A Halloween Question

I prefer watching shows that debunk "magic" and call the show an illusion

As a kid I was interested in magic and wanted to know if it was all illusion or if real magic existed. At same time ... I was about 10 year old ... I was interested in mixing chemicals together like an alchemist and once when asked what I was doing said "alchemy". Also at this time I was taking battery operated torches apart and wanting to know how they worked. Now as a sort of grown up I am interested in Jungian psychology and electronics and science generally.

Once when Randi was talking to Richard Dawkins, Dawkins said he thought it possible that a time might come when someone would win his big prize money. Dawkins used the word perinormal which sort of means paranormal but different but the same sort of.

Jungian psychology?

Back in my early 20s, I was interested in psychology too. I remember reading a book of letters that were exchanged between Jung and Freud, as they discussed differences in opinion...and everything else.

At some point, I realized that, (for the most part), psychologists are broken people that use others to diagnose their own problems. They should not be put on any type of pedestal.

I've always thought magic was cool...to a point. Illusions are great, but anything that involves the dark arts, I avoid.

Yes good book that. Psychologists are not a homogeneous lot. While a person is mired in their own problems its best they attend to them but people of all walks want to sort others lives out rather then face themselves.

One thing Jung said was that only the wounded doctor heals.

I have always been interested in the occult/alchemy and what have you. I don't think its for everyone and some should defiantly avoid that sort of thing but I think for most its enriching. A visit to the subterranean part of the mind. By contrast what I think is bad news is a load of trashy TV and adverts.

I was pre-teen in the early/mid 60s and my Uncle Gene was a retired policeman and working magician. Not a star, but doing shows at local clubs, birthdays, weddings, schools, etc.

I was always fascinated by the trick with the two large rings that he would link and unlink with suitable flair. He was very patient, allowing me to inspect the rings and doing the trick over and over again so that I could try to figure it out.

In 5th grade I did a double-take as I walked past the school office with my friends. I was met with skepticism when I pointed out the poster for the magic show the following week and told my pals that it was my Aunt and Uncle pictured on the flyer. They had taken the job without realizing that it was my school.

It was so cool when I was called up on stage to help with a trick, but not so cool when Uncle Gene presented me with the freakin' rings!

He never did tell me how to do the trick, and I passed up a couple of chances to learn how to do it after he passed. I prefer to keep the mystery.

Thanks for the good memory ;)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=88CEokXpL2g

Spoiler alert? I did say that I would keep the mystery

its just a demonstration, you have to pay to see how its done

lol Nice find!

I was very fortunate once to be invited to 'The Magic Castle': http://www.magiccastle.com/

While there, I saw a woman perform a magic act that I thought was amazing. While she played the harp (a real harp, played with both hands) a quill pen danced in the air near her and would sometimes float over to a music stand where it would write notes on a page showing a blank musical staff. I was in the front row straining to see any kind of wire or mechanical device that made the quill move, but could not see anything. It was a very well done trick.

Despite that performance, overall I don't think anyone compares with Penn & Teller.

Although illusions can be baffling, we know that it is still only an illusion. I have always been fascinated by coin and card tricks, because they are totally under the control of the magician and doesn't depend on elaborate props.

Sorry folks. I worked late and just now looked to see the posts. I'll post one reply to points that caught my eye. (Maybe more tomorrow. I'm trying to leave to go home.)

I'm surprised that Dawkins thought that some day someone would win Randi's prize. I guess he's putting his money on the strangeness of Quantum Physics and Dark Matter/Dark Energy to be able to produce and explain what people now think of as paranormal.

I think Jung was very much interested in what we call paranormal phenomena. Synchronicity is one aspect of that that he thought was a real and paranormal phenomena. I agree that psychologists have no special insight into the Mind. I read Final Analysis because I suspected as much. The book confirmed my gut feeling.

There used to be a magic club in Houston somewhat like Magic Island, I suppose. I went there once and enjoyed the illusions. I've never been to Magic Island.

No one commented on David Blaine.

'til later.

