Merged Edgar Cayce

[westphalia]

"[snip]These materials are considered by their inherent nature sufficiently trustworthy as to be admissible, notwithstanding that they are not 'cross-examined'."

And none of those are affidavits of the kind you are championing.

And your logic is absurd. Take a poll outside of this forum and see if you can find even one person who believes that a respected citizen's sworn statement means no more than a disreputable citizen's sworn statement.

Rodney, no one can seem to make you understand that an affidavit has uses that are not applicable to science. Science is not the discovery phase in a court proceeding. Science has a different standard from law.

Affidavits are meaningless as scientific evidence. Meaningless.

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Argumentum ad verecundiam (argument or appeal to authority). This fallacy occurs when someone tries to demonstrate the truth of a proposition by citing some person who agrees, even though that person may have no expertise in the given area. For instance, some people like to quote Einstein's opinions about politics (he tended to have fairly left-wing views), as though Einstein were a political philosopher rather than a physicist. Of course, it is not a fallacy at all to rely on authorities whose expertise relates to the question at hand, especially with regard to questions of fact that could not easily be answered by a layman -- for instance, it makes perfect sense to quote Stephen Hawking on the subject of black holes.

At least in some forms of debate, quoting various sources to support one's position is not just acceptable but mandatory. In general, there is nothing wrong with doing so. Even if the person quoted has no particular expertise in the area, he may have had a particularly eloquent way of saying something that makes for a more persuasive speech. In general, debaters should be called down for committing argumentum ad verecundiam only when (a) they rely on an unqualified source for information about facts without other (qualified) sources of verification, or (b) they imply that some policy must be right simply because so-and-so thought so. http://www.csun.edu/~dgw61315/fallacies.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_authority

Argumentum ad vericundiam

This is a move in argument that may or may not be fallacious, depending on the circumstances. It means an appeal to authority, an example of which could be thus:

You say philosophy is important, but Professor X says it's a waste of time.

Here the speaker refers to the authority of the professor to counter the claim that philosophy is important. The problem is that the presumed authority may or may not be relevant: if the professor is (or was) a lifelong student of philosophy and decided after years working in the field that it really is a waste of time, then perhaps we should look into his reasons for saying so? On the other hand, if he is a professor of mineralogy, say, then—on the face of it—his opinion bears no more or less weight than anyone else's. It may be that additional factors are important: perhaps this professor has also studied philosophy or is known to us to be a particularly trustworthy and astute individual whose opinion we have come to value?

In short, appealing to authority where the authority does know (or is expected to know) what he or she is talking about is a legitimate move in argument, but when the authority's expertise is not relevant then it is fallacious—indeed, a fallacy of relevance, as before.

Matters are not always so clear-cut, though. Even if the authority in question really is an authority in the field, it may be that the question under consideration is one of much controversy among his or her fellow academics. In our example, other philosophy professors may be found who say that philosophy is important, so that appealing to authorities on one or other side or an argument does no more than appraise us of what they think. Take another instance:

Professor Y, a highly respected biologist at a prestigious university, says that the likelihood of live evolving on Mars is so small that, for practical purposes, we can assume it didn't; therefore spending money on searching for life on the red planet is a waste of valuable resources.

Here the implicit idea behind the criticism is that with only a finite amount of money to go around and other deserving causes in need of support, why should we support a quest that academics like Professor Y agree is very likely to fail? Is this argument fallacious? It depends: we would need to know more information, such as whether the professor is an expert in the appropriate area of biology and if there is any controversy among similar experts. If the professor's opinion is indicative of the relevant biological community, then perhaps this is information we should keep in mind when forming an opinion on the issue? On the other hand, if the professor is something of a maverick and the weight of biological opinion goes against him or her, then appealing to him or her as an authority could be seen as fallacious, distracting us from the point at issue. In general, we need to be careful in assessing the value of expert testimony, as well as its relevance. http://www.galilean-library.org/int16.html

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-authority.html

 

[Rodney]

Argumentum ad verecundiam (argument or appeal to authority). This fallacy occurs when someone tries to demonstrate the truth of a proposition by citing some person who agrees, even though that person may have no expertise in the given area. For instance, some people like to quote Einstein's opinions about politics (he tended to have fairly left-wing views), as though Einstein were a political philosopher rather than a physicist. Of course, it is not a fallacy at all to rely on authorities whose expertise relates to the question at hand, especially with regard to questions of fact that could not easily be answered by a layman -- for instance, it makes perfect sense to quote Stephen Hawking on the subject of black holes.

