Merged Edgar Cayce

[ruach1]

Uh, for the record, I think there's no good evidence that Cayce was psychic. Just in case that wasn't clear.

For the record, so do I.

 

[westphalia]

Let's start with your first assertion: that I'm a lazy poster.

When I was in college, I spent five months in Virginia with a school buddy. I was working for the National Park Service, running around in a wool Civil War uniform, doing living history for visitors to local area battlefields. My friend Jon was finishing his Master's in psych, and spent his time at ECF, looking into Cayce. As his time there wound down, and the start of school was imminent, Jon was running behind in collating materials, so I spent three miserable weeks in August traipsing about the ARE, helping him finish his research. Therefore, I know of what I speak.

I have taken the trouble of looking at ECF's source materials. You haven't. I'm apparently failing you by not being able to provide you with an easily-accessible resource of Cayce's complete materials. I don't have Cayce's archives in my home. I would suggest, as I have twice already, that anyone who 1) admits they don't know that much about Cayce, and 2) thinks that there is more to Cayce than the typical silliness one usually encounters with run-of-the-mill "psychics" should get off their easy chair and go do some research themselves. Go do the research I had to do.

Though unnecessary, I have another defense to the "lazy poster" charge. You are the one making an extraordinary claim. I'm not. It's up to you, not me, to provide the evidence that indicates Cayce is something more than a typical, failed practicioner of the paranormal. If I wanted, I can more than happily sit on my easy chair and scoff, because I have science and human experience to back me up. No one - no one - has ever proven a legitimate paranormal claim. No one. Greater minds than mine have worked on Cayce, and shown him to be what he was. If you believe otherwise, prove it. You're the one making the claim.

Let's move on to your "corollary" idea.

I've already dealt with this, but I'll say it again. There is no corollary between the willingness of paranormal believers to believe in the paranormal, and the desire of skeptics to dismiss the paranormal. None whatsoever. Paranormalists express beliefs that cannot be backed up with evidence. Skeptics dismiss paranormal beliefs by 1) insisting that real evidence for those beliefs be given, and 2) that paranormal abilities be demonstrated in controlled, reproducable conditions. If the vehemence with which a skeptic bothers you, it is because rational people are growing tired of fighting a battle against irrationality. We're weary of having to demonstrate over and over again that silly claims like "psychic" powers have never existed, and don't exist now. The passion of the believer is driven by ignorance, superstition and a need to assuage the doldroms of everyday life. The passion of the skeptic is driven by outrage.

Let's move on to your proposition that there is more to Cayce than meets the eye.

No, there isn't. In fact, there's less. Are you impressed by the number of people he supposedly "healed?" Do you know how many "medical" readings he gave in toto? No, because you admitted that you don't really know that much about Cayce, and are upset that I won't produce Cayce's complete materials for you, here on this forum. I don't have Cayce's archives on my hard drive. I do know where you can go look at them, because I've been there, and done it, and I suggest you do so. I think you'll come away singularly unimpressed with his "abilities."

Cayce gave thousands of readings, and I wouldn't be a bit surprised if some people were healed of their complaints. I don't believe anyone was healed by Cayce specifically, however, unless it was through the placebo effect, a spontaneous healing (which happens frequently) or as a result of traditional medical attention being given at the same time as Cayce's readings. Cayce was a homeopathic hack, plain and simple. There simply isn't any compelling evidence that Cayce was able to heal people with his readings. If you believe he could, prove it. You're the one making the claim.

Cayce was known primarily for giving medical advice and for predicting the future. He correctly sensed that World War II would begin - along with millions of other people. He missed Atlantis (a subject that the ECF still will not give up the ghost on), missed the invention of the American "death ray," and missed the vast majority of his other prognostications, too. Why would he be a skilled medical guy, but be completely unable to predict the future with any accuracy?

"Oh, but he got World War II right, and he healed some people, too." If I, today, give thousands of readings on a wide variety of subjects, I promise you that some - to a lesser or greater degree - will be "hits." Cayce's supporters hold out a couple of nuggets from the slag, and call him a prophet. He was nothing of the sort. Even a broken clock is correct twice a day. We don't even have hard statistics for the successes, since the evidence for them is almost completely anecdotal. There just isn't anything there.