I spent a long time being bent out of shape by family and afterwards the explanatory models and insights from Erich Fromm and Jung and others I found helpful.

I think its a case of their having been there and know the way the path goes.

I think a good shaman would know that stuff too but try finding one, and the modern replacement -- the Priest or what have you --- is often little help.

There is a mentalist in the uk called Derran Brown and you can find him on YouTube. He does magic tricks and makes out it is hypnosis or psychic. Its very entertaining and he is intelligent but I worry that a lot of people are being subject to a sort of mis-education.

I will check him out. Thanks.

(Yes, "priests" and such usually know very little about mystical things. Your sense of becoming an apprentice to someone who "knows" these things is how much can be learned and experienced. There is the adage, "Seek and you will find." Might be helpful. )

Here's a good one.....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nnYZ4QC2yJA

Very slick! So how's it done?

very cool!

If you are impressed by David Blaine, don't miss the Brit named Steven Frayne aka Dynamo.....very, very good.

I agree. If you like David Blaine you will also like Dynamo magician.

One of my favourites is when he borrows a mobile phone from someone and "crashes" it into the inside of a glass bottle also borrowed from an onlooker.

I also love this online trick:- http://www.realmagic.net/dp/1-1.htm

It was obvious how it works the first time I saw it, but, I still enjoy showing it to others.

Does anyone know of any other "online" tricks?

Thanks for the link. It reminded me of math magic and Martin Gardner. I'd forgotten to include that in my OP as magic. It's a different sort of "magic" but can be very entertaining. Knowing it is math one gets caught up even more in trying to decipher how it works. If you try several numbers in the list you find that the manipulations always give the symbol that shows in the crystal ball.

Then there's magic squares and such. Mathematical games and tricks can be manifested as card tricks since the cards can be given values.

AND I will check out Dynamo, via yours and Hilton's suggestion.

They always say it is a glass bottle...but it is a plastic bottle with a slit in it. (Though of course, there IS the trick bottle he uses. That one is glass and contains a different phone.) The magic is that people hear "glass bottle", and come away with it. Its a form of cognizant dissonance. Try looking at the word "orange" which is actually written in blue. And then the word Blue, which is written in red. Very quickly you discover the cognitive dissonance...

And here you thought you were too smart to be taken in by these guys!

The smarter you think you are, the more likely it will work.

Have you seen him do the trick: I'm pretty sure it's a glass bottle.

I have seen him swap the bottle with one just behind him, and, I have seen him throw the mobile inside his jacket as he pretends to stick it in the bottle. But he always leaves the bottle with the owner of the phone and sometimes one of their friends will ring the number to confirm that it is the original owners phone.

I believe that he gets someone to pickpocket the phone before the start of the proceedings and gets it put inside the bottle somehow.

Still very impressive.

The link I found shows a glass bottle, but a swap out.

I have seen the "crash" and it goes into a plastic bottle. Different trick.

So... yes, you are right.

Logician Raymond Smullyan used to do tableside magic at night clubs and such. He told how philosopher Rudolf Carnap would yell, "It's a trick!"

I always liked Kreskin. He perfected the mentalist schtick and also performed magic, especially good with cards.

A few years ago, my grandson wanted a Harry Potter magic wand for his birthday. He was extremely disappointed that it didn't work. I knew just how he felt.

Yes, Kreskin was the first mentalist that registered in my consciousness as a child. I would guess it was because he was on the Tonight Show with Carson.

I don't know how old your grandson is but math magic might be good for him because you can show him how some of it works. Might stimulate a real interest in math and/or science. Just like old movies which, so many times, are better than modern ones, introducing him to Martin Gardner's columns and books would be entertaining for him and keep the memory and Gardner's history alive. I especially liked his book, The Magic Numbers of Dr. Matrix, about Irving Joshua Matrix.

Kreskin tops MY list.

Jasper Maskalin during WWII made trucks look like tanks (to high level photos), tanks to look like trucks, a whole army in England made of blow up airplanes and fake radio chatter. Knowing HOW he dun it doesn't take away from his great skill. He got the job by hiding four security guards on a soccer pitch. Right in the middle of it, a very flat lawn. No way to hide...except behind those mirrors he took from the washroom!

Randi is (was) very very good. And still does tricks for the people waiting in line for his talks.

Penn and Teller are Randi's good friends. Teller is the better magician.

And the Canadian Card Magician Shawn Farquar just makes me shake my head in wonder.

That was a very good video. I didn't know there was a program called, Fool Us. If you can fool your peers, who know how most of the illusions are done you're good. It makes me wonder about something.

I think we've all seen the shows where a hooded/masked magician is revealing the secrets behind some of the illusions of the past. Being a magician means being a member of a pretty exclusive club. So how do young, aspiring magicians ever crack that membership? They have to gain the trust of other magicians. Is there some "test" that they must pass, some behavioral threshold that qualifies them to be accepted under someone's tutelage, who will share some of his secrets? Shawn Farquar had an "in" being a generational magician.

A colleague, whom I sent the card "man" video to asked if I'd seen the movie, The Prestige. I hadn't and at the moment it's checked out from the university library. It is about 2 rival magicians -- rival being a keyword. Apparently, even within the "club" there is competition whereby members try to come up with an illusion that will distinguish them from their peers as the greater magician. According to one discussion, though, The Illusionist is a better film about the same subject. I haven't seen it either.

Frankly, I'm not sure I would find it enjoyable being a magician, despite my interest as a kid. Tricks themselves, then, are no longer magic. The magic for a magician is fooling everyone else. I think I prefer being a fool, in this instance.

They are all "tricks". There is no real magic. If you think you saw real magic, then the trick worked. No? How about the show "paranormal". Thousands of people think that stuff is real...which makes it magical. How many people think cold medicine helps their flu? The Queen of England believes whole heartedly in Homeopathic medicine. She is NOT stupid, so it must be magic. Or a darned good "patter". Teller says he worked his way through college with only one trick. That was to impress a key into his thumb until a blister like bump was visible. He then pinched out a candle flame. He showed his "injured thumb" and then rubbed it out with the "magic powder". Then he proceeded to sell the salt he had stolen from the salt shakers he had put into little napkin packets. Since then he has specialized in debunking people who do much the same thing...homoepaths, chiropractors, psychics, martial artists...and others whose fakery is obvious, but they have a good story line.

The masked man who shows how it all works has his reasons. He figures these tricks are so old and jaded that if he shows the world how it was done, people will come up with new tricks. Farquar, Maskelin, Copperfield came up with new tricks, which is what makes them great.

There are however "prinicples of stage magic" which are used over and over and over again. To make a trick more interesting means you have to come up with a convincing "patter". Yours would be different than mine, even though we would be doing the same "trick". The best tricks are ones that you mix up with real stuff. Slight of hand mixed with cards with flat black backs being tossed on a velvet cloth on a table can fool most people most of the time, because you don't expect cards to HAVE a flat back. The principle of magic here is mixing the "funny" cards with real cards.

There is one that Blaine did that had a playboy centerfold come up through a bench with a box on it. He tossed the playboy into the box then pulled her out. It was a very small cardboard box. The illusion was absolutely stunning, absolutely convincing. You could see right under the bench. I will let you think a bit before I tell you how it was done.

But would knowing HOW it was done really spoil your excitement of seeing a well done illusion? To me, I can study a Bernini sculpture a hundred times and see something different every time. How much more interesting to see the same illusion by ten different people.

I changed my mind... I'll let you think a bit more before I tell you how it was done. Besides, I can't seem to find that particular illusion on youtube... perhaps it wasn't Blaine after all...grin! Whatever, he is STILL one of the greats. anyone else want to guess?

