Lets see if this clip can fool the Amazing Norm. I challenge thee.

Pay attention

So, the guy at the end of the clip has proved against his own rationality that spirits and the spirit world exist by standing before a crowd of people and naming a few initials, conditions, and/or articles of clothing until someone is reminded of such a thing? Wow, he must not have had that much rationality to begin with, then.

Obviously, he will statistically get hits from people rather often with those kinds of "spiritual messages." I could stand before the square of my university during the changing of classes and yell before everyone...

"Who is wearing ADIDAS tennis shoes?"

"I am!"

"Really? Well, I got that from the spirit world. Did someone else in your family wear or like ADIDAS tennis shoes?"

"Yes, my brother did!"

"Oh? Well, your brother is telling me that he likes your shoes!"

Ridiculous.

Logic/reasoning classes should be taught in high schools, I say, right alongside mathematics and philosophy.

"Lets see if this clip can fool the Amazing Norm. I challenge thee."

This video trick is a waste of time. The vast majority of people aren't going to notice what's going on because they're paying attention to the cards, not everything else.

When I watched it, I didn't even look at their clothing, the table cloth, nor the rest, so none of the colors of the surroundings were in my mind at the initial time nor the final time. I was just watching for the cards to change color or something because I was trying to find the technique to the trick.

As with Firi I didn't notice the color changes of the shirts, etc. because I was watching the cards (but also because I don't pay much attention to clothing anyway) I did notice the tight shots of the camera and realized instantly that the deck was switched.

Party poopers

Party poopers

Erick - I saw a similar trick once where you had to count the number of times a group of kids passed a basketball amongst themselves. I think thats a better example of misdirection. Don't have the link unfortunately. :(

Firi:

This video trick is a waste of time. The vast majority of people aren't going to notice what's going on because they're paying attention to the cards, not everything else.

Is that not the point?

I feel something in this forum. Anyone who knows the name Barak?....

Please respond to this.. i will guide you further with only 99.98$ a min...

"Is that not the point?"

You're right: that is the point. Richard Wiseman is a psychologist by profession and is basically illustrating the phenomenon of 1) change blindness and 2) the lack of access to the contents of consciousness. Richard is wonderful fun; he comes to Cambridge's Atheist and Agnostic society every so often.

I liked 'Bullshit!'s comments on this particularly.

"Why can't the dead remember their own names? Are they mumbling? Grandma who was smart, funny and articulate until the day she died is reduced to single word sentences?" "Do you really want to believe you have to spend eternity communicating through this schmuck (Jon Edwards)?". (paraphrase)

(I can't find the clip, this is close enough) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NrJsAEvQFCI

Andy, the video of misdirection that you saw was from the TED conference, it was from Michael Shermer's presentation which you can see streamed from TED's website.

If you think the above trick is good, check out Arturo de Ascanio. Wow!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g0yigcCI9KE

If this isn't a reason to distrust your interpretation of your senses I don't know what is.

yes...yes...its comming to me now...I hear a name, its john...or johnson....and there is a heart condition involved,.... Anyone relate? if yes, then I am officially able to "channel" the spirit world though the internet, without even seeing YOU!!! or seeing YOU! now thats impressive! (can I have some money now? I promise to tell you more about John...)

Me, figure it out, I've been missing clues since I was just a wee tot.

The average human being is as stupid now as they were a millenium ago and will still be a millenium hence, assuming we don't destroy ourselves in the interim. Dawkins is great but he works from the false pretext that the discoveries, investigations and thinkings of our brighest minds in any way at all reflects the degree 0of intellectual development of the average "man on the street". It would be kind of like judging the wealth of a nation based on the standard of living of the most prominent citizens of the most prosperous city. Why do people seem to be going backwards? I surmise that the boundries of science have advanced so far, woefully out-stripping the inadequate educational systems we have, that science no longer opens up simple and believable understandings that the average person can accept as an alternative to superstition. Simple case in point; the number of stars in the universe. After some basic scientific explenations of how a star works and that a star is just the same thing that the suns is, only further away, the average person can make the leap of discovery to realize that the stars they see in the sky are all potential other solar systems that may indeed be like our own. That is the digestible ammount of science for the average person. Now take it to the next level. The universe contains more stars than the earth contains grains of sand! To a scientifically minded person, that may make perfect sense. To the laymen, it like a xenophobe shut-in leaving the house for the first time and immediately being confronted by a giant barking dog. Science is simply advancing too fast for the average person to keep up. 1000 years ago, Islaam was a progressive belief system for science because Allah was simply the god of creation and the afterlife. All in-between was actively explored by science, since their were no other gods to be responsible for such things, science filled an important part of the theology's plan. Now, however, when the fronteirs of science are delving into origin and the very nature of existence, that threatens the core of Islaam. Pick any other mono-theistic religion you want, it fits. We are not, as a people, over-reliant on mysticism. We are, as a group of some of the most highly educated people on the planet, over-optimistic that a simple lecture, talk, or new article can catch the bulk of the population up to out level of understanding, and most importantly, to a level of comfort with that understanding that replaces the panacea of 'faith'. I don't think we are within even 1000 years of that. I predict complete extinction of the human species before common acceptance of a non-spiritual universe. One of the reasons I seldom post on topics like this is that I feel it is an un-winable battle. If you set everybody on the planet in-front of this Dawkins spe3cial, I suspect that only the tiniest fraction would make any changes in their fundamental beliefs. We're screwed!

The color changing trick isn't about a lack of attentiveness, it's actually the opposite. You're primed at the beginning to pay close attention to the cards and when you do focus too closely, you let your brain fill in all the peripheral visual information, the problem is that we allow ourselves to overestimate our accuracy in processing visual information that we aren't completely engaged in. This is far from being just a useless trick. It's quite terrifying to think that if they hadn't revealed the trick they pulled on you, most people would have left that video none the wiser, still convinced in the flawlessness of their visual perception without realizing they've been duped. Just the type of people that Confidence men like the fraud on this video look for.

I asked this question in the previous post about Dawkins, without a sufficient response. Could someone please answer this question:

Does Dawkins (and his disciples) believe that there is no place for superstition, or un-"rationality" in human design and action?

The Lord doesn't provide but the internet does. Prayers to the godless internet has revealed a pathway to enlightenment.

http://www.demonoid.com/files/details/1298414/3100888/

Now the truth may be revealed in full (well in part one of a two part series).

Why is he going after paranormal suddenly? I kind of see where he's coming from but they are not nearly as bad as religion. They have reason to believe in certain phenomena (drawing on thier own life experience as evidence). They dont claim to understand HOW or WHY it works, they just believe that it DOES.

They are far closer to science than religion. I think his energy would be best spent debunking religion.

Column V,

No one gave you a sufficient response because it isn't a very good question. Even if Dawkins believed there was no place for superstition or religion, it makes no difference and hardly denies those who wish to believe in their superstitions. What Dawkins seems to be going after (from what I've seen of this show so far) is the credulity in people who allow their superstitions to be exploited. You could ask if Dawkins believed there is no place for credulity in human design and action, I would say there shouldn't be out of the interest of the individual. There's a difference between holding a personal superstitious belief (say avoiding black cats) vs. the flagrant hucksterism of individuals who use ages-old parlor tricks to separate fools from their money. I can't say that I'm too convinced that the people in this show who make all these outrageous claims who are on the receiving end of the money, are themselves sincere in their beliefs. Tarot card readers, astrologists, psychics, they all provide services and they know full well that the customers they rely for the buttering of their bread, expect that these mystical authorities vouch for the claims they make, whether they truly believe them or not is questionable. Can't speak for Dawkins, but it's the credulity and exploitation that I find bothersome about these irrational superstitions, there shouldn't be a place for that any more than the three card monty dealers.

Paranormal beliefs are a big waste of time and money. Conned by these nutters the CIA spent millions researching psychic powers. Others put their lives at risk by going to psychic healers. Many people waste money going to frauds like Sylvia Browne, sadly so do some police thinking that their random guesses may help with crimes.

It's merely another field of superstition meant to delude and con the masses with promises of false hope and the delivery of empty wallets.

Why is he going after paranormal suddenly? I kind of see where he's coming from but they are not nearly as bad as religion.

Like liver cancer is worse than lung cancer or is it the other way round. Certainly you jest.

Does Dawkins (and his disciples) believe that there is no place for superstition, or un-"rationality" in human design and action?

few things, after reading this question again.

1. disciples? honestly? Please don't drag that old saw up again.

2. I believe there is a place for superstition, in the toybox of the imagination. Superstition, however, should not persist in the face of evidence and proof, which I think is all that Dawkins is arguing in this series of tv specials.

Doug - I've often wondered whether those stories about the CIA, FBI, police forces and other crime fighting organisations have ever really hired paranormal loons to help solve their cases.

If they have, and it worked, then why not fire all the detectives and just go with that method for every case? If not, considering that there are probably hundreds if not thousands of these stories floating around, then why repeat the mistake? Is public money being wasted?

It could be that wackos contact them in high profile cases with their offers of help. The police probably humour them and say go ahead.. and in the cases where some random piece of information matters to solving the crime, the story becomes something quite different.

These organisations ought to impose a rule of zero cooperation with paranutters.

Nashimoto and Willey,

Thanks very much for your responses, and I will respond to them in kind.

What Dawkins seems to be going after (from what I've seen of this show so far) is the credulity in people who allow their superstitions to be exploited.

So Dawkins may simply be critiquing the credulity of the individual. If that is the case, he is making a very limited intervention. I had assumed that he was making the broader point that superstitious behavior is not rational and should be weeded out.

disciples? honestly? Please don't drag that old saw up again.

I believe there is a place for superstition, in the toybox of the imagination. Superstition, however, should not persist in the face of evidence and proof, which I think is all that Dawkins is arguing in this series of tv specials.

Superstitions are, by definition, beliefs that defy rationality. You can not have a superstition that is exists before there is evidence or proof. Before evidence to prove it wrong, it is not a superstition, but a belief.

Every few months I drink too much beer and thank Norm for His website. All hail Norm!

Regarding the trick...

I'm trying to say that I didn't even look at the surroundings. I was focusing on the cards. I let my brain fill in the rest of the scene about as much as I'm letting my brain fill in the activities going on in my neighbors house right now -- since I'm not perceiving them, they might as well not exist because my brain has no data on them.

This trick assumes people pay attention to the clothing, the backdrop, the table cloth, then changes everything and laughs as people miss it, but the fact is people never noticed it in the first place.

Before evidence to prove it wrong, it is not a superstition, but a belief.

There is no way to prove anything wrong. This allows people to make up any kind of ridiculous claim that they want to. What is the harm? The harm is that instead of learning about science and art and philosophy, people are wasting time with astrology and homoepathic medicine and other such nonsense.

sigh... What is it that people feel a need to make shit up in order to feel that life is interesting and beautiful?

They do it so you can feel smart Jo Ann ;-)

Watch the clip where Dawkins visits the spiritualist gathering, except this time, with the following hypothesis in mind:

The spirit of Charles Darwin is trying to contact Richards Dawkins.

Watch the clip where Dawkins visits the spiritualist gathering, except this time, with the following hypothesis in mind:

The spirit of Charles Darwin is trying to contact Richards Dawkins.

Watch the clip where Dawkins visits the spiritualist gathering, except this time, with the following hypothesis in mind:

The spirit of Charles Darwin is trying to contact Richards Dawkins.

Of course, cold reading was given a devastating treatment by South Park a few years ago, in one of their best episodes...

What is Dawkins trying to do with this series? Flush with the success of his latest book, does he now see himself as a generalist, a kind of Carl Sagen of the non-believers of the world? As in his book, there is nothing in these clips which isn't already "out there" in the published and electronic media; even "preaching to the choir" seems like an overstatement. Can anyone here on onegoodmove actually claim to have been educated by anything in these clips?

I especially like the last scene, where he mimics every schoolboy's feeble attempt at protesting forced church attendance: standing, holding the hymnal, but resolutely not singing along... the kind of bold move that will no doubt spark the revolution against superstition at last!

What is Dawkins trying to do with this series?

I rather like having someone stand up and say "why are you being so silly" on television. It's better than Oprah's widespread promotion of "the secret", right? I just wish this was airing on american television.

I don't think Dawkins is that concerned with what rationalists learn from this series. He is a public educator and the public is woefully ignorant, demonstrated by this mindless acceptance of fantasy horse crap.

It is the people who blow money on 'psychics', astrologers, tarot card readers, and mega church preachers that need to see this. It's for the people who are impressed by these side show carny tricks that have something to learn from this series.

First you complain because he's picking on the poor little xians then you complain when he takes on other irrational ideas. Of course that contradictory response is about as rational as the other silly garbage some of us choose to believe.

Does Dawkins (and his disciples) believe that there is no place for superstition, or un-"rationality" in human design and action?

Let me answer this question with a question: where in our lives do we necessitate superstition or irrationality?

Erick, irrationality and even superstition are some times very important to writers of fantasy fiction. :)

Advertising companies make tons of money selling false promises and fantasy dreams.

But those things are pretty useless for making rational real world decisions.

Why heck, if not for irrationality and superstition Bush wouldn't be president, we wouldn't be in Iraq, and Haliburtons' stock would be worth less.

So it would appear that those who seek social control and political power find irrationality and superstition absolutely essential. Now for the rest of us...

Erick, irrationality and even superstition are some times very important to writers of fantasy fiction. :)

Nothing irrational about imagination. It's when you actually believe you are Harry Potter that becomes a problem...a problem we can do without.

I'd rather be jK Rowlings, she has more money than Harry Potter will ever have.