"Oh, but if Cayce was so wrong, why would his archives be available to the general public?" Why does Sylvia Browne demonstrate her inability to predict anything, yet get a weekly spot on Montel? Why does John Edward get a second show? Why does Ed Dames make money teaching people the nonsense of RV? Why does Coast to Coast offer interviews and free plugs to Alex Jones, Steven Quayle, Richard Hoagland and the like? Because there's money to be made, and no shortage of believers willing to turn a blind eye to reality in an effort to believe in fantasy. You can point out how inaccurate these people are until you're blue in the face, but believers see only the "hits." Only the hits.

Since you haven't been to the ECF, and don't apparently intend to go and do your own legwork to support your assertion, I can tell you that the Foundation is doing very well for itself. Ample bookstores, nice furniture, pleasant buildings, a paid staff, etc. Cayce makes for a decent living.

Please, don't castigate others for being "lazy posters" while simultaneously admitting that you don't know much about the subject, and have never looked at the source material. Don't ascribe beliefs to others that they don't have (UrsulaV, and other critical thinkers, gets upset). If you have a paranormal claim, it's up to you to prove it exists.

 

[ruach1]

westphalia;1593051]

Let's start with your first assertion: that I'm a lazy poster

.
Retracted.

When I was in college, I spent five months in Virginia with a school buddy. I was working for the National Park Service, running around in a wool Civil War uniform, doing living history for visitors to local area battlefields. My friend Jon was finishing his Master's in psych, and spent his time at ECF, looking into Cayce. As his time there wound down, and the start of school was imminent, Jon was running behind in collating materials, so I spent three miserable weeks in August traipsing about the ARE, helping him finish his research. Therefore, I know of what I speak

Here's a claim. Prove it. You demand things of others; offer it yourself. How do I know you're not inventing this tale of being an ARE insider (so to speak)?

[B]I have taken the trouble of looking at ECF's source materials. You haven't. I'm apparently failing you by not being able to provide you with an easily-accessible resource of Cayce's complete materials. I don't have Cayce's archives in my home. I would suggest, as I have twice already, that anyone who 1) admits they don't know that much about Cayce, and 2) thinks that there is more to Cayce than the typical silliness one usually encounters with run-of-the-mill "psychics" should get off their easy chair and go do some research themselves. Go do the research I had to do.

Here's another claim. Can you prove it? Can you prove you did the research? I'm not calling you a liar, but I don't see anything in this post that shows me you know any more than what I saw on the broadcast and have read or seen elsewhere.

[/I][/B]Let's move on to your "corollary" idea.
There is nothing extraordinary about saying there is more to EC than can be dismissed with a simple statement. Once can say this about any person. Nothing extraordinary here. And this was not a claim; it was a statement that does not lend to evidence. You claimed he was a fraud, said there was evidence and have not provided it.

Anyone who makes a claim has to give justification or evidence. You made the claim that Cayce was a fraud and have shown no evidence, no link to a credible source showing as such. However your justification does sound credible because your writing is clear and strong. However, you have not given what you said you could--evidence. Your Civil War reenactment in VA is interesting; I wish I could say I did something like this. This, however, is not evidence; it is conjecture. For someone demanding evidence of others, you're not giving much of it yourself.

I've already dealt with this, but I'll say it again. There is no corollary between the willingness of paranormal believers to believe in the paranormal, and the desire of skeptics to dismiss the paranormal. None whatsoever.

That is your oppinion and exactly what I'd expect from someone who was zealous about the need to dismiss anything that does not conform to his/her worldview.

Paranormalists express beliefs that cannot be backed up with evidence. Skeptics dismiss paranormal beliefs by 1) insisting that real evidence for those beliefs be given, and 2) that paranormal abilities be demonstrated in controlled, reproducable conditions. If the vehemence with which a skeptic bothers you, it is because rational people are growing tired of fighting a battle against irrationality. We're weary of having to demonstrate over and over again that silly claims like "psychic" powers have never existed, and don't exist now. The passion of the believer is driven by ignorance, superstition and a need to assuage the doldroms of everyday life. The passion of the skeptic is driven by outrage

The Passion of the Skeptic I am beginning to see a script here...

However, you have justified my point: uncontrolled vehemence betrays the rationality which is the core principle of the skeptic. I fail to see how your statement here supports an assumption that non-believing skepticism is superior to belief-oriented people. "The passion of the believer is driven by ignorance?" A sweeping generalization; I can't concur here.

Let's move on to your proposition that there is more to Cayce than meets the eye. No, there isn't. In fact, there's less.

