I love you too moochie moochie . :****
Last edited:
Princeton Nukes ESP Department
- Thread starter Cyphermage
- Start date
-
- Tags
- pear
I love you too moochie moochie . :****
Then you didn't read closely, or didn't understand what you read.
I didn't "claim" it was a "fact" anywhere. I gave my opinion on my experience.
Oh right I see it was just your unsubstantiated opinion.
cj.23
Master Poster
- Joined
- Dec 17, 2006
- Messages
- 2,827
I can give you anecdotes, but I can't see that being very fulfilling or useful. In fact I already have given one, but I'll cheerfully offer another. You can also learn something of my thoughts on hauntings (and bad sense of humour) in this thread...
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=74627
Quick Anecdote: OK, while I was working at ye olde paranormal tourist trappe (a purportedly haunted prison in Derby, UK) there was a 'medium' who worked with us. Myself and my trusted friend Lloyd were present one night, and there was a group of amateur ghosthunters banging around at the far end of the building, so Lloyd made us a cup of filter coffee each. He was on the far side of the bar, and I am to the 'medium's right, on this side, both of us leaning on it facing one another. The medium was a great bloke, and while I am personally not keen on mediumship or psychism, indeed oppose these practices, and saw no reason to believe he had any mystic powers, etc, I liked him. He was aware of my distaste for psychism. No that distaste is not based on its reality or fraudulence - either way I'd oppose it.
Back to the story - I was utterly amazed to see the silver chain with a crucifix on around his neck suddenly lift till it was at ninety degrees, level with his chin. I said something like "that is odd", the medium said "yes I can see it" and lloyd said "i'll get the camera" and walked round the bar and picked up the camera. I passed my hand around the cross and chain - no thread above or below. None of us felt in any way excited, which is odd, at most mildly curious. Lloyd picked up the camera, walked across, and the cross dropped. Total time must have been somewhere between about 15 seconds and a minute, depending how fast Lloyd moved - obviously we tried several times to recreate it. Oddly the medium made absolutely no attempt to capitalise on it - he seemed mildly confused, annoyed even at having no solution - but he said "there were no spirits near, and he did not see how it could be supernatural."
We examined the chain - I have seen chains which lock rigid, but this was simple links. We attempted to see if it was magnetised, and had a high ferrous content - nope. No conditions of temperature etc changed. There is a high EMF peak at that end of the bar from the ancient till which seems to give off a massive signal, but drops off very sharply as one would expect, and I can not see anyway that can be involved. The most surprising thing was the calm, almost indifferent we acted. We wrote it up and signed and dated it, but that is at the venue not here.
My memory is definitely fallible, but I discussed the incident online within hours of it happening and should have an account typed up and checked by Lloyd around somewhere. I do not believe any of the details have changed with the retelling over the last two and a half years, but checking would be simple. The slightly unimpressed response we had to the phenomena might be explained by the fact we had by this time worked many hundreds of hours with ghosthunting groups as venue staff, and has seen people jump , scream or be excited at almost anything.
I had one previous extremely odd and frightening incident at the venue, though that may be easier to explain -- I'll leave that for now. At the time of this incident the lighting was on at the bar, and we could see quite clearly. The 'medium' never made any attempt to capitalise on the incident, and indeed only commented on it when I raised it.
As I said, an anecdote. Proves nothing...
Ask Druid (admin) at the Sceptical Express or the admins of Double Exposure or Bad Psychics about CJ if you are really interested, or look at the FAQ on the infamous Most Haunted forum. They will give you a warts and all appraisal I'm sure, but probably a kind one, but I'm not really in to self-advertisement. I'm a chap who hunts ghosts, for fun and interest, and enjoys questioning things and whittering on forums.
It's a private members only thing but I'll happily point you to it by pm if you are interested. I need sleep but I am pretty open and honest Larsen, and generally well known as CJ. Several members on this site know me. Any reason for the interest?
cj x
The quickest and easiest to answer. More stupidity, and ignorance coming. Stay tuned.
That leaves time for you to address post #311 and #314.
riiiiiight, just wait.
Nothing of this can be examined.
Can you make those "genuinely bizarre" cases available so we can actually examine them?
No. You tell me: Which shows have you been on? What places did you have to investigate?
Why is it private? If you can tell me via PM, does that mean I can't tell anyone?
http://noosphere.princeton.edu/
is a related topic to PEAR.
They at least make their data accessible for others to analyze in an easier format.
is a related topic to PEAR.
They at least make their data accessible for others to analyze in an easier format.
That is a lie. You know that what they make accessible is accumulated data. The original data is destroyed.
You are using parsimony to advocate against psi. You place too much credibility on a tool that can be misleading in principle. Try not cite this theory as being the most accurate tool on achieving the most tenable view because basically deciding which one is the most tenable is not a matter of objectivity and rather human subjectivity and all the bla bla bla´s. So yes, you are being religious if you answer that I´m wrong because of the Occam´s Razor bleep. It rather weakens your point. We can pretty much use of our common-sense in order to discuss something without invoking some fuzzy and not even well defined theory as we have won the debate.
If you say so, you are either lying or being ignorant (or both) (sorry I could not resist this time , as you already gave up on argumentation and started to flame me also).
Not true , it says about simplifying. If you do not think about it this way, it´s just your call, your opinion. But do not simply put as if this whole idea of parsimony and occam´s razor has nothing to do to simplifying, as if you were debunking my arguments. That´s being a bit silly, sorry.
cj.23
Master Poster
- Joined
- Dec 17, 2006
- Messages
- 2,827
No. As I said, they are anecdotal. I did state that rather clearly.
You can read accounts of some I filed in the SPR library, or wrote up in various places, but lets face it, they remain second hand anecdotal evidence.cj said:
Why? What does it matter?
It's a site where I chill with friends. As I said, I have no public website.
I only mentioned it as you specifically asked. cj x
Last edited:
I am not oblivious. Perhaps just being skeptical about the certainty that this is cold reading rather than. Perhaps could reading should explain this. Not agreeing with the points and explanations does not mean I did not understand them. Wouldnt be that a little too pretentious on your part?
Wait, so are you suggesting that the presented stuff suffices to demonstrate that Altea did cold reading? How? Personal judgements? Or judgement supported by scientific evidence? If it is all personal, then I could not agree more!!!
A debunking show is precisely what the general wants to see when watching TV! Polemic, drama, show! If you think there´s no reason to think they are more open than me is also your call, I say that the contrary seems more likely.
Were they scientific? Just because psi experiments were repeated a number of times and successfully, does not make psi true, or does it? The argument that every possible normal explanation should have been taken as face value (without having scientific bases) because the competing hypothesis is less likely according to the scientific paradigm seems to me a way of using faith in order to do science. In other words: "I dont believe Psi. It is less likely to be the cause because it defies materialism. There is some natural explanations, even if not scientifically established, that seem to be more plausible to explain the situation other than psi, so I cannot believe psi". Now that´s being scientifically rigorous? Or just letting our biases to take over the control?
If you do not understand my point (i dont mean agreeing) makes me so frustrated that I can´t think that I can communicate something properly in English.
I ask about evidence to back up your claim and you send me go for it? Ohh now that´s reasonable!
The same thing as we consider scientific proof, in general. Up till now you were all explaining to me how cold reading should have been behind that. But it was not tested under close scrutiny, replicated and peer reviewed.
Flaming only weakens your points. I cannot spot scientific evidences on cold reading being behind psychic readings. I have to call bullbleep over you too, sadly. Again, you did raise some arguments in favor of your claims, which stands without scientific back up. Of course, it could be done by cold reading..but was it? It´s quite an accusation that is not being back up by evidence other than the general bla bla bla, and assumptions. Thats far too sloppy. Some arguments are cute and bla bla, but it does not cuts out the psi hypothesis. Hell, so hard to understand?
So, cold read me about the death of a loved one. Deal?
But the proponents were skeptics who do not believe psi, therefore they probably use of bias when presenting a case about what they do not believe.
Geller also can persuade people who are open to the idea of spoonbending. But is Geller an unbiased person on giving a workshop on spoonbending?
Parsimony is not a theory. It is a guideline to assist in evaluating information. Just like using p<0.05 is not a theory and its use is not "religious". It's just a way to help judge plausibility. No one here has demonstrated faith or religion in the use of any of our sceintific tools. You stating that we have, does not make it so.
I am using parsimony because it is has been demonstrated to be useful. Of course, its usefulness varies depending upon the circumstances. I have also said things like, "effects attributed to psi have not been demonstrated to be significantly different from chance". According to your reasoning, you should have jumped down my throat by suggesting that I was using the idea of statistical significance in a religious manner which weakens my argument. Why didn't you?
Excuse me? Exactly where do you think I flamed you?
The idea of parsimony and Occam's Razor is most frequently stated as "plurality ought never be posed without necessity". When I mentioned parsimony, that is what I was referring to. I realize that there is a lot of baggage attached to the term "Occam's Razor" (in particular, it is often stated that it means the simplest solution is the correct solution - an assumption which is clearly incorrect), which is why I have started to avoid its use altogether. However, then I run the risk of appearing deliberately disingenuous. I attempted to head off this discussion by placing my mention of Occam's Razor in parentheses and using "parsimony" instead.
Suffice to say, when I stated that psi fails the test of parsimony (which would be similar to saying psi fails the test of significance), I did not mean simplifying. Of course it's my opinion. Who's opinion should I be using?
Linda
No. As I said, they are anecdotal. I did state that rather clearly.
You can read accounts of some I filed in the SPR library, or wrote up in various places, but lets face it, they remain second hand anecdotal evidence.
It does. What you have to offer is worthless, then.
Because I am investigating your claims, that's why.
Which shows have you been on? What places did you have to investigate?
It's a site where I chill with friends. As I said, I have no public website.
Does that mean I can't tell anyone what I learn there?
Yes, principle, theory, ok, not theory, a principle. What I said is that you place too much weight to this occam´s razor thing than just having this as a tool. But rather, using as THE tool, and it does not make it so, also.
Perhaps statistical significance is a overwhelmingly useful tool, and occam´s razor , not quite it. The blade is often use in support of reductionism and rejecting things that are outside the current framework , in order to keep things working the way this paradigm is suggesting. It´s justa matter of personal choice.
Calling people ignorant because they did not agree with your points, is flaming.
AAAhh, now, a more tenable explanation, it is your opinion about it rather than what it actually is. So this issue seems to be resolved.
Using Occam´s Razor to evaluate psi will eventually leads to psi being cut off from scientific interest, as you might know. But , is this the tenable way of looking at psi? And again, attributing parsimony to significance may be a dangerous step, but ok, if now it´s clear that it´s not some kind os scientific truth but rather your opinion. No harm at all!