Discussion about this post

User's avatar
t'Jacques G's avatar

I am generally skeptical of spiritual things, including psychics and mediums. However, Dan's preamble really made me open to Laura Lynne. So when we finally got to her reading of Dan, I was shocked to see blatant cold reading tactics and obviously broad horoscope-style descriptions. (For example, nearly every teenager in America cares about music.) I lost any sense of openness when Jackson said she was tapping into quantum mechanics. It sounded like Tony Stark taking the eigenvalue of a mobius strip in Avengers Endgame.

Mark was spot-on when he said, "Science doesn't know everything." Science doesn't claim to know everything. It proposes a method of testing claims and developing knowledge based on experimentation and evidence. I'm surprised that such a normal and unimpressive psychic reading aroused enough interest to seriously question an otherwise empirical worldview

"Once you start opening the door to things you can't prove, how do you decide which things to believe? Where do you set your level?" This line should have been the thesis of the episode! Why should we be any more open to believing in psychics than to believing in Greek mythology or believing in faith healers?

David's high schoolers approached La Fermiere's clay pots with more scrutiny than Search Engine's team used with the most normal and obvious psychic. How did this happen?

Expand full comment
Joseph Krausz's avatar

I do feel as though the skepticism of the interviewees (your interviewee and his) could have been bolstered by knowing more about cold readings. It was a very interesting episode.

Expand full comment
12 more comments...

No posts