That's your opinion. Is it a claim? I don't think so. Everyone is allowed an oppinion without having the "claim" trarget assigned to him/her.

Are you impressed by the number of people he supposedly "healed?" Do you know how many "medical" readings he gave in toto? No, because you admitted that you don't really know that much about Cayce, and are upset that I won't produce Cayce's complete materials for you, here on this forum. I don't have Cayce's archives on my hard drive. I do know where you can go look at them, because I've been there, and done it, and I suggest you do so. I think you'll come away singularly unimpressed with his "abilities."

I am impressed only by EC's legend and story. I think that anyone who has such a legend/story following him/her cannot be dismissed easily.

I am not upset, though it seems you are. I'm sorry if I upset you; that was not my intention.

If you think I will come away unimpressed, then that is your opinion. I can't say how I'd respond to the content of the ARE, but from what I've read and seen about Cayce, I don't think I would come to such a singular conclusion.

Cayce gave thousands of readings, and I wouldn't be a bit surprised if some people were healed of their complaints. I don't believe anyone was healed by Cayce specifically, however, unless it was through the placebo effect, a spontaneous healing (which happens frequently) or as a result of traditional medical attention being given at the same time as Cayce's readings. Cayce was a homeopathic hack, plain and simple. There simply isn't any compelling evidence that Cayce was able to heal people with his readings. If you believe he could, prove it. You're the one making the claim.

I like you Westphalia. Even when you're passionately arguing a side, you at least give credence to the possibility of some credibility to the other. Some on this Forum wouldn't give an inch to an inchworm if it were dying of thirst. And once again, I have made no claim, just stated an opinion.

Cayce was known primarily for giving medical advice and for predicting the future. He correctly sensed that World War II would begin - along with millions of other people. He missed Atlantis (a subject that the ECF still will not give up the ghost on), missed the invention of the American "death ray," and missed the vast majority of his other prognostications, too. Why would he be a skilled medical guy, but be completely unable to predict the future with any accuracy?

Yeah. All that Atlantis/death ray stuff makes me a disbeliever in the whole Cayce package so to speak. However, I'm not willing to dismiss him totally. (I guess I said that before)

"Oh, but if Cayce was so wrong, why would his archives be available to the general public?" Why does Sylvia Browne demonstrate her inability to predict anything, yet get a weekly spot on Montel? Why does John Edward get a second show? Why does Ed Dames make money teaching people the nonsense of RV? Why does Coast to Coast offer interviews and free plugs to Alex Jones, Steven Quayle, Richard Hoagland and the like? Because there's money to be made, and no shortage of believers willing to turn a blind eye to reality in an effort to believe in fantasy. You can point out how inaccurate these people are until you're blue in the face, but believers see only the "hits." Only the hits.

So the dollar to disbelief ratio favors the dollar. Good answer. But if there wasn't anything there at all, then would there really be a following and foundation? Possibly. But at least there's a foundation and following; that's something isn't it? Be it right, wrong, or immoral, there is something there, and we can learn from it--even if it is what not to do with our time and money.

Since you haven't been to the ECF, and don't apparently intend to go and do your own legwork to support your assertion, I can tell you that the Foundation is doing very well for itself. Ample bookstores, nice furniture, pleasant buildings, a paid staff, etc. Cayce makes for a decent living.

How do you know I'm not intending to go? On what are you basing this assumption. Can you prove I'm not intending to go to VA Beach? Are you making a claim here? Cayce makes a decent living? You mean he's still alive?

Please, don't castigate others for being "lazy posters" while simultaneously admitting that you don't know much about the subject, and have never looked at the source material. Don't ascribe beliefs to others that they don't have (UrsulaV, and other critical thinkers, gets upset). If you have a paranormal claim, it's up to you to prove it exists.

Sorry if I hurt your feelings; I didn't mean to castigate anyone. I have read about Cayce (a bit), looked at on-line material on him, and read some psychic related stuff concerning him. I am not a Cayce expert, but I can't say I'm totally ignorant. I also didn't mean to appropriate or misrepresent U-5 or anyone else. I merely said that the content of one of her posts echoed some of the content of mine or vice versa.

When did I ever make a claim to a paranormal ability? Whuh? Where did that come from?

Good talking to you. Good luck and good fortune.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Feel free to post about what you learn when you go to Va Beach and check out Cayce's stuff.

 

[westphalia]

Prove it. You demand things of others; offer it yourself. How do I know you're not inventing this tale of being an ARE insider (so to speak)?

