# Animal Communicators



## MissMutt (Aug 8, 2008)

I was surprised to know that a LOT of people in the performance dog community down here have tried going to an Animal Communicator at least once. A lot of esteemed, seasoned competitors have used one. Even my instructor talked about someone going to one as if it was no big deal, like a totally normal, regular thing that people do! There is going to be one at an upcoming show -- apparently the most well-known in my area -- and I'm thinking of trying it just for the heck of it because the price is cheap. Not really because I believe it.. just because I'm curious.

I'm pretty skeptical when it comes to stuff like this but when I hear stories from people I trust about the Animal Communicator talking about things that the owner did not mention, I do find it interesting. Also stories about Animal Communicators helping bring lost pets home.. very interesting.

I think they get most of their "answers" from the way the owner poses the question (if for example someone asked "Does my dog hate my boyfriend?" then that's a pretty good indicator that there is a problem there), but I am curious about the whole thing. 

What do you think of it?


----------



## RaeganW (Jul 14, 2009)

Doooooo it. I've thought about it too actually, because Gatsby got issues, you know... I read a piece about a cattle rancher that took his aussie to one and was favorably impressed. Lemme see if I can find it again.


----------



## JustTess (Mar 19, 2008)

I think it might be fun. I saw a lady on animal planet who would talk to the animals before a dog show. The owners were really surprised what the lady came up with and they were certain their dog would feel that way. 

I don't think I would want a communicator to talk to Ilya. I already know he complains too much and I wouldn't want to hear more of that. Wost of all, he may tell all of my secrets like the Bush Beans dog commercials.... where the owners Weim tries to tell the world the secret bean recipe.


----------



## RaeganW (Jul 14, 2009)

Found it: http://shadowdanceaussies.com/Blog/?p=169


----------



## MissMutt (Aug 8, 2008)

I think it would be fun, too, just because it could get me thinking about something that I hadn't previously considered (never bad to get different perspectives on things). I'm a little worried to ask about my cat, since, like Ilya, I think she is a complainer!

I'm also sorely tempted to ask about my deceased horse.. but I'm afraid I will wind up stuck at an agility trial bawling my eyes out if I do.


----------



## ThoseWordsAtBest (Mar 18, 2009)

I think they're a crock, but that isn't to say I wouldn't sit down with one. How much information DO I have to give them? I'd happily tell them my dogs name and what breed they were, or show a picture, and that is it. I'd also use Jonas, obviously.


----------



## MissMutt (Aug 8, 2008)

RaeganW said:


> Found it: http://shadowdanceaussies.com/Blog/?p=169


Pretty cool, Reagan. I'd be happy with something like that. Sometimes I wonder if being an "Animal Communicator" has nothing to do with mysterious psychic stuff and everything to do with the ability to simply connect with people and read their emotions as they think about their pets. Although the liver treats thing was pretty freaky. On the website of this AC that's coming to the trial, it says that "everyone has the ability, but you just might not call it animal communication" or something like that. Who knows. I'm always up for trying new things and this is certainly harmless, whether it is worth it or not.



ThoseWordsAtBest said:


> I think they're a crock, but that isn't to say I wouldn't sit down with one. How much information DO I have to give them? I'd happily tell them my dogs name and what breed they were, or show a picture, and that is it. I'd also use Jonas, obviously.


I don't think you have to give more information than that. Maybe their age.


----------



## meggels (Mar 8, 2010)

ThoseWordsAtBest said:


> I think they're a crock, but that isn't to say I wouldn't sit down with one. How much information DO I have to give them? I'd happily tell them my dogs name and what breed they were, or show a picture, and that is it. I'd also use Jonas, obviously.


I use a wonderful woman out of NC. I'm from up north. We do our sessions over the phone. 

I send her an email with the dogs name and age, and just a picture, that's it. She does not probe for information. I've used her to reconnect with a dog that passed away suddenly of a heart condition at a young age, to talk to my boxer Cooper a few times, and to talk to Abbie once before we moved to PA.

I think I got the most out of my conversation with my deceased boxer and Cooper. But the convo with Abbie was sorta meh, but I think it was also hard because she was telling me things about Abbie's life before me, and I really don't know what happened before she came to me. 

But she told me a few things with both boxers that were true and things that seemed very correct. I think the conversation with my deceased boxer was the most helpful, it had me in tears, but it provided me with good closure finally, as I did it a year after he passed. She was recommended to me by several horse friends that have used her, and they have had some pretty astounding results, some really amazing stories.


----------



## Shaina (Oct 28, 2007)

I know an agility gal (those performance people, jeez ) who swears that an animal communicator cured her dog of a fear of whistles. He had an ongoing terror of loud whistles being blown after one blasted in his ear at a trial, and she couldn't get it him over it. Took him to an animal communicator who told him quite seriously that while no one blamed him for being afraid of whistle, they would not hurt him, there was nothing to be afraid of, and it was time to get over it. According to her, from that day on he hasn't so much as flinched when a whistle blew.

That's the story as I was told it. Didn't know the dog during the supposed whistle fear and obviously wasn't present for any of this. All I can say is the dog doesn't seem to be afraid of whistles, and the woman seems to really believe what she's saying.

I don't have any inclination to try it, honestly. But hey if it works -- to each their own lol


----------



## hbowen87 (Aug 4, 2009)

I'd be curious to try it out. Not that I really need to talk to Star, silly dog is so darn smart she gets the message across CONSTANTLY, I'm always getting told off cause she's certain she knows everything better than I do... 

I'd mostly go because I am a complete and total skeptic. I would want to see how much they give me and how much of it is generalizations. If they won me over it'd have to be really impressive, lol. Either way though I don't have a problem with it, some people really believe in it and that's great for them, personally I'd try it out just for fun. Heck if they can talk to Star about how I really am doing what's best and get some of that lip curbed, all the better! But I probably wouldn't go in counting on that


----------



## sassafras (Jun 22, 2010)

One of our local pet stores has one come to the store a handful of times throughout the year, and it seems to be very popular. I'm generally kind of a skeptical person, but I've often been curious to try it as I got both my dogs as older puppies (in the 9-months-ish range) and don't know anything about their previous lives. 

I've also wondered if she could impart information as well as getting answers to questions -- like, "Maisy, sassafras would really like you to play nicer with other dogs, mmmkay?"


----------



## ThoseWordsAtBest (Mar 18, 2009)

meggels said:


> I use a wonderful woman out of NC. I'm from up north. We do our sessions over the phone.
> 
> I send her an email with the dogs name and age, and just a picture, that's it. She does not probe for information. I've used her to reconnect with a dog that passed away suddenly of a heart condition at a young age, to talk to my boxer Cooper a few times, and to talk to Abbie once before we moved to PA.
> 
> ...


I feel like these people are very savvy predators that make the most out of people looking for closure with lost pets. But that is just me, and any thing that helps other people find peace is OK with me. I don't think badly of people who pursue it.

How do I find one of these folks? I'll give it a spin if the going rate doesn't make me totally balk.


----------



## MissMutt (Aug 8, 2008)

You can just Google 'em, and some will come up. I don't know how to tell who's "legit" and who's not, and the only reason I'm considering this is because other people have used her and to satisfy my curiosity. I can PM you the name and website, if you'd like. Most do phone consultations, too. I think it's like $25 for 15 minutes.


----------



## ThoseWordsAtBest (Mar 18, 2009)

Yes, PM it to me if you don't mind. I'm curious. I can only think so much without actually trying it, you know?


----------



## MissMutt (Aug 8, 2008)

Kind of how I feel, too. The only thing holding me back is the prospect of having a sensitive conversation with a complete stranger. I'm picturing it in my head like it's a talk therapy session (which kind of weirds me out, seeing it's held in the middle of such a huge event). But that's probably just me being weird. I really want to push myself to just try it and not be nervous/embarrassed.


----------



## So Cavalier (Jul 23, 2010)

We had an animal communicator as a speaker at one of our breed club meetings. My personal opinion was she was a bunch of hooey....she totally lost me when she said that she talked to ants and that a fellow communicator was having trouble communicating with a dog because the dog was speaking French.


----------



## hbowen87 (Aug 4, 2009)

So Cavalier said:


> a fellow communicator was having trouble communicating with a dog because the dog was speaking French.


that's pretty awesome...I'd not have been able to keep from laughing over that one lol


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

I wonder if my papillons speak French. 

Yeah I'm a real skeptic about all this stuff. I don't believe in it at all. Although... part of me thinks having someone try to 'talk' to Mia could be hilarious. I imagine Mia does not have the most polite mouth in the world and would probably be a really sarcastic little bitch.


----------



## ThoseWordsAtBest (Mar 18, 2009)

Laurelin said:


> I wonder if my papillons speak French.
> 
> Yeah I'm a real skeptic about all this stuff. I don't believe in it at all. Although... part of me thinks having someone try to 'talk' to Mia could be hilarious. I imagine Mia does not have the most polite mouth in the world and would probably be a really sarcastic little bitch.


I just can't even imagine what Jonas would be like if he could talk. I know inside his head is probably similar to the seagulls in a frenzy from Finding Nemo.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

ThoseWordsAtBest said:


> I just can't even imagine what Jonas would be like if he could talk. I know inside his head is probably similar to the seagulls in a frenzy from Finding Nemo.


Mine! Mine! Mine! Mine! Mine! Mine! Mine! Mine! Mine! Mine! Mine! Mine! Mine! Mine! Mine! Mine! Mine! Mine! Mine! Mine! Mine! Mine! (Sorry, couldn't help myself  )

I wouldn't ever talk to an animal communicator. Most of them are cons, and those that are "legit" frankly scare me. That's not a place I want to go.


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

I am pretty sure Mia curses like a sailor.


----------



## MissMutt (Aug 8, 2008)

Laurelin said:


> I am pretty sure Mia curses like a sailor.


From your descriptions of her.. so am I! :laugh:


----------



## waterbaby (Jan 20, 2009)

How does one even determine if an Animal Communicator is "legit" or not?


----------



## MissMutt (Aug 8, 2008)

Hence the "legit" in parentheses.. all I was saying is that I would prefer using someone that other people I know have used before.


----------



## bulldavis (Aug 7, 2010)

waterbaby said:


> How does one even determine if an Animal Communicator is "legit" or not?


Easy. There is no such thing as a "legit" animal communicator.


----------



## amavanna (Nov 20, 2010)

In one of the links posted to a personal experience on animal communicators this was one of the responces


> All the skeptics may be rolling their eyes but those that believe are bawling their eyes out. That was cool. Now, if he would have mentioned going back to the place with the donuts, that would have been a done deal for me. hahahaha!!


Now I still I am a bit of sceptic about it but I am also an open minded person and would go if one was around here. But I found myself in tears at that last part of his story with his dog who had died. I would only want to know If Lela was happy here. And maybe if my gerbil's in the living room bother her  Since she stares at them sometimes but never really tries to "get them"


----------



## brandiw (Jan 20, 2010)

I have to admit that I am skeptical, but I am also intrigued by animal communicators. I think my interest stems from my strong desire to know what happened in Moe's life before he came to me that caused his poor physical condition and I'd love to know where his aggression issues stem from. I'm not sure if I would ever really pay money for a reading, because I just can't justify it in my mind. However, I do know a woman that used an animal communicator to help her find her lost dog and she firmly believes she wouldn't have found him without her. I just don't know!


----------



## amavanna (Nov 20, 2010)

see that is so interseting to me . It is like those people that help find kidnapped people even though they have no leads. Somethings I admit define any logical explination. I mean look at dogs who rescue their owners in these daring and amazing ways but were never once remotley trained to do so. I suppose something you have to go on "faith" and just see what happens. I would try it but like Brandi I would have a hard time coughing up the dough I mean I could get lela a dozen toys or talk to a communicator to find out she prefers kibble over bits...hmm.


----------



## hulkamaniac (Feb 11, 2009)

My thought on them is that they piss me off. Especially the ones that claim they can talk to dead animals. Call me crazy, but anyone who takes advantage of another person's grief so they can exploit them deserves a special place in hell. What they do is nothing more than bunk and parlor tricks. I just came from a magic show where a guy "read people's minds". He did exactly what psychics, mediums, animal communicators, etc..... do except that he flat out admitted before, during and afterwards that what he was doing was nothing less than a magic trick. Animal communicators do the exact same thing except they don't admit that they're conning people.


----------



## Independent George (Mar 26, 2009)

I think that, whether they realize it or not, communicators basically do a cold readings of animal and their owners.


----------



## hulkamaniac (Feb 11, 2009)

Independent George said:


> I think that, whether they realize it or not, communicators basically do a cold readings of animal and their owners.


Exactly. Which is what makes them exploitative con men. I'm sure there are some (perhaps most) who have no idea what they're doing is a scam. Others know what they're doing is bogus, but don't care. It doesn't make them more or less exploitative though.


----------



## amavanna (Nov 20, 2010)

I think most people that entertain the idea of visiting one of these people is just that ..entertainment. I don't think most people intend to be impressed when they go. But you know hey what is wrong with hearing what you already know if it makes you happy. Or seeing someone have a insight to something right in front of you that you might not have noticed cause it is just become part of scenery. For example let's say the said communicator says your dog wants more belly rubs. And you think to youself yea I don't do that like I used to. CHances are that she rolled on her back twice while being there, but she does it so often its like scenery and you don't even pay attention anymore. It can be helpful to have someone tell you the obvious lol. Personally it isn't criminal if someone wants to pay to for this when they know the chances of it being a "trick" or "reading of the obvious" are quite apparent.


----------



## MissMutt (Aug 8, 2008)

Independent George said:


> I think that, whether they realize it or not, communicators basically do a cold readings of animal and their owners.


I could very much see that. Sort of what I said earlier in the thread, that it's very likely that a lot of the "answers" come from things like the way a question is worded, or what questions/issues are even brought up in the first place. If I'm asking about my dog and agility trials, there's likely a problem there, and pretty much any dog that has a problem with agility trials has some sort of problem with the chaos of the environment.. so there you go. That's half the "answer" already.

I wonder how common it is for an Animal Communicator to be completely off on something.. like saying that a person has 2 dogs when they only have 1 or something.



amavanna said:


> *I think most people that entertain the idea of visiting one of these people is just that ..entertainment.* I don't think most people intend to be impressed when they go. But you know hey what is wrong with hearing what you already know if it makes you happy. *Or seeing someone have a insight to something right in front of you that you might not have noticed cause it is just become part of scenery.* For example let's say the said communicator says your dog wants more belly rubs. And you think to youself yea I don't do that like I used to. CHances are that she rolled on her back twice while being there, but she does it so often its like scenery and you don't even pay attention anymore. It can be helpful to have someone tell you the obvious lol. Personally it isn't criminal if someone wants to pay to for this when they know the chances of it being a "trick" or "reading of the obvious" are quite apparent.


Agree with this too, especially the bolded parts. I think that's what a lot of it is all about. Good observation skills.

Now I DO wonder the difference between a session where the animal is not present and a session where the animal is.


----------



## waterbaby (Jan 20, 2009)

Independent George said:


> I think that, whether they realize it or not, communicators basically do a cold readings of animal and their owners.


Exactly this. I used to read tarot cards as a fund raiser for a student group I was a part of. I am terrible at reading people, but it's easy to pick up on the subjects that people respond to and go in those directions. People are very forgiving of wrong readings and you learn to drop the wrong stuff as quickly as possible. People want the reading to be true so they go out of their way to grasp onto things you say that _might_ have relevance to their lives.


----------



## amavanna (Nov 20, 2010)

nods that is why i say somethings are just weird and cant explain. But your whole ability to enjoy these types of things is your ability to be open minded about these types of things as well. It just is all based on what kinds of things you are interested in. My father would never entertain the idea he would think foolish and silly and a waste of money. I however would love it find it fun and wonder if they got something really spot on correct. My husband would be neutral and find it silly but would go for the heck of it. He prolly would not want to pay for it though


----------



## LazyGRanch713 (Jul 22, 2009)

I think they exist, but I think there are also a lot of "Miss Cleos" out there who think they can do it but cannot. I've never had any personal experience with it, but I've had some people I deeply respect swear by the good ones.


----------



## hulkamaniac (Feb 11, 2009)

amavanna said:


> nods that is why i say somethings are just weird and cant explain. But your whole ability to enjoy these types of things is your ability to be open minded about these types of things as well. It just is all based on what kinds of things you are interested in. My father would never entertain the idea he would think foolish and silly and a waste of money. I however would love it find it fun and wonder if they got something really spot on correct. My husband would be neutral and find it silly but would go for the heck of it. He prolly would not want to pay for it though


To me it's not a case of being open minded or not. It's a known fact how these people work. It's a known fact that at least some of them are scam artists. The ones who claim to let you talk to a dead pet are flat out con men, frauds, liars and cheats who are exploiting people's grief. Personally, I think they ought to be tossed in jail. Now, if you want to spend money for entertainment purposes on one of these cheats, that's one thing. I think they ought to admit up front that they don't have any sort of special "powers". If they don't, I'm not interested.


----------



## MissMutt (Aug 8, 2008)

hulkamaniac said:


> Now, if you want to spend money for entertainment purposes on one of these cheats, that's one thing. I think they ought to admit up front that they don't have any sort of special "powers". If they don't, I'm not interested.


The one I'm speaking of does essentially do that, which did impress me a bit:



> Animal communication is not the gift of a few. We all have this ability. It is a skill that needs practice to develop. You probably already do it some or a lot of the time. You just don’t call it that.


Of course, the page still does have a little bit about the whole idea of translation and telepathy, but I think the above quote makes it seem like it's a little bit less about the paranormal stuff than some of these other people let on.

Your point about the exploitation of grieving pet owners is a legitimate one; but, if it makes someone feel better, then I guess who I am to say whether it's right or wrong? (In some ways it sort of parallels religion and religious leaders.. I might get some flack for that comparison but oh well.)


----------



## Independent George (Mar 26, 2009)

I'm reminded of the fued between Houdini and with his friend, Arthur Conan Doyle.



> Their falling out began when Houdini joined the Doyles for an intimate séance, in which Lady Doyle proposed to contact Houdini’s beloved mother. Although a skeptic, Houdini did believe in an afterlife, and as biographer Kenneth Silverman wrote, "closed his eyes and tried to rid his mind of all but religious thoughts." But by the time Lady Doyle had filled fifteen sheets with automatic-writing she claimed had come from Cecelia Weiss, Houdini had only become further convinced that he was witnessing a fraud. Although he left without disclosing it -- "I did not have the nerve to tell him," -- Houdini knew that he had not heard from his mother. A rabbi’s wife, she never would have begun with a sign of the cross; although she had barely uttered a word in English while alive, suddenly she was fluent, saying things like "I am almost overwhelmed by this joy." It simply did not sound like his dear mother, and Houdini resented it.


----------



## hulkamaniac (Feb 11, 2009)

MissMutt said:


> The one I'm speaking of does essentially do that, which did impress me a bit:
> 
> Of course, the page still does have a little bit about the whole idea of translation and telepathy, but I think the above quote makes it seem like it's a little bit less about the paranormal stuff than some of these other people let on.


The fact is there's NOTHING paranormal about it. To me it's like seeing a magic show. You and I both know the magician is not really pulling a rabbit out of an empty hat. The trick is impressive nonetheless though. But the magician makes no claims to having supernatural or paranormal abilities. He/She openly admits that they're going to deceive you right from the start and you pay because it's entertaining to watch them do so.



> Your point about the exploitation of grieving pet owners is a legitimate one; but, if it makes someone feel better, then I guess who I am to say whether it's right or wrong? (In some ways it sort of parallels religion and religious leaders.. I might get some flack for that comparison but oh well.)


There is a difference between <insert religion of your choice> and what mediums/psychics/whoever do. Let's say your mother dies. A religious leader makes no claims of having paranormal or supernatural powers. He/she will tell you that mom is in a better place and you will see her again someday. Maybe this is true and maybe it's not. Nevertheless, the religious leader will give you a shoulder to cry on and will attempt (sometimes more successfully than others) to comfort you in your grief. Regardless, they won't ask you for money to do so. Go to a clergyman when you're grieving and you won't find a single one who will charge you to comfort you or talk to them. Go to a psychic and they'll say, "Yes, we can help. Give me X dollars." That's the difference.


----------



## amavanna (Nov 20, 2010)

hulkamaniac said:


> To me it's not a case of being open minded or not. It's a known fact how these people work. It's a known fact that at least some of them are scam artists. The ones who claim to let you talk to a dead pet are flat out con men, frauds, liars and cheats who are exploiting people's grief. Personally, I think they ought to be tossed in jail. Now, if you want to spend money for entertainment purposes on one of these cheats, that's one thing. I think they ought to admit up front that they don't have any sort of special "powers". If they don't, I'm not interested.


Oh I am not argueing on behalf of these "i talk to the dead" people, specifically about that one person I was refering to the "animal communicator" said his dog who was gone was with his father. Now the guy that went to the reading was an older gentlemen so it might not have been to hard to come to the conclusion his father was gone. But the communicator told the owner the dog was in heaven and that he had done the right thing by him and was in his heart. I don't feel that is a scum thing to do to make someone feel better about their pet being in a better place. But no i don't agree with these pyscics that claim they have messages from the other side. At least not these tv and obvious "entertainment" types that want your money specifically


----------



## hulkamaniac (Feb 11, 2009)

amavanna said:


> Oh I am not argueing on behalf of these "i talk to the dead" people, specifically about that one person I was refering to the "animal communicator" said his dog who was gone was with his father. Now the guy that went to the reading was an older gentlemen so it might not have been to hard to come to the conclusion his father was gone. But the communicator told the owner the dog was in heaven and that he had done the right thing by him and was in his heart. I don't feel that is a scum thing to do to make someone feel better about their pet being in a better place. But no i don't agree with these pyscics that claim they have messages from the other side. At least not these tv and obvious "entertainment" types that want your money specifically


How is exploiting grieving people for money not a scum thing to do?


----------



## KBLover (Sep 9, 2008)

amavanna said:


> For example let's say the said communicator says your dog wants more belly rubs. And you think to youself yea I don't do that like I used to. CHances are that she rolled on her back twice while being there, but she does it so often its like scenery and you don't even pay attention anymore. It can be helpful to have someone tell you the obvious lol. Personally it isn't criminal if someone wants to pay to for this when they know the chances of it being a "trick" or "reading of the obvious" are quite apparent.


No, it's not criminal, but it's...not sure what the word is, but that someone had to pay someone else come in and see their dog roll on their belly 5 times in 9 minutes and say "hey, I think she wants you give her a belly rub." 

I mean, if the person really already knows they don't give belly rubs as much as they used to, and it's something the dog enjoyed doing to spend time with you...and your dog is showing you her belly "at random, senseless times"...go figure...

Makes me want to hang a sign saying, "I CAN INTERPRET ALL THOSE NOSE LICKS AND EAR FLICKS THAT SEEM RANDOM AND MEANINGLESS AND TELL YOU WHAT AND WHY THE DOG DID IT" and be like I'm some guru when it's just reading calming/stress signals.

It's not criminal that people pay me and not criminal I take the money, but I'll probably be wondering "why don't people just learn dog body language?"


