• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

How to explain this fact?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Cris said:
The Plural of Anecdote is Data

do you agree with me
Click to expand...
No.

Definition of Data
1 : factual information (such as measurements or statistics) used as a basis for reasoning, discussion, or calculation.​

BTW,
Is data singular or plural?

Data leads a life of its own quite independent of datum, of which it was originally the plural. It occurs in two constructions: as a plural noun (like earnings), taking a plural verb and plural modifiers (such as these, many, a few) but not cardinal numbers, and serving as a referent for plural pronouns (such as they, them); and as an abstract mass noun (like information), taking a singular verb and singular modifiers (such as this, much, little), and being referred to by a singular pronoun (it). Both constructions are standard. The plural construction is more common in print, evidently because the house style of several publishers mandates it.
Click to expand...

So data can be singular or plural, but no quantity of anecdotes is ever data - because,

Definition of anecdote
1. A short amusing or interesting story...
1.1 An account regarded as unreliable or hearsay.​
 
Did the “medium” just draw a portrait and ask if looked like any dead loved ones?

That’s the simple way.

If he knew that it was a dead relative of the father, well that’s even easier.
 
Cris said:
To say there is no evidence in an absence of study is an appeal to ignorance.
Click to expand...


But I'm asking specifically for you to provide evidence for people to study.

Where did this drawing session take place? What was the date? Who was the medium? Who was the father? How do you know this actually happened? Were you a witness? If so, please describe step by step exactly what you saw. Do you have contact information for any of the people? What was the name of the daughter? When did she die? How old was she at the time of death? How old was she in the drawing? Can you provide a copy of the drawing? Is there any way for anyone on this forum to verify that any of these events ever occurred?

All of these would be pieces of evidence which we could study. If you don't let give us evidence to study, we cannot tell you our opinions.

A person perfected cold-fusion at room temperature, providing millions of times more energy from a glass of water than from a tanker full of crude oil. This was verified by the father of a young girl.

How could this have been possible?

If you say you don't know because you need more details, are you just appealing to ignorance?

Once again, I demand you explain how this could have been possible.

What is your native language? Would it be helpful if someone here communicated with you in that language?
 
Cris said:
How to explain this fact?
Click to expand...
Nobody here will be able to explain this experience. None of us were there, and you have not provided enough information about it for us to even try and speculate.

However, it is true that a competent stage magician would be able to suggest several different ways that they might be able to produce such an effect, so the principle of parsimony suggests that what you witnessed was a standard magic trick of the kind used by stage magicians, rather than some unknown principle of science which transmits information with no known mechanism.
 
arthwollipot said:
...rather than some unknown principle of science which transmits information with no known mechanism.
Click to expand...

But he's not claiming it's some unknown principle of science. He flat-out claimed it was spirits that told the medium what to draw.

It's not as if he's very good at this. When skeptics refused to give him specific answers, owing to the paucity of evidence, he all but begged them to do so anyway. Now he's trying to make it his critics' fault that he refuses to supply the evidence they asked for in order to support a more specific hypothesis. He's frantically trying to bait his critics into taking up a flagrantly irrational position so that he can chastise them for it.
 
JayUtah said:
But he's not claiming it's some unknown principle of science. He flat-out claimed it was spirits that told the medium what to draw.
Click to expand...
If that's real, then there is a scientific principle that describes it. Because that's what science does - it describes reality.
 
Loss Leader said:
But I'm asking specifically for you to provide evidence for people to study.

Where did this drawing session take place? What was the date? Who was the medium? Who was the father? How do you know this actually happened? Were you a witness? If so, please describe step by step exactly what you saw. Do you have contact information for any of the people? What was the name of the daughter? When did she die? How old was she at the time of death? How old was she in the drawing? Can you provide a copy of the drawing? Is there any way for anyone on this forum to verify that any of these events ever occurred?

All of these would be pieces of evidence which we could study. If you don't let give us evidence to study, we cannot tell you our opinions.

A person perfected cold-fusion at room temperature, providing millions of times more energy from a glass of water than from a tanker full of crude oil. This was verified by the father of a young girl.

How could this have been possible?

