Talk:Richard Wiseman

Publicity

Could we add "self-publicist" to the description? Malcolm McLaren is described thus, and he's nothing like as much of a self-publicist as Richard Wiseman. -88.111.109.155 (talk) 09:29, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

In "Guidelines for Testing Psychic Claimants" by Richard Wiseman & the Late Bob Morris (1995) there is the following provocative statement: "researchers should be aware that some magicians may be interested in self-publicity and may wish to involve the media in testing". Wiseman is a magician. Wiseman has involved the media in psychic testing. Therefore, I think it might be reasonable to state that Wiseman may be interested in self-publicity. ;) Dalriada3 (talk) 18:08, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Other Richard Wiseman

anyone going to create a page for the other Richard Wiseman; the 17th century surgeon? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.136.106.4 (talk) 20:23, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

If you'd like to yourself, you can create an account and then click on this link: Richard Wiseman (surgeon). If not, you can leave a request at WP:RA and see if anyone takes up your suggestion. — BillC ^talk 23:18, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Richard Wiseman and incredible luck

This guy postulates that people who are "naturally lucky" expend more effort on "getting the right result", and hence are in fact "statistically" more lucky than people who don't. Am I being particularly dense, or is this a conclusion that is so remarkably fatuous and self-evident that it defies the need for actual articulation? Furthermore, his article seems to suggest that he gives credence to the notion that ailments can be diagnosed by some kind of "X-ray eyes"/"sixth sense". Again, this idea would appear to be so obviously untrue to even the meanest intelligence that the man's academic credentials surely have to be called into question.

Mind you, I've noticed that during the late 1990s and early 2000s some of the (...now, how can I put this tactfully...?) less prominent universities had a pet "media friendly" academic on hand to sing up their praises for the benefit of the TV cameras (compare with Heinz Wolff at Brunel, Kevin Warwick at Reading, or that long-haired philosophy pseud at Birkbeck, whose name escapes me). My father had a PhD in mathematics and my brother has a PhD in molecular biology. Both sweated mental blood to accomplish them, so I'm extremely glad that pseuds like Wiseman and his ilk, who do nothing but cheapen their efforts by claiming "PhDs", have sunk from view recently. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.5.68.95 (talk) 01:18, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

In answer to your first question, yes, you are being particularly dense. You're also being particularly petulant.

Three points: the concept of 'luck' as a real, metaphysical phenomena is highly prevalent in Western culture, and therefore worthy of an indepth exploration. Should you find the details or conclusions of this to be what you might expect then good for you, but presumption has NO place in science (as I'm sure your brother, having sweated so much, would attest).

Secondly, whilst the idea of x-ray eyes seems ludicrous to most rational thinking people, there's a multi-billion dollar industry worldwide dedicated to peddling snake oil and superstition. If it wasn't for Richard Wiseman and the like (check out the artical on Scientific Skepticism) then such nonsense would be simply allowed to pass unchecked, spreading harm and collecting money. Confronting a social problem is not the same thing as giving credence to it.

Thirdly, this isn't the place for a discussion of the subject in hand, but since you've already made such ludicrous comments I feel they rather need to be addressed.

---

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.30.163.96 (talk) 09:26, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

A.C. Grayling is the Birkbeck Philosopher you're thinking of, I suspect. You might also consider throwing Colin Pillinger of the OU into your media friendly "pseuds mix". How about the entire writing staff of the Discovery Channel, who serve us up with factual errors on a daily basis, while you're at it... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.5.68.95 (talk) 01:33, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Who is the 'you're' you are referring to above - isn't the very first commenter you ? - 124.191.144.183 (talk) 16:06, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Page needs improvement

The lede is too long, should be summed up and the rest put in the body of the article. Found this reference to his newest book in the media today, was going to edit it in but then noticed that none of his books have their own pages. http://www.thewhig.com/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=3347603 Lots of work to be done, and as public as this man is we should have more pictures of him. I just added this page to my watchlist and my to-do list (which is extremely long) don't know when I will have time. But just in case someone is watching this page and wants to work on it? Sgerbic (talk) 00:17, 1 November 2011 (UTC)