way: When I die, if I discover that I’ve crossed over to another existence, to journey through that “unknown land from whose bourne no traveler ever returns”, then I win the debate.

            If you die, and, well, nothing happens, then congratulations! You’ve won!

            Respects,
            Gwedd

          7. Harvard study
            Thanks, Rich. That was exactly what I was referring to.

            Now, Gwedd, if you would just tell me what the problem is you have with science that would make you reject this study.

          8. Harvard Study…
            Comrade Lee,

            I have no problem with science. I have problems with scientists and sceptics. I never said i rejected the study, as I hadn;t read it. I simply asked you to cite it.

            Since you asked, however, I took the liberty to read the article.

            I believe that the money quote from the article is this one:

            “The findings, however, could well be due to the study limitations.”

            Once again, it’s a study which seems designed to support pre-conceived conclusions. How heartfelt can prayer be when it is scripted and performed according to a schedule, and that all designed by the scientists themselves?

            It is an extremely limited study. It uses patients from only one type of procedure. It uses specific groups of individuals who are assigned a scripted prayer. At specific times. On specific days. It continues for a specific amount of time. It does NOT take into account, nor does it discuss other things which may have impacted the study as well. Things such as medicines used, ages of the patients, mental state of the patients. Family support. Training of the physicians. Actual procedures used. Patient condition and background at the time of the procedure. Etc.

            This study only looks at a microcosm of healing and prayer, a very tight group. It may well be useful as a starting point for a very large look at the subject, say for example, a study of 200,000 patients over a 5 or ten year period, with comparisons then made between the various groups, but statistically, it’s results are negligible.

            Imagine if a group of archeologists were to divine an entire culture based upon the campfire remains from 5 campfires in various parts of a valley. Those results might be useful for those sites at that place and time, but they would NOT be valid when projected upon an entire nation. Same sort of thing here. I have done statistical abstracts and studies. I always keep in mind that statistics are one of the three types of lies. Lies, damned lies, and statistics.

            I am not against science. I am against scientists who refuse to allow for the existence of Gods, or other forces outside of their laboratory. In that regard, they are no different from the early Christian chirch, or modern Islam, which brooks no debate about the validity of their beliefs. Arguing with a scientist who rejects Gods is akin to arguing with a religious believer who rejects science.

            The two are not mutually exclusive. Rather, the dangerous person is the one with the closed mind, the one so enraptured with a particular belief that it becomes the all.

            I am also against scientists who design their studies to obtain data to support a specific conclusion, especially when large amounts of grant money, tenure, or royalties for published works are involved. It is one thing to read a study. It is a much more important thing, however, to view the study in context of the environment in which it was done. In other words. Follow the names and the money.

            Science provides the how. Religion provides the why.

            Respects,
            Gwedd

          10. Harvard study
            Once again, it’s a study which seems designed to support pre-conceived conclusions.

            No, Gwedd, the only preconceived conclusions are your own religious ones. Because you can’t handle the truth of this study, you are compelled to attack the messengers.

          12. Correction
            Lee,

            Gwedd has always addressed those he is responding to as comrade (ie. ‘friend’).

            Kind regards,
            Greg
            ——————————————-
            You monkeys only think you’re running things

          13. Comradery
            Lee,

            Comrade Gwedd started his posting adressing the TDG readers as comrades, it maybe unusual but certainly not derogatary.

            I dont understand why you over react like this, if you refuse to believe in anything that cant be measured -yet, thats fine by me. But in the case of Harvard medicine scientists testing whether ESP competition is any good, i would have preferred they asked the Princeton Pear Lab scientists, they at least could be considered more neutral in this.

            In general, as you likely know, people don’t see things they don’t want to see, it’s even more unlikely they believe anything another says that doesn’t confirm their worldview. And for my part that’s what’s at stake here, changing that materialistic, redux mentality. If we want to grow into a viable future we’ll have to.

            A matter of choice;
            Intimidation, corruption and lies, or serenity, sharing and sincerity.

          14. Materialism
            And for my part that’s what’s at stake here, changing that materialistic, redux mentality. If we want to grow into a viable future we’ll have to.

            ‘Materialistic’ has two meanings. In one sense it means much the same as ‘atheistic’, ‘scientific’ or rejecting supernaturalism of any kind. In another sense it means ‘consumerist’ or ‘hedonist’.

            I don’t see how being atheistic works against our future. In fact, I can see that being scientific will actually help us achieve a viable future. We need to understand global warming as a material science if we are to overcome global warming.

            I can see how consumerism is contributing to excessive greenhouse gas pollution. Is this what you meant to say?

            However, you have said ‘redux’, implying a rejection of supernaturalism. You seem to be suggesting that we need to accept some form of supernaturalism if we are to have a viable future. If that is the case, then I have to disagree with you strongly, for the reasons I have just stated.

          15. Atheism VS Science
            Atheism and science are two different things.

            For one, there is no difference between an atheist and a religious person.

            The second believes there is a something while the first believes that there is nothing.

            Btw, The argument that would say that no! It is not that Atheists believe there is nothing but that they rather don’t believe there is something would not hold any water either anyway since you could also say that religious minded people simply don’t believe there is nothing as well.

            So, to say that science is atheist by necessity is the agenda of materialism reductionists, not at all the view of all scientists.

            Atheism as a personal point of view has an equivalent validity to that of the religious because in both cases, they just don’t know. Did they know, they would not need to believe. Furthermore, did they really know, they would certainly not feel the need to forcefully condition their peers, they would rather make them see for themselves.

            There is no logical argumentation that can provide evidence on either side.

            Sadly, we tend to believe that by means of logical argumentation, we can make a point and bury the topic having won the argument.

            The point is not to win an argument but to see clearly. For that reason alone, it makes no sense to logically argue on no basis other than a belief or a conviction.

            Reality is not dictated by logic and our logic gets in between us and that reality since logic is the instrument we use to prove ourselves right, not to see.

            If we were to see clearly, logic automatically would be useless since there would be nothing to prove.

            So long as we feel compelled to either prove something or to require a proof, we will use logic to promote our own intellectualization process, namely our reason.

            That does not make our reason right but it gives us a securing impression of being psychologically solidly anchored relative to our environment.

            Everything is in its place, as we have made it, and nothing should come and change that order. If that happens, we are under the impression that we are out of control over our environment and there is nothing that especially the reductionist ego fears more.

            Finally, we are more interested in being right against competing ideas than we are interested in seeing clearly, no matter what the idea and its source.

            Am I correct?

          16. Comrades all…..
            Comrades,

            I preface all of my remarks with this simple word, one which means friend, companion, partner. It has many translations, and it is unfortunate that it was usurped by the communists as a specific form of greeting. In fact, it goes back much further, and was even a term of endearment amongst soldiers in both armies during the American Civil War. But I digress…..

            Lee, I make no snide remarks to you. I pointed out what I see as flaws in the study, nothing more. I examined the evidence you offered, and gave you my response and my reasons for that response.

            In point of fact, the authors have a very tenuous position to defend, based upon both the sample used and few guide posts.

            If I have offended you, then that offense was inferred by you based upon erroneous conclusions. I disagree with your assertions regarding the efficacy of prayer, and also with your own interpretations of my beliefs. Shall I discard, then, all of my beliefs based upon a single, small, flawed study?

            I do not find fault with the study because it is at odds with my personal beliefs. I am at odds with the study based upon my own knowledge of scientific enquiry, and the flaws I ascribed to the study you presented as evidence in support of your own biases.

            Trusting that this finds you and yours well and prospering, I remain,

            Respectfully,
            Gwedd

    1. Extraordinary
      That is an astute observation.

      Now, what is the psychological equivalent of DNA?
      Some sort of letter configuration where the place of an ‘N’ reflects the difference between polarized Negationism and objective Neutrality?

      Jesting but still…

      Great find. I should have noticed that before.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Mobile menu - fractal