Hello from a non-skeptic

[Robert Oz]

Quite frankly I am beginning to think that one of the tactics used here is to beat a newcomer with different views than your own to exhaustion.

It really isn't a tactic. You've come to a forum as a very small minority. It's unavoidable that the opposing view will seem like a bombardment.

I've limited my responses to your claims regarding your own personal experiences, because I accept that I don't know enough about the Jacqueline Pool case or Quantum Physics to give meaningful responses to your other claims.

If you really feel overwhelmed, try to concentrate on one claim at a time. You started with three and almost added a fourth with the reincarnation claim. Pick one and announce that that is the one you wish to concentrate on.

Most of your counter-argumentations to what I have presented (the predictions... <snip>) have been feable and biased to say the least. And precipitated.

I don't think my responses regarding the predictions were feeble.

I'll repeat the questions I posed in my last post and add one more:

- If twenty people each made twenty predictions per week for 12 years, (i.e. approximately 250,000 predictions), how many do you think would be successful purely by chance?

- Is it reasonable to assume that at least a few of these would be long shot predictions? Predictions that, on there own, seem to be quite remarkable?

- If any individual person only got to hear three predictions, what sort of impact would it have on the person who, by chance, happened to hear one of the long shot predictions?

- Is it reasonable to assume that historical facts about long term members of a group may come to be known by other members of the group?

 

[chillzero]

Quite frankly I am beginning to think that one of the tactics used here is to beat a newcomer with different views than your own to exhaustion.

I'm sorry you feel that way. I think you are getting off very lightly compared to some who come here trying to expose the close-mindedness of skeptics. People have engaged with you politely and in full, and have put forward lots of information to you about the nature of what you have claimed. You should follow the links to the information about things like confirmation bias, etc. They might change your life. They might alternatively expose something that the skeptics have missed that you can demonstrate to them as invalid. But you won't know if you don't look into them.

People aren't beating you into exhaustion, they are challenging your assumptions and assertions. They are exposing the flaws in your arguments where they exist, and asking for more details in the things you state are important but haven't supported fully. That's a respectful engagement within a discussion. If you have no responses to such queries other than frustration at being asked, then at some point you may need to review how much stock you place on items that you cannot fully support, and whether you are taking the most logical approach to examining your beliefs.

 

[Charles Boden]

I'll repeat the questions I posed in my last post and add one more:

- If twenty people each made twenty predictions per week for 12 years, (i.e. approximately 250,000 predictions), how many do you think would be successful purely by chance?

I honestly wouldn't know. I guess an experiment would have to be carried out to verify it. The thing is, though, that in my case it wasn't like that at all. The degree of correction in anything that was ever said to, past, present or future, was waaaaay beyond mathematical probabilities. You'll have to take my word on that, I'm afraid.

- Is it reasonable to assume that at least a few of these would be long shot predictions? Predictions that, on there own, seem to be quite remarkable?

Yes, but that was not the case.

- If any individual person only got to hear three predictions, what sort of impact would it have on the person who, by chance, happened to hear one of the long shot predictions?

I understand your point of view, but again that was not what happened in my case.

- Is it reasonable to assume that historical facts about long term members of a group may come to be known by other members of the group?

Yes, certainly. It was for this reason that (forgive me here) the spiritual entity, or ok, alleged spiritual entity, said "the death of a member of the Royal Family that you have connections to." This "alleged spiritual entity" was a different one to the one who told me about my wife's pregnancy. I can give several other examples of accurate things that were said to me, most not concerning the future, but past and present.

 

[Charles Boden]

I'm sorry you feel that way. I think you are getting off very lightly compared to some who come here trying to expose the close-mindedness of skeptics. People have engaged with you politely and in full, and have put forward lots of information to you about the nature of what you have claimed. You should follow the links to the information about things like confirmation bias, etc. They might change your life. They might alternatively expose something that the skeptics have missed that you can demonstrate to them as invalid. But you won't know if you don't look into them.

Fine, but at too much of a rapid rate that I might keep up with them. Could we go a bit more slowly then please?

 

[Charles Boden]

I for one have never heard of such a phenomenon, so no, I don't think real physics would explain it.

Seek and ye shall find...

 

[Loss Leader]

Would it be too much trouble to ask which ones in specific you would like me to reply to?

Okay:

The hits have been explained away by numerous posters since the very beginning of the thread. I'll repeat them for you, seeing as you claim not to have seen them: Random Chance

Of the thousands upon thousands of predictions any person hears (and, since you were in some sort of spiritualist group, the greatly increased number you heard), some of them Will Come True.

Your mistake is thinking that low probability events cannot happen. In fact, low probability events happen all the time. They are guaranteed to happen. The Detroit Tigers will win the World Series. The fact that they haven't won in 26 years (and have only won 4 times in 116 years) doesn't change anything at all.

Please tell me why random chance is insufficient to explain away the hits you are counting.

You also may want to look into something else that has been explained to you multiple times: Confirmation Bias.

It appears that you have been interested in the paranormal for decades. Your interest in these areas predates the "hits" that you are recording. Thus, you must at least concede that you may be biased in the way that you are recording data.

It's really no great fault to admit bias. Scientists are happy to admit they are biased in ways they are not even aware of and work hard to remove themselves from their own experiments on the off chance that they might subconsciously affect the results.

Please tell me why confirmation bias does not explain the hits you are counting.

I justify it by saying that a young, married couple is constantly being accused of hiding a pregnancy in the early stages.

Please tell me why the above statement is insufficient to explain the hit you are recording.

Also, your wife got pregnant when your son was three months old? Good for her, taking one for the team. I tried to hold my wife's hand when my son was three months old and she punched me in the head.

Please tell me how you got any play from a woman with a three month old baby.

But, seriously, there's no reason to discard your data, because your data is insufficient. You've provided two hits over some unknown period of time out of some unknown number of guesses. One of them is a very weak hit. The other, about pregnancy, has not been given much context.

Please tell me how your two hits, without context, constitutes sufficiently analyzable data.

Trust me when I tell you: When I'm the one explaining quantum waveform collapse, the usual JREF posters are not playing their starting bench.

Please really, really consider the fact that you have not even begun to sense the core scientific knowledge contained in the minds of those who post here. Please consider that, when you do, you will long for days like today when the harshest attack on your understanding of physics comes from a divorce lawyer.

 

[PixyMisa]

I'll repeat the questions I posed in my last post and add one more:

- If twenty people each made twenty predictions per week for 12 years, (i.e. approximately 250,000 predictions), how many do you think would be successful purely by chance?

I honestly wouldn't know. I guess an experiment would have to be carried out to verify it. The thing is, though, that in my case it wasn't like that at all. The degree of correction in anything that was ever said to, past, present or future, was waaaaay beyond mathematical probabilities. You'll have to take my word on that, I'm afraid.

No. No we don't. Nor would we, nor should we. We have plenty of people here who are perfectly proficient at calculating the precise probabilities of these purported predictions.

Provide us merely with the details; we'll do the rest. No charge.

 

[Robert Oz]

- If twenty people each made twenty predictions per week for 12 years, (i.e. approximately 250,000 predictions), how many do you think would be successful purely by chance?

I honestly wouldn't know. I guess an experiment would have to be carried out to verify it. The thing is, though, that in my case it wasn't like that at all. The degree of correction in anything that was ever said to, past, present or future, was waaaaay beyond mathematical probabilities. You'll have to take my word on that, I'm afraid.

I'm sorry, Charles, but without objective verification, we simply cannot take that claim seriously. Ian Rowland, the author of The Full Facts Book of Cold Reading, consistently gets feedback from sitters that his accuracy is between 85% and 95%.

These sitters would swear up and down that Rowland's predictions are "waaaaay beyond mathematical probabilities", and yet Rowland openly admits that he uses tried and true cold reading techniques to give this impression.

Do a Youtube search on "Derren Brown cold reading" and you'll be astounded by how amazingly convincing these techniques can be.

- Is it reasonable to assume that at least a few of these would be long shot predictions? Predictions that, on there own, seem to be quite remarkable?

Yes, but that was not the case.

How could you possibly know that?

- If any individual person only got to hear three predictions, what sort of impact would it have on the person who, by chance, happened to hear one of the long shot predictions?

I understand your point of view, but again that was not what happened in my case.

Again, how could you possibly know that?

- Is it reasonable to assume that historical facts about long term members of a group may come to be known by other members of the group?

Yes, certainly. It was for this reason that (forgive me here) the spiritual entity, or ok, alleged spiritual entity, said "the death of a member of the Royal Family that you have connections to." This "alleged spiritual entity" was a different one to the one who told me about my wife's pregnancy. I can give several other examples of accurate things that were said to me, most not concerning the future, but past and present.

There is nothing here that would make me think it isn't anything more than cold reading.

I'll repeat my suggestion to do a Youtube search on "Derren Brown cold reading". What impact do you think his readings would have if he didn't reveal them to be tricks by the end of his performances?

 

[Charles Boden]

Hi Loss Leader,

A national holiday here in Brazil covering yesterday and today is what has enables me to correspond as much as I have, but I am haing some guests over in a little while so pls forgive me if I return here a little later. I won't be disappearing, so we have ample time to discuss all the questions slowly and in careful consideration. I would enjoy that. I do hope others here might too.

The hits have been explained away by numerous posters since the very beginning of the thread. I'll repeat them for you, seeing as you claim not to have seen them: Random Chance.