At least in some forms of debate, quoting various sources to support one's position is not just acceptable but mandatory. In general, there is nothing wrong with doing so. Even if the person quoted has no particular expertise in the area, he may have had a particularly eloquent way of saying something that makes for a more persuasive speech. In general, debaters should be called down for committing argumentum ad verecundiam only when (a) they rely on an unqualified source for information about facts without other (qualified) sources of verification, or (b) they imply that some policy must be right simply because so-and-so thought so. http://www.csun.edu/~dgw61315/fallacies.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_authority

Argumentum ad vericundiam

This is a move in argument that may or may not be fallacious, depending on the circumstances. It means an appeal to authority, an example of which could be thus:

You say philosophy is important, but Professor X says it's a waste of time.

Here the speaker refers to the authority of the professor to counter the claim that philosophy is important. The problem is that the presumed authority may or may not be relevant: if the professor is (or was) a lifelong student of philosophy and decided after years working in the field that it really is a waste of time, then perhaps we should look into his reasons for saying so? On the other hand, if he is a professor of mineralogy, say, then—on the face of it—his opinion bears no more or less weight than anyone else's. It may be that additional factors are important: perhaps this professor has also studied philosophy or is known to us to be a particularly trustworthy and astute individual whose opinion we have come to value?

In short, appealing to authority where the authority does know (or is expected to know) what he or she is talking about is a legitimate move in argument, but when the authority's expertise is not relevant then it is fallacious—indeed, a fallacy of relevance, as before.

Matters are not always so clear-cut, though. Even if the authority in question really is an authority in the field, it may be that the question under consideration is one of much controversy among his or her fellow academics. In our example, other philosophy professors may be found who say that philosophy is important, so that appealing to authorities on one or other side or an argument does no more than appraise us of what they think. Take another instance:

Professor Y, a highly respected biologist at a prestigious university, says that the likelihood of live evolving on Mars is so small that, for practical purposes, we can assume it didn't; therefore spending money on searching for life on the red planet is a waste of valuable resources.

Here the implicit idea behind the criticism is that with only a finite amount of money to go around and other deserving causes in need of support, why should we support a quest that academics like Professor Y agree is very likely to fail? Is this argument fallacious? It depends: we would need to know more information, such as whether the professor is an expert in the appropriate area of biology and if there is any controversy among similar experts. If the professor's opinion is indicative of the relevant biological community, then perhaps this is information we should keep in mind when forming an opinion on the issue? On the other hand, if the professor is something of a maverick and the weight of biological opinion goes against him or her, then appealing to him or her as an authority could be seen as fallacious, distracting us from the point at issue. In general, we need to be careful in assessing the value of expert testimony, as well as its relevance. http://www.galilean-library.org/int16.html

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-authority.html

Fascinating, absolutely fascinating. Now to repeat: Glittering generalities about "arguments from authority" are meaningless.

 

[Euromutt]

However, if it were none of these things, I would figure: "What have I got to lose"?

Ah yes, the eternal challenge of the paranormalist: "what have you got to lose?" as if that could only be a rhetorical question. It's not a rhetorical question, because it has an answer. Most readily, it will cost you money.

The list price of Pagano's book is $25. A year's supply of safflower and slippery elm bark tea will run you over $300. A castor oil pack kit, plus extra castor oil will run you over $80. Chiropractic adjustments will cost you $40 or more, colonics $75 or more, and you'll be required to take several of each. (Is it me, or does the Cayce regimen seem designed to benefit as many different practitioners of CAM as possible? If Cayce had lived thirty or forty years later, he'd have probably added acupuncture to the regimen as well!) Tot it all up and you could easily blow $1,000 in a year on this regimen. That's a lot of money for an unproven treatment. Even without insurance coverage, conventional treatment for psoriasis costs roughly the same at most, and even though that's only palliative, it does at least work as advertised.

