Have you had a psychic reading and did it come true?

[charlie sc]

Could you elaborate? None of those methods have inherently predictive qualities that I can see. One can use it for that, but the practices are hardly limited to it. I very rarely use divination for that purpose unless one considers questions like "what should I bear in mind about this situation" or "what wisdom should I keep in mind for today" as predictive.

OK cool, you use all these pseudoscience methods for non-predictive things.

 

[Quintessence]

OK cool, you use all these pseudoscience methods for non-predictive things.

If you want to use the term "pseudoscience" incorrectly then sure. Whatever floats your boat, pal. Might as well start calling conversations with a friend to think about an issue "pseudoscience" with how you're using the term.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

From a few threads, I've noticed some people believe in psi. So, I was curious if anyone has ever been to a professional psychic and been read? If so, what was the prediction/knowledge claim the psychic gave you and did it come true?

I've been once to some spiritual centre, or whatnot, with my ex. My ex was a Wiccan, so she liked that sort of thing. The psychic we saw told a whole lot of hogwash that never came true, of course. Like, we'd have children, lol. I went along just for the entertainment value. We also saw one of those cold-readers with a bunch of people in a room. You know, continuously trying to find names. Anyway, perhaps other people have had success, believe in it, and received a prediction that was specific and undisclosed enough to merit belief?

I have never had any sort of psychic reading. I do not put much stock in them, since there is little evidence that such abilities are manifest.

 

[charlie sc]

If you want to use the term "pseudoscience" incorrectly then sure. Whatever floats your boat, pal. Might as well start calling conversations with a friend to think about an issue "pseudoscience" with how you're using the term.

Perhaps you can explain why I’m incorrect rather than just assert it. I don’t know this field well, so I don’t know if these fields claim to be fact and science. I looked at the Wiki description Astrology - Wikipedia

“Astrology is a pseudoscience that claims to divine information about human affairs and terrestrial events by studying the movements and relative positions of celestial objects.[1][2][3]”

Are you saying this is incorrect?

 

[Quintessence]

@charlie sc

There are some significant problems in how our culture uses the term pseudoscience, unfortunately. A fair article on this can be found here - Stop Using the Word Pseudoscience - and is worth a read. The problem with how the term is often used is that it embraces scientism, or that something must be science to have value and meaning. The long and the short of it is that broad usage of the term fails to distinguish between outright fraud and false claims of something being science versus things that simply aren't science but still useful to people on a personal level.

Personally, the standard I hold to for calling something pseudoscience is fairly strict in an effort to make sure I'm only covering fraudulent claims. In order for me to call something pseudoscience, it has to explicitly claim it is scientific in spite of having no actual grounding in the scientific method or peer review. With respect to divination, I rarely find that to be the case. I've come across specific instances where a given type of divination has been pitched by a specific person in a way that I found highly questionable, but that's the exception to the rule. To say divination as a whole is pseudoscience is just not useful and creates needless division and misconceptions about it.

In fairness, astrology is an example of a type of divination that tends to tread into the realm of pseudoscience more frequently than other types. For that, it's important to bear in mind that it's just one type of divination and I have seen many practitioners use it in a more honest fashion. In pop culture this is rarely the case, unfortunately, as astrology is limited to banal sun sign prognostications that are, well... they are pretty much garbage. Not sure I'd go so far as to call them inherently fraudulent, but it certainly makes astrology look bad and it has been used by unscrupulous folks for fraudulent purposes.

On that note, folks do have to be weary in general of folks getting "psychic readings" who are fraudulent. Fraud exists in pretty much every industry, though. My golden standard would be to ask if your reader has a background in counseling psychology. If they do, you're in good hands. IMO, that should be required to work divination in any professional capacity as they are serving the same sort of role.

 

[Quintessence]

*she

Just caught this - I actually strongly prefer they, them, and theirs. I do not identify as a "he" or a "she," for reasons that aren't relevant to this thread so that's about all that needs to be said on that. Just an FYI. I really don't care what people call me, but correcting from he to she (or vice versa) isn't really accurate. I'm weird like that.

 

[charlie sc]

@charlie sc

There are some significant problems in how our culture uses the term pseudoscience, unfortunately. A fair article on this can be found here - Stop Using the Word Pseudoscience - and is worth a read. The problem with how the term is often used is that it embraces scientism, or that something must be science to have value and meaning. The long and the short of it is that broad usage of the term fails to distinguish between outright fraud and false claims of something being science versus things that simply aren't science but still useful to people on a personal level.

Ok, well, that's a blog of a journalist and scientist giving their opinion on the matter. Similarly, you gave your opinion on the matter. I disagree. So, whatever floats your boat, buddy. lol I found it quite hypocritical of you to say that I'm using the word incorrectly when you use the word god, and other words, completely out of mainstream use and I've seen you have numerous arduous discussions explaining your definition. You also seem to have fairly lax rules over concepts and words. I guess not when it affects you, eh. Whereas, it seems, my use of pseudoscience is far more in mainstream use or at least prima facie so and there are a number of uses. So, umm, continue with your pseudoscience and continue being more judgemental, if you want.

 

[Quintessence]

Ok, well, that's a blog of a journalist and scientist giving their opinion on the matter.

... with references to a lot of peer-reviewed articles. If you don't agree that the term "pseudoscience" is polysemic and that this creates particular challenges when using the word, you aren't paying attention. If you'd said "this can be considered pseudoscience" I'd agree with you. But matter-of-factly? It's really not that straightforward... which the article highlights in an accessible manner.

lol I found it quite hypocritical of you to say that I'm using the word incorrectly when you use the word god, and other words, completely out of mainstream use and I've seen you have numerous arduous discussions explaining your definition.

Of course you do. Of course you would equate being a religious minority - which obviously and inherently means someone's understanding of theological topics is going to differ from the mainstream - with this scenario. Of course you would put a needlessly personal spin on this. We can't possibly just focus on how "pseudoscience" is a polysemic term that may or may not appropriately apply to something like divination depending on who you ask, can we?

 

[charlie sc]

... with references to a lot of peer-reviewed articles. If you don't agree that the term "pseudoscience" is polysemic and that this creates particular challenges when using the word, you aren't paying attention. If you'd said "this can be considered pseudoscience" I'd agree with you. But matter-of-factly? It's really not that straightforward... which the article highlights in an accessible manner.

I don't really care about that blog. You assumed I didn't think the term pseudoscience was polysemic. Your problem, not mine. To further this, you are the one who said I'm not using it correctly, so perhaps you thought it was monosemous. I can't read your mind.

Of course you do. Of course you would equate being a religious minority - which obviously and inherently means someone's understanding of theological topics is going to differ from the mainstream - with this scenario. Of course you would put a needlessly personal spin on this. We can't possibly just focus on how "pseudoscience" is a polysemic term that may or may not appropriately apply to something like divination depending on who you ask, can we?

Words have usages. I used it in a way it was commonly used. It seems you didn't. Fine, not a problem. The hypocritical bit comes into play with your attitude. Your attitude differs when it's a usage you don't like, but previously you've claimed objectivity when it comes to concepts and definitions. Hypocritical much? You may take me saying pseudoscience any way you wish. However, if you want to know how I define it and if I see it as derogatory or not, you may ask to find out