----------



## amavanna (Nov 20, 2010)

hmm see i dont feel i said that. I said i dont feel telling someone their dog is in a better place is not scum where as i said these tv and obvious entertainment i see dead people are indeed something i dont agree with. I think there is a difference between your pooch is in heaven to your grandfather said he loves you and that you need to live your dreama nd he said you would know what that means. 

For the record, my step father passed away and i tried for weeks to get a physic to do a reading because i just wanted to hear someone say to me was happy. I couldn't get anyone to do "other side" readings. So not all of these physics are just out to hurt people.

There are a lot of "jobs" that may not seem morally right but it dosent make them criminal, i think physics fall in that category sometimes. It may not set right with people morally, but they are not doing anything illegal.


----------



## waterbaby (Jan 20, 2009)

KBLover said:


> Makes me want to hang a sign saying, "I CAN INTERPRET ALL THOSE NOSE LICKS AND EAR FLICKS THAT SEEM RANDOM AND MEANINGLESS AND TELL YOU WHAT AND WHY THE DOG DID IT" and be like I'm some guru when it's just reading calming/stress signals.
> 
> It's not criminal that people pay me and not criminal I take the money, but I'll probably be wondering "why don't people just learn dog body language?"


See, I'm not even convinced animal communicators are even doing that. I'm pretty sure they're just reading the person and the person's responses and ignoring the animal.


----------



## hulkamaniac (Feb 11, 2009)

amavanna said:


> hmm see i dont feel i said that. I said i dont feel telling someone their dog is in a better place is not scum where as i said these tv and obvious entertainment i see dead people are indeed something i dont agree with. I think there is a difference between your pooch is in heaven to your grandfather said he loves you and that you need to live your dreama nd he said you would know what that means.


They charge for it. That's what makes it scum. If your loved one died and you went to a priest while you were grieving and they asked for money in exchange for them telling you that your loved one was in a better place would you not find that scummy?



> For the record, my step father passed away and i tried for weeks to get a physic to do a reading because i just wanted to hear someone say to me was happy. I couldn't get anyone to do "other side" readings. So not all of these physics are just out to hurt people.
> 
> There are a lot of "jobs" that may not seem morally right but it dosent make them criminal, i think physics fall in that category sometimes. It may not set right with people morally, but they are not doing anything illegal.


They are pretending they have abilities they don't have in order to exploit emotionally vulnerable people. If I exploit emotionally vulnerable people for sex, I'm generally considered to be a scummy guy. If I exploit emotionally vulnerable people for money though that's ok?


----------



## amavanna (Nov 20, 2010)

I think you keep thinking in some way I am disagreeing with you lol. But I really am not. I never said it was morally right or i.e. scummy. But it dosent mean some people don't want to go and find it fun and and entertaining or comforting. 



> They charge for it. That's what makes it scum. If your loved one died and you went to a priest while you were grieving and they asked for money in exchange for them telling you that your loved one was in a better place would you not find that scummy?


I had plenty of religious people tell me he was in a better place and i believe that but sometimes when your grieving hearing again from someone different is comforting too. Now of coarse I wouldn't go to someone like that because I have come to terms with it, But i don't feel had i got the reading i would have grieved any more or less and at the time it would have made me feel better. might not have been a morally correct thing to take my money but theropists take money to sit and talk for two hours and then have them ask you and how does that feel  some people have the same moral feelings against theropy even thought they went to college for mental health lol.


----------



## hulkamaniac (Feb 11, 2009)

amavanna said:


> I think you keep thinking in some way I am disagreeing with you lol. But I really am not. I never said it was morally right or i.e. scummy. But it dosent mean some people don't want to go and find it fun and and entertaining or comforting.


Again, if you find it entertaining, that's one thing. To me that's the same as going to see a magician. You know it's fake, but it's entertaining. The comforting thing is another thing because they're flat out exploiting people for money. They're charging for offering comfort. I find that positively despicable.



> I had plenty of religious people tell me he was in a better place and i believe that but sometimes when your grieving hearing again from someone different is comforting too. Now of coarse I wouldn't go to someone like that because I have come to terms with it, But i don't feel had i got the reading i would have grieved any more or less and at the time it would have made me feel better. might not have been a morally correct thing to take my money but theropists take money to sit and talk for two hours and then have them ask you and how does that feel  some people have the same moral feelings against theropy even thought they went to college for mental health lol.


Again, the clergyman is not going to charge you for comfort, not is he going to claim that he has some magical mystery powers that will let you communicate with your dead loved one, but only through him. A therapist is completely different as well. Again, they don't claim mystical powers. They also don't actively seek out grieving people to help out. I would have huge problems with a therapist who camped out at a funeral home looking for clients.


----------



## amavanna (Nov 20, 2010)

> I would have huge problems with a therapist who camped out at a funeral home looking for clients.


i agree though with the economy lately i bet they hang out at the unemployment office lately. I have looked for one outside the building after leaving myself XD


----------



## Independent George (Mar 26, 2009)

The thing that should be a glaring red flag for mediums & psychics is that they never tell you that your long-departed relative remains disappointed in you, or that he's burning in hell for being an abusive bastard and he can't wait until you join him. There's not much of a market for those kinds of messages from beyond.

No, it's all love and happiness, because that's what people are willing to pay for.


----------



## hulkamaniac (Feb 11, 2009)

Independent George said:


> The thing that should be a glaring red flag for mediums & psychics is that they never tell you that your long-departed relative remains disappointed in you, or that he's burning in hell for being an abusive bastard and he can't wait until you join him. There's not much of a market for those kinds of messages from beyond.
> 
> No, it's all love and happiness, because that's what people are willing to pay for.


Another glaring red flag is that even though my mother is still alive, I could pay a medium and communicate with her "on the other side".


----------



## KBLover (Sep 9, 2008)

amavanna said:


> i agree though with the economy lately i bet they hang out at the unemployment office lately. I have looked for one outside the building after leaving myself XD



Maybe they should set up a stand, you know like Lucy in those Charlie Brown comic strips.



hulkamaniac said:


> Another glaring red flag is that even though my mother is still alive, I could pay a medium and communicate with her "on the other side".


Oh man, I can see it now - you'd have to bring "proof of death" before they'd see you now


----------



## Independent George (Mar 26, 2009)

hulkamaniac said:


> Another glaring red flag is that even though my mother is still alive, I could pay a medium and communicate with her "on the other side".


I actually think the James Randi foundation did something similar as a control group when they tested mediums in the past.


----------



## hulkamaniac (Feb 11, 2009)

I know Randi does a lot of work to expose frauds like this so it wouldn't surprise me. I confess I was completely amazed by Penn Jillette's psychic demonstration. The guy read the minds of three different audience members and told them which joke they had picked out of a stack of joke books. It was completely a magic trick and Penn admitted as much, but it was amazing nonetheless.


----------



## amavanna (Nov 20, 2010)

> Maybe they should set up a stand, you know like Lucy in those Charlie Brown comic strips.


I could see it now lol "cure your mental anguish for a quarter"


----------



## Pai (Apr 23, 2008)

MissMutt said:


> I was surprised to know that a LOT of people in the performance dog community down here have tried going to an Animal Communicator at least once. A lot of esteemed, seasoned competitors have used one. Even my instructor talked about someone going to one as if it was no big deal, like a totally normal, regular thing that people do! There is going to be one at an upcoming show -- apparently the most well-known in my area -- and I'm thinking of trying it just for the heck of it because the price is cheap. Not really because I believe it.. just because I'm curious.


It's interesting that you mention it's prevalance in the performance community, because I had really no knowledge about 'animal communicators' until I saw a while back that the lady who has the top agility Cresteds in the U.S. offers this service herself... when I saw it I was all 'Huh... interesting, kind of strange...' and that was it, but if it's true that it's actually a big thing over in those circles... it's kind of intriguing to me, honestly.


----------



## MissMutt (Aug 8, 2008)

Pai said:


> It's interesting that you mention it's prevalance in the performance community, because I had really no knowledge about 'animal communicators' until I saw a while back that the lady who has the top agility Cresteds in the U.S. offers this service herself... when I saw it I was all 'Huh... interesting, kind of strange...' and that was it, but if it's true that it's actually a big thing over in those circles... it's kind of intriguing to me, honestly.


That's just it.. I thought they'd have a totally different opinion on it. But they seem very welcoming to the idea.

I'm going to try it. Waste or not, like TWAB said, I think the only way to really analyze it is to get firsthand experience with it to see what it's all about.


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

Independent George said:


> I think that, whether they realize it or not, communicators basically do a cold readings of animal and their owners.


I wish I could do that.


----------



## So Cavalier (Jul 23, 2010)

> a fellow communicator was having trouble communicating with a dog because the dog was speaking French.





> that's pretty awesome...I'd not have been able to keep from laughing over that one lol


It took all the self-control I could muster.

This particular "communicator" requires you fill out a questionnaire prior to your session. She will do sessions over the phone as long as "payment has been received".

She also brought a divining rod, that looked like an old style pointer, that she was waving over a crudely drawn picture of a puppy that was there. She insisted that the rod was moving by itself. She stated that the puppy had digestive issues because the rod was wiggly like crazy over the picture's belly.

Two of my favorite shows are Medium and Ghost Whisperer, but really......


----------



## hulkamaniac (Feb 11, 2009)

MissMutt said:


> That's just it.. I thought they'd have a totally different opinion on it. But they seem very welcoming to the idea.
> 
> I'm going to try it. Waste or not, like TWAB said, I think the only way to really analyze it is to get firsthand experience with it to see what it's all about.


I'm curious why you say that. This particular phenomena has been studied over and over again. Why is first hand experience necessary?


----------



## amavanna (Nov 20, 2010)

I think its because a lot of people like to make their own conclusions whenever possible . Especially when you here the good and the bad points of view on it. Like I said I would go but I would have to drag the hubby along cause he finds it garbage, but i think we would both still have fun in the process.


----------



## hulkamaniac (Feb 11, 2009)

amavanna said:


> I think its because a lot of people like to make their own conclusions whenever possible . Especially when you here the good and the bad points of view on it. Like I said I would go but I would have to drag the hubby along cause he finds it garbage, but i think we would both still have fun in the process.


That's what I don't understand. I don't need a vacuum tube that I can drop things in. I believe that gravity is 9.81 m/sec squared. I don't need to get a telescope and start charting stars and orbits to know that the Earth revolves around the Sun. These are both scientific facts and I have no need to test on my own. I could if I wanted to, but there's no need to. It's a fact that these animal communicators are doing nothing more than cold reading. What's the point in spending time and money to see that they're doing cold reading?


----------



## MissMutt (Aug 8, 2008)

> What's the point in spending time and money to see that they're doing cold reading?


I guess that's the difference between cheapskate and non-cheapskate and isn't really exclusive to just this.

There are PLENTY of things that people pay for that I personally would not pay for. There are PLENTY of things that people spend time on that I don't bother with. That's just what makes us human.

ETA cheap is probably the wrong word.. just.. i duno.. uninterested..


----------



## waterbaby (Jan 20, 2009)

MissMutt said:


> I guess that's the difference between cheapskate and non-cheapskate and isn't really exclusive to just this.
> 
> There are PLENTY of things that people pay for that I personally would not pay for. There are PLENTY of things that people spend time on that I don't bother with. That's just what makes us human.
> 
> ETA cheap is probably the wrong word.. just.. i duno.. uninterested..


Would you pay to go to a psychic? I find it amusing that the psychic field has broadened to include a pet niche. Who knew?


----------



## MissMutt (Aug 8, 2008)

waterbaby said:


> Would you pay to go to a psychic? I find it amusing that the psychic field has broadened to include a pet niche. Who knew?


Way back in high school my friends and I considered it. JUST as entertainment. But otherwise, no, I probably would not. Mostly because it's creepy and sketchy.

I'm really not looking to debate this.. as I have clearly stated that I am skeptical about the whole thing. Skeptical and interested. I'm not here to defend or condemn this stuff.


----------



## waterbaby (Jan 20, 2009)

I'm not trying to debate either. Like I said, I used to do tarot readings. I've paid for psychic, tarot, and palm readings. I think it's baloney, but some people are really good at it and, as an amateur, I can appreciate people that have that skill. I just think it's funny that such a bizarre way of making money has found a new way to expand its market and that there are people specializing in what is essentially psychic readings for pet owners. It's also kind of funny (that is, interesting) that you think that psychics are creepy and sketchy but that animal communicators are interesting. It shows they also did a good job of choosing a name for themselves.


----------



## ThoseWordsAtBest (Mar 18, 2009)

It's a huge conundrum for me, because like I said, I feel like these people are very savvy predators. BUT on the other hand, if it brings someone peace then it's a mutually beneficial relationship. I would never spit on someone for doing what they need to get closure. If you talk to someone who you believe can talk to your animals for you and it helps you, then I'm happy for it. 

I'm going to try it because I can and I'm curious. It's my money, it's my decision, and it hurts no one. I'm sure we all have friends who believe in things I don't. If they WANT my opinion on these things, I'll share it, but I'm not going to say "You idiot! Stop doing that!" when it's not my place to do so.


----------



## MissMutt (Aug 8, 2008)

It has largely to do with the setting for me.. going to someone in the midst of a busy agility trial while other people are doing the same thing just doesn't seem so weird to me, even if it is bogus or a waste. I wouldn't even be having this conversation right now if I didn't get the e-mail saying this person was going to be at the trial. It's right there. You don't have to go looking for it. But going out of the way to go to a person's tarot reading shop just seems a little more odd to me.


----------



## waterbaby (Jan 20, 2009)

ThoseWordsAtBest said:


> It's a huge conundrum for me, because like I said, I feel like these people are very savvy predators. BUT on the other hand, if it brings someone peace then it's a mutually beneficial relationship. I would never spit on someone for doing what they need to get closure. If you talk to someone who you believe can talk to your animals for you and it helps you, then I'm happy for it.
> 
> I'm going to try it because I can and I'm curious. It's my money, it's my decision, and it hurts no one. I'm sure we all have friends who believe in things I don't. If they WANT my opinion on these things, I'll share it, but I'm not going to say "You idiot! Stop doing that!" when it's not my place to do so.


So, if you go, your best option is to be into it. You need to give feedback in order to make the reading better for you. In other words, don't make their job hard by just sitting there (like to test them or something) because then it _will_ be a waste of money.


----------



## ThoseWordsAtBest (Mar 18, 2009)

waterbaby said:


> So, if you go, your best option is to be into it. You need to give feedback in order to make the reading better for you. In other words, don't make their job hard by just sitting there (like to test them or something) because then it _will_ be a waste of money.


Right. I was not planning on laughing in their face, or lying. I'll give them whatever information they'd like and listen. It isn't going to change my mind, but I'm intensely curious. 

My boyfriend, however, is NOT. xD


----------



## waterbaby (Jan 20, 2009)

MissMutt said:


> It has largely to do with the setting for me.. going to someone in the midst of a busy agility trial while other people are doing the same thing just doesn't seem so weird to me, even if it is bogus or a waste. I wouldn't even be having this conversation right now if I didn't get the e-mail saying this person was going to be at the trial. It's right there. You don't have to go looking for it. But going out of the way to go to a person's tarot reading shop just seems a little more odd to me.


Oh yeah. I've only ever had readings when they were at ren fairs or something and I was in a good mood and felt like dropping money on it. I agree, it would be creepy to just go to someone's shop.


----------



## MissMutt (Aug 8, 2008)

waterbaby said:


> Oh yeah. I've only ever had readings when they were at ren fairs or something and I was in a good mood and felt like dropping money on it. I agree, it would be creepy to just go to someone's shop.


That's ALL I'm doing here  There are some people who are really into this stuff and truly believe in it (people that I'd never expect, too!).. I'm just kind of in the "can't hurt, maybe they'll say something cool" camp.

I do wonder how the heck those shops stay open. We have at least two on the busiest road in my neighborhood.. a road known for it's very high property rent. How much business do these people actually get? (Admittedly.. the way I am ready to spend money on my dog, some people would spend on themselves.. but I still don't understand how it'd ever be enough.)


----------



## CoverTune (Mar 11, 2007)

I had one of my horses "read" once. It was long-distance/via phone. I gave the woman his name, age, and a photo. I asked no specific questions, and was not having any issues with him. Some of the things she told me were quite broad and general, but some of the things about his personality were so exact and bang on, that it's tough for me not to believe in the possibility.

I'm sure there are TONS of frauds out there, but I'm open to the idea that some people could have this ability.


----------



## Settican (Apr 5, 2008)

I've have a few encounters with animal communicators, whether it's real or not I don't know, but I have had a few interesting sessions. One of the people was asking for pictures of peoples pets so that she could see if she was communicating/reading them correctly (she was still in a learning phase I guess). Just for the fun of it I sent along a picture of one of my pet rats, perhaps she was just good at guessing, but she described my rats cage in perfect detail along with all the hammocks and beds that were in the cage, she described the other rats that she lived with and their personalities, as well as her favourite foods, there were some other things that were mentioned that I can't quite remember. It was an interesting experience, whether it was just lucky guess work or something else... who knows.


----------



## Plushie (Aug 9, 2010)

On another forum there's an animal communicator who has a thread about it. She does readings for free over PM, just for practice. She just needs a picture of the dog's/animal's, name, photo, and age I think. She hasn't gotten back to me yet but she got a quick glance and told me about it, and it's been true so far. She managed to vaguely describe me (teenager with long black hair), and one thing I had been doing with Maple that day (I bent over to feel her ribs to see if she still had some weight to lose). It was surprising because there was no way she could have described me or that action logically, since I didn't write anything about it online and I don't have pictures of myself on the interwebs. She still has to get back to me about the full reading though. Not saying this makes me a believer, but I think animal communication is...interesting.


----------



## hulkamaniac (Feb 11, 2009)

waterbaby said:


> I'm not trying to debate either. Like I said, I used to do tarot readings. I've paid for psychic, tarot, and palm readings. I think it's baloney, but some people are really good at it and, as an amateur, I can appreciate people that have that skill. I just think it's funny that such a bizarre way of making money has found a new way to expand its market and that there are people specializing in what is essentially psychic readings for pet owners. It's also kind of funny (that is, interesting) that you think that psychics are creepy and sketchy but that animal communicators are interesting. It shows they also did a good job of choosing a name for themselves.


I'm puzzled at that as well. You said that you've done tarot card readings yet you admit that you have no special abilities whatsoever and are simply cold reading. You do it purely for entertainment purposes. I'm ok with that. As I said earlier, to me it's like a magician pulling a rabbit out of an empty hat. We all know he didn't really do that, but it's still fun to watch and we'll pay for him to scam us. But he admits up front that what he's doing is a scam. I would never pay to see a magician who claimed he had some mysterious "power" that let him pull rabbits from hats and saw women in two if I felt that he legitimately believed it. To me a guy like that would be a little psycho and I'll keep my money. Yet people will pay to see people who claim they have a "power" that lets them talk to animals and they legitimately believe that they do.



ThoseWordsAtBest said:


> It's a huge conundrum for me, because like I said, I feel like these people are very savvy predators. BUT on the other hand, if it brings someone peace then it's a mutually beneficial relationship. I would never spit on someone for doing what they need to get closure. If you talk to someone who you believe can talk to your animals for you and it helps you, then I'm happy for it.


I don't see how the relationship is beneficial when one person is a predator and the other person is prey. If someone takes advantage of someone else for monetary profit how does the victim benefit. At best it gives them a false sense of peace which they have to pay for. A clergyman could tell you your loved one is in a better place, you wouldn't have to pay for it and the clergyman would probably (and there are certainly exceptions) legitimately care about you and not just your wallet. Just saying.



> I'm going to try it because I can and I'm curious. It's my money, it's my decision, and *it hurts no one*. I'm sure we all have friends who believe in things I don't. If they WANT my opinion on these things, I'll share it, but I'm not going to say "You idiot! Stop doing that!" when it's not my place to do so.


The phrase I bolded is the key phrase. If it hurts no one, I agree with you completely. I don't think that no one is being hurt. You have people who are animal lovers being preyed upon for money. If I was running a scam and taking people's money you'd want me punished. While there would be no physical harm, my taking someone else's money would certainly constitute financial harm. This is essentially what's being done here which is why I see it as harmful.



Plushie said:


> On another forum there's an animal communicator who has a thread about it. She does readings for free over PM, just for practice. She just needs a picture of the dog's/animal's, name, photo, and age I think. She hasn't gotten back to me yet but she got a quick glance and told me about it, and it's been true so far. She managed to vaguely describe me (teenager with long black hair), and one thing I had been doing with Maple that day (I bent over to feel her ribs to see if she still had some weight to lose). It was surprising because there was no way she could have described me or that action logically, since I didn't write anything about it online and I don't have pictures of myself on the interwebs. She still has to get back to me about the full reading though. Not saying this makes me a believer, but I think animal communication is...interesting.


I'm curious. If you sent her a random picture of a dog you found on the Internet if she'd be able to tell you the dog didn't belong to you. I'd bet she wouldn't unless you tipped her off somehow inadvertently or otherwise. Someone mentioned the Houdini/Conan Doyle feud earlier in this thread where he went to a seance to contact his mother. His mother who didn't speak a word of English in life suddenly spoke it fluently.

PM me and I'll send you a picture of Brutus. He's a hound I owned who passed away earlier this year. If you tell her that the dog is yours, I'll bet she never tells you that he's dead and that you never met him before in your life.


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

Also, just thinking... it'd be pretty easy for me to fake a 'reading' on Brutus or any other long time DF dog. I'm pretty sure most could guess quite a bit of accurate information about Mia. I don't know how active you are on that forum but the more she's been able to read your posts, the more of a feel she's going to have for your dog...


----------



## amavanna (Nov 20, 2010)

> I don't see how the relationship is beneficial when one person is a predator and the other person is prey. If someone takes advantage of someone else for monetary profit how does the victim benefit.


You keep referring to people who go to these readings as prey and the physics as predators but when i think prey and predator i think of a victim who does not want what is happening to occur and the predator as the person forcing those conditions against their will. These people are not being forced to have these readings they are going in with smiles and giggles and most of time prolly leave the same way, ( maybe even in a better mood) And most of these people are going "for the fun of it" . Your argument is that they are feeding off people's emotions to get their money but you could say that about so many professions really. So many people are paid to let people do things, say someone is into extreme sports and wants the thrill of a lifetime. Is the guy who takes his money to sky dive out of a plan or the pilot that flew him a scum bag? I mean they are potentially leading him right to his death..my point is that people make their own choices and just because you don't understand why dosen't mean it makes someone scum.


----------



## hulkamaniac (Feb 11, 2009)

Laurelin said:


> Also, just thinking... it'd be pretty easy for me to fake a 'reading' on Brutus or any other long time DF dog. I'm pretty sure most could guess quite a bit of accurate information about Mia. I don't know how active you are on that forum but the more she's been able to read your posts, the more of a feel she's going to have for your dog...


I have no doubt about that. That's more hot reading or warm reading than anything though. I could probably do readings for a number of long term members though that would be fairly accurate. The thing is that I can be completely wrong on several things, but if I'm dead accurate on a few of them, people will remember the things I'm accurate on, but not the things I'm wrong on.



amavanna said:


> You keep referring to people who go to these readings as prey and the physics as predators but when i think prey and predator i think of a victim who does not want what is happening to occur and the predator as the person forcing those conditions against their will. These people are not being forced to have these readings they are going in with smiles and giggles and most of time prolly leave the same way, ( maybe even in a better mood) And most of these people are going "for the fun of it" . Your argument is that they are feeding off people's emotions to get their money but you could say that about so many professions really. So many people are paid to let people do things, say someone is into extreme sports and wants the thrill of a lifetime. Is the guy who takes his money to sky dive out of a plan or the pilot that flew him a scum bag? I mean they are potentially leading him right to his death..my point is that people make their own choices and just because you don't understand why dosen't mean it makes someone scum.