Moreover, the regimen is going to be a hassle. From what I can make out, the diet restricts a fair number of things in life which I consider pleasurable, so we're looking at an additional outlay in time, money and joie de vivre. So the regimen is going to be expensive and difficult, and the only reason it's not dangerous is because psoriasis isn't life-threatening. But most importantly, it's not going to work. It doesn't matter how much a "treatment" costs exactly, if it costs anything and does nothing, it's too expensive.

And the reason I was prepared to dismiss the Cayce regimen even before I looked into it more closely (now that I have, I'm inclined to take a trip to Cayce's grave in order to urinate on it) is from experience. My mother developed psoriasis under similar circumstances to me, only twenty years before I did, and I've seen her try out a bunch of CAM "treatments," none of which did a damn bit of good. There comes a point--if you have a modicum of critical thinking ability, at least--when you conclude that clinical trials and peer review are a better measure of a treatment's efficacy than self-published books and patient testimonials.

But my motivations have no bearing as to whether or not the Cayce regimen works. Its very premise contradicts the current body of medical knowledge, and while that is not, in and of itself, reason to dismiss the claims, it does place a requirement on the regimen's proponents to provide some evidence that it works. To date, they have nothing. There is no evidence that the Cayce regimen does work, and given the existing body of medical knowledge, that means there is good reason to believe that it does not. My "worldview" doesn't alter that.

 

[Rodney]

My mother developed psoriasis under similar circumstances to me, only twenty years before I did, and I've seen her try out a bunch of CAM "treatments," none of which did a damn bit of good.

Did she follow the recommendations of Cayce, Pagano, or someone else?

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Fascinating, absolutely fascinating. Now to repeat: Glittering generalities about "arguments from authority" are meaningless.

http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/flash/youare.php

 

[Rodney]

http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/flash/youare.php

Translation: I can't document a logical fallacy, but I sure do enjoy making unsupported allegations.

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Translation: I can't document a logical fallacy, but I sure do enjoy making unsupported allegations.

No, the correct translations is, "Rodney still has the same drivel coming out of his mouth as he did at the beginning of the thread and it's no longer worth the effort to try to educate him."

 

[thaiboxerken]

Rodney doesn't believe in logical fallacy, if it's pointed out that he's using them. He simply thinks he's infallible in the logic field, doesn't understand logical fallacy and is an idiot. It's really hard to educate the stupid.

 

[Rodney]

No, the correct translations is, "Rodney still has the same drivel coming out of his mouth as he did at the beginning of the thread and it's no longer worth the effort to try to educate him."

So how come you are unable to document even one fallacy? And, by document, I mean quoting what I've said, then showing specifically why it's a fallacy -- not proclaiming that I've committed a fallacy and then citing a Wikipedia article to "prove" it.

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

So how come you are unable to document even one fallacy? And, by document, I mean quoting what I've said, then showing specifically why it's a fallacy -- not proclaiming that I've committed a fallacy and then citing a Wikipedia article to "prove" it.

You and westphalia(1) are the ones that have been going back and forth on the logically fallacy argument. I provided definitions of the fallacy in question from a number of sources for clarification to all thread participants.

eta: and frankly, the looks like another one of your sessions of moving the goalposts of the debate, so you don't have to answer any questions with actual evidence from scientifically valid sources.

(1) ETA: And Hastur.

 

[Hastur]

You haven't shown a single specific logical fallacy, along the lines of:
1) All A are C; 2) All B are C; 3) Therefore, some A are B.

Glittering generalities about "arguments from authority" are meaningless.

Rodney, are you being dense on purpose or are you naturally like this? Since it seems we have to take you by the hand and show you what you did wrong, here you go:
Appeal to authority #1:

Is an affadavit filed by the superintendent of the Hopkinsville, KY school system that Cayce cured his daughter of what had been diagnosed by the best doctors of the day as an invariably fatal condition involving severe seizures "anecdotal evidence"?

