Talk:Rom Houben

Neutrality of controversy section

The controversy section in general feels very biased. There is plenty of evidence that supports both sides of the argument but I only see the skepticism. I'm particularly bothered by a quote that was taken out of context and placed in a way that suggests the whole thing is a scam. Would someone more committed than I please take this into consideration? — Iggy Koopa (talk) 10:30, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I have added some countervailing evidence for balance - namely, Laureys claims that he verified the FC. However, the "verification" performed does not sound like a formal scientific study, let alone a peer-reviewed study. I'll email Laureys to try and find out (although I imagine he is getting floods of email at the moment).—greenrd (talk) 13:07, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the lede has a problem of POV in stating as fact that he's communicating, when that is merely alleged and when the scientific consensus is that FC IS a scam. There is NOT "plenty of evidence" to support FC. E-mailing the Doctor is OR, and in any case, getting his own opinion of his test is not particularly scientific. It's possible the Doctor is right in his tests regarding Houben's brain activity, in which case that Houben's being puppeteered is particularly outrageous. Hopefully the case will be investigated further and criminal proceedings against the FC woman will result. Шизомби (talk) 16:35, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

There's no reason for "criminal proceedings against the FC woman." If she's the one doing the communicating, it's almost certainly self-delusion via the ideomotor effect, not conscious fraud. Lippard (talk) 17:46, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Fair point about POV in the lead, Schizombie. I've added the word "apparently" to correct this. I also agree with Lippard's comment above that if Linda Wouters is actually the one communicating, there's no reason to assume she's aware of that fact. The ideomotor effect which may be involved is basically the same phenomenon which can make ouija boards work even when nobody's doing it on purpose. Contains Mild Peril (talk) 05:57, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, hopefully it is pious fraud rather than conscious fraud, although there's no excuse for anybody being fooled by FC when it was debunked so long ago. That he's "apparently" communicating isn't exactly accurate either, since what is apparent is that he isn't communicating at all (particularly when his firmly gripped hand is being rapidly tapped on the screen by her when he's looking away with his eyes closed). Although "allegedly" is such an unfortunate word to use, it seems like the most appropriate one. Anyway, this article should probably get merged to FC or something at some point, just as the 2008 Bigfoot hoax where the media was similarly asleep at the wheel doesn't have its own article either. Though I suppose some editors might like to wait for there to be more definitive proof of it being a hoax, even though what is actually needed is definitive proof that it is real. Шизомби (talk) 06:31, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I suspect that even if this is "proven" a hoax, a substantial number of people, particularly conservative activists, will still believe it to be true (unlike Bigfoot 2008), so it may deserve to keep its own article....BloodGrapefruit2 (talk) 14:18, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I know several people (myself included) who taught themselves to type one-fingered while not looking at the keyset just to see if it could be done. It's just another form of touch typing. There are different methods of FC; this may not be a fraud. More tests need to be done obviously. --Bluejay Young (talk) 05:50, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

What? That has no relation to the argument. No one's said that you can't type without looking at a keyboard. What? 69.122.244.46 (talk) 19:55, 10 February 2014 (UTC)