Posts
So, the questions regard a new show on AE Network called Psychic Kids. Don't feel bad if you've never heard of it. It sure was news to me. Here we go.
Do you think this show ispotentially harmful to the children taking part? Do you think it'spossible they have some kind of extra-sensory perception that others don't? What about their senses being more developed (or less squelched) becausethey're children? Would you let your child be on this show? Do you thinkthe parents are exploiting their children or letting them have a rareopportunity for fame? Finally, can you contrast your answers to the abovein re: to this show vs. the boy on Jesus Camp who was "saved" at age fivebecause he was looking for "something more from life" and wanted to becomean evangelist? Do you feel the experiences these children will have (beingon a psychic show and getting attention and recognition for that and beingan evangelist and getting attention and recognition for that) are differentor similar? If different, do you feel one is better than the other? Why or why not.
First things first. I want to believe in the paranormal. That's me. Is it valid? I truly believe so. It is beyond arrogance to presume that the world we experience through our 5 senses is all there is. Forget for a minute the more sensational claims of telepathy, spirit contacts, psychkinesis etc. What about the woman who dreams her sister is in danger only to wake and find that she was just in an accident. How about the twin whoses finger hurts when 5 miles away his brother just slammed his in the door. These certainly aren't normal occurances but they do happen. Same goes for deja vu, hunches, intuition. How many people pursue a certain course of action based on a feeling. Yes, some of that is attributable to experience. Not all.
Science, as of yet, cannot concretely explain away these things.
Now, what about the more sensational claims. I just don't know. I've never met anyone who claims to possess these abilities. We've all seen plenty of roadside and TV advertisements for palm-reading, tarot reading, and the like. It doesn't take ESP to read someone and figure out what they want or need to hear; just time, practice and charisma. But I try not to let the obvious bullshit take away from my belief in the possibility of more. And it makes a kind of sense to me that children may be more open to whatever else is out there. They haven't yet been taught how to see the world or how to interpret what they are seeing and feeling.
As for the show itself. The way I understand it (having not actually seen the show), the hosts, a psychic and a clinical psychologist bring together 3 children with some form of psychic ability and attempt to help them explore and come to terms with their gifts. Sounds like a great idea. But do they have to do that on television???. If these children are indeed receiving input from something beyond the 5 senses, this cannot be the best method to help them come to terms with it. It is exploitation plain and simple. I have a hard time believing in any altruistic motives when it takes place in front of the camera. Are the hosts willing to work with these children if there wasn't the publicity for themselves involved? Tv is about selling, ratings, noteriety. I have to wonder what the hell their parents were thinking!! Childhood is hard enough but do these kids need the added burden of their peers bullying and teasing; and you know that will happen. I can definately say there is no way I would allow sweet pea on any kind of show like this. It's exploitive and potentially harmful.
Regarding Jesus camp. Again, I only know what I've read about it, having neither the desire or interest to watch. My gut reaction is these children are being indoctrinated. I won't go quite so far as brainwashed but it seems pretty damn close. I can easily say that I was indoctrinated into religion--12 years of Catholic school will do that for you. These kids have been taken to the extreme by, I'm assuming, the profoundly fundamentalist adult influences in their lives. It doesn't appear that they are receiving a well-rounded world view but instead are focused so narrowly in their education that their attitudes and beliefs have been pre-programmed. I have to wonder how much of what they say is actually coming from them.
Now, as for the boy who was "saved". I don't know what he means with that. Again, it seems like something he was told, not necessarily came up with for himself. Hell, my brother called himself "saved" and at the time that meant accepting Jesus as his Saviour (I'm fairly certain he's lost again)--Sidebar, do you think that's what JJ Abrams is getting at ? Anyway, so I really can't compare it in any meaningful way with the PK's show. As for the noteriety the children will experience. I think the JC kids will have a much easier time of it. The majority of them are home schooled, they are raised in a household and more than likely a community which espouses the same "values" that are touted in the show. However, the PK kids are exploring something that is mocked, ignored, and/or sensationalized. Whatever positive, if any, experience they get from their 5 minutes of fame will likely be dwarfed by the negative that will follow. And just a sidenote--It's shameful to realize that those people who look at their children with pride for being devout charismatic Christians will turn to the PK kids and accuse them of conversing with demons. The double standard is ridiculous.
To sum up. Both shows deal with children looking for guidance, looking for answers from an adult authority figure. MISTAKE!! I don't think there are definitive answers. There are thoughts and ideas. Anyone who tells a child, or anyone else for that matter that he/she has the answers that they are looking for, is delusional. Give the child the means to find their own answers. Support them, don't try to control them. In that respect, the PK show has the better idea; the form it uses is totally screwed up.
I'm off to post this and read DH's reply.
I am perfectly convinced that I have both seen, and heard in a manner which should make unbelief impossible, things called spiritual which cannot be taken by a rational being to be capable of explanation by imposture, coincidence, or mistake." — Augustus De Morgan
Make of this what you will.
I just liked it.
8 comments:
Wow...ok, so there was that comment...
Thank you both for taking the time to answer my "question" I sincerely appreciate it. I agree that the show is exploitive and potentially harmful. It reminds me of an old movie we would sometimes watch in school about the Salem Witch Trials and how the children got so caught up in what started out as a joke, but unfortunately, people lost their lives because of it. I haven't watched any of it, actually (see how I am? Make you guys research it and I just get the spoils of your research...) but I wonder what will happen when one of these "psychic" kids "sees" evil within someone and decides that person needs to be "cleansed" or something similar. I think whenever people buy into and encourage other people's delusions, it's dangerous. Doubly so when it's an adult (authority figure) encouraging a child. I cannot say with 100% certainty that more things don't exist beyond our five senses (I agree with what you said about that, Princess) but I think a show based solely upon what one person is supposedly experiencing in some extra sensory way is ridiculous. Bad enough when it's adults, but bring children in to the mix and it's damn near child abuse, IMHO.
@ Seven Star Hand:
Princess (midnightrn) and I discussed your comment, and even read quite a bit of what you referenced.
Regardless, what you left was off topic, and your links left me unconvinced of your claims. However, I would suggest seeing a therapist.
This is going to create some interesting conversations in our house, but here goes.
There was something that jumped out at me, from your post, Princess.
"First things first. I want to believe in the paranormal. That's me. Is it valid? I truly believe so."
Then, the citations, followed by,
"Science, as of yet, cannot concretely explain away these things."
What I'm seeing here is confirmation bias. "If science can't explain it, it must be true." I've heard of both instances you talked about, but there's an aspect of them that's usually left out. Did the person actually have that experience, or have their memories of the events change to confirm what they want to believe.
Anecdotal evidence is very questionable when it comes to this sort of thing. Having other witnesses around to see the affect can help, but I've seen some personal cases where the persons memory of what happened didn't fit with mine. Just before the phone call, they were actually in a good mood, but that of course changed when they got said phone call. Perhaps a feeling of guilt over being happy at the moment when their loved one was in the accident caused their memories to change to better help them cope.
As far as the twins, there's been a few studies done, and they haven't found any support for the hypothesis. The instance you talked about could be the same as the one I talked about above. The uninjured twin finds out his twin was injured, and then his memories shift to conform to what he wants to believe. Especially if someone else tells him where the injury occured on his twin.
Using "science can't explain" as an argument for anything is a "[insert belief] of the gaps" argument.
It can't be explained (mostly to the degree the believer wants), therefore my belief must be true.
No, we can't be 100% certain of anything. However, we should also not grasp at straws to hold onto our beliefs. I personally would love to believe there is a such thing as psychics, ETs (the Vulcan but not Romulan kind), and sticking needles into certain points on my skin would cure debilitating and deadly diseases. However, there's a saying among some of us:
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."
-Carl Sagan
Anyone who believes in anything supernatural is making an extraordinary claim. The problem is, they have yet to present the extraordinary evidence to support it. Ironically, in most instances (psychics, UFOs, etc.) the claims made have become less and less viable as time goes by. Once the claims were put to real scrutiny, they fell apart.
Wanting to believe in something is okay. It keeps us asking questions that should be asked. However, believing something without thinking (or researching) it through in proportion to the degree of the claim can be detrimental. That is when parents put their children onto television shows that make extraordinary claims.
"The universe is not required to be in perfect harmony with human ambition.
-Carl Sagan"
Spoken like a true skeptic darling:)
Okay, so you pointing out that time can (not necesssarily does) change perception of events is valid. But it seems that you are discounting that these things can occur. Science has postulated about the interconnectedness of the universe--see the work of David Bohm.
Looked at in the light, these experiences seem more than plausible.
Paranormal does not have to mean woo-woo. And I never mentioned ET--believe me, i know your thoughts (as do our neighbors) on that one.
I agree, let's keep asking these questions. Just because science doesn't have the explanations now, doesn't mean that it won't one day. Provided we are willing to keep an open mind.
We'll have to talk more later though. Sweet Pea is after me fofr Play Doh fun and I'm trying to keep it off the carpet.
Tag--you're it
I want to believe in the paranormal. That's me. Is it valid? I truly believe so.
you know, I want to believe I have Jedi powers. That's me. Is that valid? I truly believe so.
Where's that damn Light Saber? Oh.. here we go.
Berlezebub, pretty much covered anything remotely intelligent I might have said. but then...
Paranormal does not have to mean woo-woo.
Yes it does. Unless you are talking about something new. For centuries we have looked to find the loch ness monster, ghosts, god, psychic abilities, reincarnation, usefulness for homeopathy, reiki, acupunture (beyond placebo), telepathy etc ,etc, etc. And what do we find? nada, zip, zilch, nothing. It always ends in fraud, poorly constructed studies, or literally nothing.
It seems that only if we raise the value of anecdotes to that of full empirical studies that we can claim anything about these things. If we do that, we may as well go back to alchemy, blood letting and phrenology.
this is totally true:
Just because science doesn't have the explanations now, doesn't mean that it won't one day.
which is why, when the answer is "we dont know" its best to leave it there and start a new hypothesis, rather than says its due to any of the silliness I listed above, including psychic powers.
Here's a good read on this.
p.s. can you send me that first posters comment, i'm intrigued
TS, you do make me smile. And I believe we're going to have to agree to disagree on this one too.
Just a note on my thought processes ann yes I do think about this stuff;)
I agree that a great many of the claims made by self-proclaimed psychics are unlikely in the extreme. When I say that paranormal does not have to mean woo-woo I mean that I believe that there exists something which as is of yet undefined, beyond the 5 senses.
I also believe that science just hasn't found the right method for explaining it.
"I believe that there exists something which as is of yet undefined, beyond the 5 senses."
of course there is. But the cool part about science is that it provides the only reliable method by which to find out if something is real or not.
That is why a million dollars have has never been given out by James Rand, when you put psychic claims through scientific rigor, the charlatans are easily exposed. That is because when you remove the ability to misdirect, misinform and conflate, what you are left with is nothing with respect to these areas.
This is different than the concept of there being lots of things that we do not know about. No scientist claims that we know everything (I would out that there are plenty of religious that claim that everything we need to know is contained in a book).
But the method of rigor requires observations (which we have plenty of), hypothesis generation (which we have plenty of), experimentation (this is where it starts to drop off), and verification (now we are at almost a dead stop).
Some things make it through this gauntlet. Like that guy who claimed that stomach ulcers are bacterial or fungal in nature and not stress related. Or that prions exist, a self replicating protein that is not a virus or a bacteria, impervious to cooking, but causes mad cow disease and scrapie. Even a retrovirus like HIV was once considered nonsense.
If bizarre hypotheses like these can make it through the gauntlet, why cant homeopathy, acupuncture, Sylvia Browne and their ilk and so forth?
hint: its in Sylvia Brownes best interest not to have people study her 'abilities'.
or we can just agree to disagree, the easy way out.
i know i know, i'm a jerk. My wife tells me all the time that my writing reads that way.
Post a Comment