Translation: The superintendant filed an affidavit that Cayce's treatment worked, therefore Cayce must be the real thing.

Appeal to authority #2:

Do you seriously think that your example is the same as an affadavit filed by one of the most prominent and respected member of a community? Further, a doctor verified the facts of the case and it was mentioned in a New York Times article

Translation: A prominent and respected member of the community (presuming it's the superintendent from the first example), a doctor, and the New York Times all say Cayce is the real thing, therefore Cayce must be the real thing.

Appeal to authority #3:

So affidavits filed by respected citizens are meaningless, then?

Translation: A respected citizen (the superintendant, AGAIN) filed affidavit so what he said must be true and Cayce is the real thing.

Appeal to popularity:

Suppose at the next Randi Conference, 100 attendees witness a UFO land and take off and then each file an affidavit attesting to that. Should those affidavits be disregarded by the scientific inquiry that follows?

Translation: 100 people saw what they claim is a UFO and filed affidavits attesting that fact so they must have really seen a UFO.

The superintendant is not all-knowing; all he could report on was his interpretation of events. That he is a "respected citizen" does not make his interpretation any more true. Same goes for the doctor who was brought in after the fact. He was not there during the treatment and so did not monitor the girl's progress. We can't just take his word for it that the treatment worked just because he is a doctor. The New York Times, while a respected paper and subject to fact-checking, is not omniscient. It is human and still subject to foibles, especially since journalists are journalists, not scientists. They do not know everything so just because the NYT published a story does not make it 100% true.
Just because a lot of people see something or believe something does not make it true as they report. There are such things as mass hysteria and folie a deux listed as mental disorders, the fact that a lot of people see something means just that -- they saw SOMETHING. What that something is is still under investigation.

"For the most part" is not quite the same as "always", now is it? *snip*

No [Rule 8], Sherlock! Now, if you bothered to read what I wrote, you would have realized I made this exact same point to westphalia! But, here's the problem, Rodney: this is only applies to a legal setting. In a scientific setting, anecdotes ARE always worthless.

And your logic is absurd. Take a poll outside of this forum and see if you can find even one person who believes that a respected citizen's sworn statement means no more than a disreputable citizen's sworn statement.

You're appealing to popularity again, Rodney. Just because a lot of people think something does not make it correct. There's a reason why the rules of evidence exist in the law, Rodney: people that make up juries tend to be idiots who will believe whatever someone in a three-piece suit shows or tells them. So the law needs some way to make sure that juries see what can be properly validated. Now, to those of us who are educated in how things properly work, a sworn statement is a sworn statement is a sworn statement. All are judged on their merits and adherence to fact. There may be a credibility problem, but that alone does not make a statement true or false.

 

[Euromutt]

Did she follow the recommendations of Cayce, Pagano, or someone else?

She didn't follow the Cayce regimen, no (this was in the 1980s, before Pagano published his book). In fact, I wasn't aware of the Cayce regimen prior to reading this thread. So how can I be so confident from the outset that this isn't the real thing, I hear you ask? Because when you've seen enough fakes in a particular category, you get to a point that remaining "open-minded" towards further entries in that category starts to require unwarranted credulity. You also learn to spot the hallmarks of phony premises. I cannot emphasize enough that claims involving unspecifiable "toxins" can be discarded immediately.

The specific example of the "leaky gut syndrome" conjecture ("hypothesis" is too charitable a term), frankly, has not managed to show me I'm in error, because giving it a closer examination has merely served to confirm what I already suspected: that it's utterly worthless.

 

[Rodney]

Rodney, are you being dense on purpose or are you naturally like this? Since it seems we have to take you by the hand and show you what you did wrong, here you go:
Appeal to authority #1: Translation: The superintendant filed an affidavit that Cayce's treatment worked, therefore Cayce must be the real thing.

Appeal to authority #2: Translation: A prominent and respected member of the community (presuming it's the superintendent from the first example), a doctor, and the New York Times all say Cayce is the real thing, therefore Cayce must be the real thing.

Appeal to authority #3: Translation: A respected citizen (the superintendant, AGAIN) filed affidavit so what he said must be true and Cayce is the real thing.

Wrong, wrong, and wrong. I have never once concluded any of the things that you accuse me of. That perhaps explains why you conveniently ignored my most recent post, where I stated that you needed to "document" a fallacy, and that "by document, I mean quoting what I've said, then showing specifically why it's a fallacy." You haven't quoted me because you can't find anything that supports your position. I did not conclude that Cayce is the real thing based only on the above evidence, but rather stated repeatedly that it is illogical to pretend that evidence is worthless. For example, consider this exchange with westphalia:

Originally Posted by westphalia:
"I can swear out an affidavit tomorrow that will explain how I was born on the planet Xenon, fell ill due to the effects of you Earthlings' atmosphere and bacterial life, sought treatment at a Peter Popoff crusade and got healed by a magical mammoth named Mr. Snuffalopogus. Would you take my affidavit as evidence?"

Reply by Rodney:
"Do you seriously think that your example is the same as an affidavit filed by one of the most prominent and respected member of a community? Further, a doctor verified the facts of the case and it was mentioned in a New York Times article."

Appeal to popularity: Translation: 100 people saw what they claim is a UFO and filed affidavits attesting that fact so they must have really seen a UFO.

Wrong again. This isn't an appeal to popularity, it's Logic 101: In the hypothetical, a group of 100 skeptics put their reputations on the line to attest that they saw something that they previously did not believe in. Are you really saying that would mean nothing? No, I would not categorically conclude that they saw a UFO, but it would warrant serious examination. On the other hand, if 100 members of the Liar's Club of America attested to the fact that they saw a UFO, it would warrant far less examination, unless the latter group had additional evidence.

The superintendant is not all-knowing; all he could report on was his interpretation of events. That he is a "respected citizen" does not make his interpretation any more true. Same goes for the doctor who was brought in after the fact. He was not there during the treatment and so did not monitor the girl's progress. We can't just take his word for it that the treatment worked just because he is a doctor. The New York Times, while a respected paper and subject to fact-checking, is not omniscient. It is human and still subject to foibles, especially since journalists are journalists, not scientists. They do not know everything so just because the NYT published a story does not make it 100% true.
Just because a lot of people see something or believe something does not make it true as they report. There are such things as mass hysteria and folie a deux listed as mental disorders, the fact that a lot of people see something means just that -- they saw SOMETHING. What that something is is still under investigation.

I don't disagree with any of the above, but you and others here seem to believe that evidence is black and white. Either it is completely worthy of consideration or completely unworthy of consideration. That just isn't the way things work in the real world.

No [Rule 8], Sherlock! Now, if you bothered to read what I wrote, you would have realized I made this exact same point to westphalia! But, here's the problem, Rodney: this is only applies to a legal setting. In a scientific setting, anecdotes ARE always worthless.

I continue to be mystified by people here referring to affidavits as "anecdotes." In the case to which I refer, the school superintendent was also the girl's father. He and his wife (who, by the way, later wrote a letter to the ARE confirming that Cayce's treatment cured their daughter) likely had more knowledge about their daughter's condition than anyone on earth. I can't believe that any true skeptic would regard his affidavit as an "anecdote" that should be completly disregarded, particularly when there is absolutely no evidence of which I'm aware that contradicts it.

You're appealing to popularity again, Rodney. Just because a lot of people think something does not make it correct. There's a reason why the rules of evidence exist in the law, Rodney: people that make up juries tend to be idiots who will believe whatever someone in a three-piece suit shows or tells them. So the law needs some way to make sure that juries see what can be properly validated. Now, to those of us who are educated in how things properly work, a sworn statement is a sworn statement is a sworn statement. All are judged on their merits and adherence to fact. There may be a credibility problem, but that alone does not make a statement true or false.

I never said that, if a lot of people believe something, it must be correct. But I would submit that the position you are taking here is way outside the legal mainstream. The credibility of affidavits and witnesses is absolutely critical in deciding court cases. So why pretend that the credibility of an affidavit means nothing when it comes to evaluating a psychic?

 

[Rodney]

She didn't follow the Cayce regimen, no (this was in the 1980s, before Pagano published his book). In fact, I wasn't aware of the Cayce regimen prior to reading this thread. So how can I be so confident from the outset that this isn't the real thing, I hear you ask? Because when you've seen enough fakes in a particular category, you get to a point that remaining "open-minded" towards further entries in that category starts to require unwarranted credulity. You also learn to spot the hallmarks of phony premises. I cannot emphasize enough that claims involving unspecifiable "toxins" can be discarded immediately.

The specific example of the "leaky gut syndrome" conjecture ("hypothesis" is too charitable a term), frankly, has not managed to show me I'm in error, because giving it a closer examination has merely served to confirm what I already suspected: that it's utterly worthless.

To me, your position is illogical: You figure that Cayce's psoriasis therapy is worthless because a different alternative psoriasis therapy failed to help your mother. That does not follow, any more than it follows that, because it has been established that laetrile does not help prevent cancer, almonds also do not help prevent cancer.

 

[Hastur]

Wrong, wrong, and wrong. I have never once concluded any of the things that you accuse me of. That perhaps explains why you conveniently ignored my most recent post, where I stated that you needed to "document" a fallacy, and that "by document, I mean quoting what I've said, then showing specifically why it's a fallacy." You haven't quoted me because you can't find anything that supports your position.

LIAR! I did quote you. Here is the post in its entirty in case anyone is wondering. The blue boxes are Rodney's EXACT words from the instances I linked to in an earlier post.

Wrong again. This isn't an appeal to popularity, it's Logic 101: In the hypothetical, a group of 100 skeptics put their reputations on the line to attest that they saw something that they previously did not believe in. Are you really saying that would mean nothing?

Strawman. I said originally and continued to do so that in this scenario they saw SOMETHING. What that something was is up for grabs. Given no further evidence, I would conclude it was merely a visual hallucination (there is such a thing as mass hysteria). I would not conclude there must have been a UFO just because they are willing to sign affidavits.

I don't disagree with any of the above, but you and others here seem to believe that evidence is black and white. Either it is completely worthy of consideration or completely unworthy of consideration. That just isn't the way things work in the real world.

Like it or not, sometimes it is just that simple, Rodney. If it can't make the hurdle, it is left in the dust pending better evidence.

I continue to be mystified by people here referring to affidavits as "anecdotes." In the case to which I refer, the school superintendent was also the girl's father. He and his wife (who, by the way, later wrote a letter to the ARE confirming that Cayce's treatment cured their daughter) likely had more knowledge about their daughter's condition than anyone on earth. I can't believe that any true skeptic would regard his affidavit as an "anecdote" that should be completly disregarded, particularly when there is absolutely no evidence of which I'm aware that contradicts it.

Was the superintendant a medical doctor too? Did he have an M.D.? Did he even set foot in a medical school? In that day and age, it would be a reach to think his wife had much medical training either, but she may have been a nurse in her younger days. Was she? Did she have any medical experience? Was there a doctor monitoring the daughter at any time during the course of treatment? We don't know Rodney, and there is no evidence that the parents were anything but laypeople reporting their untrained observations. Therefore, how much weight can their say-so, even under oath, truly have? We say, none, because they are not in a position to accurately report what was going on; they didn't have the training. It is an anecdote, not the report of an educated expert. That nothing contradicts it is irrelevant, there is nothing to support the side making the claim.

I never said that, if a lot of people believe something, it must be correct. But I would submit that the position you are taking here is way outside the legal mainstream. The credibility of affidavits and witnesses is absolutely critical in deciding court cases. So why pretend that the credibility of an affidavit means nothing when it comes to evaluating a psychic?

A witness has either complete credibility or no credibility. How does a factfinder determine one way or the other? Cross-examination and introduction of additional evidence. If someone's story doesn't match up with the rest of the evidence or has some serious holes in it, then it gets tossed in the refuse. Character factors in, but it is not the be-all,end-all of credibility, Rodney. Of course, you have absolutely zero credibility now since I've already nailed you on two lies.

 

[Rodney]

LIAR! I did quote you. Here is the post in its entirty in case anyone is wondering. The blue boxes are Rodney's EXACT words from the instances I linked to in an earlier post.

Oh, please. Yes, you quoted me, but that quote fails to prove your point. I was obviously referring to a RELEVANT QUOTE. Face facts, Hastur, I never committed the logical fallacy of argument from authority, no matter how much you try and pretend that I did.

Strawman. I said originally and continued to do so that in this scenario they saw SOMETHING. What that something was is up for grabs. Given no further evidence, I would conclude it was merely a visual hallucination (there is such a thing as mass hysteria). I would not conclude there must have been a UFO just because they are willing to sign affidavits.

Like it or not, sometimes it is just that simple, Rodney. If it can't make the hurdle, it is left in the dust pending better evidence.

I didn't say that "there must have been a UFO", just that the more credible the people making the observations, the more the claim should be investigated.

Was the superintendant a medical doctor too? Did he have an M.D.? Did he even set foot in a medical school? In that day and age, it would be a reach to think his wife had much medical training either, but she may have been a nurse in her younger days. Was she? Did she have any medical experience? Was there a doctor monitoring the daughter at any time during the course of treatment? We don't know Rodney, and there is no evidence that the parents were anything but laypeople reporting their untrained observations. Therefore, how much weight can their say-so, even under oath, truly have? We say, none, because they are not in a position to accurately report what was going on; they didn't have the training. It is an anecdote, not the report of an educated expert. That nothing contradicts it is irrelevant, there is nothing to support the side making the claim.

So parents who have taken their daughter to various medical doctors and been told that her case is hopeless don't know anything about the case? The uncontradicted facts here are that conventional medicine failed and so the parents consulted Cayce. His recommended treatment restored her to health.

A witness has either complete credibility or no credibility. How does a factfinder determine one way or the other? Cross-examination and introduction of additional evidence. If someone's story doesn't match up with the rest of the evidence or has some serious holes in it, then it gets tossed in the refuse. Character factors in, but it is not the be-all,end-all of credibility, Rodney. Of course, you have absolutely zero credibility now since I've already nailed you on two lies.

Please tell me that you don't actually try cases.

 

[Hastur]

Oh, please. Yes, you quoted me, but that quote fails to prove your point. I was obviously referring to a RELEVANT QUOTE. Face facts, Hastur, I never committed the logical fallacy of argument from authority, no matter how much you try and pretend that I did.

You want us to merely take the superintendant, a doctor viewing the case after the fact, and a newspaper at their word. That is an appeal to authority no matter how much hand-waving and equivocating you do.

I didn't say that "there must have been a UFO", just that the more credible the people making the observations, the more the claim should be investigated.

That was the conclusion you hoped to put in people's minds until you got caught and needed to start backpedaling.

So parents who have taken their daughter to various medical doctors and been told that her case is hopeless don't know anything about the case? The uncontradicted facts here are that conventional medicine failed and so the parents consulted Cayce. His recommended treatment restored her to health.

Did it? We can't say because we have no contemporaneous medical account. Doctors are not omniscient. Just because the doctors they spoke to had no idea how to treat the daughter's condition does not mean then-contemporary medicine was powerless to aid her. Education is not cramming facts in one's head (despite the thoughts of so many creationists), it's giving one the tools to find the facts for themselves. For all we know, the disease went away on its own. We cannot give Cayce the credit merely on the say-so of two laypeople.

Please tell me that you don't actually try cases.

Ad hominem. Unless you want to start a nitpick-fest on this one too.

 

[LordoftheLeftHand]

Wow, instead of working hard not to make a fallacy, all you have to do is just claim over and over that you didn't make one! I've been doing it the hard way all this time. Thanks Rodney!

LLH

 

[thaiboxerken]

To me, your position is illogical: You figure that Cayce's psoriasis therapy is worthless because a different alternative psoriasis therapy failed to help your mother. That does not follow, any more than it follows that, because it has been established that laetrile does not help prevent cancer, almonds also do not help prevent cancer.

It's perfectly logical, mutts position is that there is no need to believe that Cayce's treatment will work since there is no scientific evidence that it will work AND it stinks of BS.