Merged The razor of Hitchens and the Spirits!

Calderaro said:
Accounts of personal experiences, such as the psychographies attributed to mediums like Chico Xavier, can serve as evidence for those who believe in mediumship. Although these accounts may not be enough to convince radical skeptics, they are valid within the context of human experience.
Click to expand...
Musings on supernatural ideas take the place of actual evidence for you. You find it strange we don't find this approach convincing.
 
Calderaro said:
Science does not have all the answers and is often based on theories that evolve with new discoveries. Arguing that science should be open to new possibilities can help open up a more constructive dialogue on the topic of spirits.
Click to expand...
Arguing that science should be open to new possibilities is kicking at an open door.
Arguing that science should believe age-old fairy tales just because you want them to be true is dumb.
 
sackett said:
Aw. That's so sweet. Once again, two like minds have found each other on the forum.

We, the unwanted crowd, should decently retire, and leave them here in -- let's call it a secluded bower! -- to do whatever consenting adults like to get up to at such times.
Click to expand...
They could retire to Scorpion's thread(s?) rather than derail this one. Maybe even read it rather than rehash the same stories.
 
Scorpion said:
Atoms are largely empty space. It is the nuclear forces which bind them that cause the illusion they are solid things. If the nuclear forces were weaker a train might pass through us without touching us, or we could walk through walls.
Click to expand...
Solid things are solid things. The property you think of as solidity is exactly the same phenomenon before and after you're taught atoms are largely empty space. Nothing changes when you have that information. Physics stays the same. If the forces of nature were different, this particular universe could not exist.

You sound as if you imagine there might be some way to change nuclear forces so we could walk through walls. That's not really any more realistic than thinking if you could just wish hard enough you could fly.
 
Jack by the hedge said:
Solid things are solid things. The property you think of as solidity is exactly the same phenomenon before and after you're taught atoms are largely empty space. Nothing changes when you have that information. Physics stays the same. If the forces of nature were different, this particular universe could not exist.

You sound as if you imagine there might be some way to change nuclear forces so we could walk through walls. That's not really any more realistic than thinking if you could just wish hard enough you could fly.
Click to expand...


Or the short version, a chain link fence is mostly empty space, try running through one.
 
Calderaro said:
science accepts phenomena such as neutrinos, which were postulated without direct evidence for a long time, until they were indirectly detected
Click to expand...
The existence of the neutrino was hypothesized to solve a problem in elementary physics that couldn't be solved except by a new particle. In contrast, spiritism attempts to provide a hypothesis for problems that already have credible and more evident hypotheses. Empirical evidence can be indirect, and most often is. I gave you an example of reliable indirect measurement in science when you blabbered on about logical deduction. In contrast, you have no evidence of any kind for spiritism. All you can provide is hopeful speculation. You vacillate between claiming that various forms of speculation and charlatanism should be evidence, and trying to excuse yourself from needing to provide any.

Calderaro said:
Accounts of personal experiences, such as the psychographies attributed to mediums like Chico Xavier, can serve as evidence for those who believe in mediumship. Although these accounts may not be enough to convince radical skeptics, they are valid within the context of human experience.
Click to expand...
People who already believe in something don't need more evidence for it. Evidence is what convinces someone who is not already predisposed to believe the thing you're claiming. People who do not believe a facially improbable conclusion without evidence are not "radical." Your critics have already conceded experiential and sensory validity, except in the case of obvious frauds like Xavier. You're trying to establish factual truth. For that you need objective testable evidence.

Calderaro said:
Ask skeptics whether they apply the same rigorous standards to all areas of knowledge, or whether there is a tendency to dismiss only evidence that challenges their beliefs. This can help expose potential biases in their approach
Click to expand...
No, your critics here are not biased simply because some AI told you so. If you were to venture into any other part of this forum, you would see plenty of examples of these exact skeptics vigorously challenging each other's beliefs and claims based on evidence. Repeatedly calling your critics biased and lazy is fairly disingenuous when you refuse to engage their well-reasoned answers.

Calderaro said:
Science does not have all the answers and is often based on theories that evolve with new discoveries. Arguing that science should be open to new possibilities can help open up a more constructive dialogue on the topic of spirits.
Click to expand...
You are incapable of providing any dialogue, constructive or otherwise. You're just spewing AI-generated nonsense as fast as you can copy-paste it. Your critics here are giving you thorough, well-reasoned answers to your statements, which you then just ignore.

Science does not claim to have all the answers. But the question whether spirits exist and cause the kinds of things you attribute to them is indeed the kind of thing science can look at. Science is certainly open to the existence of spirits, but you want to short-circuit the process and arrive at the illusion of a favorable conclusion without doing the heavy lifting. You want the reliability of science without doing any of the things that achieve reliability.

And again, repeatedly accusing your critics of being closed-minded while you spew AI-generated generalities is childish and rude.

Calderaro said:

Scorpion, download books in english!​

Click to expand...
Scorpion doesn't need your help finding books on spirits. We've been discussing his spiritism claims for many years, including his sources. You are not the teacher here.

Calderaro said:
I can't answer yet, I need to analyze your question
Click to expand...
The question was asking you simply to elaborate on claims you brought to the forum via a YouTube video. It seems you never watched the video yourself and can't speak intelligently about it. It seems you're just trying to bamboozle your audience with big words.
 
JayUtah said:
The question was asking you simply to elaborate on claims you brought to the forum via a YouTube video. It seems you never watched the video yourself and can't speak intelligently about it. It seems you're just trying to bamboozle your audience with big words.
Click to expand...

JayUtah, explain to me what I should do?​

 
JayUtah said:
And again, repeatedly accusing your critics of being closed-minded while you spew AI-generated generalities is childish and rude.
Click to expand...
Artificial intelligence is allowed in this forum! You claim that there is no empirical evidence of the existence of spirits, it is because of the limitations of the scientific method, the scientific method of the future will prove the existence of spirits!
 
Calderaro said:

JayUtah, explain to me what I should do?​

Click to expand...

It has been suggested several times that you start with learning some of the basics of scientific process, experimental design, statistics, mebbe even anatomy and physiology and a bunch of other things.

Which would be what many of us here learned studying sciences at school, even before we got to university level.

Go away and do that and we can reconvene in around 6 or 7 years.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom