Proof of Life After Death!!

[Stray Cat]

A brilliant post, GeeMack.

Indeed and agreed, very well put GeeMack.

And from now on, when faced with the constant question of "How did you do that?" I will reply; "I didn't, I just made it look like I did it"

 

[carlitos]

You are comparing anecdotes about a common natural experience with anecdotes about a supernatural experience, and consider them to be of equal credibility?

Put another way, Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Things that happen all the time on farms, not so much.

 

[Elizabeth I]

P.S. I actually saw the JE episode involving the man drinking milk straight from the cow.
JE meant, in that case, drinking milk straight from the cow's udder. As in taking the udder and squirting the milk directly in your mouth.

Big deal. My great-uncle did the same thing when he was milking his cows. He even squirted milk from the udder into my mouth a couple of times.

 

[jiggeryqua]

Anecdotes should not be taken as proof whatever the source. And I am perfectly aware that the quote in my post 2272 is just an anecdote. When somebody says though that John Edward is the real deal and gives anecdotes to "prove" it and an internet search shows people saying that they have witnessed him cheating and giving examples of how it can be done then we can weigh up all the evidence and decide for ourselves. For myself I am leaning quite heavily in favour of the opinion that JE does not, and cannot, converse with dead people.

I've covered that ground myself, much earlier - if JE could speak to the dead, why does he 'cheat' (not a useful term, really, but I take your meaning - cold reading, hot reading, research and the associated bag of tricks of the 'psychic'). I'm fascinated to learn that you're not 100% convinced JE can't speak to the dead, though. Care to estimate the percentage possibility that he can? Probably best to say 0%, by the way, some posters can get quite partisan on certain issues.

No, what most people have said is that they have drunk or currently drink unprocessed milk. Only one, I believe, has said they have drunk a squirt of milk from a cow's udder.

I believe you actually wanted to address that point to Garrette:

And you have ignored all the posters here for whom drinking directly from the udder would be a hit.

We have already demonstrated that drinking from the udder is not uncommon.

No, hang on, no you didn't. The fact that I'm just quoting his claim (a claim that is even more unskeptical than I originally thought, thanks for pointing that out) is irrelevant, you don't want to find fault with him...

It's a fact that unprocessed milk exists. It's a fact that people who live or have spent time in farming/ranching communities often drink unprocessed milk. It's a fact that unprocessed milk is sold from farm stands to people who live in urban/suburban areas. It's even a highly provable theory that kids who have access to cows sometimes drink a squirt of milk from a cow's udder, because cows exist, kids exist, and it's physically possible.

So the E in JREF stands for Entirelybleedinobvious?

Life after death, contrary to Robin's claim, has never been proven to exist. Subsequently, communication with the dead has never been proven to be possible. But it is a fact that many, many psychics/mediums who claim to communicate with the dead, including John Edward, have been shown to be frauds. It's a fact that cold and hot reading are established techniques. It's fact that many claimed "hits" from psychics have rational explanations which have nothing to do with the paranormal/supernatural.

And it's a fact, that for some posters, you're either in the mob shouting 'witch' or you must be a witch-sympathiser, if not an actual liberal communist witch woo.

You are comparing anecdotes about a common natural experience with anecdotes about a supernatural experience, and consider them to be of equal credibility?

I consider anecdotes, generally speaking, to be of equal credibility (ie, as was obvious from the context, zero credibility). In this precise case, you have shown (or at least claimed...) that Garrette's use of anecdotal evidence had zero credibility. So comparison of Garrette's earnest but mistaken position with Robin's seems quite reasonable, wouldn't you say? Unless "Nooooo! They're on different sides" counts as a reason...

Your strawman fu is weak, grasshopper. But, please, do carry on picking nits.

A strawman would be me arguing against something nobody had said. Your fallacy fu is as weak as your derived attempts at humourous insults, 'grasshopper'. I should apologise though, for 'picking nits' in the wrong side of the argument. We can hardly expect skeptics to maintain the standards we demand of woos, where's the fun in that? Crikey, if people kept 'nit picking' our posts, we'd have to actually think a bit, rather than just toss out careless insults at posters who aren't in the club.

 

[Garrette]

Jiggeryqua, it is interesting that you began this tangent with a comment directed to me and yet you have responded to all but my own comments in regard to it. Care to rectify that?

 

[jiggeryqua]

When anecdotes are presented as evidence, anecdotes may be presented as rebuttal. I am quite happy to discount the milk-from-the-udder anecdotes of skeptics when Robin discounts the pro-JE anecdotes.

There is more I could say about how you are off the mark, such as even skeptics not requiring everything presented by Robin or other believers to be RDBPC studies and so therefore not undermining every non-RDBPC thing the skeptics themselves say, and that the reason we do this is that we want to have conversation here, not exchanges in Nature, but I don't have to go that far to demonstrate your comment is misplaced.

Your presentation of anecdotes was, according to desertgal and I'm more than happy to take her word for it, at best mistaken. There really haven't been as many udder-drinking anecdotes as you recall. I say it's mistaken, I'm loathe to use the mot du jour and say either you or desertgal was deliberately deceitful...

I was very far off the mark, as you say, in my claim that skeptics require
everything presented by Robin or other believers to be RDBPC studies. Oh no, hang on, you were very wide of my mark in presenting that fatuous strawman. You're somewhat wide of the mark in the false dichotomy you tacked on, too: 'conversation' vs 'exchange in Nature'. It's not really a conversation, is it? No more than when I occasionally answer the door to a proselytiser, just to tease them for a while...or when one comments aloud to the television, perhaps.

By the by, while we're here, what less than an RDBPC study would suffice to convince you of Robin's claim?

 

[ynot]

@ robin1

You may have missed my question earlier (or ignored it).

Why doesn’t JE use his ability to talk to the dead to find missing bodies?

I would appreciate either an answer or a reason why you won’t answer

 

[jiggeryqua]

@ robin1

You may have missed my question earlier (or ignored it).

Why doesn’t JE use his ability to talk to the dead to find missing bodies?

I would appreciate either an answer or a reason why you won’t answer

I must have missed the post where Robin claimed to be able to speak for JE. I mean, I've seen plenty of posts where other posters claimed Robin is JE, or is paid to promote him, or is just an amateur advocate, but you should know you can't take every claim you read here at face value...

I guess I understand what you think you're trying to do, in getting Robin to consider the question, but it's not actually a question she (or you or I) are at all equipped to answer. Hypothetical claims as to what you'd do if you had in imaginary power aren't of much value in this discussion...not least because the power you imagine would have the characteristics that support your argument, without necessarily sharing any particular characteristics with the power being claimed.

 

[truethat]

The reveals of the "other side" are kind of freaky IMO. Nothing spiritual or uplifting, just mundane bits of data and hints about gossip in this world. These claims make the afterworld right out of Beetlejuice.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZwdCa0ynEw

 

[greybeard]

I've covered that ground myself, much earlier - if JE could speak to the dead, why does he 'cheat' (not a useful term, really, but I take your meaning - cold reading, hot reading, research and the associated bag of tricks of the 'psychic'). I'm fascinated to learn that you're not 100% convinced JE can't speak to the dead, though. Care to estimate the percentage possibility that he can? Probably best to say 0%, by the way, some posters can get quite partisan on certain issues.

Sorry, I didn't really mean to say that I thought there was any possibility that he could communicate with the deceased. Quite the opposite.

 

[jiggeryqua]

Sorry, I didn't really mean to say that I thought there was any possibility that he could communicate with the deceased. Quite the opposite.

Forgive me. English is not the first language of many posters here, so my assumption that:

For myself I am leaning quite heavily in favour of the opinion that JE does not, and cannot, converse with dead people.

meant you had room for doubt, while quite reasonable between two native English speakers, may not have been applicable to someone in whose own language the words for 'quite' and 'completely' are the same, 'opinion' is synonymous with 'fact' and 'leaning...in favour' can also mean 'firmly rooted in the position'.

 

[Garrette]

Your presentation of anecdotes was, according to desertgal and I'm more than happy to take her word for it, at best mistaken.

At "best?" And what, pray tell, would at worst be?

But to keep this in the vein in which you so insistently placed it: you are happy to take someone else's anecdote about anecdotes while criticizing me for relying on anecdotes. And, no, that's not me being cute. That is what you are doing.

Forgive me if I find your argument less than compelling.

There really haven't been as many udder-drinking anecdotes as you recall.

Possibly. I've been mistaken more than once before, and my memory has never been perfect. But, then, you are relying upon anecdote to prove it, so let's not give your criticisms any weight, okay?