The people Bernie Madoff cheated are victims are they not? Yet they chose to invest with them. No one forced them to. If I hang out in bars looking for women who are drunk and coming off bad breakups am I not a predator of some kind? Yet those women choose to come home with me. Both cases are people exploiting people for money.


----------



## amavanna (Nov 20, 2010)

Yes true both those case are exploiting for money the differences the cause and effect. If someone chooses a bad investment that is the cause the effect is they now lost all their money and may have to rebuild everything they worked on their whole lives. A person pining after drunk neglected woman ( the cause) will most likley leave the woman feeling broken and humilated. (the effect) A person seeing an animal communicator to see if Skippy likes to ride in the car or if he is scared in it ( the cause) finding it skippy loves the ride ( could be dogspew) and leaving excited about your car ride home with the dog( the effect) I am not seeing the similarities in the scenarios. 

You can't really compare someone who literally INTENDS to hurt or humiliate a person to someone who is entertaining you with notions your animal can communicate with you.


----------



## hulkamaniac (Feb 11, 2009)

amavanna said:


> Yes true both those case are exploiting for money the differences the cause and effect. If someone chooses a bad investment that is the cause the effect is they now lost all their money and may have to rebuild everything they worked on their whole lives. A person pining after drunk neglected woman ( the cause) will most likley leave the woman feeling broken and humilated. (the effect) A person seeing an animal communicator to see if Skippy likes to ride in the car or if he is scared in it ( the cause) finding it skippy loves the ride ( could be dogspew) and leaving excited about your car ride home with the dog( the effect) I am not seeing the similarities in the scenarios.
> 
> You can't really compare someone who literally INTENDS to hurt or humiliate a person to someone who is entertaining you with notions your animal can communicate with you.


Intention has nothing to do with it. I may have no intention of harming the girl at the bar. I may think that I'm helping her feel sexy again and I'm getting my rocks off at the same time so it's all good. Maybe I'm right. Maybe the fact that some guy, any guy, is interested in her gives her a boost of self-esteem. That doesn't change the fact that I'm an exploitative bastard. 

The fact is these people are scam artists. They exploit vulnerable people for money. At the end of the day, that's what is happening. Whether you sign up for the willingly or not has nothing to do with the fact that you still get taken for a ride. An animal communicator I found online charges $65 for a 90 minute session. Now, if I had $65 laying around I'd gladly show her a picture of Brutus and see what she could tell me. Imagine if I was a vulnerable person who had just lost my beloved basset hound. She charges me $65 for a bunch of crap and 90 minutes of my time. Regardless of how I feel afterwards I've still been exploited. Just because the victim feels better afterwards doesn't make them any less a victim.


----------



## amavanna (Nov 20, 2010)

How is someone at a dog show with their friends and beloved pets standing in line talking about their scores and possible winner a vulnerable person? Just like the therapist arent standing outside cemeteries animal communicators are not camping outside vets waiting for grieving owners. I don't feel the specific animal communicator especially is targeting vulnerable people or otherwise trying to v indict or harm anyone with feelings of emotions targeting a possible dead pet. Most of these people talk about the pets currently alive and are generally about frivolous things such as favorite treats and their favorite games maybe why they like to chase the cat around so much knowing it the cat is old. Just silly things that make you laugh smile and leave going so silly or maybe even wow that was cool how they got everything right! I don't see where there is harm in that. I mean it is essentially the same as going to a carnival and wasting money trying to hit the target with the baseball. then trying to ding the bell with the hammer and then ah look a palm reading a ticket for that too. For most cases and for this case especially i feel its just entertainment.


----------



## hulkamaniac (Feb 11, 2009)

amavanna said:


> How is someone at a dog show with their friends and beloved pets standing in line talking about their scores and possible winner a vulnerable person? Just like the therapist arent standing outside cemeteries animal communicators are not camping outside vets waiting for grieving owners. I don't feel the specific animal communicator especially is targeting vulnerable people or otherwise trying to v indict or harm anyone with feelings of emotions targeting a possible dead pet. Most of these people talk about the pets currently alive and are generally about frivolous things such as favorite treats and their favorite games maybe why they like to chase the cat around so much knowing it the cat is old. Just silly things that make you laugh smile and leave going so silly or maybe even wow that was cool how they got everything right! I don't see where there is harm in that. I mean it is essentially the same as going to a carnival and wasting money trying to hit the target with the baseball. then trying to ding the bell with the hammer and then ah look a palm reading a ticket for that too. For most cases and for this case especially i feel its just entertainment.


Have you not paid attention to anything I've posted? If you know you're being scammed and you're doing it for entertainment purposes that's one thing. If you've got some one who claims to "read energy" or have "telepathic powers" or any other kind of hokum, and claims to give you "insight" into your dog and you honestly believe it and pay money for it, then you're being scammed. You're a victim whether you realize it or not.


----------



## amavanna (Nov 20, 2010)

I am the type of person who believes in the weird an unusual and admit I am a bit of a sucker but I enjoy accepting the notion that some one can actually understand my dog i feel my dog talks to me all the time and sometimes even talk for her  I don't feel I am victim at all and I think I am capable of deciding if I am or am not a victim . I just think the general idea of it fun interesting and entertaining and because I am open to the strange and unusual..i myself AM strange and unusual biscuits for movie reference ^_^


----------



## hulkamaniac (Feb 11, 2009)

amavanna said:


> I am the type of person who believes in the weird an unusual and admit I am a bit of a sucker but I enjoy accepting the notion that some one can actually understand my dog i feel my dog talks to me all the time and sometimes even talk for her  I don't feel I am victim at all and I think I am capable of deciding if I am or am not a victim . I just think the general idea of it fun interesting and entertaining and because I am open to the strange and unusual..i myself AM strange and unusual biscuits for movie reference ^_^


I'm a rationalist who prefers things grounded in reality. The fact is your dog can't talk to you with anything beyond body language. Can you make a career out of reading a dogs body language? Sure. Look at CM. Say what you want about him, but he's excellent at it. Psychics are all bunk. Every last one of them is a phony whether you or anyone else wants to believe in them. They are fakes and frauds from the start.


----------



## waterbaby (Jan 20, 2009)

We have a somewhat famous animal communicator here in Missoula. There was an article about her about a year ago. She's better than your average communicator because she can also do past lives readings. She's also apparently went to animal communicator school and is a professional.

I agree with hulk that it's totally phony, but I am fascinated by the people that do this stuff. First of all, that they make a living doing something* completely made up*. I totally want a made up job. Secondly, because they actually can be quite gifted, not at telepathy, but at convincing people that they can read them. It really does take skill and it's fun to watch people that are good at it work.


----------



## KBLover (Sep 9, 2008)

hulkamaniac said:


> I'm a rationalist who prefers things grounded in reality. The fact is your dog can't talk to you with anything beyond body language.


My dog can bark. He must be smarter than all other dogs because he can bark to express his needs or his emotional state about a situation. 

Oh and he can growl too. And whine. And moan. And "dog laugh", and vocally yawn. 

Plus, a dog can be taught behaviors which the dog can then use to communicate with you. Wally will poke my leg and then look at the door, I only taught how to poke things (not my leg) with his nose. He tried the behavior in response to a problem he needed solved and since it worked (I got up and took him out) he repeats the behavior in response to that problem.

So if we want to be grounded in reality...their innate body language is not the only way a dog can or be taught to communicate with you.


----------



## CoverTune (Mar 11, 2007)

hulkamaniac said:


> I'm a rationalist who prefers things grounded in reality... Psychics are all bunk. Every last one of them is a phony whether you or anyone else wants to believe in them.


This is an amusing statement to me, coming from a religious person. Perhaps my belief in psychic abilities is as strong as yours is in "God". Just who do you think you are to tell me that my beliefs are wrong?


----------



## hulkamaniac (Feb 11, 2009)

waterbaby said:


> We have a somewhat famous animal communicator here in Missoula. There was an article about her about a year ago. She's better than your average communicator because she can also do past lives readings. She's also apparently went to animal communicator school and is a professional.
> 
> I agree with hulk that it's totally phony, but I am fascinated by the people that do this stuff. First of all, that they make a living doing something* completely made up*. I totally want a made up job. Secondly, because they actually can be quite gifted, not at telepathy, but at convincing people that they can read them. It really does take skill and it's fun to watch people that are good at it work.


I'm kind of like you there that I'm always fascinated by a good con man. I'm a huge fan of Penn and Teller. They are conmen, liars, cheats and frauds and freely admit it, yet I just paid $100 to go see them. And there are a number of people across the US who make money performing magic tricks where they cheat the general public and yet convince the general public to pay money to be cheated. It's pure entertainment and the audience knows ahead of time exactly what it is. If you want to call it entertainment and go there for entertainment purposes, I have no issues.


----------



## waterbaby (Jan 20, 2009)

CoverTune said:


> This is an amusing statement to me, coming from a religious person. Perhaps my belief in psychic abilities is as strong as yours is in "God". Just who do you think you are to tell me that my beliefs are wrong?


Well, part of the difference is that every psychic that has been tested, has been shown to be a fraud. We haven't been able to track a god down yet. They won't submit to testing.


----------



## hulkamaniac (Feb 11, 2009)

CoverTune said:


> This is an amusing statement to me, coming from a religious person. Perhaps my belief in psychic abilities is as strong as yours is in "God". Just who do you think you are to tell me that my beliefs are wrong?


It's not about beliefs. It's about proof. I can prove that psychics are frauds. I cannot prove that God does or does not exist. Belief in God is faith. I choose to believe in something for which is there is no evidence one way or the other. Belief in psychics is believing in something despite empirical evidence to the contrary.


----------



## Finkie_Mom (Mar 2, 2010)

I don't understand what the big deal is here... If you (general you) want to go to an animal communicator (or other type of psychic or medium or whatever), then go for it. If you don't, then don't. Why should I care if you choose to go? As long as it has no impact on my life or anyone else's, then do what you want, LOL.


----------



## hulkamaniac (Feb 11, 2009)

Finkie_Mom said:


> I don't understand what the big deal is here... If you (general you) want to go to an animal communicator (or other type of psychic or medium or whatever), then go for it. If you don't, then don't. Why should I care if you choose to go? As long as it has no impact on my life or anyone else's, then do what you want, LOL.


When I went to Vegas recently, there was a guy on the street running a shell game scam. Basically he's got three cups and a marble or poker chip or something. He puts the chip under one of the cups, shuffles them around and you guess which cup the shell is under. You bet that you can guess the cup and if you can't, he wins. The scam is that he palms the chip and you lose because you always pick the wrong cup. When we walked by, my bro-in-law saw a guy win $500 at the game and got all excited and wanted to play. The guy who won is a shill though and is in on the scam. I guess by your logic, I should've let my bro-in-law play rather than warn him? It wouldn't have harmed me to watch him lose his money.

The fact is these people are scam artists. Just because the scam doesn't affect me doesn't mean that I'm not going to tell people they're being scammed. I told my bro-in-law he was about to be scammed and he didn't play. I guess I did the wrong thing there?


----------



## Finkie_Mom (Mar 2, 2010)

hulkamaniac said:


> When I went to Vegas recently, there was a guy on the street running a shell game scam. Basically he's got three cups and a marble or poker chip or something. He puts the chip under one of the cups, shuffles them around and you guess which cup the shell is under. You bet that you can guess the cup and if you can't, he wins. The scam is that he palms the chip and you lose because you always pick the wrong cup. When we walked by, my bro-in-law saw a guy win $500 at the game and got all excited and wanted to play. The guy who won is a shill though and is in on the scam. I guess by your logic, I should've let my bro-in-law play rather than warn him? It wouldn't have harmed me to watch him lose his money.
> 
> The fact is these people are scam artists. Just because the scam doesn't affect me doesn't mean that I'm not going to tell people they're being scammed. I told my bro-in-law he was about to be scammed and he didn't play. I guess I did the wrong thing there?


Honestly, if you let your brother-in-law play, then that's his choice. That's like my being upset at my Mom for buying a $900 POS TV... She's taking a gamble on something I know will break in 6 months, and if I warn her and she does not listen, then whatever. (This recently happened, BTW). And if I did nothing when she asked my opinion, then also whatever.

I'm just not sure what you're trying to prove in this thread, hulk... Not everyone thinks this stuff is a scam (for whatever reason, and I don't think it's right of you to judge other's beliefs like that), whereas in the example you provided, most people would take what you SAW with the Vegas scammer and realize that playing the game is not the best thing to do. But if you had warned your in-law and he didn't listen, then what are you to do? You can't convince people of everything you want them to believe. If you tell someone this stuff is a joke, and then SHOW THEM, and they change their minds, then that's fine. But you can't do that on an internet forum (as far as I know?), and some people might still believe after you have "proven" otherwise to them.


----------



## hulkamaniac (Feb 11, 2009)

Finkie_Mom said:


> Honestly, if you let your brother-in-law play, then that's his choice. That's like my being upset at my Mom for buying a $900 POS TV... She's taking a gamble on something I know will break in 6 months, and if I warn her and she does not listen, then whatever. (This recently happened, BTW). And if I did nothing when she asked my opinion, then also whatever.
> 
> I'm just not sure what you're trying to prove in this thread, hulk... Not everyone thinks this stuff is a scam (for whatever reason, and I don't think it's right of you to judge other's beliefs like that), whereas in the example you provided, most people would take what you SAW with the Vegas scammer and realize that playing the game is not the best thing to do. But if you had warned your in-law and he didn't listen, then what are you to do? You can't convince people of everything you want them to believe. If you tell someone this stuff is a joke, and then SHOW THEM, and they change their minds, then that's fine. But you can't do that on an internet forum (as far as I know?), and some people might still believe after you have "proven" otherwise to them.


If I told my bro-in-law not to play and he decided to play anyway, I'd have sat back and watched him play. To me, I've done my duty at that point. We can warn people and give them the best advice we can and if they ignore us, it's all on them I think. 

On the other point, it doesn't matter whether you believe it's a scam or not. It is a fact. It would be like someone coming on here claiming they don't believe the Earth orbits the Sun. It doesn't matter what you believe the Earth still orbits the Sun. You can prove it. You can demonstrate this. It's a scientific fact. It's same thing with psychics. It's a scientific fact that has been proven over and over again. Just do a google search on cold reading. Look at some cold reading demonstrations by magicians on Youtube. It is a *fact* that all psychics are frauds. Believing otherwise is like believing that the Earth is flat. It's ludicrous to believe something that is so contrary to fact.


----------



## amavanna (Nov 20, 2010)

It is something you feel is a fact, I don't find it a fact .there are things that are hard to explain 

http://healing.about.com/gi/o.htm?z...12&bt=1&bts=0&zu=http://www.animalvoices.net/

A good read I think.

I also read in another article ( i lost the page im trying to find so I can post it) where there was an animal communicator that would try to help find lost pets for FREE. So tell me how is someone scamming someone by doing something for free, and more to the point how do you explain it when they actually help find them? Is your argument they kidnapped the animal in hopes they would turn to an animal communicator so they could find the animal for free....im not seeing that


----------



## hulkamaniac (Feb 11, 2009)

amavanna said:


> It is something you feel is a fact, I don't find it a fact .there are things that are hard to explain
> 
> http://healing.about.com/gi/o.htm?z...12&bt=1&bts=0&zu=http://www.animalvoices.net/
> 
> ...


Either you're ignoring what I'm saying or I'm not making my point clearly. Let me try again.

Psychics and pet communicators are *all* frauds. This is a *fact*. It doesn't matter if you believe it or not. It's still a fact. It's just as much a fact as it is that the Earth is round. You may believe that the Earth is flat as passionately as you want, but you'd still be wrong. The Earth is round. It's a *fact*. Psychics and pet communicators are frauds. It's a fact. It's nothing more than cold reading. That is a *fact*. Someone saying these things are legit is as ridiculous as saying that the Sun rises in the North. It's factually incorrect. No opinion is needed.


----------



## sassafras (Jun 22, 2010)

hulkamaniac said:


> Psychics and pet communicators are *all* frauds. This is a *fact*.


Prove it.


----------



## hulkamaniac (Feb 11, 2009)

sassafras said:


> Prove it.


How would you like me to prove it? Shall I link to web sites about cold reading? or videos on Youtube on cold reading? Or both?


----------



## sassafras (Jun 22, 2010)

hulkamaniac said:


> How would you like me to prove it? Shall I link to web sites about cold reading? or videos on Youtube on cold reading? Or both?


How does that prove that they are ALL frauds?


----------



## wvasko (Dec 15, 2007)

KBLover said:


> My dog can bark. He must be smarter than all other dogs because he can bark to express his needs or his emotional state about a situation.
> 
> Oh and he can growl too. And whine. And moan. And "dog laugh", and vocally yawn.
> 
> ...


Ahhhhh Yes, but Wally is not trying to scam anybody.


----------



## hulkamaniac (Feb 11, 2009)

sassafras said:


> How does that prove that they are ALL frauds?


Honestly, the burden of proof is on the one making the claim. If you claim that your pet communicator or psychic is legit, you're making an extraordinary claim and the burden of proof is on you. All of the evidence collected so far points to the opposite. It would be like claiming the Earth really is flat. Sure you can claim that what you see from space is an optical illusion. You're going to have to have some really strong evidence to go against the overwhelming mountain of evidence against you. Same with pet communicators. There is a huge mountain of evidence that says they're frauds. If you claim that one of them is legit, you better have some groundshaking evidence.



wvasko said:


> Ahhhhh Yes, but Wally is not trying to scam anybody.


I suspect Wally is very much a scammer. But you know this ahead of time.


----------



## sassafras (Jun 22, 2010)

hulkamaniac said:


> Honestly, the burden of proof is on the one making the claim.


You mean, like your claim that it is a FACT that ALL animal communicators are frauds?


----------



## hulkamaniac (Feb 11, 2009)

sassafras said:


> You mean, like your claim that it is a FACT that ALL animal communicators are frauds?


There are mountains and mountains of evidence to support my claim that all animal communicators are frauds. Do a google search on cold reading. All the facts are there. It's not a claim. It's a fact. I can say the Sun never rises in the North. I don't have to travel to every single place on Earth to prove the Sun never rises in the North though. It's a fact nonetheless.


----------



## amavanna (Nov 20, 2010)

so we can settle on you believing what you believe and ill believe what i know


----------



## hulkamaniac (Feb 11, 2009)

amavanna said:


> so we can settle on you believing what you believe and ill believe what i know


No, because it's not a belief. It's a fact. It's identical to you saying that pi = 6.81. You can believe that pi = 6.81 all you want. It does not change the cold, hard fact that that's not what pi equals.


----------



## sassafras (Jun 22, 2010)

hulkamaniac said:


> There are mountains and mountains of evidence to support my claim that all animal communicators are frauds. Do a google search on cold reading. All the facts are there. It's not a claim. It's a fact. I can say the Sun never rises in the North. I don't have to travel to every single place on Earth to prove the Sun never rises in the North though. It's a fact nonetheless.


Circular logic is DELICIOUS. ETA: Your analogy isn't really appropriate. There's no possible way for anyone to prove that every animal communicator in the world is a fraud. There is going to be some faith/opinion involved.

I don't really care about animal communicators, anyway. I just found the drift of the thread amusing.


----------



## hulkamaniac (Feb 11, 2009)

It's not circular logic on my part. It's fact.

It just pisses me off and pushes all my hot buttons when people look at something that is a cold hard fact and then decide that whether you believe that fact is a matter of opinion. "You know. I don't think Apples are really fruit. I think they're a meat. I'm going to put them in the meat food group. You disagree? Well, you're entitled to your own opinion I guess. We can agree to disagree right?"


----------



## ThoseWordsAtBest (Mar 18, 2009)

hulkamaniac said:


> I don't see how the relationship is beneficial when one person is a predator and the other person is prey. If someone takes advantage of someone else for monetary profit how does the victim benefit. At best it gives them a false sense of peace which they have to pay for. A clergyman could tell you your loved one is in a better place, you wouldn't have to pay for it and the clergyman would probably (and there are certainly exceptions) legitimately care about you and not just your wallet. Just saying.


But no one puts a gun to your head and forces you to believe and send them your money. Without getting into a religious debate ON the forum itself (I think they're legal in PM, but to finish my point) but I think they're in the same vein as animal communicators. It's your choice to believe and use them (and pay if necessary) and whether or not others think it's a crock doesn't matter.


----------



## hulkamaniac (Feb 11, 2009)

Clearly I am not making my point so I will try it again in all bolded all caps so it will be very clear.

*ALL PSYCHICS AND ANIMAL COMMUNICATORS ARE FRAUDS. THIS IS A VERIFIABLE SCIENTIFIC FACT. THERE IS NO OPINION OR BELIEF INVOLVED. IT AS MUCH A FACT AS DOGS BEING MAMMALS.*

Clear enough? Why do people insist on debating things that are cold, hard facts?


----------



## MissMutt (Aug 8, 2008)

ThoseWordsAtBest said:


> But no one puts a gun to your head and forces you to believe and send them your money. Without getting into a religious debate ON the forum itself (I think they're legal in PM, but to finish my point) but I think they're in the same vein as animal communicators. It's your choice to believe and use them (and pay if necessary) and whether or not others think it's a crock doesn't matter.


I agree with this. There are plenty of religions that have very far-out practices, beliefs, etc. 

I don't think that it is a verifiable scientific fact that animal communicators are frauds, especially since I have yet to see the cold, hard evidence that keeps getting brought up. Proving something scientifically does not consist of "They're frauds because there's this thing called cold reading and we think that's what they use"


----------



## ThoseWordsAtBest (Mar 18, 2009)

I say the same thing about.. Well, no debate allowed. 

That is completely beside the point that you're wrong. How you know it's a fact is beyond me, because none of us do. I think it's bunk, but doesn't mean the next person will.



MissMutt said:


> I agree with this. There are plenty of religions that have very far-out practices, beliefs, etc.
> 
> I don't think that it is a verifiable scientific fact that animal communicators are frauds, especially since I have yet to see the cold, hard evidence that keeps getting brought up. Proving something scientifically does not consist of "They're frauds because there's this thing called cold reading and we think that's what they use"


Exactly. I think it's nonsense, but what I think is not a fact, like, I KNOW I'm wearing socks right now is a fact. If I don't personally believe in something I will entertain a friendly debate with someone who wants one, but I would never tell someone they're stupid for a choice that helps them.


----------



## waterbaby (Jan 20, 2009)

MissMutt said:


> I agree with this. There are plenty of religions that have very far-out practices, beliefs, etc.
> 
> I don't think that it is a verifiable scientific fact that animal communicators are frauds, especially since I have yet to see the cold, hard evidence that keeps getting brought up. Proving something scientifically does not consist of "They're frauds because there's this thing called cold reading and we think that's what they use"


1. It's been proven that you don't need to be psychic to give psychic readings, i.e. cold readings.
2. All psychics that have been put to the test have failed (check out James Randi's website and the James Randi challenge - he's offering a $1 million reward for any proof of psychic ability, among other things - no one has cashed in).

I would not make as strong a statement as hulk, but all available evidence points to all psychics being frauds. It does bother me when people believe things given evidence to the contrary. I can't help it. I don't care if people go to pet psychics and I would never tell someone they were stupid for doing so, but if someone insists to me that it's true or that it could be true. Well, chances are, I'm going to argue.


----------



## amavanna (Nov 20, 2010)

> ALL PSYCHICS AND ANIMAL COMMUNICATORS ARE FRAUDS. THIS IS A VERIFIABLE SCIENTIFIC FACT. THERE IS NO OPINION OR BELIEF INVOLVED. IT AS MUCH A FACT AS DOGS BEING MAMMALS.


Why do you try so hard to force what you feel when its clear people don't feel the same way regardless what you say? trust me it isnt worth it


----------



## MissMutt (Aug 8, 2008)

waterbaby said:


> 1. It's been proven that you don't need to be psychic to give psychic readings, i.e. cold readings.
> 2. All psychics that have been put to the test have failed (check out James Randi's website and the James Randi challenge - he's offering a $1 million reward for any proof of psychic ability, among other things - no one has cashed in).
> 
> I would not make as strong a statement as hulk, but all available evidence points to all psychics being frauds.


The strength of his statement is what I am commenting on. It has never been explored scientifically, at least not that I know of, and is therefore not scientific fact.


----------



## Independent George (Mar 26, 2009)

You cannot validate the hypothesis that that all animal communicators are bunk. You can, however, invalidate it by proving a single animal communicator is true. The method for doing so has already been described.

1. Collect a random sample of dog owners. Dress person in identical clothing, and wash each dog & remove all means of identification. 
2. Include a control group of people who do not own a dog, and dogs whose owners are not included in the experiment.
3. Separate the dogs from the people.
4. Introduce the communicator to each dog and each person one at a time, but do not allow the communicator to speak with any of the people.
5. Have the communicator match each dog with each owner, and describe the dog's lifestyle.
6. Have a control group of people attempt to make the same match. 
7. Compare the results.

The burden of proof lies on the communicator to match these criteria. If successful, they can claim a check for $1M.


----------



## KBLover (Sep 9, 2008)

hulkamaniac said:


> I suspect Wally is very much a scammer. But you know this ahead of time.


Heheheh. Maybe he is. I need to write "The Bark is a LIE" on a post-it note and stick it to my monitor as a constant reminder.

Or...maybe...dogs are Human Controllers. Some dogs are so good at it that they can make you do things you weren't even thinking of doing.

Hmm........


----------



## amavanna (Nov 20, 2010)

> You cannot validate the hypothesis that that all animal communicators are bunk. You can, however, invalidate it by proving a single animal communicator is true. The method for doing so has already been described.
> 
> 1. Collect a random sample of dog owners. Dress person in identical clothing, and wash each dog & remove all means of identification.
> 2. Include a control group of people who do not own a dog, and dogs whose owners are not included in the experiment.
> ...


your assuming that it "works " that way though. When you take something as controversal as having psycic abilities with its vast differences of how it is excuted you cant sum up all physcics as working in the same manor. Some animal communicators can do things over the phone some need to touch an object that belong to the dog or animal. I do entertain the idea of animal communicator and other physicic abilities. And just because someone has a million dollar check to try to "prove" something dosen't mean you can't prove something to someone else but it wasnt good enough for said check holder. So as not to get religious, lets take love for example, you can't see it explain it, or sometimes even understand it but you know it exsists. Someone having the ability to see or feel things you can't dosen't mean it can't happen it means you can't do it and find it completly impossiable. But that isn't a fact for everyone it is just a fact for yourself personally. You can tell me all you want its fraud and fake and im still gonna say ok I still believe what I know and you believe what you believe . I say it that way because I KNOW there is a *chance *of it being real. But you can't KNOW there is no chance at all.


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

amavanna said:


> your assuming that it "works " that way though. When you take something as controversal as having psycic abilities with its vast differences of how it is excuted you cant sum up all physcics as working in the same manor. Some animal communicators can do things over the phone some need to touch an object that belong to the dog or animal. I do entertain the idea of animal communicator and other physicic abilities. And just because someone has a million dollar check to try to "prove" something dosen't mean you can't prove something to someone else but it wasnt good enough for said check holder. So as not to get religious, lets take love for example, you can't see it explain it, or sometimes even understand it but you know it exsists. Someone having the ability to see or feel things you can't dosen't mean it can't happen it means you can't do it and find it completly impossiable. But that isn't a fact for everyone it is just a fact for yourself personally. You can tell me all you want its fraud and fake and im still gonna say ok I still believe what I know and you believe what you believe . I say it that way because I KNOW there is a *chance *of it being real. But you can't KNOW there is no chance at all.


do you know what "tautology" means?


----------



## amavanna (Nov 20, 2010)

zim i really dont have the energy for anything you say to me anymore you never agree and find a point to pick at everything i say . I have been discussing this with alot of people and i don't need you to tell me I am repeating myself in "other" words when I am having a discussion with someelse I have had a good time discussing it cause despite his obvious disagreement he can do it without aggravating me to pieces unlike some people


----------



## waterbaby (Jan 20, 2009)

amavanna said:


> I say it that way because I KNOW there is a *chance *of it being real. But you can't KNOW there is no chance at all.


You must believe in an infinite number of things.


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

amavanna said:


> zim i really dont have the energy for anything you say to me anymore you never agree and find a point to pick at everything i say . I have been discussing this with alot of people and i don't need you to tell me I am repeating myself in "other" words when I am having a discussion with someelse I have had a good time discussing it cause despite his obvious disagreement he can do it without aggravating me to pieces unlike some people


no. your post displays a set of common misunderstandings about science and the way it works. you're also running on a set of serious assumptions about what george is proposing. and i honestly cant let that sort of thing slide. 



> lets take love for example, you can't see it explain it, or sometimes even understand it but you know it exsists


i can see it, i can explain and therefore i know it exists. like any other emotion, its based brain chemistry and function and has evolutionary advantages and disadvantages depending on the context in which it exhibits itself.

the rest of that post is just silly. science NEVER assumes something is impossible.

the way it works is you define the problem. under the definition george's post is working under, the idea of an animal communicator is easily debunked or not. the term is falsifiable. if something is not falsifiable, it's not scientifically testable. but under ANY definition of animal communicator..the idea is STILL falsifiable.

you seem to be laboring under a misconception of what a "fact" is. a fact is something that is able to be proved or disproved through evidence. If you can propose a definition of "animal communicator" that is unfalsifiable..then yeah..it hinges on belief. but until you do..you're just talking tautology.

and if that aggravates you...that's your problem..not mine.


----------



## RaeganW (Jul 14, 2009)

zimandtakandgrrandmimi said:


> do you know what "tautology" means?


----------



## amavanna (Nov 20, 2010)

there is a select few that make this forum very unenjoyable

and i never said science said it was impossible but some people here did, and you can claim to understand love but i dont think you understand the basics of people. You don't know how to talk to people you are rude and not a likeable person except for other people just like you. I have no interest in what you say because you SAY NOTHING. you just rant about peoples opinions and views and insult them and have none of your own to share and the few times they do are so pointless and generally STILL rude with the main intent to tell someone your right they are wrong. I have every right to believe in something and not give a damn if you agree with it, and I also have the right to post something without you following my posts with smart ass comments and negative feedback all the time


----------



## hulkamaniac (Feb 11, 2009)

MissMutt said:


> The strength of his statement is what I am commenting on. It has never been explored scientifically, at least not that I know of, and is therefore not scientific fact.


Actually psychics have been explored scientifically more than once. They've been proven to be frauds more than once so there's no need to explore any more. It's territory that has been very well covered. No psychic who has ever been subjected to a double blind test in lab conditions has passed it. If someone is making an extraordinary claim the burden of proof is on the claimant. The burden of proof is even heavier when you are making a statement that flies in the face of every piece of known evidence. 

It's not a religious thing at all. There is no empirical evidence proving or disproving one religion over another. If you choose a religion it's entirely a matter of faith. If you want to accept something on faith that's one thing. If you want to ignore cold hard facts, that's another thing. It irks me when people choose to just blindly ignore empirical evidence so they can embrace something just because it "feels good." I'm sorry, but it's still wrong.



zimandtakandgrrandmimi said:


> no. your post displays a set of common misunderstandings about science and the way it works. you're also running on a set of serious assumptions about what george is proposing. and i honestly cant let that sort of thing slide.
> 
> i can see it, i can explain and therefore i know it exists. like any other emotion, its based brain chemistry and function and has evolutionary advantages and disadvantages depending on the context in which it exhibits itself.
> 
> ...


I always hate myself a little bit when I agree with zim, but the post is 100% spot on. With animal communicators you have something that is easily tested and easily proved or falsified and it's been proved false.


----------



## amavanna (Nov 20, 2010)

hulk, dispite our clear differences I say I still enjoyed our discussion I feel you and I were able to discuss it without feeling you were directly attacking me or what I said personally and I appreciate it, I understand why you feel the way you do and won't dispute it anymore cause your set in your opinion ( or facts) and just wanted to say thank you for being one of the people I enjoy discussing these things with.

you also have your right to agree with zim all you want i however will no longer take anything they say with merrit because they can't give me the respect not to follow my posts around with sarcasm and criticism I have no use for that.


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

amavanna said:


> there is a select few that make this forum very unenjoyable
> 
> and i never said science said it was impossible but some people here did, and you can claim to understand love but i dont think you understand the basics of people. You don't know how to talk to people you are rude and not a likeable person except for other people just like you. I have no interest in what you say because you SAY NOTHING. you just rant about peoples opinions and views and insult them and have none of your own to share and the few times they do are so pointless and generally STILL rude with the main intent to tell someone your right they are wrong. I have every right to believe in something and not give a damn if you agree with it, and I also have the right to post something without you following my posts with smart ass comments and negative feedback all the time


lmfao. and that's not rude? you also seem to be laboring under the delusion that criticism of posts you make on a forum is a personal attack. or is anything to get your panties in a snit over. and im not saying nothing. you just dont want to listen.



and dont worry Hulk. i hate it when i agree with you too.


----------



## ThoseWordsAtBest (Mar 18, 2009)

amavanna said:


> there is a select few that make this forum very unenjoyable
> 
> and i never said science said it was impossible but some people here did, and you can claim to understand love but i dont think you understand the basics of people. You don't know how to talk to people you are rude and not a likeable person except for other people just like you. I have no interest in what you say because you SAY NOTHING. you just rant about peoples opinions and views and insult them and have none of your own to share and the few times they do are so pointless and generally STILL rude with the main intent to tell someone your right they are wrong. I have every right to believe in something and not give a damn if you agree with it, and I also have the right to post something without you following my posts with smart ass comments and negative feedback all the time


This is not meant to be snarky in any way, but might I suggest not posting in threads that are open for debate? If you're going to take message board discussions so seriously, or be appalled that someone disagrees with you and assume it MUST be because they don't like you (No one knows you, by the way) then it might be better to not post in these sort of threads at all.


----------



## RaeganW (Jul 14, 2009)

Hulk is absolutely right. 

Logically (since we're talking tautologies and all, and this is kind of my wheelhouse), there are a couple of statements you can make about this issue.

"All animal communicators are frauds."
To disprove this statement, you need a counter example. Just one. A counterexample has not been found, but that doesn't mean one might not be found. Several counter-possibilities have been found, but they have been disproven. So as it stands, this statement cannot be said to be definitively true or false, but probably false because many possible examples have been shown to be frauds.

The negation of that statement is "There exists an animal communicator that is not a fraud."
To prove this statement, you need an example. Just one. "There exists... yep! There it is, it exists! Statement proven." So far no example has stood up to scrutiny, and there have been many examples that stood up to scrutiny. So this statement is likely false (this is what we expect, since the negation was true), but not provably false.

So, since the evidence gathered so far indicates that "All animal communicators are frauds" is a true statement, the burden of proof is on someone saying that "There exists an animal communicator that is not a fraud" is a true statement.


----------



## amavanna (Nov 20, 2010)

oh no no me and hulk disagreed 100% and I had a great time with the debate. Zim offers nothing to me but insults, criticism, and sarcasm. That isn't a debate.

I also dont think the orignal idea of the thread was to debate THIS hard into the creditability or lack there of in animal communicators but a simple would you go..


----------



## RaeganW (Jul 14, 2009)

Zim talks that way. But she is one of a few people that really can separate (in most cases, there are a few issues that get personal and this ain't one of them) the argument from the person. You gotta see past the words to the point. And, yeah, her posts can be damn hard to read sometimes, but Amavanna? So are yours.


----------



## amavanna (Nov 20, 2010)

well i can take that with constructive critisim and not be offended at all, but I am still do not target people with intent to "call them out" or make them feel their opinion was unworthy to be posted or unneeded or pointless. This isn't the first thread either. I am just tired of the threads I enjoy debating and talking about and then I see Zim's post and know its just gonna be one that is a direct and rude observation with no real reason. But I have been on many of forums where there is a member I need to learn to cope with Zim is no different.


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

amavanna said:


> well i can take that with constructive critisim and not be offended at all, but I am still do not target people with intent to "call them out" or make them feel their opinion was unworthy to be posted or unneeded or pointless. This isn't the first thread either. I am just tired of the threads I enjoy debating and talking about and then I see Zim's post and know its just gonna be one that is a direct and rude observation with no real reason. But I have been on many of forums where there is a member I need to learn to cope with Zim is no different.


Im not targeting you with any attempt to call you out. I see something worth commenting on and im gonna comment. I dont care if you're the freakin admin of the board, the president or <insert pertinent religious icon here>...if it's worth commenting on..im going to comment.

and if you would get past all the personal affrontery and affectation, you'd see that i do have something to say. that is worth something. 

words are just words. the only reason you find them offensive is because you want to.


----------



## amavanna (Nov 20, 2010)

the reason you don't is because you have no concern with how you target people. I have several discussion with people here and other forums I am able to debate and disagree and I don't get a least bit offended. There is just something in how you talk in general that is disrespectful and with this know it all attitude that will get you no where with people. To each there own if you prefer people want to avoid you just because "that is how you are" instead of considering the fact you may have come off in a way that rude or inappropriate then hey that is what you will do. 



> I dont care if you're the freakin admin of the board, the president or <insert pertinent religious icon here>...if it's worth commenting on..im going to comment.


All that really shows is a lack fo respect to authority and your stance that if your right you don't care who you offend or why. No one wants to listen to someone who isn't concerned if the way they are coming at people is BLOCKING the point they are making.

My point is you can disagree with me all day but you don't have to be smug and condescending to do so.



> and if you would get past all the personal affrontery and affectation you'd see that i do have something to say. that is worth something.


if you wouldn't respond with that smug and condescending attitude I was refering to maybe I could here your" voice " and not your attitude


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

amavanna said:


> the reason you don't is because you have no concern with how you target people. I have several discussion with people here and other forums I am able to debate and disagree and I don't get a least bit offended. There is just something in how you talk in general that is disrespectful and with this know it all attitude that will get you no where with people. To each there own if you prefer people want to avoid you just because "that is how you are" instead of considering the fact you may have come off in a way that rude or inappropriate then hey that is what you will do.
> 
> 
> 
> All that really shows is a lack fo respect to authority and your stance that if your right you don't care who you offend or why. No one wants to listen to someone who isn't concerned if the way are coming at people is BLOCKING the point they are making.


but see here's the thing. i view it the complete opposite. and that's what you're not making allowances for. cultural sorts of differences. the way i was raised, to try to sugarcoat something is to show extreme disrespect for that person. it's the same thing as lying. 

your obsession with HOW i say things does not in any way shape or form detract from WHAT im saying. I could say a whole lotta snarky mean stuff about the slander you've been throwing at me..but im not. because in the end...it doesnt matter. it has no bearing on anything else you've said.


----------



## amavanna (Nov 20, 2010)

Well im glad you find comfort in knowing you don't have to take responsibility in how you talk to people. Guess that is all that needs to be said then. To each their own. 

On a second thought, did you once ever stop to think if you change HOW you talk to people they would be more acceptable to listen?


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

amavanna said:


> Well im glad you find comfort in knowing you don't have to take responsibility in how you talk to people. Guess that is all that needs to be said then. To each their own.


i do take responsibility for what i say to people. i didnt, but i could've said something like "you're an idiot amavanna, you dont know crap about crap and the way you talk is stupid"

oh wait...lol...that's basically what you said to me.


----------



## hulkamaniac (Feb 11, 2009)

**reaches for more popcorn**


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

amavanna said:


> On a second thought, did you once ever stop to think if you change HOW you talk to people they would be more acceptable to listen?


do you know ANYTHING about me? can you say with any certainty that what i say is not meant with with respect?

no. you dont and no, you cant.


----------



## amavanna (Nov 20, 2010)

actually i found through reading posts you prolly have a lot to offer people but your rude mouth gets in the way before you have a chance to teach anyone anything. 

*steals popcorn*


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

hulkamaniac said:


> **reaches for more popcorn**


gimme some!


----------



## amavanna (Nov 20, 2010)

Our differences on respect is clear. If i say HEY that was rude and you say ok that is your problem you feel that way..well then um yea I can't say that I feel you meant that in respect.

Edit post- zim if you care to clear up our differences which I am willing to do because I enjoy this forum then feel free to pm, but i think we both wasted enough pages on our personal differences.


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

amavanna said:


> actually i found through reading posts you prolly have a lot to offer people but your rude mouth gets in the way before you have a chance to teach anyone anything.


no, that's an assumption based on your perception. it has nothing to do with me. if my "rude mouth" is getting in the way of me helping people...then why do i get so many questions and thank yous? why have i met so many friends here who i talk to OUTSIDE of Dogforums?

maybe it's because most people are adult enough to give people who are obviously different from them a chance to communicate. You on the other hand want to judge me, call me names and be derogatory just because you percieve my tone to be something it isnt.


----------



## So Cavalier (Jul 23, 2010)

Hmmmm. maybe a little off topic now, wouldn't you say? I think the animals communicate a little better than some of our members...

The salt and butter on that popcorn is gonna kill you, you know.


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

amavanna said:


> Our differences on respect is clear. If i say HEY that was rude and you say ok that is your problem you feel that way..well then um yea I can't say that I feel you meant that in respect.
> 
> Edit post- zim if you care to clear up our differences which I am willing to do because I enjoy this forum then feel free to pm, but i think we both wasted enough pages on our personal differences.


no. you attacked me publicly. you wanna start a new thread? fine..but i have nothing to hide.


----------



## hulkamaniac (Feb 11, 2009)

Keep your damn hands off my popcorn!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## amavanna (Nov 20, 2010)

i just dont want to waste people's time in this thread argueing with someone who dosen't see my point of view and will refuse to and I am sure you feel the same. So really why bother if its just gonna be back and forth . The first couple posts me and you exchanged I DESPERATLY tried to show you where and how I thought you could have came at me differently. And you chose to decide to not care about that and only focus on what your point was and be damned who you offend I don't challenge your knowledge for dogs or who you helped I do however say your people skills with some people just don't match I am one of them so just case closed and we move on I have nothing to hide but I thought you would appricate the fact I was willing to do this aside instead of hijacking the thread further. I didn't attack you publicly I got publicly fed up with you being a smart ass. But that is fine if that is how and who you are then I can deal with that .


----------



## waterbaby (Jan 20, 2009)

DF is all about the metathread these days. *yawn*


----------



## amavanna (Nov 20, 2010)

I have no intention of continuing a discussion that leads no where in a new thread.


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

amavanna said:


> i just dont want to waste people's time in this thread argueing with someone who dosen't see my point of view and will refuse to and I am sure you feel the same. So really why bother if its just gonna be back and forth . The first couple posts me and you exchanged I DESPERATLY tried to show you where and how I thought you could have came at me differently. And you chose to decide to not care about that and only focus on what your point was and be damned who you offend I don't challenge your knowledge for dogs or who you helped I do however say your people skills with some people just don't match I am one of them so just case closed and we move on I have nothing to hide but I thought you would appricate the fact I was willing to do this aside instead of hijacking the thread further. I didn't attack you publicly I got publicly fed up with you being a smart ass. But that is fine if that is how and who you are then I can deal with that .


me? a smartass?

that's name calling if i ever heard it. its also hilarious to me that you've done nothing but attack me by pretending that ive been attacking you. I couldve reported several of your posts for personal insults..strange..i didnt..maybe perhaps its because i wanted to give you a chance?

maybe you should think about that before you start throwing more slanders around. 

peace yall. hope you enjoyed Amavanna's "Its All About ME" show. <---see now this is me being a rude smartass.


----------



## MissMutt (Aug 8, 2008)

My inner psychic senses see a conflict brewing...


----------



## ThoseWordsAtBest (Mar 18, 2009)

MissMutt said:


> My inner psychic senses see a conflict brewing...


But what are the DOGS feeling?


----------



## InkedMarie (Mar 11, 2009)

When we had Dixie, our coonhound with SA, I would have loved to know what was going through her head, to help her. 
I'm not sure I want to know what goes on inside Boone's head LOL


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

MissMutt said:


> My inner psychic senses see a conflict brewing...


Wow, you're good. . .you should set up a booth and charge people for your skillz. Or open a creepy little shop with skellingtons in the window. Yep, you'd make a killing.


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

zimandtakandgrrandmimi said:


> do you know what "tautology" means?


I do I do! But I usually deal with tautologies in logic:



> Tautology (rhetoric), using different words to say the same thing even if the repetition does not provide clarity.
> Tautology (logic), a technical notion in formal logic, universal unconditioned truth, always valid


Okay I was just excited one of my math terms was used. Carry on.


----------



## amavanna (Nov 20, 2010)

> maybe you should think about that before you start throwing more slanders around.


Nah i just learned from the best..you..say what you feel and be damned who cares right that is your motto


----------



## hulkamaniac (Feb 11, 2009)

missmutt said:


> my inner psychic senses see a conflict brewing...


cold reading!!!


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

amavanna said:


> Nah i just learned from the best..you..say what you feel and be damned who cares right that is your motto


no. if you have a LEGITIMATE criticism of what i say...then speak. criticize. that's what a debate is..exchanged criticism. I invite it. i enjoy it. 

but personal attacks are merely strawmanning the issue.

Im done with this thread. but if you post something worth criticism..expect it.


----------



## MissMutt (Aug 8, 2008)

ThoseWordsAtBest said:


> But what are the DOGS feeling?


Oh, it's quite curious... they seem to have detected the disturbed aura.. (mine just gobbled down a piece of chicken)


----------



## hulkamaniac (Feb 11, 2009)

zimandtakandgrrandmimi said:


> no. if you have a LEGITIMATE criticism of what i say...then speak. criticize. that's what a debate is..exchanged criticism. I invite it. i enjoy it.
> 
> but personal attacks are merely strawmanning the issue.
> *
> Im done with this thread. but if you post something worth criticism..expect it*.


Pit Bulls are all vicious killers.

**reaches for popcorn again.**


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

hulkamaniac said:


> Pit Bulls are all vicious killers.
> 
> **reaches for popcorn again.**


you know i have a house full of pit bulls...what's your address hulk? ill send them on so they can slobber you to death and steal all your popcorn.


