Aura Testing

[T'ai Chi]

The same old semantic games. You're still 100% the same troll you always were. As I said to one of your earlier incarnations:[FONT=&quot]

[/FONT] (Chews carrot.) What a maroon.

...bye

I didn't make any claim other than their existence.

Since you cannot respond constructively on that point, I rest my case.

 

[T'ai Chi]

Can you not see that your reader might infer that you believe these particular critiques hold some special merit?

Again I ask, where did I claim that I believe these critiques?

If a reader misunderstands, I cannot be held responsible for that.

I directed my reader how to find a critique. One found them. Now it is up to them to read it if they choose.

 

[Mercutio]

Again I ask, where did I claim that I believe these critiques?

You did see the word "tacit". You did understand it?

If a reader misunderstands, I cannot be held responsible for that.

Right back at ya. I find it as hard to believe you did not understand me as you find it hard to believe that I did not understand you. More, I suspect.

I directed my reader how to find a critique. One found them. Now it is up to them to read it if they choose.

I'll have to check my file at work, but I have very probably read those, and others. Anything you would like to discuss in particular? Or are you in the habit of posting things you intend to distance yourself from?

 

[brettDbass]

A few years ago I read about a young girl who won some kind of prize for having devised a simple way of testing healers or aura readers. They simply had to put their hands through a hole in a partition and decide if there was a hand on the other side.
Can somebody provide me with a link to an article about this?

I've seen Derren Brown perform a similar feat on one of his TV shows.

A series of people unknown to him put their hands through a hole in a partition so Derren can see only the hands. They are not allowed to make any noise and must try to be as still as possible.
He then proceeds to tell them about their life in great detail simply by looking at the hands.

A much more impressive feat IMO, but not in any way related to anything woo, just an impressive trick.

 

[Rolfe]

This thread reminds me inexorably of an episode of Yes Minister, where some academic had produced some pretty solid citations that undermined something Hacker wanted to do. Hacker was all dismayed. Sir Humphrey merely instructed him to say, sagely, that this work "had been called into question", and a couple of other similar phrases. The academic wilted on the spot and crawled away. I don't think Hacker or Sir Humphrey even read the original work that had been presented to them, let alone became aware of any actual criticism.

Rolfe.

 

[Mojo]

I didn't make any claim other than their existence.

Let's have a look at what you said when you first brought up the existence of the critiques in context.

It was Emily Rosa, and she tested therapeutic touch.

Her mother is a member of the Questionable Nurse Practices Task Force of the National Council Against Health Fraud Inc. Needless to say not hip to therapeutic touch.

There are some critiques of Rosa's experiment that have been published.

The ad hom by proxy in the second sentence of that post implies that you feel there is something questionable in Rosa's experiment. You then cite some unreferenced critiques to try to back up this implied claim. This implies that you think that the critiques support the suggestion that the experiment was questionable.

 

[T'ai Chi]

You did see the word "tacit". You did understand it?

Ok, so I never actually made the claim I am being accused of.

Thanks.

 

[Lothian]

I've seen Derren Brown perform a similar feat on one of his TV shows.

A series of people unknown to him put their hands through a hole in a partition so Derren can see only the hands. They are not allowed to make any noise and must try to be as still as possible.
He then proceeds to tell them about their life in great detail simply by looking at the hands.

A much more impressive feat IMO, but not in any way related to anything woo, just an impressive trick.

He also replicated Rosa’s experiment (as I recall it was done)

His hands were placed though a screen and 10 people came up an placed one of their hands just above one of his and he told them which had they had chosen.

He accompanied this with a commentary such as.

No1; You chose left because you think I am right handed and will go for that.
No2; Switching is obvious so you will avoid this and go for left again
No3; You think I will not go for three lefts in a row so have picked left again

Etc

I very much doubt his explanations provide the real cause of the correct guesses. I suspect the unnecessary ‘independent observer’ in the lab coat who was watching had something to do with it.

 

[Lothian]

Ok, so I never actually made the claim I am being accused of.

Thanks.

