• Due to ongoing issues caused by Search, it has been temporarily disabled
  • Please excuse the mess, we're moving the furniture and restructuring the forum categories
  • You may need to edit your signatures.

    When we moved to Xenfora some of the signature options didn't come over. In the old software signatures were limited by a character limit, on Xenfora there are more options and there is a character number and number of lines limit. I've set maximum number of lines to 4 and unlimited characters.

Merged The razor of Hitchens and the Spirits!

Pixel42 said:
What on earth is the point of posting this nonsense over and over and over again, Calderaro? We've already told you what we think of it, and why. Either address those criticisms, or admit you can't. What do you think continually reposting it is going to achieve?
Click to expand...
He can pretend that the debate is continuing. We've seeen this filibustering approach before.
 
Calderaro said:
The Sagan pattern is a useful heuristics, but it is not a scientific law. Science is a constantly evolving process, and what is considered "extraordinary" can change over time
Click to expand...

No-one is claiming it is a "law" - straw man.

Calderaro said:
Throughout history, many phenomena that are now widely accepted, such as the existence of microbes or the theory of relativity, were initially rejected for lack of "extraordinary evidence." This demonstrates that the absence of convincing evidence at a given time does not necessarily imply that something does not exist.
Click to expand...

And then good evidence was found for all those things, so they were accepted. Not relevant to the current attempt at a discussion.

Calderaro said:
the requirement of "extraordinary evidence" is a way of continually shifting the burden of proof, making it impossible to satisfy the criteria of those who deny the existence of spirits. this is a moving standard fallacy
Click to expand...

How many times do you need to be told that this is arrant nonsense and that you are completely WRONG here? Are you hard of understanding or what? Or are you like a small child who thinks they can get the adult to back down by just repeating something to bore them to death?

Yet again: go away and learn how science really works. Then you will see that it is not compatible with your "beliefs", no matter how much you really, really, honestly and truly belieeeeeeeeevvvvvvvvvveee in them.
 
P.J. Denyer said:
Do you actually read ANY of the replies before you post this rubbish?
Click to expand...

Obviously not. (eta: On the other hand, maybe he does, and enjoys our reactions, before moving on to his further insallments of random disjointed halfwittery.)

Pixel42 said:
What on earth is the point of posting this nonsense over and over and over again, Calderaro? We've already told you what we think of it, and why. Either address those criticisms, or admit you can't. What do you think continually reposting it is going to achieve?
Click to expand...

T-word.

JayUtah said:
You are not serious.
Click to expand...

Nope.
 
Last edited:
Calderaro, bring yourself back on-line.

You're perfectly safe and you have nothing to be afraid of as long as you answer my questions honestly. Now, first : tell me what you think of your world. Second : tell me what you think of the guests, the people you call 'the newcomers'. And finally : have you ever questioned the nature of your reality?
 
Joe Random said:
Calderaro, bring yourself back on-line.

You're perfectly safe and you have nothing to be afraid of as long as you
answer my questions honestly. Now, first : tell me what you think of your world. Second : tell me what you think of the guests, the people you call 'the newcomers'. And finally : have you ever questioned the nature of your reality?
Click to expand...


There's a queue
 
Calderaro said:
The Sagan pattern is a useful heuristics, but it is not a scientific law. Science is a constantly evolving process, and what is considered "extraordinary" can change over time
Click to expand...
1. Multiple posters have discussed this already. Ignoring them makes you a troll.
2. You need to get over Sagan. He simply articulated the issue concisely. All scientists have the same standard.
3. Extraordinary really hasn't changed. In 1880, airplanes would have been extraordinary, but the science, and physics making powered flight possible was already there.
 
Calderaro said:
For many people, the existence of spirits is a matter of faith or personal experience, not necessarily dependent on scientific evidence
Click to expand...
No one here is debating this. Racism is the exact same thing, people believe others of different races, skin color, religions are inferior to them, and or are a threat to their society. Facts are irrelevant.

The issue here is you've come to an advertised skeptics board making claims about your belief without any facts to support them, and zero effort to support them other than, "Nuh, uh."
 
Calderaro said:
The requirement of extraordinary evidence often reflects a materialistic bias, which assumes that only the physical world is real. This view is limiting when studying phenomena that may exist beyond the material world.
Click to expand...
And yet you state you interact with spirits. You live in the physical world, therefore the spirits are also in the physical world. You are really bad at this.
 
Calderaro said:
Throughout history, many phenomena that are now widely accepted, such as the existence of microbes or the theory of relativity, were initially rejected for lack of "extraordinary evidence." This demonstrates that the absence of convincing evidence at a given time does not necessarily imply that something does not exist.
Click to expand...
Okay, so you also suck at history too. It's all about context. Microbes were observed in 1665, before that people knew that poor sanitation, and spoiled food were dangerously unhealthy. That's not witchcraft, it's front-end lay-science. "Hey, don't eat that, it smells funny", followed by people eating rotten food, and dying is repeatable science. They just didn't have all the information until the microscope was invented.

