Ennobling Magic

Discuss general aspects of Genii.
User avatar
jkeyes1000
Posts: 294
Joined: August 2nd, 2012, 3:12 pm

Re: Ennobling Magic

Postby jkeyes1000 » December 19th, 2017, 5:23 pm

Brad Henderson wrote:you suspected it and you were wrong.

this is what happens when you rely on your limited knowledge and lack of experience.

and he doesn't attempt to predict what page tney will look at. He looks at the same page they look at. You don't even know how the trick is done and you are trying to draw conclusions based on the wrong method!

he said i couldn't know what page you are thinking of - that is untrue. He COULD know by just looking at it at the time they look at it - which is exactly the method.

it's a lie

just as miscounting the page is. Or what of the moment when he literally hands playing cards to one of the participants? you condemn the hoy test because the magician tells them what page and word to look at, but canasta literally hands him two cards and tells them what they are at the end

you don't pick your examples very well.

and again, you are trying to spin matters. 1) you claim a real psychic would have a hard time knowing what line is what. But why? if the psychic has the ability to see a thought of page in their mind and count down to the line requested and over to the word, why would they be wrong? if i can count then why wouldn't the psychic be able to? counting is not the psychics skill. And the fact that a psychic has this odd ability to know what can't be known, why would they get it wrong? you say it's logical they would, but why? show me the accepted, proven, scientific text on what real psychics do and where it says that all psychics make mistakes like this. you may as well have said we all known dragons are green because logic says they must be.

and a psychic ISNT someone with a good memory. the psychic sees what cannot be seen. once again you are confusing method and effect. You are thinking like a magician.

a psychic can get their information from many sources, perhaps they have an angel that whispers in their ear. Maybe they pick up vibrations. neither of which require counting.

but that doesn't change the fact (as corroborated by britland) that canasta miscounted to the line. Why he would have gotten it wrong is irrelevant. The issue is that he did what you condemn users of hoy of - lying, specifically miscalling. he miscalls the line number.

heck, by you logic if i'm going to use the hoy ruse i'm not lying because maybe when i looked at the page number i accidentally saw the wrong one and just happened to call out the force page. I mean, if a psychic seeing a page in their mind could reasonably count to the wrong line (and that isn't lying to you) why couldn't i as a mind reader make the same sort of mistake and see the wrong numbers at the bottom of the page? my eyesight isn't so good, you know.

so again, your position is groundless.

oh, and then there is the interview in The People that canasta gave in 1960 where he openly lies about what he does methodologically. this is in part what has led to you flawed 'understanding' of his photographic memory.

once again keyes, you really should try and to know SOMETHING about the subjects you post on. maybe spend less time making videos in your car and get out there and actually perform some magic for real people.

it certainly can't hurt - you.


Brad, we all know you are trying to extricate yourself from your own bad logic, and turn the tables on me, but it's not going to work.

You try to obscure my point, which is that Canasta didn't need to lie in the Parkinson video by scrounging around for some other trick that he might have lied in the performance of.

I have never been so bold as to claim that Randi or Canasta or anyone "never lied in their entire careers". This is YOUR straw man tactic.

You desperately nitpick everything I say in hope of finding a single fault. Which you haven't managed yet.

You are trying to find as many flaws in my argument as I have found in yours. And you just keep falling further behind.

I don't think like you, Brad. I don't huff and puff and bluff my way through a debate. I stand on solid principles rather than emotional wellsprings.

For the last time: No one, Chan or you or me, can predict with certainty what a volunteer will choose IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES that we were discussing. Therefore, it was not a lie to say, "I couldn't know what page you picked. I really couldn't!".

Chan and Parkinson did not both look at the chosen page at the same time. And even if he had, he still couldn't be sure of the man's choice.

I do not believe this was a deliberate miscall. Mr. Britland may or may not have concluded that Canasta lied on occasion, but you are going far afield in search of vindication.

Brad Henderson
Posts: 3634
Joined: January 17th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Location: austin, tx

Re: Ennobling Magic

Postby Brad Henderson » December 19th, 2017, 7:18 pm

you don't know how the trick works, do you?

they look at the page at the same time.

this isn't some dark secret, it's been published in the book on canasta. It's the same method as in erdnase but with a book instead of cards.

when he says there is no way i could know which page you thought of, that is an untrue statement. he knows which page was thought of because he knows which page was the most visible during the flip. this is not a force as he doesn't know which page it will be before he does it. he pauses and literally looks at the exact same page as does the host. That's how he CAN know which page was thought of. that mistakes happen doesn't mean that there is no way he could know the page. clearly there is a way and he proved it many times over his career.

so when you claim he doesn't lie, he does.

first with that and then when he miscalls the line number which he presents as the correct one.

what he does is no different from miscalling the page with the hoy ruse.

you can stomp your feet and say NO all you want, but that doesn't make it any less true.

so 1) your notion that magic is harmed by people lying goes unsupported 2) your knowledge of canasta'a work is literally no more advanced than the speculation of an uninformed lay man.

remember it was you who in response to magicbyalfreds post discussing why the audience believed in him stated the following reasons


"Believe in him". Exactly. Because he was more realistic than most magicians, more willing to admit fallibility. And you may also note that his book test did not require lying.


he wasn't more realistic than many of other noted british magicians. And he lied - not
just in this booktest but in other routines as well. So your rationale as presented isn't based on reality

that seems to be your MO.

you wanted to use canasta to support
your baseless claim that performances without lies garner less suspicion from an audience - but canasta lied, so clearly that didn't have anything to do with the success you claim he achieved.

in other words,
you are wrong

but please know, i have no desire to turn the tables on you. I am more than happy to merely point out to everyone exactly where you have chosen to sit.