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

I feel like I should start handing you guys some proofs to do.


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

Laurelin said:


> I feel like I should start handing you guys some proofs to do.


GIMME! i like proofs. mucho divertido lol...though im probably the only one.


----------



## hulkamaniac (Feb 11, 2009)

zimandtakandgrrandmimi said:


> you know i have a house full of pit bulls...what's your address hulk? ill send them on so they can slobber you to death and steal all your popcorn.


No thanks. That happened to me the last time I visited my friend and her pit bull. Don't care to repeat the process.


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

I hate em, but it's probably because I do them every single day lol.

Little did I know I should have sent my analysis homework to DF....


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

hulkamaniac said:


> Pit Bulls are all vicious killers.
> 
> **reaches for popcorn again.**


*tsk* now you're just chumming the waters. Start your own "pit bulls are all vicious killers" thread instead of hijacking this fine thread about animal communicators. We haven't had a good pit bull thread lately. I was starting to get bored until we had the spay/neuter thread. I was even thinking of starting an HSUS thread to liven things up.

I need some popcorn now.


----------



## Cracker (May 25, 2009)

Interesting thread. 

You who believe *all* psychics or communicators are frauds (though many are) may find it surprising that I have had enough unexplainable intuitions and met others who have as well that I am open to the concept that telepathy, psychometry and premonitions are part of our world existence. I am a Reiki practitioner, it is a form of energy healing, and often intuitive thoughts, pictures and feelings can come up in practice. It's not always dead on because it's often a very fragmented thought. Lack of accuracy in interpretation of these intuitions makes it hard to prove anything either way..but I choose to believe what my "gut" tells me when it does tell me something. Whether this is a neurological glitch or paranormal activity or just plain luck, who the heck knows? I know it because I know it. That's enough for me in the context that it occurs. 

And yes, people pay me to perform Reiki healing on them and on their pets, does this make me a predator? I think not. It is considered an exchange and many energy workers will also work on a barter system. 

If you choose to not believe the possibility exists, that is fine. Don't spend your money. If you are curious, then go for it. Millions of people every week still buy lottery tickets...it could be your number gets drawn, but the odds are small...hope still prevails.

I'm sure Hulk doesn't buy lotto tickets though..he needs his cash to buy popcorn for the DF peanut gallery LOL


----------



## RaeganW (Jul 14, 2009)

Cracker said:


> Interesting thread.
> 
> You who believe *all* psychics or communicators are frauds (though many are) may find it surprising that I have had enough unexplainable intuitions and met others who have as well that I am open to the concept that telepathy, psychometry and premonitions are part of our world existence. I am a Reiki practitioner, it is a form of energy healing, and often intuitive thoughts, pictures and feelings can come up in practice. It's not always dead on because it's often a very fragmented thought. Lack of accuracy in interpretation of these intuitions makes it hard to prove anything either way..but I choose to believe what my "gut" tells me when it does tell me something. Whether this is a neurological glitch or paranormal activity or just plain luck, who the heck knows? *I know it because I know it.* That's enough for me in the context that it occurs.


That's a tautology!


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

RaeganW said:


> That's a tautology!


indeed*does Teal'c from Stargate's voice*

seriously though Cracker. i dont look at it as a choice to believe or not to believe. as an empiricist, i CANT believe it without evidence.


----------



## ThoseWordsAtBest (Mar 18, 2009)

I'm actually positive I'm psychic. The other day I swore my phone was ringing upstairs. I could hear Justin Bieber loud and clear. No TV, radio, or any thing was on. So I looked around but saw my phone was sitting on the table in front of me, not ringing. I though I was crazy for a second and then it started ringing. Same thing happened with a text earlier today.


----------



## waterbaby (Jan 20, 2009)

I have a psychic sense of smell. I smell things other people can't all the time. I just don't know what to do with my skills.


----------



## Cracker (May 25, 2009)

RaeganW said:


> That's a tautology!


LOL. Glad I could provide a simple example. 

Zim, no worries and the fraud comment was not pointed at you. 

I was just trying to make a point that I personally do not need the empirical evidence to believe that intuition plays a big part in my life, as it is, was and will be... and that I do not think an exchange of money for this sort of work is necessarily fraudulent.



waterbaby said:


> I have a psychic sense of smell. I smell things other people can't all the time. I just don't know what to do with my skills.


You could market yourself as a bull**** detector.


----------



## Crantastic (Feb 3, 2010)

I consider myself intuitive, as well (I sometimes just "know things"), but I don't think it's because of any psychic ability -- I think I'm just really good at reading people. I am much better at gauging peoples' moods than most others seem to be, and I'm sure I pick up on many tiny details without even thinking about it or trying to notice the details. "Gaydar" would be an example -- I can say I have good "gaydar," but really I'm sure I'm picking up on many tiny indicators that I can't even consciously describe. I think a lot of people are good at reading others, and some of them have honed their skills and capitalized on this. Honestly, after reading this thread and learning about how many people believe in this stuff and will pay out the nose for it, I'm considering quitting my baking job, studying cold reading, and going into business.


----------



## CoverTune (Mar 11, 2007)

Cracker, do you do Reiki on animals? What sorts of things can it heal, or help with? Is it something that's done "hands on"?


----------



## KBLover (Sep 9, 2008)

RaeganW said:


> Zim talks that way. But she is one of a few people that really can separate (in most cases, there are a few issues that get personal and this ain't one of them) the argument from the person. You gotta see past the words to the point. And, yeah, her posts can be damn hard to read sometimes, but Amavanna? So are yours.


There really needs to be a faq on zimspeak on this forum somewhere. The mods need to get on that. 

Now.


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

KBLover said:


> There really needs to be a faq on zimspeak on this forum somewhere. The mods need to get on that.
> 
> Now.


this post makes me feel very strange. O.x 

*shrug* different people are different..or something...*wink*


----------



## KBLover (Sep 9, 2008)

Cracker said:


> I was just trying to make a point that I personally do not need the empirical evidence to believe that intuition plays a big part in my life, as it is, was and will be...


Here, here.

I try to combine logic and intuition and probably just "beliefs" since I don't have any "real" proof that would be significant to those who are purely logical.

That said, at the end of the day, if it works for me and Wally, doesn't matter if it passes scientific muster. Sometimes, I just don't question what works. I just try to see what does and use it. Sometimes, that's an irrational process.

While I don't believe that I can communicate with Wally's mind telepathically or whatever (he might be reading mine sometimes LOL you'll have to ask him), there's some measure of intuition in communicating with a dog. I mean, I'm not an experienced owner with a once-fearful dog as my first ever dog. Something had to get me and him through it considering how utterly little I knew then (and I know only a little less that utter little now).



zimandtakandgrrandmimi said:


> this post makes me feel very strange. O.x
> 
> *shrug* different people are different..or something...*wink*


Is that one of those tautology thingies?


----------



## hulkamaniac (Feb 11, 2009)

Cracker said:


> Interesting thread.
> 
> You who believe *all* psychics or communicators are frauds (though many are) may find it surprising that I have had enough unexplainable intuitions and met others who have as well that I am open to the concept that telepathy, psychometry and premonitions are part of our world existence. I am a Reiki practitioner, it is a form of energy healing, and often intuitive thoughts, pictures and feelings can come up in practice. It's not always dead on because it's often a very fragmented thought. Lack of accuracy in interpretation of these intuitions makes it hard to prove anything either way..but I choose to believe what my "gut" tells me when it does tell me something. Whether this is a neurological glitch or paranormal activity or just plain luck, who the heck knows? I know it because I know it. That's enough for me in the context that it occurs.
> 
> ...


It's not a matter of choosing whether to believe or not. Again, this is stuff that has been tested over and over. It's a matter of whether you choose to believe in scientific facts or not and that is what pisses me off. Scientific fact should not be up for discussion. If you have a problem with scientific fact, then point out the flaws in the studies. Point out the studies that prove your supposition. Point out the scientific tests that have supported psychic phenomena. The fact is they are non-existent. That is a fact. You or anyone else believing in psychic phenomena is exactly the same as someone believing the Earth is flat. It is the exact same thing. You choose to ignore reality (for whatever reason).

They have tested Reiki healing practices as recently as 2008 and found no evidence whatsoever to back up it's effectiveness. You can claim it works all you want, but there is absolutely no evidence for that. The null hypothesis (Reiki healing is not legit) still holds. That is science at work. 

It's not about whether the possibility exists or not. Billions of possibilities exist. I don't accept every single one of them. I accept the ones for which there is evidence proving them. I reject the ones for which there is evidence disproving them. The ones for which there is no evidence one way or the other I accept or reject based on faith. Psychic phenomena, reiki healing, animal communication, etc.... is not in the latter category. It's been tested and shown to have no value. This is fact, not faith.


----------



## So Cavalier (Jul 23, 2010)

> That said, at the end of the day, if it works for me and Wally, doesn't matter if it passes scientific muster. Sometimes, I just don't question what works. I just try to see what does and use it. Sometimes, that's an irrational process.


Yes.....(message too short)


----------



## CoverTune (Mar 11, 2007)

All this talk has made me decide to go back to the woman who "read" my horses, and have her do a reading on George.


----------



## wvasko (Dec 15, 2007)

hulkamaniac said:


> It's not a matter of choosing whether to believe or not. Again, this is stuff that has been tested over and over. It's a matter of whether you choose to believe in scientific facts or not and that is what pisses me off. Scientific fact should not be up for discussion. If you have a problem with scientific fact, then point out the flaws in the studies. Point out the studies that prove your supposition. Point out the scientific tests that have supported psychic phenomena. The fact is they are non-existent. That is a fact. You or anyone else believing in psychic phenomena is exactly the same as someone believing the Earth is flat. It is the exact same thing. You choose to ignore reality (for whatever reason).
> 
> They have tested Reiki healing practices as recently as 2008 and found no evidence whatsoever to back up it's effectiveness. You can claim it works all you want, but there is absolutely no evidence for that. The null hypothesis (Reiki healing is not legit) still holds. That is science at work.
> 
> It's not about whether the possibility exists or not. Billions of possibilities exist. I don't accept every single one of them. I accept the ones for which there is evidence proving them. I reject the ones for which there is evidence disproving them. The ones for which there is no evidence one way or the other I accept or reject based on faith. Psychic phenomena, reiki healing, animal communication, etc.... is not in the latter category. It's been tested and shown to have no value. This is fact, not faith.


I got your back, I believe none of what I hear and only half of what I see. I still remember the "Dog Psychic" on TV telling an owner that the dog told her he liked cheeseburgers. What a crock of manure.


----------



## hulkamaniac (Feb 11, 2009)

wvasko said:


> I got your back, I believe none of what I hear and only half of what I see. I still remember the "Dog Psychic" on TV telling an owner that the dog told her he liked cheeseburgers. What a crock of manure.


I could tell you your dog liked cheeseburgers and I'm not a psychic at all. My dad fed Zero a burnt burger from the grill once. Zero thought he was the shiznit.


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

see...here's my thing with psychics etc...

matter affects matter. if there really is some sort of telepathic/psychic ability...it has to have some sort of biological basis. there would have to be an organ/neural location/collection of cells or SOMETHING giving and recieving some sort of Data input/output process...and to be able to interpret the input data, it would suggest that everyone has this hypothetical biological constuct..

so where is it?

and stuff like Reiki..i dont mean to diss you Cracker...i feel like i need to say this though

again..matter affects matter. for crystals and objects to have some healing property of some sort, there would have to be an interaction between the matter of the crystal/object/whatever and a consistently repeatable affect on the person/animal being healed. 

Occam's Razor suggests that given all the potential explanations..the simplest is most likely the most correct. and the simplest explanation would be the placebo effect. which given the nature of the placebo effect, the results dont really depend on the practioner...it depends on whether the person believes...

same with psychic ability..i think cold reading also kind of introduces a placebo effect of sorts..the success depends on the person receiving the reading's belief on the matter.

now if the practioner literally and fully believes that it works as well...i dont know that id call it fraud..i dont know what to call that. The best i can come up with is illogical. dont mean it to be an insult..just an observation.

on the other hand...if the practioner DOESNT believe it literally..yeah...that's fraud. 

just musing on the original topic...


----------



## KBLover (Sep 9, 2008)

zimandtakandgrrandmimi said:


> Occam's Razor suggests that given all the potential explanations..the simplest is most likely the most correct.


Why settle for just the simplest explanation instead of actually delving into what it is why it does what it does? 

I'm not just talking about psychics or whatever, but like OC. Simple explanation is that what works is repeated. Fine. But HOW does that work actually inside the brain of the dog? How does the dog's brain organize and order things? Simple explanations don't seem to cover that, but, at least to me, that's where the interesting stuff is. *shrug*


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

KBLover said:


> Why settle for just the simplest explanation instead of actually delving into what it is why it does what it does?
> 
> I'm not just talking about psychics or whatever, but like OC. Simple explanation is that what works is repeated. Fine. But HOW does that work actually inside the brain of the dog? How does the dog's brain organize and order things? Simple explanations don't seem to cover that, but, at least to me, that's where the interesting stuff is. *shrug*



the razor deals with overarching principles and hypotheses. not what they're composed of. 

and it depends on what you define as simple..

in door number one is the placebo effect, with some evidenciary support. in door number two there is the supposition that it's real..with NO evidenciary support and a lot of conflicting definitions. 

which is more simple?

switch OC into that example and you get

in door number one, you have Operant conditioning with four basic principles and significant evidenciary support. In door number two, you have beating the crap out of your dog and playing SuperAlphaWerewolf with evidence that clashes with it, seven billion interpretations and variations of severity and no cogent principle (by that i mean "What does being the Alpha Dog Mean?" <--how easy is it to answer that question?)


----------



## Cracker (May 25, 2009)

No worries Zim and Hulk...I'm not insulted. I chose to put my thoughts out there fully realizing the reaction I would get. 

So regarding the placebo effect...I'm just speculating here, but isn't that a case of mind over matter? If so, then how do we know that the belief itself the brings on the effect is not real? If it reduces the symptoms or eases pain or whatever (emotionally or physically) because someone believes it does, is that not the same result as if it were treated with allopathic treatment? 

Neuroplasticity studies are beginning to show that meditation (as in buddhist meditation on compassion) even in inexperienced meditators can affect the wiring of certain pathways in the brain. If thought is not matter, how does it create these new pathways? If with practice you change how your brain works, who's to say that cannot help to heal the body?

If thought DOES have power or matter or energy, then hypothetically it COULD be used to great advantage in the general physical and mental well being in people. So hypothetically being convinced that energy work is beneficial, can DO NO HARM but may help. I see nothing wrong with that. 

Again, all I'm saying here is not all people who work in this field (be it communicators, Reiki or TTouch practitioners, etc) are predators and conmen. It is about INTENT and if the intent is to help ease someone's discomfort or to contribute to the greater good in the world then really, what IS wrong with that?


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

Cracker said:


> No worries Zim and Hulk...I'm not insulted. I chose to put my thoughts out there fully realizing the reaction I would get.
> 
> So regarding the placebo effect...I'm just speculating here, but isn't that a case of mind over matter? If so, then how do we know that the belief itself the brings on the effect is not real? If it reduces the symptoms or eases pain or whatever (emotionally or physically) because someone believes it does, is that not the same result as if it were treated with allopathic treatment?


but the thing is..a placebo is not always an actual cure. most of the time it alleviates the issue. in order for there to be an actual cure, or reading of minds/etc. there has to be an interaction of matter of some sort. The nature of something like the classical idea of "'psychic powers" would suggest some sort of wave production. or something to do with charged particles perhaps..but there has to be some sort of information accessing/processing structure somewhere..almost certainly in the brain. something structurally capable of perhaps generating a wave and the ability to target it. something like that should be relatively easy to locate and identify because it would stand out from the rest of the brain somehow. Im not saying its TOTALLY impossible. but the null hypothesis demands a stance "i remain unconvinced in the lack of testable and repeatable evidence."



> Neuroplasticity studies are beginning to show that meditation (as in buddhist meditation on compassion) even in inexperienced meditators can affect the wiring of certain pathways in the brain. If thought is not matter, how does it create these new pathways? If with practice you change how your brain works, who's to say that cannot help to heal the body?


thought is basically charged particles in chemical reactions. No one said that thought isnt matter. the question is what kind of effect does it have on the base body functions and to what extent. 


> If thought DOES have power or matter or energy, then hypothetically it COULD be used to great advantage in the general physical and mental well being in people. So hypothetically being convinced that energy work is beneficial, can DO NO HARM but may help. I see nothing wrong with that.


my only thing is that from all apparent evidences ive seen..this is more of a hypnosis/cold reading kind of thing. It would sit a little more comfortably as a possibility if 

a. it was billed for what it is.

or b. some sort of physiological structure or similar evidence to suggests the ability to process information in another's brain or anything along those lines.



> Again, all I'm saying here is not all people who work in this field (be it communicators, Reiki or TTouch practitioners, etc) are predators and conmen. It is about INTENT and if the intent is to help ease someone's discomfort or to contribute to the greater good in the world then really, what IS wrong with that?


in the end it ultimately doesnt matter to me personally because im not someone who would go to a psychic or whatever. I think it's good to bring up questions surrounding it and similar things. Truth (whatever it is) cant grow without critical analysis.

but maybe that's just me


----------



## Cracker (May 25, 2009)

Oh, I agree that critical thought is a good thing, this is why I am participating in the discussion in the first place. Maybe something someone says will lead me to a different area of study or a different way of looking at something. 

But I also believe we need to be open to the possibilities that there is much we don't know yet on all fronts.


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

to do anything else but this...



> But I also believe we need to be open to the possibilities that there is much we don't know yet on all fronts.


plus 

the absence of evidence does not equal evidence for or against. 

would be extremely unscientific.

but im not contradicting that at all. You gotta define what you're looking for before you can begin looking for evidence of it in most cases. start ticking off the possibilities until you get to one, or none. 

which is how i think about most things.


----------



## RaeganW (Jul 14, 2009)

The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence!

doG I love proof theory.


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

RaeganW said:


> The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence!
> 
> doG I love proof theory.


*booty dancing stormtrooper*


----------



## hulkamaniac (Feb 11, 2009)

Cracker said:


> No worries Zim and Hulk...I'm not insulted. I chose to put my thoughts out there fully realizing the reaction I would get.
> 
> So regarding the placebo effect...I'm just speculating here, but isn't that a case of mind over matter? If so, then how do we know that the belief itself the brings on the effect is not real? If it reduces the symptoms or eases pain or whatever (emotionally or physically) because someone believes it does, is that not the same result as if it were treated with allopathic treatment?


The thing is the placebo isn't the cure. The cure is still false. Let's say I claim I can cure a certain kind of cancer with snake oil. I get 10 people and give them snake oil. All of them are cured. I get another group of 10 people and give them all water which I claim is snake oil. All of them are cured as well. We haven't proven that snake oil is effective in curing cancer at all. In fact, we've proved the opposite. Just because a placebo effect is effective doesn't mean I'm not a con artist if I'm out there pushing snake oil on cancer patients. 



> Neuroplasticity studies are beginning to show that meditation (as in buddhist meditation on compassion) even in inexperienced meditators can affect the wiring of certain pathways in the brain. If thought is not matter, how does it create these new pathways? If with practice you change how your brain works, who's to say that cannot help to heal the body?


Not saying it CAN'T work. Just saying that all the evidence accumulated so far indicates that it DOESN'T work. At this point, given all the scientific data that has been accumulated to date, we can safely say that things like Reiki healing do not work. Could we get more data in the future that would change that conclusion? Absolutely. To this point though the data supporting the effectiveness of Reiki is not there. It's been studied, but the evidence isn't there.



> If thought DOES have power or matter or energy, then hypothetically it COULD be used to great advantage in the general physical and mental well being in people. So hypothetically being convinced that energy work is beneficial, can DO NO HARM but may help. I see nothing wrong with that.


Again, we're speaking in purely hypothetical terms. COULD is one thing. DOES is another. The evidence is not there to support DOES. And if people choose to try Reiki healing instead of conventional methods, then it does hurt. They are essentially going without treatment when conventional methods could save their lives. 

I heard a doctor on the radio recently speak of a friend of his who was diagnosed in the early stages of a very curable form of cancer. She chose to try homeopathic methods instead of traditional treatments. She's now dead because the cancer advanced unchecked and it was too late by the time she changed her mind. So yes, there is harm done by people who advocate for these things. I have no doubts that that the homeopath in this situation had the best interests of the woman at heart. I have no doubt that she thought she was doing the right thing. Nevertheless, harm was done. Someone died because they chose to try methods that have been *proven* to be ineffective just because they "believed" it could help.



> Again, all I'm saying here is not all people who work in this field (be it communicators, Reiki or TTouch practitioners, etc) are predators and conmen. It is about INTENT and if the intent is to help ease someone's discomfort or to contribute to the greater good in the world then really, what IS wrong with that?


I am sure that not all of them are. Nevertheless, harm is still done. Regardless of the intent, harm is still done. If I drag someone out of a car that's just been in an accident, I may have the best of intentions. However, if my doing so causes serious internal bleeding and the person dies, harm has still been done regardless of the intent.


----------



## Cracker (May 25, 2009)

Something you don't realize Hulk, is that Reiki is not about curing anything...it's a complementary treatment, not a replacement for allopathic medicine. So don't throw that out there, it's not used that way. It is meant to help reduce stress, trigger the relaxation response and boost immunity. 

So, no. No harm is done.


----------



## Independent George (Mar 26, 2009)

Oh Jeez. I leave for ONE DAY to play with my dog instead of just writing about it, and you guys put another four pages up? How am I supposed to read all that?


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

dont bother. there was a TV Drama moment earlier.


----------



## Independent George (Mar 26, 2009)

zimandtakandgrrandmimi said:


> dont bother. there was a TV Drama moment earlier.


Yeah. That's going to make me LESS likely to read through the entire thread.


----------



## hulkamaniac (Feb 11, 2009)

Cracker said:


> Something you don't realize Hulk, is that Reiki is not about curing anything...it's a complementary treatment, not a replacement for allopathic medicine. So don't throw that out there, it's not used that way. It is meant to help reduce stress, trigger the relaxation response and boost immunity.
> 
> So, no. No harm is done.


Perhaps my understanding of Reiki is imperfect. I was going off a definition that defined it as "a form of therapy in which the practitioner is believed to channel energy into the patient in order to encourage healing or restore wellbeing". By that definition, if I was sick I might go to a Reiki healer to "restore wellbeing" rather than a traditional medical doctor. I admit I'm hardly an expert on the subject. That doesn't change the fact thought that if I do go to a Reiki healer I'm paying money for something that has demonstrated 0 value in double blind studies.


----------



## waterbaby (Jan 20, 2009)

Cracker said:


> Something you don't realize Hulk, is that Reiki is not about curing anything...it's a complementary treatment, not a replacement for allopathic medicine. So don't throw that out there, it's not used that way. It is meant to help reduce stress, trigger the relaxation response and boost immunity.
> 
> So, no. No harm is done.


Boost immunity? What components?


----------



## TStafford (Dec 23, 2009)

zimandtakandgrrandmimi said:


> see...here's my thing with psychics etc...
> 
> matter affects matter. if there really is some sort of telepathic/psychic ability...it has to have some sort of biological basis. there would have to be an organ/neural location/collection of cells or SOMETHING giving and recieving some sort of Data input/output process...and to be able to interpret the input data, it would suggest that everyone has this hypothetical biological constuct..


I have an answer to that but since this isn't a place for anything even close to religion I can't get into it. It has a lot to do with the ehergy that is in everything, and there is even a part of your brain that does respond to those types of things. 


Most of the people that claim to be able to talk to animals, dead people, read your palm, or anything of the like are fake. But there are a few people that can honest to what ever god you like do those things. I hate that there are so many fakes that no one will ever trust the honest people. And I haven't read all of this (10 pages is a bit much) so if I have said something that has already been said...oops.


----------



## waterbaby (Jan 20, 2009)

Cracker said:


> Something you don't realize Hulk, is that Reiki is not about curing anything...it's a complementary treatment, not a replacement for allopathic medicine. So don't throw that out there, it's not used that way. It is meant to help reduce stress, trigger the relaxation response and boost immunity.
> 
> So, no. No harm is done.


The harm comes in charging people for no result. Not targeting Reiki specifically, but many people seek alternative cures and eschew traditional medicine at their expense. I have a friend who had Lyme disease. Her holistic doctor _gave her supplements_ and did some kind of chanting. Thank god she finally went to an actual MD and is now on antibiotics. 

Like psychic readings, when people seek out alternative medicine, they _want_ to feel better. I think in a lot of cases, it's not even a placebo effect, it's just a desire for things to be better. It's not an objective assessment at all.


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

TStafford said:


> I have an answer to that but since this isn't a place for anything even close to religion I can't get into it. It has a lot to do with the ehergy that is in everything, and there is even a part of your brain that does respond to those types of things.


you'd have to show me evidence of this "energy". while i certainly cant say for certain(tau tau tau tau.. ), im extremely skeptical of such things being real.


----------



## TStafford (Dec 23, 2009)

zimandtakandgrrandmimi said:


> you'd have to show me evidence of this "energy". while i certainly cant say for certain(tau tau tau tau.. ), im extremely skeptical of such things being real.


Thats what sucks. There are pictures of people's energy, but who is really going to beleive a picture now days? I know there are some scientific test results that they have put online but I don't know where to find them. I'll ask my SO if he can get to them when he gets homes tomorrow, and let him explain it (the science part of it). All i'll do is sound crazy if I get into it (i'm not good with words). At the very least is interesting learn about. 

I get 100% why you would be skeptical. It really does sound like stuff out of movies and most the time when people are talking about it thats all it is. But wouldn't be so cool if people could heal other livings just by touching them? There is a nice story about a lady that healed a dog that was hit by a car and dying.


----------



## Cracker (May 25, 2009)

waterbaby said:


> Boost immunity? What components?


We all know that chronic or acute stress affects the immune system (along with creating havoc with the adrenal glands), Reiki, like many other complementary therapies (like ttouch and massage) triggers the relaxation response and helps to allow the recipients body to help heal itself. A reduction in stress and release of feel good neurochemicals helps boost the immune system, reduce blood pressure etc. It's the relaxation that triggers this, but the therapy is what attains the relaxation. Like I said before it is not a curative therapy it is complementary to allopathic medicine. No reiki practitioner claims otherwise and we always insist the client see their doctor if they are ill.

As for taking money for it. My time is valuable, I have to have a place to practice, travel to the client, have a table, etc. I am providing a service and I get paid for it. End of story. The same with my training clients. I do my pro bono stuff here on the forums. I do not advertise, they come to me. 

The only reason I brought up my Reiki was to mention that I get intuitive flashes from some clients while performing the task. So was reasoning that some communicators etc MAY be legit, that I have experienced the intuitions myself though not consistently.


----------



## hulkamaniac (Feb 11, 2009)

TStafford said:


> Thats what sucks. There are pictures of people's energy, but who is really going to beleive a picture now days? I know there are some scientific test results that they have put online but I don't know where to find them. I'll ask my SO if he can get to them when he gets homes tomorrow, and let him explain it (the science part of it). All i'll do is sound crazy if I get into it (i'm not good with words). At the very least is interesting learn about.


I've never ever seen any pictures of someone's "energy" so I'd be very interested in seeing them. I've also never, ever heard of any scientific studies that verified the existence of "energy". I don't even know how "energy" is defined.



> I get 100% why you would be skeptical. It really does sound like stuff out of movies and most the time when people are talking about it thats all it is. But wouldn't be so cool if people could heal other livings just by touching them? There is a nice story about a lady that healed a dog that was hit by a car and dying.


Yeah, it would be cool, if it was true. It would also be cool if I could fly. Neither of these things are true though.



Cracker said:


> We all know that chronic or acute stress affects the immune system (along with creating havoc with the adrenal glands), Reiki, like many other complementary therapies (like ttouch and massage) triggers the relaxation response and helps to allow the recipients body to help heal itself. A reduction in stress and release of feel good neurochemicals helps boost the immune system, reduce blood pressure etc. It's the relaxation that triggers this, but the therapy is what attains the relaxation. Like I said before it is not a curative therapy it is complementary to allopathic medicine. No reiki practitioner claims otherwise and we always insist the client see their doctor if they are ill.


Again, this doesn't change the fact that it's clinically ineffective in every study that's been done. There hasn't been a single study that indicated Reiki was effective.



> As for taking money for it. My time is valuable, I have to have a place to practice, travel to the client, have a table, etc. I am providing a service and I get paid for it. End of story. The same with my training clients. I do my pro bono stuff here on the forums. I do not advertise, they come to me.


Again, the fact is that you are taking money while offering nothing of value. Now, I'm sure you aren't deliberately out to scam people out of their money. But that doesn't change the fact that you are offering something that has no medical or clinical value and taking money for it. I may legitimately believe that my snake oil works and have the best of intentions, but that doesn't change the fact that it's still snake oil.



> The only reason I brought up my Reiki was to mention that I get intuitive flashes from some clients while performing the task. So was reasoning that some communicators etc MAY be legit, that I have experienced the intuitions myself though not consistently.


This is nothing more than cold reading. You may not realize it, but that's what it is.


----------



## JustTess (Mar 19, 2008)

I went to a psyhic fair a few times and I really didn't find anything there that would make me believe it was true. It was a lot of fun. I've seen the aura pictures, tarrot cards, and palm readings when I was a teenager. None of the reading really came true as in number of children, love, fortune, etc... 

On a trip to China with my mother many years ago, there was a lady that did "face readings". She would look into your eyes and study your face. This old woman, from the countryside whom appeared humble, uneducated/unworldly started to tell me things about myself that gave me chills because it was true. I thought, that was my secret, how did she know? (must have been written all over my face, LOL)

I don't know if I really want someone to tell me what my dogs are thinking.... I have a feeling they already tell me each day. I can see Ilya trying to use it to bargain priviledges.


----------



## waterbaby (Jan 20, 2009)

Cracker said:


> We all know that chronic or acute stress affects the immune system (along with creating havoc with the adrenal glands) [...] A reduction in stress and release of feel good neurochemicals helps boost the immune system, reduce blood pressure etc. It's the relaxation that triggers this, but the therapy is what attains the relaxation.


Is there a measurable decrease in glucocorticoids and increase in endorphins (the stress part)? The immune system is very complicated and while it's true that stress hormones affect the immune system, an acute response has a very different (generally positive) effect on specific, measurable components of immunity than chronically elevated stress hormones. In addition, even chronic stress results in a trade-off between different immune components. Chronically elevated glucocorticoids actually increases an ability to respond to extracellular parasites. Does Reiki affect the immune system solely through the stress axis, or does it have an additional effect?

We can drop this if you want, also. I'm not trying to attack you, but one of my areas of research is stress-immune system interactions so I'm interested to know what you think is going on, on perhaps a more detailed level than you're interested in thinking about it. I've looked (quickly) at the Reiki literature and there's not much although there is a bit more if I expand to T Touch therapies. What I don't get is, what is so hard about setting up a double-blind trial for this stuff? 

Anyway, what I've found (for Reiki) is that there is no effect on salivary cortisol.


----------



## hulkamaniac (Feb 11, 2009)

waterbaby said:


> Is there a measurable decrease in glucocorticoids and increase in endorphins (the stress part)? The immune system is very complicated and while it's true that stress hormones affect the immune system, an acute response has a very different (generally positive) effect on specific, measurable components of immunity than chronically elevated stress hormones. In addition, even chronic stress results in a trade-off between different immune components. Chronically elevated glucocorticoids actually increases an ability to respond to extracellular parasites. Does Reiki affect the immune system solely through the stress axis, or does it have an additional effect?
> 
> We can drop this if you want, also. I'm not trying to attack you, but one of my areas of research is stress-immune system interactions so I'm interested to know what you think is going on, on perhaps a more detailed level than you're interested in thinking about it. I've looked (quickly) at the Reiki literature and there's not much although there is a bit more if I expand to T Touch therapies. What I don't get is, what is so hard about setting up a double-blind trial for this stuff?
> 
> Anyway, what I've found (for Reiki) is that there is no effect on salivary cortisol.


They have set up double blind trials on Reiki over and over again. The results are easy to find. There is no evidence that Reiki is effective at all.


----------



## CoverTune (Mar 11, 2007)

So, I just got off the phone with the woman who "read" George.. for anyone who's interested, these are the notes I jotted down. Oh, and all she had was his name, a photo of his face, and his age.

_Pain/Discomfort
top 1/4 of left eye - running? poss. sight issue? goopy?
hips - expected for a dog his age
toenails - may need to be cut, which he hates
left front tenderness on back of first knuckle
nothing major, seems to feel it's important to tell her about any little boo boo
queasy spot in belly - may have sensitive stomach, be religious in diet

proud of his voice, thinks it's almost Beagle-like (hound-like/baying)
seems to be missing someone, not totally settled in
a lot more personality to expose
he wants to know if he's going to stay
likes the heat, she feels like there is a spot where he lays where there is a lot of heat
other dog is very annoying
is a good dog, no blackness in him
would like a job (don't ask him to be a guard dog), could tell him it's his job to keep me company
he says I have calm energy
Basset Hound? dog with long ears "lorded over him"
fears - thunder (the kind that reverberates), floors trembling/shaking (may have been near where trains were)
wants his supper, is she going to feed me?
has been around a little girl, may have brushed his hair/did his nails/dressed him up
stomach gets queasy when I go out the door
doesn't seem to really care about toys
loud music/guitar hurts his ears_

Some of that could definitely be generalized.. but some other things.. she knew he hadn't had his dinner yet because [she said] he kept going back to that. And she knew there was a strong heat source in the house that he was laying next to or on.. and yes, he was laying on the heating pad I have for the dogs.. that's pretty crazy.

Anywho, believe what y'all like, but I enjoyed that.


----------



## Cracker (May 25, 2009)

the difficulty here is actually getting the reviews to read, but this is promising:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16056170

Also:



> Biofield therapies: helpful or full of hype? A best evidence synthesis.
> 
> Jain S, Mills PJ.
> 
> ...


There are a bunch of studies that are being done or have been done, but I can't access the medical databases to actually read it. Maybe I'm looking in the wrong places...I'm not so great at online research. Not my forte, obviously. I wish I had more information for you Waterbaby. If you are doing serious research in your own offline life, maybe you have access to these studies that I don't. This is the site I was looking at:

http://gateway.nlm.nih.gov/gw/Cmd?GMResultsSummary&loc=nccs


----------



## amavanna (Nov 20, 2010)

were any of these true


> ain/Discomfort
> top 1/4 of left eye - running? poss. sight issue? goopy?
> hips - expected for a dog his age
> toenails - may need to be cut, which he hates
> ...



I think a few of those are pretty interesting



> is a good dog, no blackness in him


I cant see any dog have "blackness' to them but I guess i see what she was getting at it



> likes the heat, she feels like there is a spot where he lays where there is a lot of heat


I think a lot of dogs find the warmest and coolest spots in the house. My dog will sit next to our wall heater, it was scaring me cause she would sit right under it so i cut it down alot but she will sit there when it is colder or go to her bed which is a soft queen size comforter until i can get a proper bed for her.



> seems to be missing someone, not totally settled in


If said about Lela Id believe it cause i know she was owned by someone who cared for her and just made choices dosent mean she didn't love the previous owner.


I would have enjoyed it myself anyway but I would be interested in knowing how accurate she was on the more random things like the specific health issues or maybe fearing thunder for example my dog isnt fazed in the least with thunder so that would been wrong if she just said that in generalization.



> doesn't seem to really care about toys


 This would be a good one too if were true since most dogs do enjoy their toys. maybe had been cooler if she could have said what type of too he WOULD like and it proved to be true.

Also if i can ask without it seeming rude how much did it cost for this specific person to do the reading and did she have a website ^_^


----------



## waterbaby (Jan 20, 2009)

Cracker said:


> the difficulty here is actually getting the reviews to read, but this is promising:
> 
> ...
> 
> ...


If you want any articles, let me know and I can probably get them for you. But apparently I'm not very good at online research because hulk tells me there are tons of well-designed Reiki studies out there and I sure can't find them. If I expand to include therapeutic touch there's more and then expand to biofield modalities there's even more. But Reiki itself, maybe a dozen.


----------



## CoverTune (Mar 11, 2007)

Well, his left eye was a bit runny earlier today, but I didn't notice anything during the reading. His back nails definitely do need to be cut, lol, but not his fronts. And he has been having diarrhea (queasy belly), which could definitely have been caused by a sensitive belly as I've been giving him little bits of "other food" (apple, banana, pasta etc).

He also has not showed interest in any toys I've tried with him so far, I've tried all kinds. She said that she was "showing him pictures of toys, and he's not giving me much reaction", I don't know that she can specifically ask "what toy do you like?". So she was bang-on with that. I can't say about the thunder issue, as we haven't had any since I've had him.

I paid $50 for the reading. I'd be happy to give you her website addy over PM.. just don't want to post it here and have people tear her apart.


----------



## Cracker (May 25, 2009)

waterbaby said:


> If you want any articles, let me know and I can probably get them for you. But apparently I'm not very good at online research because hulk tells me there are tons of well-designed Reiki studies out there and I sure can't find them. If I expand to include therapeutic touch there's more and then expand to biofield modalities there's even more. But Reiki itself, maybe a dozen.


Some of the ones at the website I listed grouped Reiki in with other biofield modalities, but since they are basically all using the same concepts I don't see why they would have to be 'unlumped'. Hulk hasn't listed any, that's why I went on the search. Stanford University has done some and many hospitals have as well. I would definitely be interested if you can locate any of the articles that may be of use to me. If not, no worries. 

I would think that since so many institutions have implemented studies that at least the anecdotal evidence seems to be interesting enough for them to look at it further.


----------



## hulkamaniac (Feb 11, 2009)

CoverTune said:


> So, I just got off the phone with the woman who "read" George.. for anyone who's interested, these are the notes I jotted down. Oh, and all she had was his name, a photo of his face, and his age.
> 
> _Pain/Discomfort
> top 1/4 of left eye - running? poss. sight issue? goopy?
> ...


I could apply all those things to either one of my dogs and the vast majority of them are also true.


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

amavanna said:


> I cant see any dog have "blackness' to them but I guess i see what she was getting at it


this reminds me of the time I was walking Summer and an older lady with really long black hair came up and told me that Summer was really a killer in disguise and that she wanted to be called 'Fang'. She said she had had a dream about Summer... I wish I was joking but....

I run into the crazies.

ETA: So far 'Fang' has not strangled me in my sleep.


----------



## hulkamaniac (Feb 11, 2009)

Laurelin said:


> this reminds me of the time I was walking Summer and an older lady with really long black hair came up and told me that Summer was really a killer in disguise and that she wanted to be called 'Fang'. She said she had had a dream about Summer... I wish I was joking but....
> 
> I run into the crazies.
> 
> ETA: So far 'Fang' has not strangled me in my sleep.


Little did they know that it was Mia who was the killer in disguise. I would sleep with one eye open around her.

Anyway, the study I found on Reiki's effectiveness is here.


----------



## CoverTune (Mar 11, 2007)

hulkamaniac said:


> I could apply all those things to either one of my dogs and the vast majority of them are also true.


Big surprise that you'd say that. *rolls eyes*


----------



## hulkamaniac (Feb 11, 2009)

Let us apply this to One. She's a 7-8 yr old beagle who I know nothing about before I adopted her other than that she was brought back to the shelter twice before I got her. 



> Pain/Discomfort
> top 1/4 of left eye - running? poss. sight issue? goopy?
> hips - expected for a dog his age
> toenails - may need to be cut, which he hates


No eye problems that I can think of. She's 8 so I guess her hips are probably normal for her age. Her toenails probably do need to be cut and she is not a big fan of it. Most dogs aren't.



> left front tenderness on back of first knuckle
> nothing major, seems to feel it's important to tell her about any little boo boo
> queasy spot in belly - may have sensitive stomach, be religious in diet


Swing and miss here on most of it. She has no tenderness that I'm aware of. I suspect that she has a sensitive stomach, but I'm not sure. She'll eat everything, but it doesn't always agree with her.



> proud of his voice, thinks it's almost Beagle-like (hound-like/baying)
> seems to be missing someone, not totally settled in
> a lot more personality to expose
> he wants to know if he's going to stay
> ...


All of this is probably 100% accurate. She loves to bay and is a beagle. She's been brought back to the shelter twice so I could see that she's not come out of her shell yet and wants to know if she's going to stay. She has a blanket that she absolutely loves to lay on because it's warm. Zero is quite energetic and I'm sure annoys her at times. 100% accurate on most of this. Amazing since she didn't read my dog huh?



> is a good dog, no blackness in him
> would like a job (don't ask him to be a guard dog), could tell him it's his job to keep me company
> he says I have calm energy


I have no clue if any of this is true. I don't know of any evil dogs myself. I've never thought to tell One that she has a job. I suppose I'm a calm person. That would be easy enough to pick up off the phone though. Wouldn't take a psychic to know that.



> Basset Hound? dog with long ears "lorded over him"
> fears - thunder (the kind that reverberates), floors trembling/shaking (may have been near where trains were)
> wants his supper, is she going to feed me?
> has been around a little girl, may have brushed his hair/did his nails/dressed him up


Don't know about other hounds. Zero is a cocker spaniel so he has the floppy ears. Perhaps this happened before I got her? I can't verify this one way or the other. One is hungry? What else is new? She always wants her supper whether I've fed her or not. I have no idea if One has been around a little girl or not. She was 7 when I got her. It's entirely possible.



> stomach gets queasy when I go out the door
> doesn't seem to really care about toys
> loud music/guitar hurts his ears


One is not a big fan of going outside. One also is not really into toys. That's Zero's thing. I've never seen One react to loud music one way or the other. That would seem to be inaccurate at least.

So, yes. All of that stuff can apply to my dog who wasn't even read. Amazing isn't it?


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

ooo fun...imma do the Bolo


*top 1/4 of left eye - running? poss. sight issue? goopy?*

cornea scratch not too long ago from when she was rooting around in a bush.
*
hips - expected for a dog his age*

severely busted her hips when she was younger..has had a slight limp ever since
*
toenails - may need to be cut, which he hates*

yes on both counts..need to be cut and she hates it.

*left front tenderness on back of first knuckle*

picked a splinter out of that foot 4 days ago. its possible it could still be irritating her.

*nothing major, seems to feel it's important to tell her about any little boo boo*

big drama queen no doubt about it.

*queasy spot in belly - may have sensitive stomach, be religious in diet*

anything other than her strictly regimented diet and she gets barfs and liquid poo. the kid fed her a piece of his cookie this morning. entirely possible.
*
proud of his voice, thinks it's almost Beagle-like (hound-like/baying)*

this is also descriptive of Bolo in that she is a very noisy dog...though i have to question...how does a dog know what a beagle is?

*seems to be missing someone, not totally settled in*

gets whiny whenever my son is with his father..which is now. her nighttime playmate isnt here.

*a lot more personality to expose*

Bolo does things that nobody except me expects...so this could apply to her as well.

*he wants to know if he's going to stay*

we've moved a lot and she always hates it. she gets nervous whenever i start pulling boxes out of the closet. which i did tonight to start pulling out some of the holiday crap i have laying around.

*likes the heat, she feels like there is a spot where he lays where there is a lot of heat*

one of the few presents im buying this season is im buying Bolo her own space heater...because she hogs the one we have.

*other dog is very annoying*

DA..so ALL other dogs represent some level of annoyance.

*is a good dog, no blackness in him*

best dog ive ever had. One might could hedge about DA being "blackness" but it was her DA that brought us such an intense bond. so i cant see that as so.

*would like a job (don't ask him to be a guard dog), could tell him it's his job to keep me company*

always ready to play "figer out whut hooman wants to play". loves it and loves my company. 

*he says I have calm energy*

she might say that. im actually pretty quiet in person.

*Basset Hound? dog with long ears "lorded over him"*

Baron. Coonhound. nuff said. she also hates bassetts on sight more than any other dogs except corgis.

*fears - thunder (the kind that reverberates), floors trembling/shaking (may have been near where trains were)*

hides under my legs when storming

*wants his supper, is she going to feed me?*

Bolo always wants to be fed. she's one of those "HUNGRY. You starve me" dogs..

*has been around a little girl, may have brushed his hair/did his nails/dressed him up*

little boy who thinks its funny the way she stomps her feet when he brushes her.

*stomach gets queasy when I go out the door*

this could also be her feasably. she's extremely people oriented and dislikes being left behind.

*doesn't seem to really care about toys*

nope. not unless they move.

*loud music/guitar hurts his ears*

this is a definate yes too.



interesting.


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

hulkamaniac said:


> Little did they know that it was Mia who was the killer in disguise. I would sleep with one eye open around her.
> 
> Anyway, the study I found on Reiki's effectiveness is here.


No no, that's all part of Summer's master plan to take over the world. Mia is merely a distraction to prevent you from noticing how truly evil Summer is.


----------



## ThoseWordsAtBest (Mar 18, 2009)

Why are you still harping on this, Hulk? I'm pretty sure Covertune spent her own $50 and not yours. Any principles you have here do not apply because she does not share the same. Making someone feel bad for their choices is really going to prove you are more right than them. I can tell you anyone who harped on me like this is real life to make me feel bad about something that didn't make a difference in their life at all would get popped in the mouth.


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

this doesnt really have much to do with anything but im just curious how many people's dogs fit how many of those points she got in the reading.


----------



## ThoseWordsAtBest (Mar 18, 2009)

zimandtakandgrrandmimi said:


> this doesnt really have much to do with anything but im just curious how many people's dogs fit how many of those points she got in the reading.


Well, which one do you want me to do, 'cause I ain't doing all of them.


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

Well you KNOW 'other dog is very annoying' applies for Summer.


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

do Jonas. he seems like a good choice.


----------



## CoverTune (Mar 11, 2007)

I never said that these points were 100% exclusive to my dog, that would be ridiculous. Let's also keep in mind that what I posted are point notes that I jotted down as she was speaking, so you're missing out on "full ideas/thoughts" that she was actually explaining.

She didn't know his breed, but suspected he had a unique sounding "voice" as he was "telling" her that he was very proud of it, her thought was something like a baying hound which was incorrect, however, he does have a sort of raspy sounding bark, so it is unique and different.

I'm not trying to prove anything anyway, simply sharing my personal experience. I thought it was fun, and it's given me some things to think about and consider when I interact with George. I honestly don't see how that's a bad thing at all.