I say it's mistaken, I'm loathe to use the mot du jour and say either you or desertgal was deliberately deceitful...

Feel free to use it all you like. My skin is thick, and knowledge that you would be, shall we say, mistaken instead of deceitful, would serve to make it even thicker.

I was very far off the mark, as you say, in my claim that skeptics require everything presented by Robin or other believers to be RDBPC studies.

Nice of you to say so. If I overstated the numbers of posters who said they had drunk from udders then I will apologize for that, too.

Oh no, hang on, you were very wide of my mark in presenting that fatuous strawman.

Strawman? You didn't disparage our arguments because they aren't stringent enough, because they are merely anecdotes? That implies stringency, tests, trials, published papers, governmental data, etc. If that was not your intent, then I suggest you include what you consider acceptable instead of only listing what you do not.

You're somewhat wide of the mark in the false dichotomy you tacked on, too: 'conversation' vs 'exchange in Nature'. It's not really a conversation, is it? No more than when I occasionally answer the door to a proselytiser, just to tease them for a while...or when one comments aloud to the television, perhaps.

Comments to the television, no, but the proselytisers, maybe. Depends how you treat them. Robin has been allowed her say. In fact, she has been encouraged to have her say and has been asked questions in hopes of response. If there is lack of conversation here, the fault is not with me.

By the by, while we're here, what less than an RDBPC study would suffice to convince you of Robin's claim?

Tell me specifically what Robin's claim is, and I will give you a specific answer. Failing that, if you are asking about the triple claim of (1) there is life after death in an undefined fashion, (2) the alive-after-dead can communicate with the still alive, and (3) John Edward is a conduit for such communication, then I can only give a general answer:

Have John Edward provide information whose origin is more likely to have come from the dead than from other sources including the mundane like hot reading, confirmation bias, etc., but also including leprechauns (and I'm being serious.)

 

[ynot]

I must have missed the post where Robin claimed to be able to speak for JE. I mean, I've seen plenty of posts where other posters claimed Robin is JE, or is paid to promote him, or is just an amateur advocate, but you should know you can't take every claim you read here at face value...

I guess I understand what you think you're trying to do, in getting Robin to consider the question, but it's not actually a question she (or you or I) are at all equipped to answer. Hypothetical claims as to what you'd do if you had in imaginary power aren't of much value in this discussion...not least because the power you imagine would have the characteristics that support your argument, without necessarily sharing any particular characteristics with the power being claimed.

I’m not asking Robin1 to speak for JE, I’m asking her to speak for herself.

This question . .

Why doesn’t JE use his ability to talk to the dead to find missing bodies?

Is a follow-up to this question in which I’m clearly asking Robin1 for her opinion (hilited to make it easier for you) . . .

If you truly believe JE can speak to dead people then it must follow he can talk to dead people whose bodies are missing. Why do you think it is that JE (and all other “psychics”) don’t or can’t contact these dead people so their bodies can be found and give their grieving family and friends some closure?

Robin1’s very purpose in starting and posting this thread is to speak at the very least on behalf of JE.

She claims that JE is a genuine psychic because he “REPEATEDLY comes up with unique, specific, unknowable, personal, hits...which are directed to specific people, not the entire room”. I think it’s totally appropriate therefore to ask Robin1 why she thinks these “unique, specific, unknowable, personal, hits” don’t include helpful and useful information like the locations of missing bodies.

I will rephrase my question to Robin to avoid any ambiguity . . .

Robin1 – Why do you think it is that JE doesn’t use his ability to talk to the dead to find missing bodies?

Big text because I would really appreciate an answer and wouldn't like Robin1 to miss the question.

 

[Garrette]

Do you not think you'd be better served by addressing the question to JE? Robin's opinion on the hypothetical abilities you ascribe to JE are less than irrelevant. To use an unfortunate expression, talk to the organ grinder...

Person A claims that Person B can do X.

Person C asks Person A why -- if Person B can X -- Person B cannot do Y.

And you find that irrelevant? The conversation is not with JE, though I would welcome him here. The conversation is about Robin and her claims about JE.

 

[desertgal]

I believe you actually wanted to address that point to Garrette:

No, hang on, no you didn't. The fact that I'm just quoting his claim (a claim that is even more unskeptical than I originally thought, thanks for pointing that out) is irrelevant, you don't want to find fault with him...

You are right. I should have addressed that point to Garrette, not you. It's called an error, and has nothing to do with whether I "want to find fault with him" or not. But thanks for telling me what I intended. I'm glad you know.

So the E in JREF stands for Entirelybleedinobvious?

Oh, for the love of picking nits...so I stated the obvious. Shoot me.

And it's a fact, that for some posters, you're either in the mob shouting 'witch' or you must be a witch-sympathiser, if not an actual liberal communist witch woo.

No.

I consider anecdotes, generally speaking, to be of equal credibility (ie, as was obvious from the context, zero credibility). In this precise case, you have shown (or at least claimed...) that Garrette's use of anecdotal evidence had zero credibility.

No.

So comparison of Garrette's earnest but mistaken position with Robin's seems quite reasonable, wouldn't you say? Unless "Nooooo! They're on different sides" counts as a reason...

No.

A strawman would be me arguing against something nobody had said. Your fallacy fu is as weak as your derived attempts at humourous insults, 'grasshopper'.

Oooh, sarcasm. That must have felt good. Actually, I intended it to be humorous, but not an insult. There you go again-thanks for telling me what I meant.

I should apologise though, for 'picking nits' in the wrong side of the argument. We can hardly expect skeptics to maintain the standards we demand of woos, where's the fun in that? Crikey, if people kept 'nit picking' our posts, we'd have to actually think a bit, rather than just toss out careless insults at posters who aren't in the club.

Oooh, sarcasm. That must have felt good. See above.

Debating nits with you leads nowhere, and I'm simply not interested enough. I'd also like to avoid being falsely accused again of saying and meaning things I did not say or mean, which seems to be a habit with you. Anyway, good luck with your debate. Maybe at some point you will actually discuss the topic of the thread.

 

[ynot]

My posts are being removed by the mods faster than I can post them. Wish some reason for this was given as I really don’t understand why. I expect this post will also be removed.

 

[ynot]

Person A claims that Person B can do X.

Person C asks Person A why -- if Person B can X -- Person B cannot do Y.

And more importantly - Person A claims and believes that X (which is a load of banal and unimportant crap) is proof of Person B being able to talk to dead people. Whereas if Person B could do Y (important and useful stuff) it may indeed provide such proof. So why does Person A think Person B doesn’t do Y?

 

[jiggeryqua]

Person A claims that Person B can do X.

Person C asks Person A why -- if Person B can X -- Person B cannot do Y.

And you find that irrelevant? The conversation is not with JE, though I would welcome him here. The conversation is about Robin and her claims about JE.

Person A claims that Person B can do X.

Person C invents some imaginary reasons why Person B should be able to do Y.

Person C asks Person A why Person B can't do Y.

Now, I'll grant that the middle step seems appealing. It's all nonsense anyway, so why shouldn't any other old tosh be attached to it? If 'Ability X' exists, why shouldn't it include laser vision, superspeed, invisibility and an adamantium skeleton?

But you'll notice that Person A hasn't claimed to understand how Ability X operates. We can safely assume that Person A's understanding of Ability X is limited, and that Person A understands (if you'll permit the word) that Ability X is limited. After all, that's very much your point - that Ability X is presented as 'limited' (though in your presentation it seems churlish to describe it as 'limited' when it doesn't do something you just imagined it might be able to do. Of course, it doesn't do what it claims to do either, but that's beside the point insofar as your point goes.)

Anyway, let's suppose you get an answer from a secondary source. It would be one of two things:
a) a simple, honest, "I don't know", or
b) a convoluted attempt at rationalisation that will be as deplorable, to your mind, as the original claim.

What would either answer achieve? Nothing. What would be added to the 'conversation'? Nothing. So, an irrelevant question, however much you think it fits the 'conversation'.

 

[ynot]

Person A claims that Person B can do X.

Person C invents some imaginary reasons why Person B should be able to do Y.

Person C asks Person A why Person B can't do Y.

Really? Then give and example in this thread where a Person C invents some imaginary reasons why Person B should be able to do Y.

Person C asks Person A that if Person B can do X because of an ability to talk to dead people (as claimed by Person A), then why can’t person B also do Y using the same ability. Person C invents nothing.

 

[carlitos]

Jiggeryqua's tone trolling is productive as ever, I see.