Bill Mullins
Posts: 4520
Joined: January 17th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Location: Huntsville, AL

Re: Ennobling Magic

Postby Bill Mullins » December 19th, 2017, 7:28 pm

At this point, magic should be completely and fully ennobled.

Brad Henderson
Posts: 3634
Joined: January 17th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Location: austin, tx

Re: Ennobling Magic

Postby Brad Henderson » December 19th, 2017, 7:33 pm

yes. the audiences who can't tell when a competent performer lies think so much more highly of magic as an art now that they don't know when a competent performer has lied.

User avatar
jkeyes1000
Posts: 294
Joined: August 2nd, 2012, 3:12 pm

Re: Ennobling Magic

Postby jkeyes1000 » December 19th, 2017, 7:37 pm

Brad Henderson wrote:you don't know how the trick works, do you?

they look at the page at the same time.

this isn't some dark secret, it's been published in the book on canasta. It's the same method as in erdnase but with a book instead of cards.

when he says there is no way i could know which page you thought of, that is an untrue statement. he knows which page was thought of because he knows which page was the most visible during the flip. this is not a force as he doesn't know which page it will be before he does it. he pauses and literally looks at the exact same page as does the host. That's how he CAN know which page was thought of. that mistakes happen doesn't mean that there is no way he could know the page. clearly there is a way and he proved it many times over his career.

so when you claim he doesn't lie, he does.

first with that and then when he miscalls the line number which he presents as the correct one.

what he does is no different from miscalling the page with the hoy ruse.

you can stomp your feet and say NO all you want, but that doesn't make it any less true.

so 1) your notion that magic is harmed by people lying goes unsupported 2) your knowledge of canasta'a work is literally no more advanced than the speculation of an uninformed lay man.

remember it was you who in response to magicbyalfreds post discussing why the audience believed in him stated the following reasons


"Believe in him". Exactly. Because he was more realistic than most magicians, more willing to admit fallibility. And you may also note that his book test did not require lying.


he wasn't more realistic than many of other noted british magicians. And he lied - not
just in this booktest but in other routines as well. So your rationale as presented isn't based on reality

that seems to be your MO.

you wanted to use canasta to support
your baseless claim that performances without lies garner less suspicion from an audience - but canasta lied, so clearly that didn't have anything to do with the success you claim he achieved.

in other words,
you are wrong

but please know, i have no desire to turn the tables on you. I am more than happy to merely point out to everyone exactly where you have chosen to sit.


You are purposely missing the salient point, Brad. It doesn't matter what precise method is used. If the volunteer's decision is ultimately his own, then the performer cannot know for certain "what he is thinking". Therefore he is not lying.

Now, as for the deliberate miscall idea. I have one simple question for you. Why in bloody hell would Canasta bother to use s page force technique if he had no intention of getting it right?.

Brad Henderson
Posts: 3634
Joined: January 17th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Location: austin, tx

Re: Ennobling Magic

Postby Brad Henderson » December 19th, 2017, 9:08 pm


You are purposely missing the salient point, Brad. It doesn't matter what precise method is used. If the volunteer's decision is ultimately his own, then the performer cannot know for certain "what he is thinking". Therefore he is not lying.


he doesn't state the choice was the spectators own. he says there is 'no way' he could know what page the spec thought of.

to say there is no way he could know what page he was thinking of is to say there is no method by which it could be known. that is untrue. There is a way he could know what page was chosen - for example, he could look at it, which is what he does.

the fact he got it wrong doesn't mean there is no way he could do it. there is a way, it just isn't completely reliable.

another example. i could give you a free choice of a page and ask you to write it down. For me to say there is no way for me to know what page you have thought of is untrue even if you have a free choice - for example i could listen to the sounds of a chalk against a slate on which you wrote the number and decipher what it is. likewise i could read the top of your pen as you make your note on a pad. Or i could catch a glimpse in a mirror behind you. Or i could have coated the top of the table in wax and read the impression left behind.

None of these are sure fire. but they certainly are ways in which i could know what page you thought of.

so when canasta says there is no way that he could know what page the host thought of he is lying. we even know how he does it! he just looks at it.

the fact that he does the trick at all proves there is a way.

Now, as for the deliberate miscall idea. I have one simple question for you. Why in bloody hell would Canasta bother to use s page force technique if he had no intention of getting it right?.


you have no idea what we are talking about, do you?

but to answer your question i merely refer you to the work of uri gellar.

to the point: you condemn the hoy ruse because the magician lies about which page was stopped on

in the video canasta lies about which line his announced sentence is on. The words he announces are NOT on the line that the spectator chose. He miscounts and passes the line he needs for the one selected.

this is NO DIFFERENT from the magician who miscalls the page for the one he needs.

i don't expect you to understand this. 1) you don't even know what canasta has been doing 2) your entire argument is based on the delineation of lies into categories that harbor no difference - verbal lies are bad unless they are a certain type of verbal lie. physical lies are ok, unless they are a certain type of physical lie. And all of these lies are ok if your argument needs them to be ok.

you are spouting nonsense.

baseless groundless nonsense.