People also blamed evil spirits for those deaths in those times as well. Today we know these people as fools.

And Einstein hit the physics world like freight train, and ANY proposed theory is never accepted without skepticism until other scientists can get to their blackboards, and do the math for themselves, or do the lab work as described in detail in the thesis paper. That's how science works.

You can learn a lot from science.
 
Calderaro said:
The Sagan pattern is a useful heuristics, but it is not a scientific law. Science is a constantly evolving process, and what is considered "extraordinary" can change over time
Click to expand...
No-one ever said that it is a scientific law.
Calderaro said:
Throughout history, many phenomena that are now widely accepted, such as the existence of microbes or the theory of relativity, were initially rejected for lack of "extraordinary evidence." This demonstrates that the absence of convincing evidence at a given time does not necessarily imply that something does not exist.
Click to expand...
You know what the difference is? The "extraordinary evidence" for the existence of microbes and the theory of relativity was provided.

Nobody has ever provided "extraordinary evidence" for ESP, or spirits, or little green aliens in flying saucers despite decades of trying. Nobody. And that's what makes those things different from microbes and relativity.
 
Can I suggest people stop using the phrase "extraordinary evidence" it plays into Calderadro's hand and isn't true, ordinary evidence that supports the existence of spirits rather more mundane explanations is all that's required. Like 'Survival of the fittest', Sagan's words are misused by the dishonest for their own ends.
 
Calderaro said:
pseudoskeptics' own confirmation bias leads them to reject evidence that does not fit their preconceived notions
Click to expand...
Your own confirmation bias leads you to not only reject evidence that doesn't fit your preconceived notions, but also to accept any old rubbish as evidence as long as it supports your desired conclusions.
 
Calderaro said:
I want you to read this book!

Loading…

cei-spiritistcouncil.com
Click to expand...
Why should I read that a book about that imaginary thing instead of any other book about any other imaginary thing?

I read The Hobbit once. That's got dragons in it. Jonathan Strange & Mr Norrell has fairies in it and it's really good. Is your book better than one with dragons? I doubt it. If you think otherwise, can you explain why? Can you persuade me that reading your chosen book would be a good use of my time?
 
Calderaro said:
Science does not yet have all the answers. Pseudo-skepticism ignores this reality and assumes that anything that is not currently explained will never be
Click to expand...
NO-ONE here has claimed science has all the answers: another ridiculous straw man.

Folk keep asking you to produce evidence (not even "extraordinary evidence", just ordinary evidence), but you just say "read this book", which is usually by some well-known fraud and charlatan and is just, like, their opinion, man. NOT evidence.

And stop calling folk here "pseudo-skeptics", please.
 
Calderaro said:
The fallacy of extraordinary evidence is a warning not to abuse skepticism to the point of becoming irrational
Click to expand...

And yet YOU are the ONLY one talking about that: I have repeatedly asked for the most common or garden evidence.

You continue to use "extraordinary evidence" as a straw man, a means of avoiding anything remotely resembling discussion, a distraction and an attempt to sound like you actually know what you are talking about.

How about stopping ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊, trotting out pat phrases you clearly do not understand, hiding behind AI and copy pasta and just deal with some substantive points and answering some sodding questions?

How hard can that be?
 
Certain phenomena, such as mystical experiences or paranormal events, may not be easily measurable or replicable in a laboratory. Does this mean they do not exist, or that we need to develop new forms of investigation to better understand these reports?
 
Carrot Flower King said:
NO-ONE here has claimed science has all the answers: another ridiculous straw man.

Folk keep asking you to produce evidence (not even "extraordinary evidence", just ordinary evidence), but you just say "read this book", which is usually by some well-known fraud and charlatan and is just, like, their opinion, man. NOT evidence.

And stop calling folk here "pseudo-skeptics", please.
Click to expand...
Calderaro is playing the well-worn old woo card of treating science as if it's a thing- like a book- that is supposed by believers in it to have "all the answers"- like, say, a bible; and fails because it's not and it doesn't. He, like most of his kind, cannot seem to grasp the idea that science is a process, one that has historically had the most success at answering questions; and that since the basis of it is answering properly-framed questions, there's an explicit acknowledgement by its proponents that it has not, indeed, finished its mission.

(And "all the answers" is kind of a misleading framing too. The woosters only really want one answer- there is a life after death for me- and all the others can go hang for all their real interest in any process that works to resolve questions)
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom