Proof of Life After Death!!

[pakeha]

Honestly, I really don't get ...at all...why many of you wear the "I'm 100% certain..." badge so proudly. I don't think that's a smart way of thinking...at all. Certainly nothing to be proud of.

That was gold, Jerry, gold! Resume, I'm referring to the whole debate on the Joseph Tittel thread which started with Nay Sayer's proclamation that he is 100% certain each and every psychic and medium is a fraud. Then others agreed. I explained how you can never fairly and accurately evaluate a situation if you go into every new situation 100% certain of your conclusion before you've even begun, and yada, yada, yada, people are still doing it.

What really is amusing is the lack of reading skills these posts show.
Check out that sig line at the bottom of my post.
Where does the word 'certain' appear?

I'm amazed you don't see the disconnect here.

He could be, He isn't and I know, let me write it again KNOW he's a fraud, There are 20+ minute collages of JE's failures all over youtube.

Your statement is leading me to two of many possible hypothesis'

1: Your a shill for John Edward and somehow employed by him to spread the word of how great he is. (Very unlikely)

2: John Edward got his hooks into you so good and made such an impact with a flimsy cold reading, that with each remembering gets better each time, That no matter how many times we lift the curtain you just can't see the guy behind it working the controls. (Much more likely)

Do not take this as an attack, You seem very bright and more than capable of spotting frauds, I think it boils down to this; And this is my opinion only.

By denying John Edwards your not just denying some TV Fraud your also denying that connection you thought you had with your deceased relative and by denying that, That you are losing them all over again.

I tend to go with option 1, myself, and have done so for some time.

 

[Robin1]

Well, if it was me,.... of course. But I'm a special bunny and they all know it.

Seriously... Robin, we've said this before and so that Mike A gets it, let's use two great possiblities, generally honored among skeptics and critical thinkers as poster children for the Scientific Method:

If either Steven Hawking or James Randi Hisself came in here tomorrow and offered only his word and his reputation to support the contention that James Edward could talk to the dead, Sylvia Browne really has a spirit guide informing her where missing children are, Peter Popov can really cure people through the magic of Teh Lord, or Uri Geller can move magnetic north by the sheer power of his mind....

..... We would ask for evidence. Some people might rally behind their favorite skeptical thinker out of force of habit, but most of us are not so totally rudderless in our lives that we would fall in line behind nonsense just because it was proffered by someone with credentials.

Foolmewunz, that's a fair answer. Although I am 100% certain...oops I meant 100% confident ...that James Randi Hisself would never admit to thinking any experience could ever be considered paranormal. I'm 100% confident that hell would have to freeze over first. But like I said I'm only 100% confident, certainly not 100% certain.

 

[Foolmewunz]

Foolmewunz, that's a fair answer. Although I am 100% certain...oops I meant 100% confident ...that James Randi Hisself would never admit to thinking any experience could ever be considered paranormal. I'm 100% confident that hell would have to freeze over first. But like I said I'm only 100% confident, certainly not 100% certain.

Well, I think you may have a fraction of a degree more certainty there (of someone else's thinking) than that person has, himself. I'm sure there are people who hang on Randi's every word - much as I did when he WAS the SWIFT weekly - and can recall, but I'm fairly certain that he's made a statement fairly common to skeptics, e.g. to the effect that he's as certain as certain can be (let's call it 99.9999995% certain) that the Sun is hot, but if that some radical research was to show that it was actually not hot at all, he'd be rather shocked, but would have to accept the knowledge if it was scientifically tested and proved, empirically. (I paraphrase about "the sun", by the way, but I'm fairly certain that he's made such a statement, as I think most of us have.)

As to the "100% certainty that there are no psychics"? I'd go with that same 99.99999995% certainty factor. I can say, with certainty, that of the few psychics who've offered up some sort of proof or allowed themselves to be tested, I have seen no proof of psychic ability in 100% of the cases. That does not necessarily extend to 100% certainty that there will never, never ever, be such a proof. Maybe it happens.

I think the problem you're having is that if we see something that we can't explain the results of, we're more apt to say, "Hmmm! I can't prove that's NOT an example of psychic ability but it still falls far short of PROVING psychic ability. Until such time as such ability can be proved to rigid standards, I'll file that under "cause, device, trick, gimmick unknown." If you cannot agree with that approach, we're going to have to agree to disagree. As I've said before, both you and Mike A are dealing in faith. One cannot argue with a True Believer because... God's Love, or whatever belief it is the TB holds.

 

[torifrog]

Robin - here's a really simple question. Why is it, do you think - given you've been to see numerous psychics, and JE in particular at least twice - that John Edward won't sit down and be tested using scientific tools (other than the discredited research already discussed in this thread)?

 

[Recovering Agnostic]

Once again you are ignoring the fact that we have an enormous amount of precedent to go by. People who were utterly convinced that they were experiencing something which couldn't' possibly be explained by chance have been proved wrong every single time their belief has been put to the test.

I think there's a problem of confidence here. Robin1 proudly displays her sceptical credentials on a regular basis here - she thinks mediums and psychics are all frauds, except John Edward. But when providing "evidence" for this claim, it's the sort of lame cold reading and unremarkable coincidence that she'd easily identify as such in any other case. I think she believes she knows all the tricks and how to spot them, so when Edward scored a few soft hits which resonated with her, she had to believe that he was different, because she knew how it worked, so if it felt real, it must be.

The easiest way to show why this is a mistake is with reference to a show Penn and Teller did a while back, called Fool Us. Hopeful magicians would come on stage and perform tricks. Most of the time, Penn and Teller knew exactly how it was done, but occasionally, there was a trick that they couldn't work out. On those rare occasions, the magician won a trip to Vegas. What didn't happen was Penn and Teller becoming convinced that these guys were doing real magic, just because they couldn't see how the trick worked.

I'm inclined to think that what a couple of guys like Penn and Teller don't know about magic isn't worth knowing, but they could still be shown a trick that they couldn't work out. None of us are infallible, and the step from "I don't know how that happened" to "Therefore, woo" is well-worn by a lot of people who lacked the knowledge or imagination to realise how easily we can be fooled. That's why everyone's asking for objective, repeatable tests of these claims. It's not a personal thing, accusing anyone of being stupid or lying (with the possible exception of JE), but a recognition that we can all be taken in.

 

[Robin1]

Robin - here's a really simple question. Why is it, do you think - given you've been to see numerous psychics, and JE in particular at least twice - that John Edward won't sit down and be tested using scientific tools (other than the discredited research already discussed in this thread)?

Top 10 reasons why JE won't participate in the million dollar challenge:
1) He already did participate in scientific testing and proved his abilities in "The Afterlife Experiments." I read both sides of the debate and in no way, shape or form, do I believe the conclusion drawn from those experiments was successfully discredited. You do. I don't.
2) Even if he did participate in the million dollar challenge and once AGAIN proved his abilities...people would desperately try to explain why it doesn't count. See #1.
3) I'm 100% confident the test and/or results and/or interpretation would be rigged to discount any abilities he would successfully prove.
4) JE is not a circus animal who has to jump through hoops to prove anything.
5) JE doesn't feel he has to prove anything to anyone. You believe, great. You don't believe, great.
6) He has more important things to do.
7) He already participated in testing and PROVED his abilities. Oh wait, I said that already... But it's worth repeating.
8) James Randi is annoying.
9) James Randi is annoying.
10) James Randi is annoying.

 

[Resume]

Top 10 reasons why JE won't participate in the million dollar challenge:
1) He already did participate in testing and proved his abilities in "The Afterlife Experiments." I read both sides of the debate and in no way, shape or form do I think the conclusion drawn from those experiments was successfully discredited. You do. I don't.
2) Even if he did participate in the million dollar challenge and once AGAIN proved his abilities...people would desperately try to explain why it doesn't count. See #1.
3) I'm 100% confident the test and/or results and/or interpretation would be rigged to discount any abilities he would successfully prove.
4) JE is not a circus animal who has to jump through hoops to prove anything.
5) JE doesn't feel he has to prove anything to anyone. You believe, great. You don't believe, great.
6) He has more important things to do.
7) He already participated in testing and PROVED his abilities. Oh wait, I said that before... But it's worth repeating.
8) James Randi is annoying.
9) James Randi is annoying.
10) James Randi is annoying.

You're missing the obvious: he isn't psychic and failing the challenge might interrupt his cash flow.

p.s. You find Randi annoying because he challenges your world view.

 

[Recovering Agnostic]

3) I'm 100% confident the test and/or results and/or interpretation would be rigged to discount any abilities he would successfully prove.

And you call people who want actual evidence closed-minded.

 

[Robin1]

You're missing the obvious: he isn't psychic and failing the challenge might interrupt his cash flow.

p.s. You find Randi annoying because he challenges your world view.

No, I believe James Randi has done a service to many. And a disservice to many.
Either way...he's still annoying.

 

[Mashuna]

Top 10 reasons why JE won't participate in the million dollar challenge:
1) He already did participate in scientific testing and proved his abilities in "The Afterlife Experiments." I read both sides of the debate and in no way, shape or form, do I believe the conclusion drawn from those experiments was successfully discredited. You do. I don't.
2) Even if he did participate in the million dollar challenge and once AGAIN proved his abilities...people would desperately try to explain why it doesn't count. See #1.
3) I'm 100% confident the test and/or results and/or interpretation would be rigged to discount any abilities he would successfully prove.
4) JE is not a circus animal who has to jump through hoops to prove anything.
5) JE doesn't feel he has to prove anything to anyone. You believe, great. You don't believe, great.
6) He has more important things to do.
7) He already participated in testing and PROVED his abilities. Oh wait, I said that already... But it's worth repeating.
8) James Randi is annoying.
9) James Randi is annoying.
10) James Randi is annoying.

Wow, that's a much longer list than I managed.

1) He's a con man who's making lots of money, so has no reason to submit himself to proper testing.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Well, if it was me,.... of course. But I'm a special bunny and they all know it.

Seriously... Robin, we've said this before and so that Mike A gets it, let's use two great possiblities, generally honored among skeptics and critical thinkers as poster children for the Scientific Method:

If either Steven Hawking or James Randi Hisself came in here tomorrow and offered only his word and his reputation to support the contention that James Edward could talk to the dead, Sylvia Browne really has a spirit guide informing her where missing children are, Peter Popov can really cure people through the magic of Teh Lord, or Uri Geller can move magnetic north by the sheer power of his mind....

..... We would ask for evidence. Some people might rally behind their favorite skeptical thinker out of force of habit, but most of us are not so totally rudderless in our lives that we would fall in line behind nonsense just because it was proffered by someone with credentials.

And, not quite the same thing, but there is evidence to support the assertion that people don't just blindly agree with what Randi says - all anyone needs to do is to see the recent dicussions of Randi's comments on the legalisation of drugs and social Darwinism. Randi said something unscientific and everybody criticised him for it and said that he was wrong. Then Randi agreed that he was wrong.

Perfect example of scepticism in action, from both sides.

 

[Garrette]

OK, I've stated many times that EVERY psychic and medium I have been to thus far I believe is a fake. Except for John Edward. Obviously I know the tricks, I'm experienced, I'm knowledgeable ( in this subject anyway), I have half a brain, I can keep my emotion out of it, etc. Yet, even though I warn people on my blog about the frauds, the deluded, etc. most people here will not even entertain the notion I could be right about JE. Or my personal signs. I do get that you don't know me, so here's my question....is there anyone on this forum that you would respect enough to possibly believe if they came back here telling you that they went to JE and think he could be real? Or they had a personal sign that they think could be real. Would ANYBODY actually make you stop and reevaluate? Say it was Meg, or Resume, or, Garrette, or Pixel, or Foolmewunz or ExMinister, or RSLancastr, or Xterra, etc. ...would any of them or anyone else having a paranormal experience they thought was real, would that make you stop and consider the possibility. Or would you just try to convince them it was just a coincidence. Or memory fail. Or hot reading. Or a lucky guess. Or....

You miss the point of our status as people respected in the field (for purposes of this post I will egotistically assume I am respected in the field, at least on this forum). Further, you misunderstand how we approach evidence and how we approach personal observation.

First, the point of my posts earlier in the thread about how I am an expert was only secondarily to indicate that I am an expert. It was primarily and most importantly about how I am not enough of an expert to remain unfooled. I am confident in my abilities to catch out the possible ways of performing an effect in most circumstances, but I am routinely fooled by those who actually perform for a living. I have mentioned the extent of my library. In one sense, my library is an indicator of my knowledge; in another, it is an indicator of my amateur status. I would wager with some confidence that my library is larger than Gee Mack's who actually performed mentalism for a living and even larger than Randi's. What that means is that performers need only a few key texts from which they develp their own effects and skills and variations of fundamental methods. When they have their act down pat they have little need to buy other people's methods because they know them through experience and through continuous development of their own skills. It's the difference between reading all the automobile maintenance manuals in the world and actually running your own car repair shop. I'm the former; that means I know a lot. Randi and John Edward are the latter; that means while I can comment on most of what they do, they can still do things I can't follow.
That's the reason I have said in other threads that if I were ever asked (and I never would or should be asked) to participate as an expert observer in a JREF Million Dollar Challenge I would politely decline.

Since I know that with my vast library and amateur performance experience that I am unqualified to detect all forms of deception, I am safe in concluding that you are likewise unqualified.

Second, if I were to personally observe something apparently paranormal that was so overwhelmingly convincing that it had me questioning my conclusions about the paranormal not existing, I would do exactly that: I would question my conclusions. To properly question them, I would have to investigate them, and to properly investigate them I would have to involve an emotionally detached and sufficiently informed third party.

Part of what I would do would likely be to come here, post my experience, be up front about how it has made me question my earlier conclusions, and ask for input on how to properly and objectively assess and investigate.

If anyone here, including you, were to change their minds on the paranormal simply because I came on the board and told them a personally mystifying anecdote, I would figuratively slap them upside the head.

Neither science nor proper skepticism nor rational thinking is embodied in your hypothetical which amounts to nothing more than this:

Wow! That's a cool story, and since you know a lot about fake mentalists I now believe in John Edward.

 

[Resume]

No, I believe James Randi has done a service to many. And a disservice to many.Either way...he's still annoying.

Could you provide examples of the highlighted?

Although I do agree in principle: exposing con artists, frauds, and charlatans tends to do a disservice to their revenue stream.

 

[Garrette]

Top 10 reasons why JE won't participate in the million dollar challenge:
1) He already did participate in scientific testing and proved his abilities in "The Afterlife Experiments." I read both sides of the debate and in no way, shape or form, do I believe the conclusion drawn from those experiments was successfully discredited. You do. I don't. 2) Even if he did participate in the million dollar challenge and once AGAIN proved his abilities...people would desperately try to explain why it doesn't count. See #1.
3) I'm 100% confident the test and/or results and/or interpretation would be rigged to discount any abilities he would successfully prove.
4) JE is not a circus animal who has to jump through hoops to prove anything.
5) JE doesn't feel he has to prove anything to anyone. You believe, great. You don't believe, great.
6) He has more important things to do.
7) He already participated in testing and PROVED his abilities. Oh wait, I said that already... But it's worth repeating.
8) James Randi is annoying.
9) James Randi is annoying.
10) James Randi is annoying.

Your opinion of Schwartz's book would carry a bit more weight if you actually deigned to discuss it. Care to do that now? We can talk about the specific criticisms and why you think they are lacking.

And to be honest, regardless how this may upset you, I do not believe that you have really read both sides of the debate. Note that I am not calling you a liar here; I believe that you read Randi's comments and Schwartz's ridiculous Veritas reply, but that's not the debate. Frankly, there isn't a debate. There is legitimate, substantive criticism (Randi's comments really are only a small part of that), and there is a failure to respond to it by Schwartz.

So then -- Shall we talk Schwartz? Let's limit it to the John Edward testing bit since that is the topic of the thread, at least at first. You outline the specific bits of evidence that you feel are the strongest proof, and I will respond.

Are you game?

 

[Robin1]

And, not quite the same thing, but there is evidence to support the assertion that people don't just blindly agree with what Randi says - all anyone needs to do is to see the recent dicussions of Randi's comments on the legalisation of drugs and social Darwinism. Randi said something unscientific and everybody criticised him for it and said that he was wrong. Then Randi agreed that he was wrong.

Perfect example of scepticism in action, from both sides.

People would have had to be supreme idiots to agree with what Randi said there. I read it awhile ago but wasn't it something to the effect of drug addicts are supposed to die?

 

[Resume]

People would have had to be supreme idiots to agree with what Randi said there. I read it awhile ago but wasn't it something like drug addicts are supposed to die?

You're thinking of Rush Limbaugh.

 

[Garrette]

People would have had to be supreme idiots to agree with what Randi said there. I read it awhile ago but wasn't it something like drug addicts are supposed to die?

People are supreme idiots all the time, even skeptics. Note the continued belief in Scientology or the Hale Bopp cult from years ago or the worldwide homeopathy scam or the ridiculous Power Bracelet and variations. That's the point. Follow evidence--not guts, not instinct, not feeling, not desire, and not emotion. We won't be perfect about it; sometimes evidence gets lost in the shuffle, and even when we follow the evidence we will sometimes be wrong, but it's like the stock market: in the long run, ignoring the mass appeal of buy this hot stock now and sell everything quick! and instead sticking with a steady approach will yield the best results.

To paraphrase Churchill: Science is the worst of all possible systems for discerning the truth except for all the others.

 

[Resume]

Foolmewunz, that's a fair answer. Although I am 100% certain...oops I meant 100% confident ...that James Randi Hisself would never admit to thinking any experience could ever be considered paranormal. I'm 100% confident that hell would have to freeze over first. But like I said I'm only 100% confident, certainly not 100% certain.

And you'd be incorrect. I have personally heard Randi say when asked about psychic/paranormal phenomenon that he hasn't met everyone in the world so he can't say for certain, but the so far, no soap.

The quote is from one of the myriad YouTube Randi videos; you'll have to trust me.

 

[Robin1]

Your opinion of Schwartz's book would carry a bit more weight if you actually deigned to discuss it. Care to do that now? We can talk about the specific criticisms and why you think they are lacking.

And to be honest, regardless how this may upset you, I do not believe that you have really read both sides of the debate. Note that I am not calling you a liar here; I believe that you read Randi's comments and Schwartz's ridiculous Veritas reply, but that's not the debate. Frankly, there isn't a debate. There is legitimate, substantive criticism (Randi's comments really are only a small part of that), and there is a failure to respond to it by Schwartz.

So then -- Shall we talk Schwartz? Let's limit it to the John Edward testing bit since that is the topic of the thread, at least at first. You outline the specific bits of evidence that you feel are the strongest proof, and I will respond.

Are you game?

Quite frankly, Garrette, I couldn't possibly care less if you don't believe I really did read both sides of the debate. I also really couldn't possibly care less that you have repeatedly called me purposely dishonest.
And I'll pass on that game.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

People would have had to be supreme idiots to agree with what Randi said there.

Point being that sceptics don't just believe things becasue other sceptics have said them. Few sceptics are as respected in the sceptical community as Randi, yet he said something scientific, and the immediate response wasn't people agreeing with him, or pretending he hadn't said it, it was to say that it was unscientific.

So, if James Randi himself came on this board and said that he believed John Edward to be genuine, then the response wouldn't be "really? Who'd have thought?", it would be "evidence, please".

It doesn't matter who you are, it just matters what evidence you can provide.