User avatar
jkeyes1000
Posts: 294
Joined: August 2nd, 2012, 3:12 pm

Re: Ennobling Magic

Postby jkeyes1000 » December 19th, 2017, 10:04 pm

Brad Henderson wrote:

You are purposely missing the salient point, Brad. It doesn't matter what precise method is used. If the volunteer's decision is ultimately his own, then the performer cannot know for certain "what he is thinking". Therefore he is not lying.


he doesn't state the choice was the spectators own. he says there is 'no way' he could know what page the spec thought of.

to say there is no way he could know what page he was thinking of is to say there is no method by which it could be known. that is untrue. There is a way he could know what page was chosen - for example, he could look at it, which is what he does.

the fact he got it wrong doesn't mean there is no way he could do it. there is a way, it just isn't completely reliable.

another example. i could give you a free choice of a page and ask you to write it down. For me to say there is no way for me to know what page you have thought of is untrue even if you have a free choice - for example i could listen to the sounds of a chalk against a slate on which you wrote the number and decipher what it is. likewise i could read the top of your pen as you make your note on a pad. Or i could catch a glimpse in a mirror behind you. Or i could have coated the top of the table in wax and read the impression left behind.

None of these are sure fire. but they certainly are ways in which i could know what page you thought of.

so when canasta says there is no way that he could know what page the host thought of he is lying. we even know how he does it! he just looks at it.

the fact that he does the trick at all proves there is a way.

Now, as for the deliberate miscall idea. I have one simple question for you. Why in bloody hell would Canasta bother to use s page force technique if he had no intention of getting it right?.


you have no idea what we are talking about, do you?

but to answer your question i merely refer you to the work of uri gellar.

to the point: you condemn the hoy ruse because the magician lies about which page was stopped on

in the video canasta lies about which line his announced sentence is on. The words he announces are NOT on the line that the spectator chose. He miscounts and passes the line he needs for the one selected.

this is NO DIFFERENT from the magician who miscalls the page for the one he needs.

i don't expect you to understand this. 1) you don't even know what canasta has been doing 2) your entire argument is based on the delineation of lies into categories that harbor no difference - verbal lies are bad unless they are a certain type of verbal lie. physical lies are ok, unless they are a certain type of physical lie. And all of these lies are ok if your argument needs them to be ok.

you are spouting nonsense.

baseless groundless nonsense.


You are still blubbering.

To "know" what a person is thinking constitutes but one thing: telepathy. Any other means is uncertain and therefore ccannot be called knowledge. I would even go so far as to say that telepathy would be less than certain. If it were true, it would likely be as subject to interference and distortion as any other form of communication.. No, Brad. A possible means of influencing a person's decision does not equate to knowing what they have decided.

"You have no idea what we are talking about, do you?"

Is that the best you can do? Of course it is.

If you had an answer to my question I have no doubt that you would belabour it. Do tell, Brad. What are we talking about?

You fail to explain why Canasta would use a force if his intention were to miscall the page, and then proceed to reiterate your baseless assumption that he did it deliberately! Wow, that's slick.

Brad Henderson
Posts: 3634
Joined: January 17th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Location: austin, tx

Re: Ennobling Magic

Postby Brad Henderson » December 19th, 2017, 10:47 pm

he didn't use a force. he didn't miscall a page.

it was you who thought he was attempting a force, not me. He miscounted the lines just as the hoy operator miscalls the page. They are both lies.

but you know that. you just are painted in a corner and can't say anything else. or you don't in which case you simply aren't qualified to be sharing your 'opinions' with anyone.

ah, so now we are using the 4th definition of knowledge from the euro-magi edition of the cambridge dictionary of keynesian terms?

so the only way i can know which card you picked is to have telepathy? that's what you are going with?

i can know what card you picked by glimpsing it when you look at it.

i may get it wrong, but that doesn't mean there is no way for me to know it. of course there is - by looking at it when you do. Which is exactly canastas method.

Brad Henderson
Posts: 3634
Joined: January 17th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Location: austin, tx

Re: Ennobling Magic

Postby Brad Henderson » December 19th, 2017, 10:55 pm

so i pulled up the oed.

to know:
1. Be aware of through observation, inquiry, or information.
1.1 Have knowledge or information concerning.
1.2 Be absolutely certain or sure about something

so, according to keyes only the first definition is the real definition and all others are far less common and should not
be considered authoritative - remember those posts.

well, could canasta have knowledge or information concerning which page was selected? did that come from observation ? obviously so - as evident by the fact he regularly performed this trick successfully.

your archaic requirement that to 'know' requires certainty is three levels down and even then the example
provided doesn't suggest that certainity
had to be predetermined.

by your standards that is NOT a valid interpretation for that word, a mere colloquialism as you put it. and as you have stated you are expert in your use of language i must believe that when you use the word know you are doing so ONLY as prescribed by the primary definition.

so to say that 'to know' requires absolute certainty is baseless by your own standard.

does it hurt when you keep shooting yourself in the foot ?

User avatar
jkeyes1000
Posts: 294
Joined: August 2nd, 2012, 3:12 pm

Re: Ennobling Magic

Postby jkeyes1000 » December 20th, 2017, 7:46 am

Brad Henderson wrote:so i pulled up the oed.

to know:
1. Be aware of through observation, inquiry, or information.
1.1 Have knowledge or information concerning.
1.2 Be absolutely certain or sure about something

so, according to keyes only the first definition is the real definition and all others are far less common and should not
be considered authoritative - remember those posts.

well, could canasta have knowledge or information concerning which page was selected? did that come from observation ? obviously so - as evident by the fact he regularly performed this trick successfully.

your archaic requirement that to 'know' requires certainty is three levels down and even then the example
provided doesn't suggest that certainity
had to be predetermined.

by your standards that is NOT a valid interpretation for that word, a mere colloquialism as you put it. and as you have stated you are expert in your use of language i must believe that when you use the word know you are doing so ONLY as prescribed by the primary definition.

so to say that 'to know' requires absolute certainty is baseless by your own standard.

does it hurt when you keep shooting yourself in the foot ?


None of these definitions apply to the situation we are discusing. One cannot "be aware of" a person's private thoughts by observation. Nor by any of the means stated in the OED. This definition deals with practical perceptions, not presumptions.

Here is a quote by Chan Canasta, from the very same Parkinson interview in which he performed his "book experiment", which explains exactly what he meant:

"The idea is that I couldn't possibly know which card you've taken. Which CARDS you've taken. But presumably, you presume by now (and everybody else does) that I DO know the three cards.

"Right?

"ButI, though--if I DO know the three cards, could I possibly be ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN which card you selected in your mind?"

Here is the link (the quote is at approximately 7:00).

https://youtu.be/Aoq9sE7zic0
"

performer
Posts: 2367
Joined: August 7th, 2015, 10:35 pm

Re: Ennobling Magic

Postby performer » December 20th, 2017, 10:38 am

Sometimes I think Chan Canasta was too truthful for comfort!

performer
Posts: 2367
Joined: August 7th, 2015, 10:35 pm

Re: Ennobling Magic

Postby performer » December 20th, 2017, 10:42 am

To my great amusement just now, I was browsing through a magic book and came across a Paul Curry trick entitled "You're a liar". I remember reading it in my youth. I think in view of this thread I might just read it again!

Brad Henderson
Posts: 3634
Joined: January 17th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Location: austin, tx

Re: Ennobling Magic

Postby Brad Henderson » December 20th, 2017, 11:14 am

the monkey keeps dancing.

ah, so the source you claim as authoritative for the meaning of words now isn't. At least you arent a man of principle.

and you can't be 'aware' of someone's thoughts by observation? really?

are you autistic?

because most people can be aware of other people's thoughts by observation. We can tell when someone is excited or sad. autistic people, it is my understanding, can't or at least have difficulty with this.

apparently you have never read erdnase or heard of david berglas. Both have techniques where they become aware of someone's choices by observation.

and then there is that whole messy industry of psychics who can size someone up by looking at them and determine what they are interested in with just a few exchanged words.

of course knowing someone's thoughts isn't what canasta said. he said there was no way he could know what page was thought of - but yet he did this trick often, so clearly there must be a way, unless you are going to tell me he really didn't ever do this trick, or that he wasn't doing a real trick but was actually telepathic, but then that WOULD be the way he knew the page. So it seems in every situation if possibility chan is lying.

face it keyes, you stepped in it.

but why fight it? why can't you just admit you were wrong and learn from your mistakes? you confessed you have very little experience performing as a magician, do you wish to improve?

do we improve by refusing to accept and adopt new ideas and better thinking or by sticking with flawed ideas?

you came here wanting opinions on your idea, and you got them. No one thinks they have any merit. so why do you insist or sticking with it? or did you never intend to actually listen and learn?

User avatar
jkeyes1000
Posts: 294
Joined: August 2nd, 2012, 3:12 pm

Re: Ennobling Magic

Postby jkeyes1000 » December 20th, 2017, 12:12 pm

Brad Henderson wrote:the monkey keeps dancing.

ah, so the source you claim as authoritative for the meaning of words now isn't. At least you arent a man of principle.

and you can't be 'aware' of someone's thoughts by observation? really?

are you autistic?

because most people can be aware of other people's thoughts by observation. We can tell when someone is excited or sad. autistic people, it is my understanding, can't or at least have difficulty with this.

apparently you have never read erdnase or heard of david berglas. Both have techniques where they become aware of someone's choices by observation.

and then there is that whole messy industry of psychics who can size someone up by looking at them and determine what they are interested in with just a few exchanged words. P ppll

of course knowing someone's thoughts isn't what canasta said. he said there was no way he could know what page was thought of - but yet he did this trick often, so clearly there must be a way, unless you are going to tell me he really didn't ever do this trick, or that he wasn't doing a real trick but was actually telepathic, but then that WOULD be the way he knew the page. So it seems in every situation if possibility chan is lying.

face it keyes, you stepped in it.

but why fight it? why can't you just admit you were wrong and learn from your mistakes? you confessed you have very little experience performing as a magician, do you wish to improve?

do we improve by refusing to accept and adopt new ideas and better thinking or by sticking with flawed ideas?

you came here wanting opinions on your idea, and you got them. No one thinks they have any merit. so why do you insist or sticking with it? or did you never intend to actually listen and learn?
"

You misunderstand. I do not dispute the OED's authority. I find fault with your interpretation of it.

The word you want is "guess", Brad. Or "suppose", or "presume". Not "know".

But you have always had a hard time distinguishing these terms, haven't you?

You think you know.

Seeing what someone else sees does not give you certain knowledge of what he or she is thinking. That is NOT the kind of "observation" the OED refers to. It means the observation of OBSERVABLE THINGS, oddly enough.

If Canasta sees that Parkinson sees the pages, then he is aware by means of observation THAT HE SAW THE PAGES. Not that he DECIDED UPON page 80.

And like a true weasel, you ignore Canasta's own words telling us precisely how he defined " to know". That is, "to be absolutely certain". A definition UNDERSTOOD AND AGREED UPON by the host.

Brad Henderson
Posts: 3634
Joined: January 17th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Location: austin, tx

Re: Ennobling Magic

Postby Brad Henderson » December 20th, 2017, 4:38 pm

Seeing what someone else sees does not give you certain knowledge of what he or she is thinking. That is NOT the kind of "observation" the OED refers to. It means the observation of OBSERVABLE THINGS, oddly enough.


ah, so if knowledge means 'certain knowledge' as you claim, why do you have to clarify knowledge with the adjective certain (as
you do)? if it must be certain for it to be considered knowledge the first place. your own words belie the meaning you are trying to shoe horn. You wouldn't need to modify the word knowledge if it were already certain by definition. as an expert with words, you couldn't even utter 'certain knowledge' without bristling at the redundancy.

so lying is bad, except for certain lies, but not others. and some knowledge is certain but other types aren't but those other types aren't knowledge.

please, continue.

but to observe the page seen IS a means to know the page seen. to say there is no way that one could know the page is a lie. it can be known because it was seen. we
know it CAN be known, because he has done the trick before.

now, is it CERTAIN knowledge?

no. but that's not what he says. he says there is NO WAY i can know what page
you are thinking of.

let's change the example. if i said there is no way i could know the card
you are about to pick you would say that had to be true because i don't know which card you will actually pick. But i can classic force. so there IS a way for me to know by influencing your selection. Sure,
i might miss the force. But that doesn't change the fact that there exists a means through which i can know the card you will pick.

same thing here. There IS a means through which he can know which page was selected. its the same
as printed in erdnase and berglas. That the technique isn't guaranteed doesn't make the means suddenly non existent.

but your attempt to demand we restrict the meaning of knowledge to absolute certainty is bold. much like your demand we restrict lying to mere verbal utterances.

when you have to force people to use language only in the very narrow lanes which support your position, you have no position

you're wrong

again

Brad Henderson
Posts: 3634
Joined: January 17th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Location: austin, tx

Re: Ennobling Magic

Postby Brad Henderson » December 20th, 2017, 4:46 pm

but all that misses the point. you wrote that canasta didn't lie as contributing to the audiences feeling towards him. But we know he does lie, even if not this instance. you admit it yourself.

so clearly then his decision to lie or not lie HAS NOTHING to do with his success or failures. in other words, your original claim remains groundless

User avatar
jkeyes1000
Posts: 294
Joined: August 2nd, 2012, 3:12 pm

Re: Ennobling Magic

Postby jkeyes1000 » December 21st, 2017, 10:40 am

Brad Henderson wrote:
Seeing what someone else sees does not give you certain knowledge of what he or she is thinking. That is NOT the kind of "observation" the OED refers to. It means the observation of OBSERVABLE THINGS, oddly enough.


ah, so if knowledge means 'certain knowledge' as you claim, why do you have to clarify knowledge with the adjective certain (as
you do)? if it must be certain for it to be considered knowledge the first place. your own words belie the meaning you are trying to shoe horn. You wouldn't need to modify the word knowledge if it were already certain by definition. as an expert with words, you couldn't even utter 'certain knowledge' without bristling at the redundancy.

so lying is bad, except for certain lies, but not others. and some knowledge is certain but other types aren't but those other types aren't knowledge.

please, continue.

but to observe the page seen IS a means to know the page seen. to say there is no way that one could know the page is a lie. it can be known because it was seen. we
know it CAN be known, because he has done the trick before.

now, is it CERTAIN knowledge?

no. but that's not what he says. he says there is NO WAY i can know what page
you are thinking of.

let's change the example. if i said there is no way i could know the card
you are about to pick you would say that had to be true because i don't know which card you will actually pick. But i can classic force. so there IS a way for me to know by influencing your selection. Sure,
i might miss the force. But that doesn't change the fact that there exists a means through which i can know the card you will pick.

same thing here. There IS a means through which he can know which page was selected. its the same
as printed in erdnase and berglas. That the technique isn't guaranteed doesn't make the means suddenly non existent.

but your attempt to demand we restrict the meaning of knowledge to absolute certainty is bold. much like your demand we restrict lying to mere verbal utterances.

when you have to force people to use language only in the very narrow lanes which support your position, you have no position

you're wrong

again


You ask me why I need to qualify knowledge" as "certain? Because some folks don't realise that it ought to be.

"When you have to force people to use language only in the very narrow lanes which support your position, you have no position".

No, if you don't insist on precise terms, then you have no position, Brad.

I noticed something interesting in the older video of Chan doing his book test. It is NOT CLEAR whether he actually miscounted the line.

What he does is count down the lines at the end and apologise for beiing "one off". But then he says essentially, "No, no! I was right, it was line twenty-one". So I think he might have merely been careless (or seemingly negligent) when he counted the lines OUT LOUD, but that he then corrected himself. In other words, it might not have been a "miscall" at at all. He might really have got it right. The only way to verify this would be to find a copy of that particular Rex Stout book and count the lines oneself.

Brad Henderson
Posts: 3634
Joined: January 17th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Location: austin, tx

Re: Ennobling Magic

Postby Brad Henderson » December 21st, 2017, 1:03 pm

again, if you knew the topic at all, you would be familiar with britlands work and he confirms it as a miscount

have you considered a job at fox news?

Ted M
Posts: 911
Joined: January 24th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Favorite Magician: Dani DaOrtiz
Location: Madison, WI

Re: Ennobling Magic

Postby Ted M » December 21st, 2017, 1:08 pm

Year-end awards are upon us.

With 577 replies, I nominate this topic for Epic Troll Of The Year.

User avatar
AJM
Posts: 1081
Joined: January 17th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Location: Scotland

Re: Ennobling Magic

Postby AJM » December 21st, 2017, 1:24 pm

I agree, the thread is almost as long as the Erdnase troll-fest - principally because those posting copy entire swathes of previous content before adding their next two cents worth.