As I said, not in my case. The degree of "hits" was far beyond any random chance.

Of the thousands upon thousands of predictions any person hears (and, since you were in some sort of spiritualist group, the greatly increased number you heard), some of them Will Come True.

Believe me, I am neither insane nor stupid. It took me a very long time before I truly came to believe that anything extraordinary might be happening...

Your mistake is thinking that low probability events cannot happen. In fact, low probability events happen all the time. They are guaranteed to happen. The Detroit Tigers will win the World Series. The fact that they haven't won in 26 years (and have only won 4 times in 116 years) doesn't change anything at all.

Sorry, but again I will have to ask you to trust me when I say to you that this was not the case.

Please tell me why random chance is insufficient to explain away the hits you are counting.

As I said, the sheer proportion of them... They were just too many to be discarded as mere chance.

Quote:
You also may want to look into something else that has been explained to you multiple times: Confirmation Bias.

I believe I have already replied to this above.

It appears that you have been interested in the paranormal for decades. Your interest in these areas predates the "hits" that you are recording. Thus, you must at least concede that you may be biased in the way that you are recording data.

As I said, I was skeptical for a very long time. I will share here how and why I came to take a different view if this will be of interest to those here.

It's really no great fault to admit bias. Scientists are happy to admit they are biased in ways they are not even aware of and work hard to remove themselves from their own experiments on the off chance that they might subconsciously affect the results.

Yes, I will admit that nowadays, after all I encountered personally, I probably am. But the same could be said regarding all you guys here.

Please tell me why confirmation bias does not explain the hits you are counting.

I have.


Quote:
I justify it by saying that a young, married couple is constantly being accused of hiding a pregnancy in the early stages.

Please tell me why the above statement is insufficient to explain the hit you are recording.

My wife and I had no intention of having another child. When I was told that my wife was pregnant the first thing I did when I got home was to tell her what had been said to me. We took the uttermost care, but it was too late...


Quote:
Also, your wife got pregnant when your son was three months old? Good for her, taking one for the team. I tried to hold my wife's hand when my son was three months old and she punched me in the head.



Please tell me how you got any play from a woman with a three month old baby.

The abstination (sp?) period is 30 to 40 days...


Quote:
But, seriously, there's no reason to discard your data, because your data is insufficient. You've provided two hits over some unknown period of time out of some unknown number of guesses. One of them is a very weak hit. The other, about pregnancy, has not been given much context.

Please tell me how your two hits, without context, constitutes sufficiently analyzable data.

I promise I will share more. As I said, it was not just one incidental case that took me to believe in what I believe...


Quote:
Trust me when I tell you: When I'm the one explaining quantum waveform collapse, the usual JREF posters are not playing their starting bench.

Please really, really consider the fact that you have not even begun to sense the core scientific knowledge contained in the minds of those who post here. Please consider that, when you do, you will long for days like today when the harshest attack on your understanding of physics comes from a divorce lawyer.

The reason I posed the question is because I honestly would like to know an answer. I would be most appreciative if I got one from a quantum physicist.He might know about quantum physics, but you guys know zilch about mediumnity and spirituality. Maybe I can contribute a little in that respect...

 

[AdMan]

Firstly, I must say that I too was skeptical of anything paranormal for a number of years until I had my own personal evidences that "there are more mysteries between heaven and earth than supposes our vain philosophy", which I am quite willing to share here...

I'm curious--what "personal evidences" first convinced you of the existence of the paranormal? I assume you aren't referring to the Princess Diana and the pregnancy incidents, since by the time those happened it sounds like you had been attending spiritualist sessions for a number of years, which IMO is not very typical behavior for someone "skeptical of anything paranormal."

ETA: I see that in the post above you already said you would share how you first came to your current way of thinking. I look forward to hearing about it.

 

[Robert Oz]

Charles,

Please answer honestly and before looking anything up:

How much do you know about cold reading?

 

[iknownothing]

Firstly, I must say that I too was skeptical of anything paranormal for a number of years until I had my own personal evidences

Which years were those? The years in between the past life memories in your childhood and your 12 years in a spiritualist center?

how many of you here have ever undergone a regression to verify for yourselves?

Me!

In my younger and more gullible years. I think I paid the guy $50. He did his best, waving his hands above me, playing eery music, usual hypnosis lines, etc. And I really was totally ready to be regressed and experience the awe of finding out about all my past lifetimes. Just didn't happen. Nothing at all happened.

Not that that is proof against past life regression...just an answer to your question.

 

[CurtC]

How and why does this happen? What kind of interference can the act of observation possibly have upon the results? This is my one and only question here.

First, let's be clear: the act of observation has nothing to do with consciousness. Simple physical detectors are capable of making these observations.

And the reason that observation necessarily will interfere with a situation, is that there is, as a matter of principle, no way to passively observe something. If you're trying to observe an electron by measuring the small magnetic field as it passes through a detector, that detector itself has electromagnetic effects upon the electron, just based on simple electromagnetic theory.

There is no way around this principle. You can't passively observe anything.

 

[Loss Leader]

but you guys know zilch about mediumnity and spirituality. Maybe I can contribute a little in that respect... [/COLOR]

Well, folks, that's been my time. Please remember to tip your servers. And drive carefully. Goodnight!

 

[majamin]

The hits have been explained away by numerous posters since the very beginning of the thread. I'll repeat them for you, seeing as you claim not to have seen them: Random Chance.

As I said, not in my case. The degree of "hits" was far beyond any random chance.

Of the thousands upon thousands of predictions any person hears (and, since you were in some sort of spiritualist group, the greatly increased number you heard), some of them Will Come True.

Believe me, I am neither insane nor stupid. It took me a very long time before I truly came to believe that anything extraordinary might be happening...

Your mistake is thinking that low probability events cannot happen. In fact, low probability events happen all the time. They are guaranteed to happen. The Detroit Tigers will win the World Series. The fact that they haven't won in 26 years (and have only won 4 times in 116 years) doesn't change anything at all.

Sorry, but again I will have to ask you to trust me when I say to you that this was not the case.
Please tell me why random chance is insufficient to explain away the hits you are counting.

As I said, the sheer proportion of them... They were just too many to be discarded as mere chance.
Quote:
You also may want to look into something else that has been explained to you multiple times: Confirmation Bias.

I believe I have already replied to this above.

[snip]

Charles, the highlighted portions are the phrases you have used while enchrouching on scientific ground. In fact, well-establish, firm scientific ground that determines the plausibility of hypotheses. As has been mentioned before (by Pixel42 and others, to my best knowledge), you have opened yourself up to scientific scrutiny, and every time you use the word chance, we will hold you to its proper and understood properties, especially in how we use chance (probability/statistics) to formulate new ideas. Any time you use the word research, the same applies. You have not demonstrated that you understand the properties of probability and statistics thus far, so consider the following ... by way of example ...

I often lead a quick experiment with my math students, involving flipping a coin, and writing down the results down as a long string of H's and T's (heads and tails). I separate the class into two different sets of groups: students that actually flip a coin and come up with a list, and students who come up with a list of H's and T's that will try to fool me into thinking that they have flipped a coin. They shuffle their papers at the end, and I write down the results for them to see (usually next day). Before I tell you how these lists differed, do you have any guesses at how they could have been different? (this idea came from a recent RadioLab podcast)

 

[SumDood]

Charles,

Is there anything, anything at all, that would convince you that you are mistaken and that there is nothing supernatural about your experiences? Even something crazy like someone secretly took a blood sample from your wife, determined she was pregnant and told a psychic about it. Would that convince you? Please be honest with yourself when answering.

I can't speak for everyone, but I can think of several things that would convince me of the supernatural.

 

[aggle-rithm]

I'll repeat the questions I posed in my last post and add one more:

- If twenty people each made twenty predictions per week for 12 years, (i.e. approximately 250,000 predictions), how many do you think would be successful purely by chance?

I honestly wouldn't know. I guess an experiment would have to be carried out to verify it. The thing is, though, that in my case it wasn't like that at all. The degree of correction in anything that was ever said to, past, present or future, was waaaaay beyond mathematical probabilities. You'll have to take my word on that, I'm afraid.

John Allen Paulos wrote a book called "Innumeracy" that talks about exactly the sort of misconception you're making here. Innumeracy (the numeric/arithmetic equivalent of illiteracy) is rampant in today's culture, he argues, and the most prevalent misunderstandings have to do with probabilities.

Good read, you should check it out.

 

[aggle-rithm]

Sorry, but again I will have to ask you to trust me when I say to you that this was not the case.

Yes, but then WE would be "non-skeptics".

 

[chillzero]

Fine, but at too much of a rapid rate that I might keep up with them. Could we go a bit more slowly then please?

Firstly, that's the beauty of internet forums - they aren't real-time interaction. Just ge to it when you can, and don't worry about sharing all your personal diary with us all.

Secondly, to assist in future, another beauty of internet forums is the ability to limit discussion to one topic, and keep other topics isolated in separate threads. Stop introducing new ideas, and focus on the initial claim you want to discuss.

 

[dafydd]

Oh dear, victim complex already. That didn't take long... nobody attacked you at all, this is dishonest.


Not to mention, did the medium specify which royal family? The British one is certainly the most well-known, but hardly the only one on the planet. Would they have claimed a hit if a member of Swedish, Belgian, Saudi, etc. royal family had died?

There are about forty eight royal families in the world.