Now did artificial intelligence make mistakes?
Yes. I can provide more detail in the case of your claim regarding Heisenberg, but you would simply ignore it.
Lack of empirical evidence: Scientific skepticism demands observable, measurable, and reproducible evidence for extraordinary claims.
Scientific skepticism requires testable evidence for all operative claims, extraordinary or otherwise. So does law, and many other human pursuits. The advocates of spiritism realize this. They attempt to provide scientifically valid evidence, but usually end up exhibiting incompetence or dishonesty or both in the process, qualifying it as pseudoscience. But name-calling is not our goal here; the point is that if advocates recognize the need for testable evidence, it does you no good to suggest that's an inappropriate standard.
Spiritism lacks such evidence for its assertions about spirits !
Correct. Spiritism cannot meet even an ordinary standard of proof. And because of that, you've spent most of your tenure here replaying various uncreative arguments designed to cajole people into lowering their standards of proof and calling them names when they will not.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
Possibly but not necessarily. The history of spiritism's effort to provide evidence presents factors that justify a heightened standard of proof. But this is moot because it cannot meet even an ordinary standard of proof. All claims require
suitable evidence. The claims made by spiritism allege a causation. That requires a certain type of testable proof that spiritism is unable and unwilling to provide. Further, the logical framework in which spiritism provides what it thinks should pass for evidence is simply an elaborately begged question that shifts the burden of proof. The spiritism hypothesis is held as the default or null that must hold upon the failure to demonstrate any ordinary intervening cause.
Skeptics argue that the claims made by Spiritism are so extraordinary that they would require an exceptionally high standard of evidence, which has not been met.
Spiritism cannot meet an ordinary standard of proof. Arguments that suggest the standard required by skeptics is to high are moot.
Since there is no empirical evidence of the existence of spirits, the debate is over!
In your case the debate has not begun. Your method of argument has not changed since this thread began. You simply offer one-sentence statements or questions apparently intended to drive engagement and you ignore almost everything said to you in response. You seem to want to blame this situation on the fact that we don't speak a common language, but you are unwilling to take the customary steps that others have found profitable.
You have chosen this forum in which you make your case. It is a skeptics forum in which the debate takes place in English. If you wish to debate the members here, you must find a way to do so effectively in English. If you wish to convince the members here that spiritism is factually true, you must provide the kind of evidence that your audience has stated it requires. It is pointless for you to complain about the circumstances arising out of your own choices.
It may be possible to provide a cogent argument in favor of spiritism, but you do not seem interested in or capable of doing so.
cei-spiritistcouncil.com