About time both threads were retired for a period in my view.

Andrew
Corner-boy Begrudger

Jonathan Townsend
Posts: 7702
Joined: January 17th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Location: Westchester, NY
Contact:

Re: Ennobling Magic

Postby Jonathan Townsend » December 21st, 2017, 1:31 pm

jkeyes1000 wrote:...
...dispensing with deliberate misstatements?


So now we're focused on method weakness which could alert an incredulous lay audience to trickery at an inopportune moment. Seems a good idea.
Mundus vult decipi -per Caleb Carr's story Killing Time

performer
Posts: 2367
Joined: August 7th, 2015, 10:35 pm

Re: Ennobling Magic

Postby performer » December 21st, 2017, 1:40 pm

I am very happy for this thread to keep going. I am curious to see how long it will last and who will concede the last word. After all there is nothing else much going on here anyway!

User avatar
jkeyes1000
Posts: 294
Joined: August 2nd, 2012, 3:12 pm

Re: Ennobling Magic

Postby jkeyes1000 » December 21st, 2017, 5:56 pm

Brad Henderson wrote:again, if you knew the topic at all, you would be familiar with britlands work and he confirms it as a miscount

have you considered a job at fox news?


I am familiar enough with the topic to quote Andy Nyman's review of the book:

"No matter how good Britland's theories are, they will always remain just that. Whilst Britland may be 100% correct on every piece of speculation - it can never be anything other than that."

Authors are far from perfect. They make many mistakes in gathering a myriad of data from various sources. I think it quite likely that Britland simply watched the videos and drew his conclusions from them. He is no more qualified to be right than anyone else. Anyone can write a book. I can write a book, you can write a book

So long as the publisher thinks it can make money, it isn't awfully fussy about accuracy.

Brad Henderson
Posts: 3634
Joined: January 17th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Location: austin, tx

Re: Ennobling Magic

Postby Brad Henderson » December 21st, 2017, 6:33 pm

AJM wrote: those posting copy entire swathes of previous content before adding their next two cents worth.

Andrew


not all

performer
Posts: 2367
Joined: August 7th, 2015, 10:35 pm

Re: Ennobling Magic

Postby performer » December 21st, 2017, 6:36 pm

I thought David's speculation was pretty astute, actually! I do take the point that we can't be 100 percent sure though. I do remember he did an interview with Chan Canasta once although I will concede that Chan probably didn't give away his methods during the meeting.

Brad Henderson
Posts: 3634
Joined: January 17th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Location: austin, tx

Re: Ennobling Magic

Postby Brad Henderson » December 21st, 2017, 6:38 pm

jkeyes1000 wrote:
Brad Henderson wrote:again, if you knew the topic at all, you would be familiar with britlands work and he confirms it as a miscount

have you considered a job at fox news?


I am familiar enough with the topic to quote Andy Nyman's review of the book:

"No matter how good Britland's theories are, they will always remain just that. Whilst Britland may be 100% correct on every piece of speculation - it can never be anything other than that."

Authors are far from perfect. They make many mistakes in gathering a myriad of data from various sources. I think it quite likely that Britland simply watched the videos and drew his conclusions from them. He is no more qualified to be right than anyone else. Anyone can write a book. I can write a book, you can write a book

So long as the publisher thinks it can make money, it isn't awfully fussy about accuracy.


ah, so the expert debater relies on an review of the work and not the work itself. Got it.

i mean, you have no idea what britland says specifically about this moment or what he has done in his effort
to understand it. But unlike you, david britland has experience as a successful performer and a thorough background in the history of magic and how it's methods have been successfully used. He actually interviewed canasta and knew people personally who knew him. So we can't say heMs unqualified.

So. we can take the analysis of a respected and proven researcher/ thinker OR the work or someone who admits to not being a particularly successful or well studied magician whose only interest is to create illusions for people to try and figure out.

sure authors make mistakes. but that doesn't mean this author - britland - made a mistake.

we could discuss britlands findings - but you can't because you are relying on someone's summation of the entire book and not any 'certain knowledge' of what was written.

got it!

User avatar
jkeyes1000
Posts: 294
Joined: August 2nd, 2012, 3:12 pm

Re: Ennobling Magic

Postby jkeyes1000 » December 21st, 2017, 8:11 pm

Brad Henderson wrote:
jkeyes1000 wrote:
Brad Henderson wrote:again, if you knew the topic at all, you would be familiar with britlands work and he confirms it as a miscount

have you considered a job at fox news?


I am familiar enough with the topic to quote Andy Nyman's review of the book:

"No matter how good Britland's theories are, they will always remain just that. Whilst Britland may be 100% correct on every piece of speculation - it can never be anything other than that."

Authors are far from perfect. They make many mistakes in gathering a myriad of data from various sources. I think it quite likely that Britland simply watched the videos and drew his conclusions from them. He is no more qualified to be right than anyone else. Anyone can write a book. I can write a book, you can write a book

So long as the publisher thinks it can make money, it isn't awfully fussy about accuracy.


ah, so the expert debater relies on an review of the work and not the work itself. Got it.

i mean, you have no idea what britland says specifically about this moment or what he has done in his effort
to understand it. But unlike you, david britland has experience as a successful performer and a thorough background in the history of magic and how it's methods have been successfully used. He actually interviewed canasta and knew people personally who knew him. So we can't say heMs unqualified.

So. we can take the analysis of a respected and proven researcher/ thinker OR the work or someone who admits to not being a particularly successful or well studied magician whose only interest is to create illusions for people to try and figure out.

sure authors make mistakes. but that doesn't mean this author - britland - made a mistake.

we could discuss britlands findings - but you can't because you are relying on someone's summation of the entire book and not any 'certain knowledge' of what was written.

got it!


As I presume that you have read the book, you can tell us what the author says he based his conclusion on.

And just to be clear: by "based" I mean the objective foundations or sources, rather than Britland's own subjective opinions and experiences.

Jack Shalom
Posts: 487
Joined: February 7th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Location: Brooklyn NY

Re: Ennobling Magic

Postby Jack Shalom » December 21st, 2017, 8:47 pm

For one who dismisses Picasso with a flick of the mouse, Britland is but a mere gnat.

performer
Posts: 2367
Joined: August 7th, 2015, 10:35 pm

Re: Ennobling Magic

Postby performer » December 21st, 2017, 10:15 pm

I am getting a psychic vibe that David Britland is reading this as we speak.........................

Brad Henderson
Posts: 3634
Joined: January 17th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Location: austin, tx

Re: Ennobling Magic

Postby Brad Henderson » December 22nd, 2017, 12:38 am

if you want to know what britland says, buy the book.

User avatar
jkeyes1000
Posts: 294
Joined: August 2nd, 2012, 3:12 pm

Re: Ennobling Magic

Postby jkeyes1000 » December 22nd, 2017, 8:00 am

Brad Henderson wrote:if you want to know what britland says, buy the book.


I got a glimpse at Vol. II, in which Mr. Britland says:

"The publication of Chan Canasta--A Remarkable Man raised as many questions as it had answered. I had expected to analyse one videotape of a forgotten performer. Instead I found three tapes, many reviews, articles and newspaper cuttings and cross-referenced them to piece together what I believe to be Canasta's methodology."

User avatar
jkeyes1000
Posts: 294
Joined: August 2nd, 2012, 3:12 pm

Re: Ennobling Magic

Postby jkeyes1000 » December 22nd, 2017, 10:30 am

I was toying with the idea of doing a "book test" in order to intuit the contents of Britland's work (I thought that would be uproariously funny), but I did a bit of research instead.

A few vollies ago, we were talking about whether or not Chan may have had foreknowledge of the books. I said that I suspect he memorised the force pages in a dozen or so titles prior to the broadcast. Here is Brad's reply:

"You suspected it and you were wrong.

"This is what happens when you rely on your limited knowledge and lack of experience."

Now let us consult the highest authority on Chan Canasta, none other than David Britland himself.

From page 38 of Volume II:

"The People challenged Canasta to repeat the [Guildhall Library] feat in their office. He did and successfully but The People noted that Chan first asked to be allowed to look through the books that were going to be used. And that on air Canasta had said that he had 'Never spent more than 20 minutes in the Guildhall Library in his life.' This might well be true but, they added, 'It became clear that those 20 minutes were spent before the broadcast when the cameras were being put in position and he knew the shelf from which [Tom] Fallon was to select the book."

And a bit further down:

"The People could only praise Canasta's skills, saying that the key to aIl his feats lay in 'A fabulous memory, intense powers of observation, skill with sorting and forcing cards--and a brilliant and intuitive knowledge of human behaviour.' Which is what Canasta had been saying all along."

Question for Brad: If the strength of Britland's authority has the potential to render me "wrong", then does it not rather prove that you are in error?

And I must say I resent his implication that I am a poor investigative journalist. As evidence to the contrary, I offer a recently published article of mine in a trade magazine for book dealers and collectors. In it, I expose the piracy of "adult paperbacks" in the 1960s, citing an enormous amount of relevant detail and making my own logical inferences. It also has lots of pretty pictures of naughty book covers for those of you that don't wish to strain your eyes with any more text.

https://jkeyes1000.wordpress.com/2016/0 ... ohn-keyes/

Brad Henderson
Posts: 3634
Joined: January 17th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Location: austin, tx

Re: Ennobling Magic

Postby Brad Henderson » December 22nd, 2017, 12:18 pm

oh keyes.

shame you don't have access to vol 1. If so, you would know the library experiment discussed didn't work by him memorizing entire pages of text. In fact it was an entirely different sort of book test.

but it's cute that you but so much trust in what laymen believed. the people claimed chan relied on the memory, not britland.

does the expert grammarian not know what quotation marks mean?

but now that we accept britland as an authority then you will have no dispute with it when he writes:

"it was widely believed that canasta had an eidetic memory and could recall entire pages at a single glance."

that's the story you naively believed

"It's easy to see how this belief arose; it provided an acceptable explanation for canasta's feats. Canasta encourage this belief sometimes mixing the truth with fiction and his interviews"

User avatar
jkeyes1000
Posts: 294
Joined: August 2nd, 2012, 3:12 pm

Re: Ennobling Magic

Postby jkeyes1000 » December 22nd, 2017, 12:49 pm

Brad Henderson wrote:oh keyes.

shame you don't have access to vol 1. If so, you would know the library experiment discussed didn't work by him memorizing entire pages of text. In fact it was an entirely different sort of book test.

but it's cute that you but so much trust in what laymen believed. the people claimed chan relied on the memory, not britland.

does the expert grammarian not know what quotation marks mean?

but now that we accept britland as an authority then you will have no dispute with it when he writes:

"it was widely believed that canasta had an eidetic memory and could recall entire pages at a single glance."

that's the story you naively believed

"It's easy to see how this belief arose; it provided an acceptable explanation for canasta's feats. Canasta encourage this belief sometimes mixing the truth with fiction and his interviews"


First of all, Britland's quote from The People and his own context make it clear that tbe author either concurs or does not dispute the publication's assessment. So either Britland revised his opinion in the second volume, or you misinterpreted his remarks in the first.

The only other way that Canasta could have done the "remote" book test is to have a duplicate set of books. And if that were the case, there is no means of determining whether or not he memorised them. He certainly could have, and it would seem a logical assumption

In any case, Britland says nothing in the follow-up to counter the idea.

We simply don't know if Chan actually had what we would call a "photographic memory", but his mnemonic abilities were evidently superior. Just being able to identify "line 21" in a split second borders on the phenomenal. To commit half a dozen successive words to his gray matter in the same instant is more impressive still.

performer
Posts: 2367
Joined: August 7th, 2015, 10:35 pm

Re: Ennobling Magic

Postby performer » December 22nd, 2017, 1:31 pm

I don't think Canasta had a photographic memory otherwise he would have bragged about it a bit more. I think he liked to let people speculate that was how he did it. A sort of "too perfect" theory application.

In truth it is not that difficult to estimate 21 lines down if you practice enough. Magicians do it with playing cards. In fact let me try it now. I have never done it in my life before but I read a lot so I bet I could do it. One moment please.

I tried it three times. I got 15 lines, 16 and 17. I am going to try it once more. One moment please. I got 18 that time! I seem to go up one line every time I try it! In any event I don't think it would be any more difficult than learning some sleight or other.

User avatar
jkeyes1000
Posts: 294
Joined: August 2nd, 2012, 3:12 pm

Re: Ennobling Magic

Postby jkeyes1000 » December 22nd, 2017, 7:59 pm

performer wrote:I don't think Canasta had a photographic memory otherwise he would have bragged about it a bit more. I think he liked to let people speculate that was how he did it. A sort of "too perfect" theory application.

In truth it is not that difficult to estimate 21 lines down if you practice enough. Magicians do it with playing cards. In fact let me try it now. I have never done it in my life before but I read a lot so I bet I could do it. One moment please.

I tried it three times. I got 15 lines, 16 and 17. I am going to try it once more. One moment please. I got 18 that time! I seem to go up one line every time I try it! In any event I don't think it would be any more difficult than learning some sleight or other.


You're right, Mark! It isn't that difficult.

I have very bad eyesight, and I managed to do fairly well just now.

I think if you judge the size of the type (most being standard of course) and estimate how many lines per page (say, 32), you can make a quick division into halves or quarters, and then add or subtract 1 or 2 to get the right number.

Brad Henderson
Posts: 3634
Joined: January 17th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Location: austin, tx

Re: Ennobling Magic

Postby Brad Henderson » December 22nd, 2017, 9:10 pm

so we've gone from


My understanding is that Chan had a photographic memory. I suspect that in this early rendition, he committed an entire page to memory FROM EACH BOOK on the shelf, .


to


his mnemonic abilities were evidently superior.



so,
you were wrong.

got it!

performer
Posts: 2367
Joined: August 7th, 2015, 10:35 pm

Re: Ennobling Magic

Postby performer » December 22nd, 2017, 9:42 pm

jkeyes1000 wrote:
performer wrote:I don't think Canasta had a photographic memory otherwise he would have bragged about it a bit more. I think he liked to let people speculate that was how he did it. A sort of "too perfect" theory application.

In truth it is not that difficult to estimate 21 lines down if you practice enough. Magicians do it with playing cards. In fact let me try it now. I have never done it in my life before but I read a lot so I bet I could do it. One moment please.

I tried it three times. I got 15 lines, 16 and 17. I am going to try it once more. One moment please. I got 18 that time! I seem to go up one line every time I try it! In any event I don't think it would be any more difficult than learning some sleight or other.


You're right, Mark! It isn't that difficult.

I have very bad eyesight, and I managed to do fairly well just now.

I think if you judge the size of the type (most being standard of course) and estimate how many lines per page (say, 32), you can make a quick division into halves or quarters, and then add or subtract 1 or 2 to get the right number.


Yes. That is more or less the procedure with cards too. You divide the deck mentally into 52 cards. Then halves then quarters. Same kind of thing actually.
I do have the Britland book but I have no idea where it is. Once I find it I will check it out again. I was around when all those Canasta shows were on and saw most of them so his work interests me.

User avatar
jkeyes1000
Posts: 294
Joined: August 2nd, 2012, 3:12 pm

Re: Ennobling Magic

Postby jkeyes1000 » December 23rd, 2017, 8:10 am

Brad Henderson wrote:so we've gone from


My understanding is that Chan had a photographic memory. I suspect that in this early rendition, he committed an entire page to memory FROM EACH BOOK on the shelf, .


to


his mnemonic abilities were evidently superior.



so,
you were wrong.

got it!


No, I'm afraid you haven't "got it", Brad.

I have established that Mr. Britland is expressing his opinions. That his conclusions do not constitute the ultimate truth of the matter.

Therefore it is YOU that is wrong for asserting that I am.

Got that?

Jack Shalom
Posts: 487
Joined: February 7th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Location: Brooklyn NY

Re: Ennobling Magic

Postby Jack Shalom » December 23rd, 2017, 10:28 am

jkeyes wrote:
Just being able to identify "line 21" in a split second borders on the phenomenal.


and

You're right, Mark! It isn't that difficult.

I have very bad eyesight, and I managed to do fairly well just now.


So which is it?

It's clear what the method was: make an estimate and if wrong, miscall the actual count as the line number first said. Dani DaOrtiz does the same thing with cards--purposely miscounts the cards if his declared estimation was off.


Return to “General”