I've now checked the link that "didn't work" on both a PC and a Mac, using four different browsers (Explorer, Firefox, Netscape and Safari) and it worked every time. Further, no one else has complained about the link not working. So you might want to launch an investigation as to why it didn't work for you.
Non-Homeopathic Belladonna
- Thread starter Rodney
- Start date
-
- Tags
- belladonna edgar cayce
So what percentage of biographies are nominated for Pulitzers?
Paulos is a professional mathematician and debunker, not a professional book reviewer. His "review" is a superficial joke.
No, are you related to Paulos?
Do you have any evidence for these assertions? If so, what is it?
Evidence?
The problem with your analysis is that the evidence indicates that Cayce guided the doctors, not the other way around. For example, Cayce's most famous early cure was of Aime Dietrich, the daughter of Professor Charles Dietrich, the first commissioned officer to graduate from Ohio State University's military program and the former superintendent of schools of Hopkinsville, Ky. According to Professor Dietrich's October 8, 1910 affidavit, filed in Hamilton County, Ohio:
"March 1st, 1902, she [Aime] was taken to Dr. Hoppe of Cincinnati, O., who made a most thorough examination. He pronounced her a perfect specimen physically, except for the brain affection, concerning which he state that only nine cases of this peculiar type were reported in Medical Records, and every one of these had proved fatal. He told us that nothing could be done, except to give her good care, as her case was hopeless and she would die soon in one of these [epileptic] attacks.
"At this period our attention was called to Mr. Edgar Cayce, who was asked to diagnose the case. By auto-suggestion, he went into a sleep or trance and diagnosed her case as one of congestion at base of the brain, stating also minor details. He outlined to Dr. A. C. Layne [Al C. Layne, D.O.], now of Griffin, Ga., how to proceed to cure her. Dr. Layne treated her accordingly, every day for three weeks, using Mr. Cayce occasionally to follow up the treatment, as results developed. Her mind began to clear up about the eighth day and within three months she was in perfect health, and is so to this day. This case can be verified by many of the best citizens of Hopkinsville, Ky."
ChristineR
Illuminator
- Joined
- Jan 4, 2006
- Messages
- 3,180
My evidence for Cayce's dishonesty is that he claimed to be able to get information by supernatural means, but never passed any objective tests. When he wasn't vague, he was wrong.
He had access to medical books (containing the same information that showed up in his readings) and he did a vast amount of miscellaneous reading. (Fads & Fallacies in the Name of Science, Gardner (which cites There is a River, Sugrue as a source), Edgar Cayce: the 'prophet' who 'slept' his way to the top, Skeptical Inquirer Jan/Feb 1996 (which cites Sugrue and Edgar Cayce: the sleeping prophet, Stern)) I don't know if there's evidence about what he "liked", but it seems a reasonable guess. If you want to quibble over the "liked to", you can strike it. I'm not going to bother defending that part.
I'm not sure how that's supposed to be evidence that information only ever passed one way, or that Cayce's suggestions didn't require 'translation'.
Linda
Mojo
Mostly harmless
Mojo
Mostly harmless
Probably a very small one. But nomination says nothing about the book, apart from the fact that it was published in the US in the year of nomination and was written by an American citizen. Anyone can nominate any biography; all they need is $50 and four copies of the book. You could even have nominated it yourself.
http://www.pulitzer.org/EntryForms/Letbbn2.pdf
Nomination tells us nothing about the merits of the book, but perhaps we can deduce something about the Cayce book from your apparent inability to find the sources for Kirkpatrick's stories. I wonder, what percentage of Pulitzer winning biographies fail to reference their sources?
Have you made any progress tracking down Kirkpatrick's source for the quotation from Dr. Jackson? According to this post you've been researching this since last Sunday.
And have you managed to find out what Kirkpatrick's sources were for the rest of the Tommy House story yet?
(1) When conscious, Cayce, to my knowledge, did not claim to get information by supernatural means, but rather seemed mystified by where the information came from.
(2) What objective tests did he fail?
(3) According to "The Outer Limits of Edgar Cayce's Power", a study of Cayce's medical readings showed his accuracy was about 85%.
To my knowledge, there is no evidence that Cayce read medical literature.
The point is that Dietrich's affidavit and Kirkpatrick's book state that it was Cayce, not Layne, who did the diagnosis. If Dietrich's affidavit had stated -- "Dr. A.C. Layne examined Aime and concluded her spine required osteopathic adjustments; Edgar Cayce then went into a trance and outlined to Layne how to make those adjustments" -- your interpretation would be more consistent with the facts.
But how many people want to waste 50 bucks on a nomination? And contrary to what you seem to think, "An American Prophet" received generally favorable reviews. For example, "The New Yorker" stated: "This engaging biography reads like a codex for the New Age"; the "Library Journal" called it "a fair, fascinating, and well-researched biography of one of twentieth-century America's most famous psychics"; and "Booklist" stated: "Kirkpatrick, the only person allowed unrestricted access to all of Cayce's personal writings, presents what every Cayce fan hungers for: a detailed and complete biography that reveals family secrets that were deemed too sensitive to include in earlier works, as well as the long-suppressed identities of the many famous people, from Woodrow Wilson to Thomas Edison, who benefited from Cayce's readings."