Oh, I quite agree. There is much fakery (much self-delusion, too) in the world of psychics and, some, even in science. But it doesn't negate experiences people do have that aren't magic tricks nor good science. Most are ordinary people who aren't promoting themselves or the experiences they have had. Generally, because of their experience(s) you can't convince these people there isn't a paranormal side to life, or that their experience is unreal. And I wouldn't try, having been in that position. Since consciousness is subjective by nature, what is real? Only the phenomena that the great majority share? Some diseases are very rare, but real. The Coelacanth was considered extinct. The first dinosaur bone/fossil was misunderstood.

I am not so enamored with magic like I was as a 5 years old. THEN it was easier to believe it is magic, the same way children believe there is a Santa Claus, Easter Bunny, or Tooth Fairy. Now, I typically spend less than a minute trying to figure any illusion out. I can enjoy the illusion as it is done, but don't dwell on it much afterwards. I only thought about making a post about magic because I happen to catch part of a David Blaine special as I was home at lunchtime last week... and Halloween was coming up. Seemed like fun to me. It is a way of remembering that part of childhood. (Speaking of childhood, even scientists enjoy fantasy; or mostly the act of creation/creativity, I would say.)

Knowing how an illusion is done makes it no longer magic, by definition, I think. And the fact that magicians say what they do is a trick, means, it is not magic to them. But it's a stretch to dismiss all unexplained phenomena as tricks of one sort or another. Most experiences of this type happen without anyone around performing the trick -- least of all the person experiencing it. Skeptics call it self-delusion.

Science offers the perspective that there is a rational explanation for everything. And I think there is. Logic is sometimes confused with rational. An explanation is rational to one person and not another because their experiences differ. The magician knows how his illusion is done and has a rational explanation of how it's done. The audience views the same phenomenon but has no rational explanation.

Science has rational explanations for so much of our sensory experience, but not all. It doesn't mean the experiences that can't be explained are fake or unreal. It just means physical laws, as we have discovered them, do not accommodate logical explanations for these phenomena.

A good example of this is mind-body medicine. Medical testing, has spent most of its scientific history trying to eliminate the placebo effect. That there is that effect is accepted. (Well, almost. Some doubt it exists. From the Wiki article is this: "Since the publication of Henry K. Beecher's The Powerful Placebo ^[9] in 1955, the phenomenon has been considered to have clinically important effects.^[10] This view was notably challenged when, in 2001, a systematic review of clinical trials concluded that there was no evidence of clinically important effects, except perhaps in the treatment of pain and continuous subjective outcomes.^[10]" Underlining, mine.) One doesn't try to eliminate unreal phenomena. If it can be shown to have no real effect, much research would have to be revisited that wasn't double-blind, the conclusions being considered erroneous and dismissed for lack of it. And the exception noted would still have huge implications. The explanation for how and why it operates is lacking. That gets glossed over by many. Consciousness itself is magical... at least to me.

Homeopathy is ridiculed because there is no logical scientific explanation. Perhaps its MO (if there is one) is more allied to the placebo effect. Quite a few veterinarians use homeopathy on animals and report positive results. Does it prove homeopathy works as stated? Hardly. But animals, as far as we know, don't understand homeopathic principles and shouldn't be exhibiting a placebo response. If homeopathic medicine works at all, I doubt it is the mechanism originally claimed.

Referring back to the Arthur Clarke quote I mentioned in the OP, "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic," I would say a radio receiver would seem like magic to any person not exposed to the outside, modern world who had seen one for the first time. But none of us, who have, spend any time at all thinking of it as magic or are amazed by its use. It's just part of daily life now.

Returning to your comment about appreciation of an illusion even if one knows how it's done. I certainly might appreciate a magic trick, even knowing how it's done, but the likelihood of that appreciation having the same intensity or quality is doubtful. Your appreciation of art is different from that, to me.

Sorry for the long post, but your post implied that you think all unexplained phenomena is fake. If I have misconstrued, I apologize.

No sir... All unexplained phenomena is unexplained phenomena. By its very name, it is unexplained. There is always a rational explanation, but you have to ask the right question. Just for example...(without opening a can of worms please) some (most!) cancer goes away by itself without any intervention. What question would you ask to explain this phenomenon? (did you change your diet...did you start taking lots of anti oxidants when you found out...did you abandon all your property and go into the cult...statistics suggest that most cancers come on and are dealt with by the body's immune system, (often without the person knowing it!), was this one of those cases...did you ask God to change His mind? Which questions can have answers which make sense, because ALL these questions DO get asked!)