Then again, perhaps you did.

I too think it is, overall, a pretty good test, but one that has some very good criticisms in the literature.

Saying the criticisms are very good goes beyond highlighting their existence. You are adding your opinion and support for them.

 

[T'ai Chi]

Saying the criticisms are very good goes beyond highlighting their existence. You are adding your opinion and support for them.

Because I thought they had merit, that still doesn't mean they are my criticisms, or that they are my claims and therefore I must present it or retract it, which is what is being discussed.

If you'd like detail on them, you'll simply have to go to the source. Why is that impossible to understand?

 

[Mercutio]

Ok, so I never actually made the claim I am being accused of.

Thanks.

So you will quibble on the difference between "believing" something and merely describing it as "very good."

If you can live with that impression, fine. It is your reputation, not mine.

Now, back to the matter. Is there anything about those critiques you would like to explore in depth? I am ready, willing, and able.

 

[Pragmatist]

I too think it is, overall, a pretty good test, but one that has some very good criticisms in the literature.

So what about those criticisms leads you describe them particularly as being "very good"?

 

[T'ai Chi]

Now, back to the matter. Is there anything about those critiques you would like to explore in depth? I am ready, willing, and able.

If you'd like detail on them, you'll simply have to go to the source. Why is that impossible to understand?

 

[PixyMisa]

If you'd like detail on them, you'll simply have to go to the source. Why is that impossible to understand?

So when you said there are "some very good criticisms in the literature", you actually mean "there may be criticisms in the literature, but you don't know what they are, or whether they are worthwhile, and in any case you are unwilling or unable to discuss the matter in any meaningful way".

Okay then.

[hiero]f[/hiero][hiero]n[/hiero][hiero]o[/hiero][hiero]r[/hiero][hiero]d[/hiero]

 

[T'ai Chi]

So when you said there are "some very good criticisms in the literature", you actually mean "there may be criticisms in the literature, but you don't know what they are, or whether they are worthwhile, and in any case you are unwilling or unable to discuss the matter in any meaningful way".

Okay then.

[hiero]f[/hiero][hiero]n[/hiero][hiero]o[/hiero][hiero]r[/hiero][hiero]d[/hiero]

Toemaytoe, toemahtoe.

I'm not sure how many times I need to state that reading the original critique is more important than my opinion of the critique until it sets in.

(good use of "hiero")

 

[Mercutio]

If you'd like detail on them, you'll simply have to go to the source. Why is that impossible to understand?

I am going to the source of the opinion that they are "very good". My question is about the opinion that they are "very good". I have already gone to the source of the critique itself. I am confident that my comprehension of the critiques is at least on a par with your own. We can go beyond the "what did it say" portion (I am willing to give you the benefit of the doubt on this, although you have not explicitly mentioned any of the critiques, merely that they are "very good".), and get to the next step, the analysis of the merit of those critiques. Here, it behooves one who has claimed that they are "very good" to step up to the plate.

Why is that impossible to understand?

 

[T'ai Chi]

I am going to the source of the opinion that they are "very good".

Again, me saying I think some criticism are very good in no way implies that I must present anything or that I believe the claims of the critique.

This is not some extraordinary claim, but a statement of my opinion.

 

[PixyMisa]

Again, me saying I think some criticism are very good in no way implies that I must present anything or that I believe the claims of the critique.

Unless, of course, you want anyone to discuss anything with you ever again.

 

[T'ai Chi]

Unless, of course, you want anyone to discuss anything with you ever again.

When I make extraordinary claims, I expect to be asked to demonstrate them.

When I cite the existence of critiques, I don't expect to be asked to demonstrate the critiques which are not mine.

 

[Pragmatist]

When I make extraordinary claims, I expect to be asked to demonstrate them.

When I cite the existence of critiques, I don't expect to be asked to demonstrate the critiques which are not mine.

What you expect is irrelevant. You have not merely mentioned the existence of critiques but have specifically stated that the critiques were "very good". You have been asked on what basis you judge them to be "very good". That is a reasonable question. Why won't you answer it?