Really hulk, do you have nothing better to do than tear apart the feelings, thoughts and beliefs of others?


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

CoverTune said:


> I never said that these points were 100% exclusive to my dog, that would be ridiculous. Let's also keep in mind that what I posted are point notes that I jotted down as she was speaking, so you're missing out on "full ideas/thoughts" that she was actually explaining.
> 
> She didn't know his breed, but suspected he had a unique sounding "voice" as he was "telling" her that he was very proud of it, her thought was something like a baying hound which was incorrect, however, he does have a sort of raspy sounding bark, so it is somewhat unique and different.
> 
> ...


just so you know..that's not what i asked or why i asked people if they'd see if it applies to their dogs.

nothing but sheer curiousity to be perfectly honest.


----------



## amavanna (Nov 20, 2010)

> Why are you still harping on this, Hulk? I'm pretty sure Covertune spent her own $50 and not yours. Any principles you have here do not apply because she does not share the same. Making someone feel bad for their choices is really going to prove you are more right than them. I can tell you anyone who harped on me like this is real life to make me feel bad about something that didn't make a difference in their life at all would get popped in the mouth.


I think why is because a few people here suffer what i ( lovingly) refer to as Spock syndrom. My father suffers from this. It is a terriable condition where a person must speak what they feel is the most scientically proven logical explination to do not see what is "outside the box" sorta speak if they there is no evidence to support there is anything "outside the box" to look at it . My father always say don't be so open minded your brain falls out. He is a classic case of someone who would never buy in to any sort of pyscic phenomon or other wise. Some people , like my father for example, has such a serious case of Spock syndrom that he is compelled to share his knowledge with other people with no other purpose but to educate them into the logstics of science and evidence to prove theroies and not based on speculation. So yea spock syndrom

^_________________^


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

no. not spock syndrome. there's a difference between placing a value on critical thinking and being so empirical that you run into the empiricist's conundrum.


----------



## CoverTune (Mar 11, 2007)

zimandtakandgrrandmimi said:


> *
> proud of his voice, thinks it's almost Beagle-like (hound-like/baying)*
> 
> this is also descriptive of Bolo in that she is a very noisy dog...though i have to question...how does a dog know what a beagle is?


SHE said Beagle (or hound), George did not. The way she has described the communication to me is that it's sort of through "pictures" or "images" that the mind creates.. for example, when she was asking him about toys, she was "showing him" images of different toys that she was thinking of and "feeling" for a reaction from him.

I'm probably not the best to explain it, since it's not me experiencing it, lol.


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

CoverTune said:


> SHE said Beagle (or hound), George did not. The way she has described the communication to me is that it's sort of through "pictures" or "images" that the mind creates.. for example, when she was asking him about toys, she was "showing him" images of different toys that she was thinking of and "feeling" for a reaction from him.
> 
> I'm probably not the best to explain it, since it's not me experiencing it, lol.


was just the first thing that popped into my head when i read that lol...like "Wait...do dogs know breed names?"  (i.e. was more of a bit of a joke)


----------



## ThoseWordsAtBest (Mar 18, 2009)

Jonas it is!

*top 1/4 of left eye - running? poss. sight issue? goopy?* Had some major goopy eyes this last week or so, but has since subsided. Top 1/4 of his left eye is a bit too specific, but he has PRA.

*
hips - expected for a dog his age* Hips were x-rayed when we adopted him and they came back good. His hips aren't a big concern of mine.

*
toenails - may need to be cut, which he hates* His nails are perpetually a bit too long because of how much he hates it. I quicked him last time and it broke my heart. 

*left front tenderness on back of first knuckle* None.

*nothing major, seems to feel it's important to tell her about any little boo boo* Jonas is rough and tumble. But if Smalls is being overzealous during play he screams and runs to me. Probably because I yell "OH NOT MY POOTIE!" 

*queasy spot in belly - may have sensitive stomach, be religious in diet* Not for him. If this were Smalls, yes, but not Jonas.

*
proud of his voice, thinks it's almost Beagle-like (hound-like/baying)* He barks. I don't think he's PROUD of his voice. He barks out of excitement and fear.

*seems to be missing someone, not totally settled in* He has attachment issues with me. When I am gone and my boyfriend is home, he keeps to himself and will submissive pee if my boyfriend approaches him. He loves my boyfriend when I'm home. 

*a lot more personality to expose* Nah, he's pretty much had plenty of time to expose himself in the last two years or so.

*he wants to know if he's going to stay* If he could understand any thing I was saying, he would know he's never going anywhere. 

*likes the heat, she feels like there is a spot where he lays where there is a lot of heat* He burrows in the blankets even in the summer.

*other dog is very annoying* Same answer as Zim. He's DA. He also does not like Magpie but tolerates her. 

*is a good dog, no blackness in him* What is blackness? I mean, he's by no means a "good dog" by dog standards, but to say he's "black" in any way is wrong. He's fearful, but he's my pal and nothing will change that. I also don't think there are any bad dogs.

*would like a job (don't ask him to be a guard dog), could tell him it's his job to keep me company* His job is holding down the couch and following me around. I think he could be a fantastic hunting dog. I also hope to try him at lure coursing because I can't think of any thing else that he'd have more fun with and maybe build his confidence that much more. 

*he says I have calm energy* Uh.. I yell and sing insane things at him all the time. I don't think he'd say that. 

*Basset Hound? dog with long ears "lorded over him"* Smalls? Though Jonas kind of runs the show. 

*fears - thunder (the kind that reverberates), floors trembling/shaking (may have been near where trains were)* Nope. He is not sound sensitive. 

*wants his supper, is she going to feed me?* Another no. It's way after dinner time and he is not a over zealous eater. He eats what he wants and leaves the rest. 

*has been around a little girl, may have brushed his hair/did his nails/dressed him up* Yeah.. not child compatible. 

*stomach gets queasy when I go out the door* Not a fan of me leaving, but he goes to sleep without much fuss.

*doesn't seem to really care about toys* No way. Jonas loves his squeak 'ems.

*loud music/guitar hurts his ears* Nope. I rock out in the house all the time. He's not bothered. 



interesting.[/QUOTE]


----------



## amavanna (Nov 20, 2010)

Here is my deal you guys have a lot of great explantions to some of these readings with the cold readings, but no one said anything about the cases where people helped their lost pets and all they needed to do was touch something of the animal and they were able to somehow "see" "kinda how like if you close your eyes and think of a pink elephant you can mentally "see" it " where the animal was they would describe specifics about the area and the pet would be found in area that matched. There was even a case where a woman would do this for free. So she wasn't even making money on it. The problem I find with science wanting "evidence" for certain things is that you get a situation that isn't completly explained but also isn't "amazing" enough to make it "conclusive" 

I prefer the science method of experience myself and my experience lead me to believe that there is a lot of unusual things that the human mind is capable of.


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

amavanna said:


> Here is my deal you guys have a lot of great explantions to some of these readings with the cold readings, but no one said anything about the cases where people helped their lost pets and all they needed to do was touch something of the animal and they were able to somehow "see" "kinda how like if you close your eyes and think of a pink elephant you can mentally "see" it " where the animal was they would describe specifics about the area and the pet would be found in area that matched.


when there is no evidence, the default position is having a lack of position. without evidence, the default position is the most creditable one because it makes no positive claims. there's nothing to disprove. when i say "None of this convinces me." that's not an outright refutation. to outright refute is pseudoscientific. lack of evidence means any positive claim either way is false because it is not truly representative of the state of affairs. there is nothing out there that proves that these instances werent mere coincidence, and/or some form of cold reading(which has a wide range of connotation) or some other phenomenon other than claimed. there is also no evidence that what is claimed is actually the truth. so..Null Hypothesis it is.



> There was even a case where a woman would do this for free. So she wasn't even making money on it.


this means bull pucky. whether someone charges for the service or not has no bearing on the veracity of the claim.




> The problem I find with science wanting "evidence" for certain things is that you get a situation that isn't completly explained but also isn't "amazing" enough to make it "conclusive"


you dont understand how science and scientific terminology work. all a scientist saying "conclusive" means is that its applicable(works repeatably), can be falsified but hasnt yet.


science is by nature a self correcting process. it REQUIRES there be a difference between practical truth and greater truth. though the distance becomes greater as the volume of corraborative evidence increases.



> I prefer the science method of experience myself and my experience lead me to believe that there is a lot of unusual things that the human mind is capable of.


this statement is bizarre. 

if you prefer the scientific method of INQUIRY, then you would apply it to discovering whether or not there is any data of merit supporting the supposition and be able to distinguish which data is of merit and which isnt.


----------



## amavanna (Nov 20, 2010)

> when i say "None of this convinces me." that's not an outright refutation. to outright refute is pseudoscientific


So by this statement would you say if you had a personal experience where someone told you something SPECIFIC was going to happen, and it did, or that you would find something you were looking for in a specific place and you did would you agree that this kind of thing had any other scientic explination besides some kind of "psycic" foresight of where the object was or how the event was going to happen? And I mean a ligitmate personal expereince. One you couldn't understand how the person knew what they knew . And say for the sake of argument that it does "convince" you, how are you going to convince someone else? To me science just seems to go on and on with prove this to this person and now we got to prove it again to this person but this person wants even MORE he wants more evidence the one incidint isn't enough even multiple incidints with the same person wouldn't be enough they would want to see more people with the same type of ability. Let me put it this way. I am all for proving things scientifically. I think there are two type of people . 1. The type that believes in something until you disprove it and 2. The type that lean towards disbelief until proven. I lean towards believing until you can disprove it. And since I don't see how you can disprove the ability of "seeing' or "feeling" things that happen or occur I will continue to believe in the possiabilty.



> his statement is bizarre.
> 
> if you prefer the scientific method of INQUIRY, then you would apply it to discovering whether or not there is any data of merit supporting the supposition and be able to distinguish which data is of merit and which isnt.


By going on the method of inquiry and self experience I myself have enough evidence to convience ME that the possiabilty is there. My standards of "evidence" might not match yours and that is ok. I have personally had my own intuitations and feelings and even dreams that have left me feeling confused and bewildered. I have dreamt about certain occurences nothing major in standards of science of coarse little things, like dreaming of a specific family member i havent talked to and then that person showing up for a visit unannounced suddenly. Also little things like several times a week its a common occurance me or my husband will go to call each other at the exact same time ( at no specific time) or we will say what we are thinking before we say it ourselves. I also get Deja Vu ALOT and its rather annoying. I also discuss and talk with a lot of other people who have similar expereinces and sometimes even stranger ( explain twins who can tell when they are in pain or hurting in same way) I just lean towards the possiabilty of amazing abilities to mentally....connect . Maybe it dosen't make sense the way I put it..you know I am not some science major lol I don't have a degree and I don't want a degree but I believe what I believe ^_^


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

amavanna said:


> So by this statement would you say if you had a personal experience where someone told you something SPECIFIC was going to happen, and it did, or that you would find something you were looking for in a specific place and you did would you agree that this kind of thing had any other scientic explination besides some kind of "psycic" foresight of where the object was or how the event was going to happen? And I mean a ligitmate personal expereince. One you couldn't understand how the person knew what they knew .


no. because personal experience has been shown to be extremely unreliable. people with disassociative mental disorders are completely convinced their personal experience is real, valid and worth it. 

i may have been subjected to some sort of chemical exposure, i may be suffering from some delusional episode...or seven billion other alternatives that would have to be systematically shown to have no functional basis in the situation in question. Personal experience is by definition subjective and therefore can only *justify* the proclivities and beliefs of the person experiencing them..but before they can not only justify but verify..they must be shown to be a. repeatable and b. have no other significant cause.



> And say for the sake of argument that it does "convince" you, how are you going to convince someone else? To me science just seems to go on and on with prove this to this person and now we got to prove it again to this person but this person wants even MORE he wants more evidence the one incidint isn't enough even multiple incidints with the same person wouldn't be enough they would want to see more people with the same type of ability


. 

nothing would convince me personally but repeatable, testable evidence submitted to the process of peer review for analysis. 

yes. they would need to see multiple people with the ability because one random individual who has this ability with no biochemical or neurological basis could very well send the entire pillars of support for our current understanding of biology to come crashing down. depending on the circumstances. One single person like that is biologically impossible. 



> Let me put it this way. I am all for proving things scientifically. I think there are two type of people . 1. The type that believes in something until you disprove it and 2. The type that lean towards disbelief until proven. I lean towards believing until you can disprove it. And since I don't see how you can disprove the ability of "seeing' or "feeling" things that happen or occur I will continue to believe in the possiabilty.


this is both a false dichotomy and it puts you at GREAT risk of being duped by a sheister. i typically call it a sheep's mentality. 

and its a false dichotomy because the third option is having the logical foresight to separate belief and fact, aspiration and application.




> By going on the method of inquiry and self experience I myself have enough evidence to convience ME that the possiabilty is there. My standards of "evidence" might not match yours and that is ok. I have personally had my own intuitations and feelings and even dreams that have left me feeling confused and bewildered. I have dreamt about certain occurences nothing major in standards of science of coarse little things, like dreaming of a specific family member i havent talked to and then that person showing up for a visit unannounced suddenly. Also little things like several times a week its a common occurance me or my husband will go to call each other at the exact same time ( at no specific time) or we will say what we are thinking before we say it ourselves. I also get Deja Vu ALOT and its rather annoying. I also discuss and talk with a lot of other people who have similar expereinces and sometimes even stranger ( explain twins who can tell when they are in pain or hurting in same way) I just lean towards the possiabilty of amazing abilities to mentally....connect . Maybe it dosen't make sense the way I put it..you know I am not some science major lol I don't have a degree and I don't want a degree but I believe what I believe ^_^


thats fine and diddly dandy but dont expect someone like me to take those kinds of claims seriously because they're so subjective their subjects are subjective.


im the one saying that what you see often isnt what you think it is. not the other way around.


----------



## meggels (Mar 8, 2010)

ThoseWordsAtBest said:


> Why are you still harping on this, Hulk? I'm pretty sure Covertune spent her own $50 and not yours. Any principles you have here do not apply because she does not share the same. Making someone feel bad for their choices is really going to prove you are more right than them. I can tell you anyone who harped on me like this is real life to make me feel bad about something that didn't make a difference in their life at all would get popped in the mouth.


well said. thank you.


----------



## RaeganW (Jul 14, 2009)

zimandtakandgrrandmimi said:


> this is both a false dichotomy and it puts you at GREAT risk of being duped by a sheister. i typically call it a sheep's mentality.


All lawyers are shysters.
All lawyers admire a judge.
Some women judges are admirable and lawyers.

These are problems in my math book.


----------



## amavanna (Nov 20, 2010)

I think its pretty amazing you need other people to tell you what you experienced to be true. I mean you would sooner think you were suffering a chemical unbalance or just plain "gone crazy" over the possibility of a phenomenon?

I also don't think that my open to the belief of wondrous and unexplainable things makes me a "sheep" I think it makes me a believer of wondrous and unexplainable things and that is it nothing wrong with feeling that way. So many things happen that science simply can't understand or explain and have worked for years and years trying to do so. Those are the types of things that interest me and the ability of foresight is always going to be one of those things.


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

amavanna said:


> I think its pretty amazing you need other people to tell you what you experienced to be true. I mean you would sooner think you were suffering a chemical unbalance or just plain "gone crazy" over the possibility of a phenomenon?


*groans*

positive claims require evidence. EXTRAORDINARY claims require EXTRAORDINARY evidence.

given what we know, a chemical imbalance or psychotic episode, possible chemical exposure and similar phenomenon would have to be ruled out as possibility before the extraordinary and biologically nonsensical idea of "psychic powers" would become a real possibility. the only way to rule out such things as chemical imbalance etc would be to submit myself to psychiatric evaluation because if i am having a chemical imbalance..i would logically be an unreliable evaluator of such.

the idea of psychic powers is biologically ridiculous...making it a very extraordinary claim. all abilities we have identified have corresponding biological structures. psychic powers should be no different. if psychic powers DONT have a corresponding biological structure and they do exist..then everything biology says is wrong and you need to stop going to your doctor or taking meds or anything like that...because that's all based on biology..

do you see how psychic powers is an EXTRORDINARY claim? and requires EXTRAORDINARY evidence.

again. belief is not the same thing as knowledge. they're actually extremely different.


----------



## amavanna (Nov 20, 2010)

> belief is not the same thing as knowledge. they're actually extremely different.


I agree with that. I also feel that the struggle to find the knowledge really dampens the ability to believe. 


> the only way to rule out such things as chemical imbalance etc would be to submit myself to psychiatric evaluation because if i am having a chemical imbalance..i would logically be an unreliable evaluator of such.


I see to many ways to poke holes in that. I mean based on that anyone with claims of dreams that actually occurred you would just write off as them having an imbalance. You can't PROVE they had the dream it isn't like you can record the dream. Also what about deja vu how does science explain the "feeling of having experienced this moment before" My personal view has always been I had a dream about it and forgot but once it occurred it felt like I "remembered" it because of the dream. I have no evidence of this obviously its just what i feel sounds good you will say its garbage and makes no sense which is fine. But there is still things no matter how extraordinary they are still happen and science still cant prove or disprove it so it leaves it open for discussion such as is. I guess I just like hearing that people are willing to entertain the notion if they at least had personal experiences but I have never heard someone say even a personal experience wouldn't convince them I mean that is some serious dedication to your skepticism


----------



## RaeganW (Jul 14, 2009)

amavanna said:


> I agree with that. I also feel that the struggle to find the knowledge really dampens the ability to believe.


See, that's why they are two separate things. That's why there can be scientists that are theists.



> I see to many ways to poke holes in that. I mean based on that anyone with claims of dreams that actually occurred you would just write off as them having an imbalance. You can't PROVE they had the dream it isn't like you can record the dream. Also what about deja vu how does science explain the "feeling of having experienced this moment before" My personal view has always been I had a dream about it and forgot but once it occurred it felt like I "remembered" it because of the dream. I have no evidence of this obviously its just what i feel sounds good you will say its garbage and makes no sense which is fine. But there is still things no matter how extraordinary they are still happen and science still cant prove or disprove it so it leaves it open for discussion such as is. I guess I just like hearing that people are willing to entertain the notion if they at least had personal experiences but I have never heard someone say even a personal experience wouldn't convince them I mean that is some serious dedication to your skepticism


Dreams are actually fairly well studied. They are very, very closely tied to actual events that have happened in the dreamer's life. It's my understanding that the current holding theory is that dreams are sort of the brain sorting and processing information. The subconscious brain sees patterns a lot better than than the conscious part, so "prophetic dreams" are no more than the brain realizing what it already knows. Deja vu is similar, the pattern is recognizable.

When personal experience flies in the fact of significant scientific evidence, you need to review the circumstances surrounding both. Personal experience is usually pretty far from what happened. You see it all the time in court cases, it's why DNA was such a huge breakthrough. People on death row, convicted on eyewitness accounts, have been cleared through DNA evidence. Watch a Law and Order with a big public opener murder. When the detectives interview the crowd of witnesses, no one agrees on what color the car was or if it was even a car or SUV. Your eyes and ears aren't a camera, the data they gather is ALWAYS processed through your brain, which carries all your personal biases.


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

amavanna said:


> I see to many ways to poke holes in that.


only if you are not understanding what im saying.


> I mean based on that anyone with claims of dreams that actually occurred you would just write off as them having an imbalance.


bunk. i would not assume it to be anything at all unless i had evidence supporting a particular hypothesis or evidence disproving others.



> You can't PROVE they had the dream it isn't like you can record the dream.


actually you can record brainwave patterns during a dream as well as other biological data. basically monitoring the body's reaction to the dream. 



> Also what about deja vu how does science explain the "feeling of having experienced this moment before"


that in some way shape or form you did experience again.



> My personal view has always been I had a dream about it and forgot but once it occurred it felt like I "remembered" it because of the dream. I have no evidence of this obviously its just what i feel sounds good you will say its garbage and makes no sense which is fine.


no. you're putting words in my mouth. i would say your claim is unsubstantiated. which is different than being "garbage".



> But there is still things no matter how extraordinary they are still happen and science still cant prove or disprove it so it leaves it open for discussion such as is.


this is an absolute claim. its also false. we do not know what the limits of science are because we have yet to define the ends/limits of the natural world. you have no idea what science is capable of and neither do i. we can only go by what has been accomplished so far.



> I guess I just like hearing that people are willing to entertain the notion if they at least had personal experiences but I have never heard someone say even a personal experience wouldn't convince them I mean that is some serious dedication to your skepticism


it is not a dedication to skepticism. it's a dedication to truth. extreme difference.


----------



## amavanna (Nov 20, 2010)

> this is an absolute claim. its also false. we do not know what the limits of science are because we have yet to define the ends/limits of the natural world. you have no idea what science is capable of and neither do i. we can only go by what has been accomplished so far.


I never science couldn't explain things eventually, just that are things it currently can't explain. The point of science is to progress and I would not suggest otherwise.



> no. you're putting words in my mouth. i would say your claim is unsubstantiated. which is different than being "garbage".


It wasn't a claim more a "theory" of what I feel deju vu is ..my husband has a different view he feels that deja vu is triggered by sense of smell that triggered a memory that was similar to your current moment where you might have sensed the same smell. He also believe what people claim to be "past lives" as memories passed on through dna there are people who claim they dream about past lives and have feelings and memories that don't belong to them. What were your explanation be to something like that?



> actually you can record brainwave patterns during a dream as well as other biological data. basically monitoring the body's reaction to the dream.


Yes but you can't specifically SEE the dream that person had so can't ever really prove that the dream really matched up with the events that occurred no matter how in depth they try to explain it especially since we forget our dreams so fast after waking up. I have had dreams of extreme detail of something specific and I try to write it down when I wake up but I always loose key points in the dream that might have mattered in proving I significantly seen something before it happened. Dreams have always been my most interested form of psychic abilities because it does indeed seem like the brains way of almost "rebooting" or "refreshing" I have had the most random of dreams that will blind my real life, with my a movie i watched that day, to something from my past, and then ive had dreams where i saw my daughter get married but i never could see her face in the dream ( i imagine because i could process an actual image of what i feel she would look like) but then I have had dreams that are emotional and devastating about things like watching the earth split in half ( this one i had for a week and it bothered me really bad) my dreams have always been vivid and I try to use them to help me figure out what might be bother subconsciously i have also felt my dreams have warned me against things, and these things i can't just explain scientifically it just feels ....unexplainable.

I guess I don't feel I am not searching for truth by believing in it..i feel like im believing in a greater truth by keeping an open mind to grand possibilities

For the record let me say this. I think to progress in understanding everything there is to understand you need people who will not accept maybe and have to prove or disprove it and you also need the people who are willing always say its possible despite the odds cause I think that is part of what science is. I think the point of science is to prove the amazing and to explain the unexplainable.


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

amavanna said:


> I never science couldn't explain things eventually, just that are things it currently can't explain. The point of science is to progress and I would not suggest otherwise.


you suggested it earlier with your "spock" comment. dont backslide. its irritating.