If you say you don't know because you need more details, are you just appealing to ignorance?

Once again, I demand you explain how this could have been possible.

What is your native language? Would it be helpful if someone here communicated with you in that language?
Click to expand...

I have other evidence to present.
The difficulty here is the English language for me.
My language is Portuguese
what happened was unexpected.
that's why only the father recognized that the drawing was the daughter's face
You can't think everything is quackery.
Sorry Google Translate. he misses a lot.
 
"The spirits, through a medium" isn't explanation, it's mere attribution- the skeptic equivalent would be "a con-man, through trickery." So all it really boils down to is the usual woo double standard- whether it's spirits or a conspiracy, there's a disparity between what the wooster is willing to accept (or even honestly assess) as evidence/explanation that counters his claim and what he's willing (or able) to put forth to support it. And no amount of counter explanation/evidence will ever be enough, because the wooster can also always fall back on the ultimate incredulity- "maybe that explains other events, but I couldn't be fooled by that!"
 
turingtest said:
"The spirits, through a medium" isn't explanation, it's mere attribution- the skeptic equivalent would be "a con-man, through trickery." So all it really boils down to is the usual woo double standard- whether it's spirits or a conspiracy, there's a disparity between what the wooster is willing to accept (or even honestly assess) as evidence/explanation that counters his claim and what he's willing (or able) to put forth to support it. And no amount of counter explanation/evidence will ever be enough, because the wooster can also always fall back on the ultimate incredulity- "maybe that explains other events, but I couldn't be fooled by that!"
Click to expand...
what is wooster?
 
arthwollipot said:
Nobody here will be able to explain this experience. None of us were there, and you have not provided enough information about it for us to even try and speculate.

However, it is true that a competent stage magician would be able to suggest several different ways that they might be able to produce such an effect, so the principle of parsimony suggests that what you witnessed was a standard magic trick of the kind used by stage magicians, rather than some unknown principle of science which transmits information with no known mechanism.
Click to expand...

it was all unexpected
it happened in the year 2002
In American culture everything is trick and magic.
You can't think the cause is always magic.
 
Cris said:
The medium created the drawing, in my house and in the presence of twenty witnesses of the portrait of a young woman who had been dead for eighteen months and whom he did not know, a portrait recognized by the young woman's father present at the session.
Click to expand...

Possible explanations:
(1) Actually, he did know her, having met her nineteen months ago in a chance encounter.
(2) He'd researched the father and found a picture of the young woman before the session.
(3) He's quite good at extrapolating a child's looks from the parent and drew a woman who looked the way he thought the young women might, and the father filled in the difference.
(4) He drew a picture that looked very little like the young woman but kept pressing everyone for a response until the father conceded that maybe it was supposed to be a picture of his daughter.
(5) He'd communicated with the father in advance to set up a trick to make everyone else think he had a genuine gift.
(6) The father said the picture didn't look like his daughter, but your memory is faulty.
(7) The father said that the picture didn't look like his daughter, but the medium persuaded the rest of you that it looked enough like her that the father recognised it (a subset of 4).
(8) He got lucky.
(9) You made the whole thing up.

Please present evidence that all of these are incorrect.

Dave
 
Dave Rogers said:
Possible explanations:
(1) Actually, he did know her, having met her nineteen months ago in a chance encounter.
(2) He'd researched the father and found a picture of the young woman before the session.
(3) He's quite good at extrapolating a child's looks from the parent and drew a woman who looked the way he thought the young women might, and the father filled in the difference.
(4) He drew a picture that looked very little like the young woman but kept pressing everyone for a response until the father conceded that maybe it was supposed to be a picture of his daughter.
(5) He'd communicated with the father in advance to set up a trick to make everyone else think he had a genuine gift.
(6) The father said the picture didn't look like his daughter, but your memory is faulty.
(7) The father said that the picture didn't look like his daughter, but the medium persuaded the rest of you that it looked enough like her that the father recognised it (a subset of 4).
(8) He got lucky.
(9) You made the whole thing up.

Please present evidence that all of these are incorrect.

Dave
Click to expand...
I have other evidence recorded in books.
Does this forum accept this kind of evidence?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom