Do people actually go to "Palm readers" or fortunetellers/psychics?

[mdwh]

I am saying that in most cases, scientific proof is exactly what I said it is, compilations of observation, and testing. How do we know gravity exists? Because we observe objects fall at with a constant accelleration of 9.8m/s^2 every time.

And I haven't disputed that. My problem isn't with observations, it's with anecdotal evidence. Scientific proof is what we are after, but "compilations of observation, and testing" and happening everytime is not what we have for psychic powers.

Psychics are not magicians though.

And you know this how?

(Also, in case you did not get the memo, we have all found out that she does not call herself psychic, thus implying she employs some degree of trickery)

So now you agree with us?

Radical is a very relative term. I was being no more radical in my conclusion than a typical scientist that thrives off of making assumptions and unorthodox conclusions. I am behaving exactly how scientists behave. I made a series of observations, analyzed what I saw, consulted other people, and I have now come to the conclusion that they were not psychics afterall.

Okay then, I'm not jumping to conclusions full stop.

 

[Atlas14]

And I haven't disputed that. My problem isn't with observations, it's with anecdotal evidence. Scientific proof is what we are after, but "compilations of observation, and testing" and happening everytime is not what we have for psychic powers.

And you know this how?

So now you agree with us?

Okay then, I'm not jumping to conclusions full stop.

Yes, I do agree with you now. But I do know psychics are not magicians because by definition they are not. People may hold the opinion that they employ "trickery", but that is only an opinion. A true psychic, whether they exist or not, do not employ "trickery".

 

[mdwh]

I have linkage that the scientific community knew of scientific method and called meteors hogwash.

Fair enough, though there are differences.

The problem here was it was an extremely rare event, but that does not seem to be what people claim is true of psychics? Correct me if I am wrong, but the claim seems to be that psychics exist who can repeatedly do their work on demand (how else could they organise performances) - yet for some reason, not when anyone tries to investigate scientifically.

Also I have no problem with someone saying "I saw this person, and this happened", which is comparable to "I saw a rock fall from the sky". The problem is jumping to the conclusion that they are psychic - this is like saying "And therefore these rocks are being hurled by angry Gods".

Also:

Over three-hundred people witnessed this event, making it difficult for French scientists to discount. The scientists were forced to admit there was some connection between the fireballs that fell from the sky and the rains of stone.

Sounds like actually scientists are quite willing to accept witness reports.

Given that I'm sure more than 300 people have gone to these psychic performances, the issue is clearly not one of not believing the witnesses.

Also read the rest of the article, which shows how our understanding of meteors has not come through anecdotal evidence and jumping to conclusions, but through evidence and the scientific method.