> It wasn't a claim more a "theory" of what I feel deju vu is ..my husband has a different view he feels that deja vu is triggered by sense of smell that triggered a memory that was similar to your current moment where you might have sensed the same smell. He also believe what people claim to be "past lives" as memories passed on through dna there are people who claim they dream about past lives and have feelings and memories that don't belong to them. What were your explanation be to something like that?


it can't be a theory. theory involves knowledge and fact when used with the scientific definition. as for my explanation, there could be any thousands of explanation...im not limiting myself to one by starting out with a position of accepting any of them. that's the point you're missing. starting out with a belief as opposed to the default position is both philosophically and practically weak. it allows bias into the equation which you cant have if you want to approach things scientifically. As for past lives being encoded in DNA...that's absolutely ludicrous. DNA codes for the production of the proteins, lipids and enzymes that make up your body's structure. there is quite literally zero indication that it COULD code for something like a past life.



> Yes but you can't specifically SEE the dream that person had so can't ever really prove that the dream really matched up with the events that occurred no matter how in depth they try to explain it especially since we forget our dreams so fast after waking up.


so what? you can easily eliminate possibilities by use of such technology.



> I have had dreams of extreme detail of something specific and I try to write it down when I wake up but I always loose key points in the dream that might have mattered in proving I significantly seen something before it happened. Dreams have always been my most interested form of psychic abilities because it does indeed seem like the brains way of almost "rebooting" or "refreshing" I have had the most random of dreams that will blind my real life, with my a movie i watched that day, to something from my past, and then ive had dreams where i saw my daughter get married but i never could see her face in the dream ( i imagine because i could process an actual image of what i feel she would look like) but then I have had dreams that are emotional and devastating about things like watching the earth split in half ( this one i had for a week and it bothered me really bad) my dreams have always been vivid and I try to use them to help me figure out what might be bother subconsciously i have also felt my dreams have warned me against things, and these things i can't just explain scientifically it just feels ....unexplainable.


you arent really saying anything that isnt explainable through psychology. which is not my particular field of study. but it's not dreams that are the "reboot"...the "reboot" part of the sleep cycle does NOT happen during the dream state.

you cant explain it scientifically because you've had neither the training nor do you have the appropriate mindset. like i said, you cant start from a position of belief because its biased.

it works like this. you start with zero assumptions and you make an observation which then leads to a question. once you get to the question, you postulate several hypotheses. you develop ways to test those hypotheses. you do your tests and THEN you can start eliminating possibilities based on the data you've gathered. You dont start out eliminating possibilities..which is exactly what belief is a form of. when you believe without evidence, you're starting the scientific process completly backwards. 




> I guess I don't feel I am not searching for truth by believing in it..i feel like im believing in a greater truth by keeping an open mind to grand possibilities


you're allowing your biases into play doing that. biased truth is not ultimate truth. it's supposition and twisting facts to suit your own desires. which in of itself is not a terrible thing....depends on what you do with it.



> For the record let me say this. I think to progress in understanding everything there is to understand you need people who will not accept maybe and have to prove or disprove it and you also need the people who are willing always say its possible despite the odds cause I think that is part of what science is. I think the point of science is to prove the amazing and to explain the unexplainable.


you do not need people who are always willing to say something is possible despite the odds. that's actually extemely damaging to scientific progress.


----------



## Cracker (May 25, 2009)

Waterbaby, is this the study you were talking about with the salivary cortisol? The SC didn't change but several other factors did (blood pressure etc). Your thoughts?

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1046/j.1365-2648.2001.01691.x/abstract

From Hulk's link:



> _Discussion: In total, the trial data for any one condition are scarce and independent replications are not available for each condition. *Most trials suffered from methodological flaws such as small sample size, inadequate study design and poor reporting.*
> 
> Conclusion: In conclusion, *the evidence is insufficient to suggest that reiki is an effective treatment for any condition. Therefore the value of reiki remains unproven*._


Hulk:
Because the studies were not well done the evidence is insufficient, so therefore the value of Reiki remains UNPROVEN. You have taken the "study of studies" and misinterpreted the results. Insufficient evidence is not proof of absence.
This particular study does nothing to prove or disprove the possible benefits of energy healing as a form of complementary therapy.


----------



## hulkamaniac (Feb 11, 2009)

Cracker said:


> Hulk:
> Because the studies were not well done the evidence is insufficient, so therefore the value of Reiki remains UNPROVEN. You have taken the "study of studies" and misinterpreted the results. Insufficient evidence is not proof of absence.
> This particular study does nothing to prove or disprove the possible benefits of energy healing as a form of complementary therapy.


Fair enough, but you're misinterpreting it as well. Scientific study requires the acceptance of the null hypothesis and then the study is done to prove/disprove that hypothesis. In the case of Reiki, we accept the hypothesis "Reiki is ineffective." That is the null hypothesis and that is consistent with current scientific and medical knowledge. Then we run our studies. After running our studies, we come to the above conclusion that ".the evidence is insufficient to suggest that Reiki is an effective treatment". In that case, the null hypothesis stands and we conclude that "Reiki is ineffective." That is the null hypothesis we must stand by until evidence presents itself to the contrary. There is no underlying scientific principle that Reiki appears to work under so this conclusion shouldn't be very surprising.

To those who are saying I should leave people to their "beliefs" I disagree. This is not a matter of belief. This is a matter of fact. Whether things like animal communicators, precognition, psychics, Reiki healing, etc..... work are all testable hypotheses. Every last one of them we can design tests for. In fact, many if not all of these things have been tested and none of them have been shown to have anything to them. Believers in such things are intentionally or unintentionally blinding themselves to reality. It's one thing to have an open mind. It's another thing to ignore reality completely so you can believe something because it "feels good." To me that's being close minded.


----------



## waterbaby (Jan 20, 2009)

amavanna said:


> Here is my deal you guys have a lot of great explantions to some of these readings with the cold readings, but no one said anything about the cases where people helped their lost pets and all they needed to do was touch something of the animal and they were able to somehow "see" "kinda how like if you close your eyes and think of a pink elephant you can mentally "see" it " where the animal was they would describe specifics about the area and the pet would be found in area that matched.


Here is an awesome Radiolab episode about coincidences.


----------



## Independent George (Mar 26, 2009)

You guys are going too fast - I can't keep up!



zimandtakandgrrandmimi said:


> this doesnt really have much to do with anything but im just curious how many people's dogs fit how many of those points she got in the reading.


Here's my count:

TRUE (10)
_top 1/4 of left eye - running? poss. sight issue? goopy? *Her eyes are full of goop; I clean here eyes twice daily*
hips - expected for a dog his age *True, but not especially relevant*
toenails - may need to be cut, which he hates *True of almost every dog I've ever met.*
left front tenderness on back of first knuckle *The road salt has been irritating her paws, and I can't find her booties*
likes the heat, she feels like there is a spot where he lays where there is a lot of heat *True of most dogs, I think; mine likes to lay right under the window, near the heating duct*
fears - thunder (the kind that reverberates), floors trembling/shaking (may have been near where trains were) *Again, true of almost every dog*
wants his supper, is she going to feed me? *Ditto*
stomach gets queasy when I go out the door*True of many, if not most, dogs*
doesn't seem to really care about toys*True - this one is novel*
loud music/guitar hurts his ears*Again - this is true of almost every dog I've ever met*_

PARTLY TRUE (1)
_proud of his voice, thinks it's almost Beagle-like (hound-like/baying)*Partly true - she barks/bays at rodents when she can't get to them. It's a very unique sound that attratcts a lot of attention*_

UNCERTAIN (8) - none of these are verifiable
_nothing major, seems to feel it's important to tell her about any little boo boo 
seems to be missing someone, not totally settled in
a lot more personality to expose 
he wants to know if he's going to stay 
is a good dog, no blackness in him 
would like a job (don't ask him to be a guard dog), could tell him it's his job to keep me company 
he says I have calm energy 
has been around a little girl, may have brushed his hair/did his nails/dressed him up _

NOT TRUE (1)
queasy spot in belly - may have sensitive stomach, be religious in diet *This dog will eat anything, anytime, anywhere*


NOT APPLICABLE(2)
_other dog is very annoying 
Basset Hound? dog with long ears "lorded over him"_

Of the 10 true statements, 6 are true of most dogs, 1 is common given the season, 1 is so generic as to be irrelevant (hips are as expected for that age), and 2 are novel. That the two novel statements apply to my dog makes me wonder if they're not so novel. One statement I have to categorize as partly true - my dog does bay in certain conditions, but I can't verify if she is 'proud' of it.

Of the 8 uncertain statements, two are statements are the kind that people want to be true (no blackness, owner has calm energy). The one specific statemetn (about the little girl) I can't verify one way or another. The rest are fairly generic and can't be verified. 

Only one statement is definitely false, and two more don't apply. That's a 92.5% hit rate (18 true/uncertain, 1 part true, 1 miss). And if I did a generous interpretation of the two 'not applicable' statements and applied them to my neighbor's dog, they would both be true, too. This obviously doesn't _prove_ that it's bunk, but it illustrates the principle behind a cold reading.


----------



## waterbaby (Jan 20, 2009)

Cracker said:


> Waterbaby, is this the study you were talking about with the salivary cortisol? The SC didn't change but several other factors did (blood pressure etc). Your thoughts?
> 
> http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1046/j.1365-2648.2001.01691.x/abstract


No that's not the study I was talking about. I saw it, but discounted it because it wasn't controlled. I, unfortunately, have a busy few days coming up. I'll find biofield/energy healing articles I like the best (based on study design, not on outcome; I will try to not be snobby about the journals they're published in ) and send you some pdfs, but I don't have time to discuss them in this thread right now.


----------



## hulkamaniac (Feb 11, 2009)

I'm very interested in how exactly Reiki works if it does indeed work. The more I read about it, the less I understand about the scientific basis behind it. From what I read (and someone please correct me if I'm wrong as I may well be), it seems that the whole practice involves manipulating "energy" and transferring "energy" from the healer to the patient. This puzzles me. There is certainly no science establishing the existence of this "energy". Much less any science establishing a person's ability to manipulate or transfer this "energy". I'd love to see any studies on the existence of this "energy" since this seems to be the main building block of this technique.

Honestly, it seems to me there is no real difference between this and people doing "ghost hunting" with EM detectors. There is no evidence that ghosts exist in the first place. Even if we accept, for the sake of argument, that ghosts do exist, there is no evidence that they have the ability to manipulate EM fields. The whole premise falls apart when you apply any critical thinking to it.


----------



## CoverTune (Mar 11, 2007)

hulkamaniac said:


> I'm very interested in how exactly Reiki works if it does indeed work. The more I read about it, the less I understand about the scientific basis behind it. From what I read (and someone please correct me if I'm wrong as I may well be), it seems that the whole practice involves manipulating "energy" and transferring "energy" from the healer to the patient. This puzzles me. There is certainly no science establishing the existence of this "energy". Much less any science establishing a person's ability to manipulate or transfer this "energy". I'd love to see any studies on the existence of this "energy" since this seems to be the main building block of this technique.


Energy exists in everything in the universe.. I thought that was basic scientific principle. If you want studies on this, do some reading on Einsten's famous equation that E=mc2


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

CoverTune said:


> Energy exists in everything in the universe.. I thought that was basic scientific principle. If you want studies on this, do some reading on Einsten's famous equation that E=mc2


not quite. e=mc^2 signifies energy equals mass times the speed of light squared. this is indicative of quite a few things but energy being present in everything is not one of them. its either matter OR energy.



hulkamaniac said:


> Fair enough, but you're misinterpreting it as well. Scientific study requires the acceptance of the null hypothesis and then the study is done to prove/disprove that hypothesis. In the case of Reiki, we accept the hypothesis "Reiki is ineffective." That is the null hypothesis and that is consistent with current scientific and medical knowledge. Then we run our studies. After running our studies, we come to the above conclusion that ".the evidence is insufficient to suggest that Reiki is an effective treatment". In that case, the null hypothesis stands and we conclude that "Reiki is ineffective." That is the null hypothesis we must stand by until evidence presents itself to the contrary. There is no underlying scientific principle that Reiki appears to work under so this conclusion shouldn't be very surprising.
> 
> To those who are saying I should leave people to their "beliefs" I disagree. This is not a matter of belief. This is a matter of fact. Whether things like animal communicators, precognition, psychics, Reiki healing, etc..... work are all testable hypotheses. Every last one of them we can design tests for. In fact, many if not all of these things have been tested and none of them have been shown to have anything to them. Believers in such things are intentionally or unintentionally blinding themselves to reality. It's one thing to have an open mind. It's another thing to ignore reality completely so you can believe something because it "feels good." To me that's being close minded.


i could take the same position regarding some of YOUR beliefs hulk. i wonder how you live with the cognitive dissonance. maybe that's why you're such a grumpus..

but im not cuz its not allowed.


----------



## MissMutt (Aug 8, 2008)

Well, the show that spurred this whole thread was this weekend, and I didn't go get a reading. I just didn't want to spend the money and really preferred to do what I came there to do - scope out the trial site to see how Marge would do there.

Next time I will be there will be February, and I might do it then. If it was a little cheaper, I probably would have done it, but I just didn't want to spend $25 (also the reason I didn't buy a really cute blanket, and a crate pad, and treats for Marge, etc.) Only thing I walked home with is raw dehydrated duck hearts and my friend's AX title because I ran her dog.


----------



## hulkamaniac (Feb 11, 2009)

CoverTune said:


> Energy exists in everything in the universe.. I thought that was basic scientific principle. If you want studies on this, do some reading on Einsten's famous equation that E=mc2


If you're talking about splitting or fusing my atoms and turning me into a living bomb, then yes. Matter equal energy. I have a crack in my desk. Can Reiki fix that by "transferring energy"? If not, why not? Everything consists of matter. You can turn that matter into energy if you wish (theoretically at least), but an object does not exist as matter and energy simultaneously.



zimandtakandgrrandmimi said:


> i could take the same position regarding some of YOUR beliefs hulk. i wonder how you live with the cognitive dissonance. maybe that's why you're such a grumpus..
> 
> but im not cuz its not allowed.


I assume you're referring to religion. To me that's a different topic and is completely in the realm of belief as there is no proof.

For example, let us take the Flying Spaghetti Monster so we won't get in trouble. He is a supernatural being who is invisible, all powerful, all seeing, etc.... By virtue of being a supernatural being we can't test any of this. Even if we formulated a lab experiment and did testing and he failed, we could chalk it up to him being a supernatural being therefore he doesn't obey any physical laws that we know of. Therefore the Flying Spaghetti Monster is an untestable hypothesis. If you choose to worship him, you do so out of faith and faith alone. If you choose to not worship him, you do so on faith and faith alone. 

You can't make any sort of definitive statement on the subject. I can say, "The Earth revolves around the Sun" and be absolutely correct because there is empirical testing behind that statement. I can't say "The Flying Spaghetti Monster exists" and be correct because there is no empirical evidence to back that up. I also can't say "The Flying Spaghetti Monster does not exist" and be correct because I have no empirical evidence to back that up either. I have no evidence to support the null hypothesis. I have no evidence to refute the null hypothesis. I can accurately say "I have no evidence to prove or disprove the existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster." 

If you believe in something when there is no empirical evidence one way or the other, then it's a matter of faith. I have no issues with that. When you believe in something despite all of the empirical evidence proving it to be non-existent, then I think that's a form of insanity and I have problems with it.


----------



## waterbaby (Jan 20, 2009)

hulkamaniac said:


> I assume you're referring to religion. To me that's a different topic and is completely in the realm of belief as there is no proof.


No proof of god. But specific religions usually make specific claims that _are_ testable. And that's all I will say about that.


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

hulkamaniac said:


> I assume you're referring to religion. To me that's a different topic and is completely in the realm of belief as there is no proof


spirituality is completely within the realm of belief and totally separate from empiricism. Religion on the other hand makes positive claims outside of "there is/isnt a "Flying Spaghetti Monster"". these claims are NOT outside the realm of empiricism. and neither is the central claim if it assert specific characteristics to the entity in question.

just sayin.


----------



## hulkamaniac (Feb 11, 2009)

zimandtakandgrrandmimi said:


> spirituality is completely within the realm of belief and totally separate from empiricism. Religion on the other hand makes positive claims outside of "there is/isnt a "Flying Spaghetti Monster"". these claims are NOT outside the realm of empiricism. and neither is the central claim if it assert specific characteristics to the entity in question.
> 
> just sayin.


If <insert religion here> makes claims that are testable, then they ought to be tested and either dismissed or accepted accordingly, no argument there. Claiming that "<random deity> will save you." Is not really a testable claim. I have serious issues with people who claim they can prove the existence of <insert deity here> and often get into discussions with them that end up with them going, "WTF?? You're a Christian. You're supposed to automatically agree with me."


----------



## KBLover (Sep 9, 2008)

I missed this the first time: Let's see..

TRUE
wants his supper, is she going to feed me? *This might be Wally's every thought outside of being sleep, walking/playing, and training *

doesn't seem to really care about toys*Applies to Wally for the most part. He'll play with toys mostly if I'm playing with him with the toy.*

nothing major, seems to feel it's important to tell her about any little boo boo *That's Wally. He'll whine and yelp in a minute LOL*

would like a job (don't ask him to be a guard dog), could tell him it's his job to keep me company *I think that's the job Wally's given himself, my "lap warmer". He's the "door opener" and has been my "cooking/baking assistant" before.

he says I have calm energy I think this may apply to Wally. I know when he was afraid of everything, he'd always hang near me. Supposedly, this is because when a dog is anxious, he'll seek out the calmest member of the 'pack' for guidance and protection.


So that's 5 that seem certainly true


SITUATIONAL/WOULD BE TRUE IN AN EARLIER TIME

seems to be missing someone, not totally settled in Not true now. Early days, he probably missed having the other dogs around and his old environment, though, this might be true of any dog recently "displaced".

a lot more personality to expose Early on, would have been true. Being fearful kept him in his shell. Now, I'm scared of he does have even more personality left to expose! 

So that's 2 that seem as though they'd be true in a different time


MIXED/UNCERTAIN

toenails - may need to be cut, which he hates According to the groomers, if Wally hates this, he doesn't show it. I've never seen it personally so I can't tell if he's shaking/trying to pull paws back/calming signals, etc

likes the heat, she feels like there is a spot where he lays where there is a lot of heat Mixed/Uncertain. House is not really cold except for hot areas and I haven't seen him favor warmer locations. Perhaps house isn't cold enough for him to really display this behavior (plus the rooms are all even heat - don't have like a fireplace that's clearly warmer than the rest of the room

loud music/guitar hurts his earsCan't tell - again, Wally might be "holding it in" or is generally not bothered. He's in my room when I'm on my video games/PC games so it's not like it's silent - so maybe he's just become accustomed - that said, can't tell if he's saying "I wish it would stop" because he'll just do whatever or lie there. If I start playing with him or doing a little shaping while I take a break from the game (but it's still on) he's as bright and eager - showing no regard for the other sounds.[/I]

stomach gets queasy when I go out the doorNot sure what this means - does it mean the dog pukes when the handler leaves? I don't know if Wally has a queasy stomach or not when I leave.

proud of his voice, thinks it's almost Beagle-like (hound-like/baying)Doesn't seem to apply to Wally, I don't guess? His bark isn't unique, though he likes his moans and growls and mixing them - so I guess Uncertain.

he wants to know if he's going to stay Not sure, though I'm sure he'd prefer to stay here. He's happy and protected. That said, does that mean he's wondering if he's going to stay?

is a good dog, no blackness in him Wally isn't like Mia...though I'm going to chalk that up to lack of opportunity (only animal other than fish in the house). I can't picture him being a saint... 

So that's 7 that seem as though it's mixed/I'm uncertain if it's true or not.


FALSE

top 1/4 of left eye - running? poss. sight issue? goopy? Wally's eyes usually aren't. I pick the "eye boogers" out maybe once in a few days - and it's never 'huge'

hips - expected for a dog his age Wally has no hip problems, though he's still young

left front tenderness on back of first knuckle Nothing here for Wally

fears - thunder (the kind that reverberates), floors trembling/shaking (may have been near where trains were) Even for Wally when he was fearful, thunder wasn't one of the things that set him off, oddly enough.

has been around a little girl, may have brushed his hair/did his nails/dressed him upWally's been around little girls, but they've never done this (usually it's outside so they are playing, etc, and come pet and talk to him [/I]

queasy spot in belly - may have sensitive stomach, be religious in diet Psh. The only diet Wally would choose for himself is one that excludes leafy vegetables and fruit. I guess he's on the "Meat, Pasta, and Pastries Diet"

So that's 6 that seem as though are certainly false.


NOT APPLICABLE(2)
other dog is very annoying 
Basset Hound? dog with long ears "lorded over him"

These are N/A for Wally as well



Tally: 
5 Certainly true.
2 Used to be true or in certain situations would be true.
7 That are mixed uncertain based on observable behavior.
6 Certainly false.*


----------



## Cracker (May 25, 2009)

waterbaby said:


> No that's not the study I was talking about. I saw it, but discounted it because it wasn't controlled. I, unfortunately, have a busy few days coming up. I'll find biofield/energy healing articles I like the best (based on study design, not on outcome; I will try to not be snobby about the journals they're published in ) and send you some pdfs, but I don't have time to discuss them in this thread right now.


No worries. I am interested in anything you find that you deem interesting or viable. Whenever you have time. It's not urgent.

Hulk:
Well, I guess I'm just insane. LOL

I think what Covertune meant about being "energy" is more about that we (living beings) give off electrical energy..which we do, otherwise EKG's etc wouldn't work. 

Either way, I think until I have some more information to present I will bow out of the discussion as I have nothing else to add right now.


----------



## CoverTune (Mar 11, 2007)

Cracker said:


> I think what Covertune meant about being "energy" is more about that we (living beings) give off electrical energy..which we do, otherwise EKG's etc wouldn't work.


*nods* What she said.


----------



## hulkamaniac (Feb 11, 2009)

The energy detected by an EKG is miniscule. Assuming you can indeed detect it, my question would be how. Doctors measure it with various machines, instruments, etc.... How are you measuring without these devices and what part of the anatomy allows you do to measure this? Also, how is this energy transferred and/or manipulated by someone else? What mechanism allows you to do that? I'm very curious about these things. Assuming you can manipulate these electrical impulses, how does that affect the body? My understanding is that these impulses on the skin are as a result of the heart beating. Wouldn't manipulating them be similar to trying to manipulate a radio broadcast you're hearing over the air so that you can affect the station or the broadcaster? Am I missing something here? Please tell me if I am.



CoverTune said:


> *nods* What she said.


Then again, how do we humans detect it? What part of the anatomy enables us to detect it?


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

hulkamaniac said:


> If <insert religion here> makes claims that are testable, then they ought to be tested and either dismissed or accepted accordingly, no argument there. Claiming that "<random deity> will save you." Is not really a testable claim. I have serious issues with people who claim they can prove the existence of <insert deity here> and often get into discussions with them that end up with them going, "WTF?? You're a Christian. You're supposed to automatically agree with me."


wasnt what i was referring to.

im actually curious to see what you'd say to what i would say if the topic were not expressly forbidden. unfortunately it is. if i ever bump into you somewhere and figure out it's you...that's probably gonna be the first thing out of my mouth.


----------



## Keechak (Aug 10, 2008)

amavanna said:


> I just think the general idea of it fun interesting and entertaining and because I am open to the strange and unusual..i myself AM strange and unusual biscuits for movie reference ^_^


Beetlejuice, now give me biscuits


----------

