Can anybody help me find a logical explanation for this stuff?

[dafydd]

Yes, I was being a little bit ignorant when I posted that one. Those claims got struck down rather early in the thread, and I have acknowledged that those claims don't hold up at all. I'm not even sure why it seemed impressive to me at the time.

I have no idea why you find Swedenborg impressive.He always seemed to me to be a bit of a fruitcake.

 

[Elizabeth I]

To search for other logical explanations isn't blowing off an existing one. It's what skeptics do. You might want to try it sometime.

So if someone told you there was a purple alligator hiding under your car you would go out to look? When logical explanations have already been found and fit the case, it's a waste of time to "search for ...other." The sun might revolve around the world, but it's been pretty definitively shown not to.

The poster is asking whether something is "worth looking into" and you are suggesting that he's considering himself to have proved that it is true. Of course, you're not so obtuse as to be unaware of the difference, so it would seem that you are being intentionally dishonest.

I won't say you're in good company, but you're certainly in a lot of it.

Oh, please pardon my imprecision of speech, great arbiter of all things skeptical. May I correct myself to accord with your niceness of judgment and expression?

An idiot may write something down, and another idiot may publish it, and any number of still other idiots may read and believe it, but that's not evidence indicating that further investigation is needed.

I do hope my almost unforgivable lapse will not prevent your remaining with us to share the benefit of your wisdom and insights. I'm sure we all wait with bated breath for your next pronouncement.

 

[Zanders]

So if someone told you there was a purple alligator hiding under your car you would go out to look? When logical explanations have already been found and fit the case, it's a waste of time to "search for ...other." The sun might revolve around the world, but it's been pretty definitively shown not to.



Oh, please pardon my imprecision of speech, great arbiter of all things skeptical. May I correct myself to accord with your niceness of judgment and expression?

An idiot may write something down, and another idiot may publish it, and any number of still other idiots may read and believe it, but that's not evidence indicating that further investigation is needed.

I do hope my almost unforgivable lapse will not prevent your remaining with us to share the benefit of your wisdom and insights. I'm sure we all wait with bated breath for your next pronouncement.

Well, there is a difference. How many reputable people have written about seeing and interacting with the purple alligator? Also, shrugging off anything written down by multiple sources because you don't believe it and calling them "idiots" seems rather biased and stubborn. Just because something clashes with your beliefs doesn't mean it should just be shrugged off as nothing.

 

[Elizabeth I]

Well, there is a difference. How many reputable people have written about seeing and interacting with the purple alligator? Also, shrugging off anything written down by multiple sources because you don't believe it and calling them "idiots" seems rather biased and stubborn. Just because something clashes with your beliefs doesn't mean it should just be shrugged off as nothing.

Hi, Zanders - I wasn't actually replying to you in that post. However:

You seemed to be saying earlier, and still saying now, that the fact that a whole bunch of people have written about something means that it should be taken seriously. There are a couple of problems with this:

First, anybody can write anything, anybody can publish it, and anybody can read it. That doesn't mean "it" is true. And my point was that everyone in that chain could be an idiot, and the chain would still be completed: written, published, read. So the fact that something has been written and published, even multiple times, has nothing to do with its truth or falsity, or its being a candidate for serious investigation. Do you believe in dragons? Do you think any report that someone saw a dragon should be investigated?

Second, the kind of thing you are talking about in this thread has been seriously investigated, repeatedly, by a number of credible people, and been shown, so far, to have no basis in reality. Duke University carried a program to test psi ability for at least a couple of decades, and finally cut the researcher loose because he could demonstrate no results better than could be expected from chance. So at this point it's really kind of silly (for lack of a better word, sorry) to say, "Well, what about this example?" "Well, what about that example?" "Well, but what if...?" The question, so far, has already been asked and answered, and so far the answer has been "chance and confirmation bias." Unless something really spectacular comes along, it's a waste of time to keep saying, "Well, but what about...?"

 

[Zanders]

I guess it doesn't mean much, but he was supposed to be a special case, since his supposed ability to contact and enter with the spirit world like he did was opened up to him so that he could spread the message they gave him. But again, that is a claim made by many. But rarely do they have as fascinating stories to back it up. Still, he claimed that other people could make contact with the spirit world as well, they were just too "carnal". So you think somebody would have observable proof of being in contact with some sort of being that can give them information. Edgar Cayce had more claims of powers, but has been covered and refuted by many skeptics since he got more exposure. Most likely there are just as many stories about what people "witnessed".

 

[BobR]

So if someone told you there was a purple alligator hiding under your car you would go out to look?

I might. It would depend on the circumstances.

When logical explanations have already been found and fit the case, it's a waste of time to "search for ...other."
The sun might revolve around the world, but it's been pretty definitively shown not to.

Your logic appears to be this:
1. Logical explanations have been found to support the case that the earth revolves around the sun.
2. Therefore, it is unlikely that evidence will be uncovered that the sun revolves around the earth.
3. Therefore, it is unlikely that evidence will be uncovered about any case about which logic has been found to support.

Assuming you have expressed yourself as you intended, this is an example of the "a dicto secundum quid ad dictum simpliciter" or "converse accident" fallacy. Therefore, you fail to support your claim. What's more, I disagree with it anyway.

[For the record, Elizabeth's responses from here on are to this post:]

The poster is asking whether something is "worth looking into" and you are suggesting that he's considering himself to have proved that it is true. Of course, you're not so obtuse as to be unaware of the difference, so it would seem that you are being intentionally dishonest.

I won't say you're in good company, but you're certainly in a lot of it.

[End of post]

Oh, please pardon my imprecision of speech, great arbiter of all things skeptical.

There you go again. Another converse accident fallacy. Because I mentioned that you were putting words in someone's mouth, it follows that I am the "great arbiter of all things skeptical"?

May I correct myself to accord with your niceness of judgment and expression?

Sure you may, but will you? Probably not, based on prior evidence. However, I don't think it will be a waste of time to look and see if you do. (It's a joke. Get it?)

An idiot may write something down, and another idiot may publish it, and any number of still other idiots may read and believe it, but that's not evidence indicating that further investigation is needed.

Well, I certainly agree with you here. As I'm sure we all agree, one might witness any number of cases in point on this forum. (Oops, sorry. The webmasters are NOT idiots, I take it back.) But nope, I guess you won't. Correct yourself, I mean. You're trying to support your other argument, that it's a waste of time to search for answers once one that logically fits the evidence at hand in a case has been found. (Oo. Is this a straw man I see before me?) And you even fail to do that: your argument is not supported by the fact that something that is written down (especially by idiots) doesn't automatically represent a reason to investigate it. Instead of supporting your argument, you provide another converse accident fallacy. (Am I beginning to see evidence of a flaw in your critical thinking habits? That makes three after all...)

But back to the straw man thing. You're refuting the statement in the quote I've given above. At least, I thought you were. In any case, you haven't done so. However, in light of the evidence to the contrary that you have presented here, I will accept that you have refuted my statement that you are "not so obtuse a thinker as to have been unaware of the difference". Therefore, I retract it and apologize for it. By extension, I retract and apologize for my suggestion that you have been dishonest.

I do hope my almost unforgivable lapse will not prevent your remaining with us to share the benefit of your wisdom and insights. I'm sure we all wait with bated breath for your next pronouncement.

Forgive me if I don't do the same. But if you have more to say I'll look at it.

 

[Zanders]

Does anybody have some other similar cases that could help me put this in perspective? Like something that was written about and commented on in the same, preferably one that was exposed.

 

[wardenclyffe]

As has been suggested before, try the Bible. It's a similar case. Yes, it is older, but what other differences are there?

Ward

 

[Zanders]

Have you read ever bit of information that has been posted on the event? How is it the same as the Bible? Last time I checked the Bible didn't have testimony from outsiders on the supposed miraculous events that occurred in the Bible. And most of the Bible's events have been proven to have never happened. The people that were mentioned in the Swedenborg story are proven to exist, and this information was gathered shortly after his death. It is a fact that he was written about by these people, and some of them had nothing to do with him. The Bible comments just seem ignorant and dismissive.

 

[Andy_Ross]

It's Woo!! get over it. Anecdotes from hundreds of years ago aren't going to convince anyone.
If the ability is real then other people can do it, why haven't we seen evidence other than anecdotes that anyone else has the abilities?

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Last time I checked the Bible didn't have testimony from outsiders on the supposed miraculous events that occurred in the Bible.

Surely the bible is testimony from outsiders on the supposed miraculous events in the bible. The four gospels, for example, are not eyewitness statements. The comparison may not be the type of example you wanted, but I don't think it's spurious, nor, I suspect, was the intention facetious.

 

[BobR]

If the ability is real then other people can do it [...]

Whaaat?? Come on, Captain!! All unique abilities in the world are unreal, you are saying???? Surely not, so what are you saying, exactly?

If you're going to put yourself up as the critical thinker that refutes the card-carrying woo unenlightened, then you'll need at least be more precise, and also finding a better argument in the first place would probably help.

why haven't we seen evidence other than anecdotes that anyone else has the abilities?

What kind of evidence "other than anecdotes" is there?

 

[Zanders]

Well, there are some more stories here, along with some more information on Swedenborg's progression from scientist to.. whatever he was. I don't know if these stories have as much evidence as the ones I posted above, but the evidence and further details should be contained here
http://www.swedenborgdigitallibrary....l/tafeltc.html

http://forums.astraldynamics.com/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=6606&st=0&sk=t&sd=a

Yes, this one is super woo.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Whaaat?? Come on, Captain!! All unique abilities in the world are unreal, you are saying???? Surely not, so what are you saying, exactly?

If you're going to put yourself up as the critical thinker that refutes the card-carrying woo unenlightened, then you'll need at least be more precise, and also finding a better argument in the first place would probably help.

What kind of evidence "other than anecdotes" is there?

Abilities like those proposed in this thread must have a mechanism what could it be? Why hasn't anyone come forward with anything but anecdotes?

Anecdotes aren't evidence, that's the whole point of the JREF isn't it?

 

[Zanders]

Your point is true, we really can't say that something happened just because people have written about it. There have been cases where groups of people will swear that they all saw something, when it in fact didn't happen. I still find it fascinating that so many people have so much to say about this person, and the claims are all very consistent. But that doesn't mean that it happened. Now, without any sarcasm or any dismissive comments, I really would like some similar cases where the person was thoroughly exposed as a fraud.

 

[sleepy_lioness]

Well, there are some more stories here, along with some more information on Swedenborg's progression from scientist to.. whatever he was. I don't know if these stories have as much evidence as the ones I posted above, but the evidence and further details should be contained here
http://www.swedenborgdigitallibrary....l/tafeltc.html

http://forums.astraldynamics.com/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=6606&st=0&sk=t&sd=a

Yes, this one is super woo.

There's no point discussing further unless you understand what 'scientist' meant at this period. This isn't too long after Newton, who not only set the foundations of modern physics, he also spent even more time on his alchemy. The dichotomy rational scientist/woo is hardly appropriate at this period. Neither is supposing that because Kant was a great philosopher of the age, he would have investigated surprising phenomena to the standards of modern skepticism or science. At the time, knowledge at a distance might well have seemed just as rational as, say, electricity, in any case. Who was to know it was 'woo'?

All this, of course, simply makes the anecdote even more unreliable as 'evidence' of paranormal goings-on. In any story before about the end of the nineteenth century, you need to bear in mind the level of knowledge of science before assuming that everyone can fit neatly into a woo/scientist divide.

 

[Marduk]

I really would like some similar cases where the person was thoroughly exposed as a fraud.

Like this ?

 

[Zanders]

Like this ?

Very funny.

Well, there are some more stories here, along with some more information on Swedenborg's progression from scientist to.. whatever he was. I don't know if these stories have as much evidence as the ones I posted above, but the evidence and further details should be contained here
http://www.swedenborgdigitallibrary....l/tafeltc.html

http://forums.astraldynamics.com/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=6606&st=0&sk=t&sd=a

Yes, this one is super woo.

It appears that the first link I posted here is broken.
Here is a working link.

http://www.swedenborgdigitallibrary....l/tafeltc.html

This is worth reading through by anyone that is interested in debunking this, there is a ton of information on the events contained in these.

 

[paximperium]

This thread is still going on?

 

[Ririon]

You want to find currently living men of god who are admired by many people, included respectable people in high places? Men who perform miracles on a regular basis? Men with media coverage, so that many anecdotes are written about them by many independent people? Men who are obviously (to an amateur conjurer) frauds? I suggest India as a good starting point. Or some of the more famous televangelists if you prefer the western world.