Calling All Remote Viewers

[Prester John]

So does Santa Claus exist? Prove he doesn't.

Old i know but you can't prove a negative, we all know that here.

However it is reasonable to assume that some things are so unlikely (eg santa claus is real) , the chances of them exisiting are vanishingly small, that they are effectivly impossible . Thus we would say that santa claus does not exist and is impossible.
It comes down to personal judgement and experience where we place the barrier between impossible and possible.

Still no news on the girl from the RVer's?

 

[bPer]

Prester John,

I don't know if you were addressing my posts or not. Seems likely. In the future, perhaps you could make it clear?

So does Santa Claus exist? Prove he doesn't. Old i know but you can't prove a negative, we all know that here.

Ok, time to stretch these neophyte logician's wings. Hope I don't crash.

As I understand it, if I make the statement “Santa Claus exists”, the burden of proof on that claim is with me, and I cannot demand that an opponent prove that he does not exist. That’s the context of the well-known axiom “you can’t prove a negative”. All an opponent need do is demonstrate that the proof I provide is erroneous to counter my claim.

If I make a negative claim like “Santa Claus does not exist”, the burden of proof remains with me to prove the claim, despite the negative. The opponent still simply waits for the proof and reacts accordingly. Or, of course, the opponent can produce Santa Claus and directly disprove the claim.

To illustrate this with an easier example, I can prove that “I do not have a million dollars in my bank account“, simply by showing you an up-to-date bank statement. I’ve proven a negative.

In Pyrrho’s case, I challenged his claim that “paranormal abilities are impossible”, because he was indeed making a claim that he could not prove.

On a side note, I think your example is interesting. If you worked back and found the first fictional reference to Santa Claus, could you claim that he is just a work of fiction and thus does not exist? Would that be sufficient proof? Just asking.

However it is reasonable to assume that some things are so unlikely (eg santa claus is real) , the chances of them exisiting are vanishingly small, that they are effectivly impossible . Thus we would say that santa claus does not exist and is impossible.

Wrong. “Vanishingly-small chance” does not equal “impossible”.

Sure, in practical terms, you can regard the two distinct things as the same, for purely practical purposes. But when circumstances demand rigour (as this one does) you cannot equate the two. To do so will result in logical errors. As well, in this circumstance, you open up skeptics to the fair accusation of dogmatism, because you are asserting that the laws of physics are immutable.

bPer

 

[Starrman]

You can prove a specific negative, like your million dollars in your bank account example. It is universal negatives that cannot be proven. Santa Claus may exist somewhere in the Universe, but unless you can look at all points within it at the same time, you can never say with 100% certainty that he does not exist.

 

[bPer]

You can prove a specific negative, like your million dollars in your bank account example. It is universal negatives that cannot be proven. Santa Claus may exist somewhere in the Universe, but unless you can look at all points within it at the same time, you can never say with 100% certainty that he does not exist.

Ah, yes, the universal negative. Forgot that. Thanks! I was trying to do this without reference, to see if I had absorbed what I read a while ago. Looks like I dragged a wing, at least.

Please correct me if I'm wrong. If I try to claim "Santa Claus does not exist", the burden of proof still remains on me, the claimant, even though it's essentially a fool's errand, right?

bPer

 

[Darat]

Re: Re: Calling All Remote Viewers

Hmm... strange isn't it that people who can prove that they can "remote view" don't step forward to help with this case?

Undoubtable it will either be ignored or some attempt to divert attention away from a specific will be employed.

To the people who have said they can "remote view", to the people who claim they have proved it right here on this forum - please for the sake of this girl and her loved ones locate her!

I take it no RVer has found this girl yet?

 

[Starrman]

Please correct me if I'm wrong. If I try to claim "Santa Claus does not exist", the burden of proof still remains on me, the claimant, even though it's essentially a fool's errand, right?

I think I know where your going. I think when someone says 'there is no such thing as Santa' they are not really stating a universal. They are saying that he doesn't exist as we know him in popular culture (sorry if I ruined it for anyone). Obviously you can't prove that Santa doesn't exist anywhere in the entire galaxy. But the laws of physics do prohibit him from existing on Earth.

The difference here is, no one is out there making the positive claim - that Santa does exist here on Earth. There are many, however, claiming that remote viewing is a true ability.

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

Hmmm, let's see, this thread, like so many asking for demonstrations of superpowers has been almost successfully diverted into the nature of skepticism. But I still see a few trying to cling to the original question...

RVers... you've had time... what are your impressions? What information is the matrix giving you? What can you possibly have gleaned from this case instead of bitching and whining about the nature of skepticism? Do you have anything... anything substantive at all?

From the looks of things... Lucianarchy's Clock is getting ready to tick another day.

 

[Ladewig]

Nobody’s asking you to deceive yourself. The limitations of the laws of physics apply to everyone, but you have to understand that the laws of physics are our current best guess at the underlying phenomena and mechanisms. If we have it wrong, there will be phenomena that are inexplicable by the current set of physical laws. The believers rest their hope in that possibility, and you and I cannot deny them that hope without abandoning the principle of falsifiability. I am not willing to do that, for that destroys one of the foundations of the scientific method. You evidently don’t care about that, and thus you are nothing but a dogmatic believer (of science). It’s time you admit that.

Let's talk about how science works. Every year, physicist are adding to our body of knowledge. These additions do not cause us to throw out the fundamental ideas in the field of phsyics. Imagine a college text on physics. The first chapter might describe basic laws of motion, another chapter near the beginning might describe the laws of thermodynamics. When revolutionary ideas are added in this field, they ususally take the form of adding a new chapter at the end of the textbook. Einstein's theories about what happens when bodies move at speeds near c did not cause the first chapter to be re-written; instead they appeared in a latter chapter as a special case that did not violate the basic laws.

Psychic phenomenon such as remote viewing, however would have us rewrite every chapter. All forces observed in the universe decrease in power over distance. That applies to forces on an atomic scale as well as a galactic scale. RV would have us discard that rule. For RV to be true, physics would have to develop entirely new theories for

the most basic description of light
how energy can be detected and measured by machines
how energy can be detected and measured by humans
conservation of energy (laws of thermodynamics)

So, could RVers be right and scientists be wrong. It is possible - provided you define possible as anything that has even the slightest, most negligible, most remote, most unimaginable chance of occurring.

__________
Oh, I almost forgot: has any RVer has found this girl yet?

 

[bPer]

So, could RVers be right and scientists be wrong. It is possible - provided you define possible as anything that has even the slightest, most negligible, most remote, most unimaginable chance of occurring.

Right! I'm glad we agree.

Let me take one more stab at this. Look at this from a strategic perspective. Our opponents are looking for any way to discredit us, because frankly the science is stacked against them. If you ignore the principle of falsifiability and state unequivocally that paranormal abilities are impossible, then you leave yourself open to valid criticism. To me, it's a no-brainer to simply acknowledge the rigourous truth, that even our fundamental laws of science are provisional, so that that criticism isn't available to our opponents, forcing them to argue the science!

Look, as UnrepentantSinner pointed out, this thread has gotten derailed, and I regret my part in doing that. Perhaps this is an issue that should be taken to a new thread. I'd be happy to contribute (such as I can) there.

bPer

 

[T'ai Chi]

No - the creationists are wrong in their understanding and application of the second law. Pyrrho is not.

So.... do you actually care to explain why Pyrrho is not wrong?

 

[Ladewig]

Right! I'm glad we agree.

I know I am going to look like a whackjob here for disagreeing with a position I posted less than 24 hours ago, but here goes.

To me, it's a no-brainer to simply acknowledge the rigourous truth, that even our fundamental laws of science are provisional, so that that criticism isn't available to our opponents, forcing them to argue the science!

To me, the possibility that RV is being practiced by people is about the same as the probability that there is an undiscovered continent in the Atlantic Ocean, i.e. zero percent. No, the fundamental laws of science are not that provisional. Some of the more complex theories might be provisional, but the most basic laws have been studied for quite some time.

 

[billydkid]

phew!!

I know I am going to look like a whackjob here for disagreeing with a position I posted less than 24 hours ago, but here goes.



To me, the possibility that RV is being practiced by people is about the same as the probability that there is an undiscovered continent in the Atlantic Ocean, i.e. zero percent. No, the fundamental laws of science are not that provisional. Some of the more complex theories might be provisional, but the most basic laws have been studied for quite some time.

Phew, you scared me for a minute. I was almost ready to jump all over you.

 

[bPer]

No, the fundamental laws of science are not that provisional. Some of the more complex theories might be provisional, but the most basic laws have been studied for quite some time.

Then you are nothing but a dogmatic believer of science, and in that regard, no better than the RVers. My above criticisms and admonition of Pyrrho apply equally to you and any others who share your erroneous opinion. I recommend you all go back and do some remedial reading on the principles of the scientific method.

bPer

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Aw geez, bPer, you caught us. All right, even the most fundamental laws of science are still provisional.

Does it really matter if I think the second law of thermo is 95%, 99%, 99.99999%, or 100% sure? Just get on with providing the evidence for RV or whatever. These conversations are always diverted with a debate about precisely how close-minded skeptics are, because the believers have nothing else to talk about. It's proof by assertion of close-mindedness. Snore.

~~ Paul

 

[Darat]

Aw geez, bPer, you caught us. All right, even the most fundamental laws of science are still provisional.

Does it really matter if I think the second law of thermo is 95%, 99%, 99.99999%, or 100% sure? Just get on with providing the evidence for RV or whatever. These conversations are always diverted with a debate about precisely how close-minded skeptics are, because the believers have nothing else to talk about. It's proof by assertion of close-mindedness. Snore.

~~ Paul

Couldn't agree more, strange that I can make precise accurate predictions yet the many people who say they have superpowers and post here can't?

I did say:

(Spelling error corrected)

Hmm... strange isn't it that people who can prove that they can "remote view" don't step forward to help with this case?


Undoubtedly it will either be ignored or some attempt to divert attention away from a specific will be employed.


To the people who have said they can "remote view", to the people who claim they have proved it right here on this forum - please for the sake of this girl and her loved ones locate her!

To date not one RV has found this girl (news sites checked 15:00 29/8/03).

To date not one of the people who post here that claim they can RV has posted anything that shows they can find the girl.

If RV works then PLEASE JUST FIND THE GIRL, then you can berate me and the rest of the "closed minded" people here, then you can pour scorn on the paucity of our beliefs, on how we are cynical, how we are scared by the amazing possibilities of the universe – but until the girl is found by a RVer just shut-up!

If RV works then the people who practice it must be among the most callous and inhumane people on this planet to allow such torture to continue.

RVers – FIND THE GIRL!

 

[bPer]

Aw geez, bPer, you caught us. All right, even the most fundamental laws of science are still provisional.

Hurray! I had a feeling that I could count on you to understand this. Thanks.

Just get on with providing the evidence for RV or whatever.

Well, if you're asking me for this evidence, you won't get it; I'm on your side on this issue. And again I apologize for taking this thread off the tracks.

bPer

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

No problem, bPer.

~~ Paul

 

[Darat]

I was about to add a rather flippant comment into this thread about still no sign of the girl and asking the RVers who post here to again find her.

When searching to see if anymore news had been posted I came across this site:

http://crime.about.com/library/blfiles/blmissingchildren.htm#everett

and then this one

http://missingkids.com/missingkids/servlet/PublicHomeServlet?LanguageCountry=en_US

I can’t say how angry I am at the moment, knowing there are these liars these inhumane fools who strut around here claiming the ability to RV, claiming it has been proven, claiming it can find people.

LOOK AT THESE SITES, LOOK AT THESE KIDS AND STOP LYING!

 

[billydkid]

Me tooooo.

I was about to add a rather flippant comment into this thread about still no sign of the girl and asking the RVers who post here to again find her.

When searching to see if anymore news had been posted I came across this site:

http://crime.about.com/library/blfiles/blmissingchildren.htm#everett

and then this one

http://missingkids.com/missingkids/servlet/PublicHomeServlet?LanguageCountry=en_US

I can’t say how angry I am at the moment, knowing there are these liars these inhumane fools who strut around here claiming the ability to RV, claiming it has been proven, claiming it can find people.

LOOK AT THESE SITES, LOOK AT THESE KIDS AND STOP LYING!

The ones that really make me angry are the ones who actually make these claims in an attempt to gain personal notoriety and profit at the expense of those who are suffering the loss of a loved one. As far as the nitwits who come in here and claim they have paranormal ability, well, I guess they are not hurting anyone, but is certainly a pathetic attempt to gain admiration and attention.

 

[billydkid]

Huh?

Then you are nothing but a dogmatic believer of science, and in that regard, no better than the RVers. My above criticisms and admonition of Pyrrho apply equally to you and any others who share your erroneous opinion. I recommend you all go back and do some remedial reading on the principles of the scientific method.

bPer

So let me get this straight - someone who accepts the law of the conservation of energy as factually true is "no better" than someone who claims that certain individuals are capable of "remote viewing"?