Kirkpatrick references his sources, but, as is the case with many biographies, it's unclear exactly where he obtains certain specific information.
No. Researching this is not my full-time occupation, but I'll let you know when I find out something.
Mojo
Mostly harmless
How many people want to bolster the author's authority by reference to meaningless "nominations"?
How is that evidence that he was being honest? There are quite normal ways of getting this knowledge - ways that were available to him. The only reason that you don't think he took advantage of these normal ways of gaining knowledge was because he claimed he didn't. So basically, the proof that he is honest is that he says he is honest.
What objective tests did he pass?
The accuracy was calculated by choosing 150 of his cases and looking for follow-up letters from the patient (or a relative) stating whether or not they were better. In 74 of the cases, there was no follow-up letter, so they were excluded from the analysis. So what we really have is, out of 150 people who sought out Cayce as a healer, 76 wrote back to him, and 65 of those who wrote back stated they were better and attributed it to Cayce. And research demonstrates quite clearly that people you don't hear from are likely to have had quite different outcomes from those you do hear from.
Also, under those circumstances, 86% does not seem like a remarkable number if you take a strong selection bias for the population of "those who seek out a medical medium", effective advice based on medical knowledge, normal prognoses and a desire to report subjective improvements into consideration.
Linda
It's important that Cayce have the appearance of gaining knowledge through mysterious means, since otherwise he is just like all the other variously qualified 'doctors' of that time. Under any other circumstances, it is an obvious assumption that if somebody does a vast amount of reading, has easy access to medical books and repeats information that is contained within those medical books, they have read those medical books. However, you and others wish us to believe that because it was not specifically documented that he read the books, that he could not possibly have read them, making his knowledge of what was contained within the books mysterious.
I'm sorry, but I am simply not capable of being that
Again, you are asking us to believe that the doctors involved with Cayce's trances couldn't have contributed anything - that vaguely worded, second-hand (and more) information provided sometimes years after the fact, is so specific as to exclude that possibility.
Ditto.
Linda
First, I was responding to Christine's assertion: "My evidence for Cayce's dishonesty is that he claimed to be able to get information by supernatural means." Second, I don't think he took advantage of normal ways of gaining knowledge because he possessed knowledge that, as far as I know, was unavailable, even if he did read medical books.
Depends what you mean by objective tests. According to "An American Prophet" -- at pages 170-72, Dr. Hugo Munsterberg, the dean of psychology at Harvard, paid a surprise visit to Hopkinsville, KY in December 1911 in an attempt to expose Cayce as a fraud. However, after spending a week with him and conducting studies of three people who received readings, Munsterberg concluded that Cayce was legitimate and stated that Cayce had "an unusual power."
Have any similar studies been done regarding the accuracy of medical doctors? If so, what was their overall accuracy?
Why do you put 'doctors' in quotation marks? Weren't there any qualified doctors a century ago?
You're glossing over Cayce's specific diagnoses. For example, Charles Dietrich had taken his daughter to the best doctors he could find and none of them helped her at all. So how could Cayce help her simply by reading the same medical books the doctors had read?
All the books that I have read about Cayce state that the doctors he dealt with relied upon his diagnoses rather than vice-versa. If there is a book that claims that Cayce relied upon doctors' diagnoses, please advise as to which book that is.
What knowledge did he possess that was unavailable?
Where is his report? The hearsay reports I have read do not describe an objective evaluation.
Studies on accuracy have been done regarding medical doctors - the answer depends upon the question you are asking (and it's not really worth pursuing your red herring, anyway). Studies similar to that done for Cayce have not been performed except to show that that is not a valid or reliable method of determining accuracy.
Linda
At the beginning of the nineteenth century, the training and qualifications to become a doctor were highly variable and mostly sub-standard. State and local licensing bodies provided essentially no oversight. After the Flexner report in 1910, medical schools underwent reform, most of the private schools were shut down, and state colleges (a term used for the professional organizations of physicians) and licensing authorities began to provide real oversight. Also, people who did not receive an education in conventional medicine, such as homeopaths, also called themselves doctors. A 'doctor's opinion' from that time period is meaningless without significant investigation.
Again, you are asking me to believe that second-hand (really sixth-hand) information provided by someone who doesn't know what they are talking about reliably excludes the possibility that there was a reasonable possibility that Aime could recover on her own. You are asking me to believe something that I already know is not true.
"I read it in a book, therefore it must be true"? Aside from the fact that you are changing the claim, it simply fails the commonsense rule. If someone claims that they can tell the colour of a card just by touch, it is foolish to believe that they aren't peeking until someone specifically states that they saw them peeking.
Linda
Mojo
Mostly harmless