The trick of stage magic is to get you to think they have created an unexplained phenomenon and proceed to demonstrate it. Entertainment results...it is the kind of entertainment which can be repeated in a hundred different ways. Today, the cell phone crashing into the bottle...yesterday it was the pocket watch, tomorrow the portable TV... The purpose of many fakers is to do the same and make a bucket load of money on it. Homeopathy is BS, yet it makes a bucket of money every year and so those who follow the money work hard to convince you that they are exploiting an unexplained phenomenon. They are doing ok by hoaxing the credulous. Nobody has ever been cured with homeopathy...not horses, dogs or people. The "placebo effect" is quite interesting...it seems to work with stress induced illnesses, and pretty much no other time. (lots of controversy there!) At least homeopathy does not violate the Nurenburg code, but anybody who puts off a cancer treatment in favor of fizzy water is just deluded, and WILL be thrown out of the gene pool sooner or later.

Anyway, I digress, and am likely going off topic. Sorry about that.

Randi himself calls himself an illusionist, not a magician. Yet I suspect in the day he was better than most stage magicians. He leads the fight on his "swift" blog. Maybe check it out... I wonder if the moderators would consider his blog on CR4. Maybe they would need to ask?

Yes, I have pointed out the same before. There are so many factors and processes in our bodies relating to its health that in some instances recovery may be due to a variety of factors, rather than just one. That contributes to trying to pin down just what a placebo effect, if any, truly is, too.

I did note in the article at Science Based Medicine that the phrase used several times was "no compelling evidence." Does that mean there is some, just not enough to impress the commentator? It might mean a very tiny statistical variance beyond random that is within experimental error. I don't know. Health care can be a gray area for this same reason. That could be a whole discussion by itself. I'll refrain from switching further to that here.

As far as a Randi blog on CR4... Randi and others have, no doubt, educated people in how to think about logical explanations (or the lack thereof) for paranormal claims and present evidence contrary to claims, but as Tank Circuit mentioned, Richard Dawkins did say in a public forum to Randi he thought the prize would be claimed some day. He ascribed it to what he called perinormal, rather than paranormal. But, as mentioned, rational explanations, now include one's experience.

(I was looking for the quote with a source and found it in this article, which resulted in a back and forth between the author of that blog and Randi, in his blog. I would say these blogs are an indication of why his blog could be as disruptive as it might be constructive, if featured here. Feelings can run high surrounding the subject of "paranormal," and attacks can become personal, rather than to just the subject matter at hand. And would some then want both blogs featured -- or equal time of some sort? It just happened to be the first link that presented the quote with a reference to a source. But I think it makes the point of how controversial the subject of paranormal phenomena usually is. Clearly, any resolution to the matter rests in the minds of those on either side of the debate. Unfortunately, the link for "made an intriguing statement" resulted in nothing. I thought it might be a video of the statement. It was. The YouTube video of the conversation is here.) When it comes to paranormal, rational (i.e., utilizing experience) explanations exist for those who have the experience and "know" (the reality was self-evident) it was real. Someone who has no experience "knows" it is unreal (also, negatively, self-evident; "Where's the beef?"). Consciousness is the ultimate phenomena to be dealt with. One's internal experience, can't be shared or observed by another. (No doubt some would claim otherwise.) I have suggested before that external criteria of proof, for some paranormal phenomena, precognition specifically, to be the ability to predict events accurately.

Back to the main topic...

I was looking around last night for something to watch on TV and saw that one channel was running several Chris Angel "Believe" episodes all in a row. I switched and caught the last 5 minutes of the episode, "Raising the Dead." I have to say, I think that illusion crossed the line, for tastelessness. Presumably, there was a corpse in the room, in front of the observers, which included paranormal "investigators" and medical personnel. There was no reason to doubt that it was a corpse, and I couldn't help wondering if the corpse had relatives. And if so, did they give permission for their loved one's body to be on national TV for a magic illusion; which by the way, was presented as, "Does Chris Angel really have the power to manipulate the force that gives life to a body?" I've seen other Chris Angel illusions before, but this is the first I had that reaction to. Maybe there was a disclaimer at the beginning of the episode... still, it seemed in poor taste.

In the following episode he explained one of the illusions, which holds a key for observing any illusion. Watching any presentation, one begins to analyze the directions of the magician during the illusion. They can provide a key to how it is accomplished. (Orientations, for instance, of a participants hands, body, etc. In the explained trick, the magician asks the participant to hold out her hands and then says, "Just a little higher," whereupon he then "helps" her adjust the height with his hands, and that is when the illusion gets set -- by his touching her hands and transferring ashes on her palm, which in the illusion, magically travel through the back of her other hand covering the hand where they were transferred. This slight occurrence is unnoticed by most of us. For entertainment purposes, illusions are presented as if they are real. That is why it is called magic.

Levitation was presented in that same episode, I think -- levitating Shaquille O'Neil. But his body gets placed in a particular orientation on the ground. Why? Chris Angel mentions somewhere in the show that he is utilizing advanced technology used by NASA. So could any of us discover what technology he is referring to? What, ironically, tones down the effect of the illusion is that Shaq also "levitates" items during his appearance on the show. He is in on the illusion. The premise is that the show is the culmination of his "calling out" Chris to levitate him. A truly independent associate/skeptic would say, when asked to lay down on a certain spot, "No, I think I'd rather lie down over there." He was floated over Angel's home. It was still an impressive illusion.

Precognition is a funny thing. Randi stopped testing for dowsing because it broke so many hearts who were convinced they were on to something. No psychic has ever succeeded in claiming the million dollar prize. I mean, honestly...you get to set up the test yourself if you want! The test will be honest. If a million dollars is not a good enough incentive to put your claims to the test then what is? The line "oh it doesn't work if the only motive is money" is hokum, since of course they DO do it for money. Internal inconsistency right there!

Simply put... unexplained phenomon are just that ... unexplained. The job of scientists is to find that expanation... to explain evidence. Most alt med for instance, has poor evidence. If there was better evidence, then there will be better explanations. The money rolls in when there is poor evidence. The money stops when it is proven to be quackery. Which one will prevail? If there is money to be made then I bet on the quack. It is heart breaking when the quack deceives even himself.

What do we call alt med that works?

Um...that would be Medicine.

What do we call precognition that works?

Um, that would be "experience."

A final note... google "Clever Hans". The horse that could add and subtract when asked. I think the story of Clever Hans shows the glorious inner mind at work, which works just fine even in a horse. How much better can the human mind process tiny clues than even a horse? Police...border guards...priests... all can read you like a book. How do they do that? No need to invoke some paranormal thing....it can be learned.

Is there a paranormal at all?

I am going to say no. Dawkins was hedging his bets.

Unless one has and can demonstrate 100% proof of one's viewpoint, we are all hedging our bets -- or at least only coming to a conclusion based our own experience. I would refer to the definition of rational and answer the question, "Is there a paranormal?" with "Depends on who you ask." Experience does influence the answer.

Precognition, some of which has been fairly well documented, and quite specific, isn't just due to experience -- meaning a prediction based on past happenings, or a calculated/educated guess.

The only other comments I would offer on the subject, here, is as far as rational minds go, more than a few famous scientists felt a paranormal side to life, as characterized properly, in the book, Quantum Questions, which I've mentioned in the past in other posts. A skeptic of that meaning anything, I think, underlines the influence of experience on one's conclusion, which is always subject to alteration by future experiences. Genuine interest in the paranormal isn't only for undisciplined or irrational minds.

And finally, I can't say unequivocally, that everyone can prove it to her/himself, but there are techniques/practices (for a variety of purported paranormal experiences, such as visualization, meditation, astral projection, etc.) which can lead to the addition of these experiences to one's life. Then a reassessment can be made based on that experimentation. Without some effort along those lines, saying results of such experiments (maybe better termed, investigations) are not real, is an incomplete analysis. (As in any scientific investigation, similar results should be repeatable by more than a few people.) Since one practice might come more naturally than another to any one individual, and since there are many practices and/or variations that can be tried, one should be willing to research them and be willing to try more than a couple before concluding they all lead to nothing. Most are either not interested enough or are apprehensive to "dabble" in such practices, though.

Back again to the original topic of magic...

I made a trip to the library last night to look at books in a couple of subject areas, one of which was magic. I have to say, my earlier comment/question about how does one "get in the club" are a testament to how long it's been since I surveyed books available about magic -- that, and probably a poor memory -- were naive. There are plenty of books written by practicing and retired magicians disclosing tricks the the techniques for performing them. I leafed through a number of them but did not check any of those out. And if I had done an Internet search I would have found any number of instructional media, for example here and here.

One I did check out that seemed interesting, is entitled, The Essential Robert Houdin. (As I was looking for the link I was surprised at the price of the book.) It seems that Houdini, (born Erich Weiss) adopted his stage name in honor of Robert Houdin who was his idol, after reading the former's book, The Memoirs of Robert-Houdin. Later, Houdini wrote a book entitled, The Unmasking of Robert-Houdin, exposing Houdin's secrets, and concluding his idol was a fraud. I find that an odd conclusion, since all magicians admit the illusions are just tricks. So where's the fraud? I'll have to investigate that a bit more. Apparently, from the 1 customer review, Houdini's book can be had for free somewhere on the Internet. A $5.00 PDF version is here, but may suffer from the OCR artifacts mentioned in the review at Amazon.

I think we agree...

Robert Houdin was suspected of being a witch. Witches are still being persecuted and killed in Nigeria, Ivory Coast and Kenya. Children suspected of being witches because of behavior problems are being killed.

I don't find this entertaining. Or right.

As soon as ALL paranormal activity is shown to be what it is...either fake or simply unexplained natural phenomenon easily explained by a rational mind, the better. Humour, like dressing kids up as werewolves and witches give moms a chance to defuse the fear of a possible dangerous "other world". When fear is gone, it has no hold. I love halloween costumes and stuff like that for that reason. I love magic acts because I know they are illlusion, and can be explained. Penn and Teller for instance, make their entire act out of showing how it is done!

The Catholic Church in Malta had a festival goer jailed for dressing as a priest. The Catholic Church KNOWS that mocking it will make it less effective. The religous right in the US is doing its utmost to destroy the "separation of church and state". Wrong headed...but again, I have no problem with church. It serves a very good purpose. I don't have to "Believe" in order to see the value of a church in a community. Back when I was a city planner I demanded it from those who would prefer to put up lucrative ticky tacky housing instead of churches and community centres. ( They fired me for doing that actually...)

You are entitled to an opinion...so long as your opinion does not drive you to cut my head off, or burn my children. Or to prevent cancer treatments on my friends because the great Ju Ju in Elbonia wants you to prescribe fizzy water and juice instead of chemotherapy. Thats where I am coming from. Entertainment purposes...fine with me. Until people start to believe this shit. My mom believed Kreskin was the real deal! Started sending him money. To his credit, Kreskin sent it back. Ernest Angely wants you to send him money so that he can "get God to intervene and get you a job!". (no kidding!) He does not send it back. And gosh darn it, some people actually DO find a job. Was that the preacher "divine intervention"? I doubt it.

Also not entertaining, nor right.

Anyway, I have said all I need to say on this topic. It was a good one. Got a chance to vent a bit. State my case. Explain why it troubles me that mothers tell their kids that there are blue people (smurfs) living in the woods. One lie leads to another...

At the risk of having you feel compelled to respond to another response , I do have thoughts about your post.

If Houdin was suspected of being a witch, I still wouldn't understand Houdini thinking he was a fraud, unless Houdin was presenting himself as actually using supernatural powers. I suppose he might have performed illusions similar to the Chris Angel "Raise the dead" episode I mentioned previously. Maybe that is what Houdini based his opinion on -- the pretense that he had mystical powers. I'll have to read more about it to understand.

My point about experience of paranormal phenomena is the difference between "believing" or "faith" in a particular tenet of any religion. It is why some people seek spiritual experience (which might also be termed expanded levels of consciousness. For instance, seeking to have a controlled NDE via meditation) vs. only believing. And, I agree, that money doesn't mix well with religion, spirituality, or whatever one wishes to label those activities. I don't mean to discredit financial charitable works. But the idea of money for Grace is wrong-headed.

I wasn't sure what your comment about preventing cancer treatment was referring to in the link. I don't think unconventional treatments for cancer, such as the Gerson Therapy prevent any other treatment unless you choose it's protocol, which means adopting its viewpoint. There are guidelines with any protocol. I support the freedom of choice in healthcare protocols. If a family decides together to seek alternative treatments for whatever disease, it should be their right to do so. It is a somewhat sensitive subject. Most people that seek such alternative therapies for cancer have already been dismissed by orthodox medicine as terminal, usually Stage 4. (Last time I investigated the success rate of Chemotherapy it was pretty dismal.) Despite all the science that points to smoking causing cancer, if someone wants to smoke, it is their business -- except that it does contribute to increasing health care rates. And they are affecting family as well as themselves. No man is an island...

Very true. In fact nearly everything you have said up until now is sterling...

I think a religious belief is very valuable. I don't have to have it (I am not a Christian so my beliefs may conflict with yours), but I will be damned if I will not fight for your right to hold any religion you see fit.

When parents treat their kids with alternative medicine instead of real medicine...I get my back up. Oh sure they have the right to do that. They are killing kids. How can this be a good thing?

Big story in the news last week...seems people that have lung cancer are treated poorly, not by doctors, but by their fellow sufferers. Breast cancer (pink ribbon) patients look at the grey ribbon of lung cancer as proof of ultimate stupidity. And are not afraid to say it. The story was about a woman who never smoked a day in her life, and is fighting lung cancer. The story is about perception. Sure...you can do it, its a free country. Does not make it less stupid. And a whole group of sufferers feel left out.

The reason I mention the whole cancer thing is there is more alt therapies than real ones. Alternate therapies are at best hoaxes, often have paranormal explanations about why they work, and at worst money grabs. That being said... by changing one's diet, by taking better care of oneself, and by exercising more you increase your chances of fighting off pretty much anything that hits you. This is not alt med, this is common sense. Don't make it a cure though. There is a chapel at the oncology clinic I go to. It is usually full.

There...I hope I clarified things a bit.

And the only thing this post has in common with the original thread is that it clarifies why I lump alt med in with paranormal. As you said...anything we don't understand looks like magic. I was an electrician for twenty years... as far as I am concerned its magic since I seriously don't understand quantum physics. At least I know there is no such thing as electrons, but they idea of Magic Particles is very attractive.

The word Cancer has produced volumes and volumes of material. It can seem overwhelming to someone who feels a need to research the subject. And, typically, that interest arises only after one (or a loved one) has the disease.

Common sense -- that what we put in our bodies affects its operation and is the primary way we have of controlling that operation -- is so often overruled by our sense of taste, rather than appetite. And any relation of either to nutritional content becomes obscured and likely invalid. The addictive nature of processed foods tends to enable self-destructive behavior. Nutrition is the first line of defense in warding off most disease. Even disease with a genetic predisposition can be influenced positively by it.

As an electrician you have had the privilege of working daily with electrons. Your comment about them reminds of a book I got years ago. It's entertaining.

Doug Henning was one of the best at close-up hand magic tricks. Unfortunately he is no longer with us.

Do you like magic? If so, what is the most impressive illusion you recall and who is your favorite magician?

Daniel Copperfield.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zkd8A3CdHvc

I thought it was funny.