Here's another claim. Can you prove it? Can you prove you did the research? I'm not calling you a liar, but I don't see anything in this post that shows me you know any more than what I saw on the broadcast and have read or seen elsewhere.

Anyone who makes a claim has to give justification or evidence. You made the claim that Cayce was a fraud and have shown no evidence, no link to a credible source showing as such. However your justification does sound credible because your writing is clear and strong. However, you have not given what you said you could--evidence.

I'm mystified as to what evidence I can provide you with via an internet forum that can show you I went to Virginia in 1991 and had to spend a summer there working for the NPS. I don't know what I can show you via an internet forum that will prove to you that I helped my friend Jon Waters finish a research paper in 1991. What evidence will you accept?

I have my old uniform. Will that allow you to at least believe I was in Virginia? I have photos. Will that do it? I didn't hand any of my money over to the ECF's bookstore, or for one of their classes on astral projection, the history of Atlantis (and it's discovery), telepathy, psychokinesis, etc., so I don't have a receipt to show you.

It's one thing to question someone as to whether they did what they say they did. It's another to be obtuse. You apparently didn't know outside of this conversation that the Cayce materials are available for public inspection. Respectfully, between the two of us, it's clear that I know more about the Foundation than you do.

I do know what you could do. Go there yourself, inspect the records, then tell me if I sound like I spent three miserable weeks there, picking through woo. Go there, inspect the records, then tell me if there's more to Cayce than meets the eye.

Your Civil War reenactment in VA is interesting; I wish I could say I did something like this. This, however, is not evidence; it is conjecture. For someone demanding evidence of others, you're not giving much of it yourself.

That's not what "conjecture" means. I can provide you with shots of my uniform, or my equipment (still have my musket), or photos.

This is a bit silly, though.

That is your oppinion and exactly what I'd expect from someone who was zealous about the need to dismiss anything that does not conform to his/her worldview.

It's not an opinion motivated by a worldview. It's an opinion based on study and demonstrable evidence. Show me anything that convinces you that Cayce was anything more than a run-of-the-mill "psychic." There just isn't anything there.

The Passion of the Skeptic I am beginning to see a script here...

However, you have justified my point: uncontrolled vehemence betrays the rationality which is the core principle of the skeptic. I fail to see how your statement here supports an assumption that non-believing skepticism is superior to belief-oriented people. "The passion of the believer is driven by ignorance?" A sweeping generalization; I can't concur here.

The passion of a woo believer is driven by ignorance, whether by commission or omission. People believe in psychics, even though not one has ever passed anything like a responsible scientific test. People believe in faith healing, despite no evidence whatsoever that any of these people have miraculous powers, or speak to/for "God." People believe the fantasies they concoct in their heads are the result of remote viewing, no matter how many times you show it (RV) to be nonsense. A believer either chooses to ignore evidence to the contrary, or isn't educated enough to know the evidence against these purported phenomena.

A true skeptic is in no way tied to a worldview that will not admit of new evidence. If someone proved their psychic abilities tomorrow, via a reproducable and scientifically responsible test, I would have to admit that psychic powers exist, and make a place for such phenomena in my understanding of the universe. But for hundreds of years, no one has been able to do that. No one - not Cayce, not Browne, not Edward, not Nostradamus - no one. Based on the existing evidence and past human experience, I am confident that psychics don't exist, and that mankind cannot predict the future via paranormal powers.

Skeptics are - and should be - passionate about their obvservations about the world, because those observations are based on the foundation of evidence. The passion of a skeptic (not a cynic, or a serial debunker, but a real skeptic) comes from having to dismiss the same nonsense again and again. When will people get it? When can we move on?

Anyone making the claim that there is more to Cayce than meets the eye (though I still don't fully understand what you think you mean by that) carries the onus to prove that conventional science has it all wrong, and psychic phenomena exist. Go, do the research. Willing or not, I still made the effort. I'm perfectly willing to listen to any hard evidence that so much as indicates that Edgar Cayce was anything more than a wild prognosticator and homeopath.

That's your opinion. Is it a claim? I don't think so. Everyone is allowed an oppinion without having the "claim" trarget assigned to him/her.

If you believe Cayce had powers to heal people via the mail, or predict the future, then you're making a claim.

I am impressed only by EC's legend and story. I think that anyone who has such a legend/story following him/her cannot be dismissed easily.

And here we have it. "I am impressed only by EC's legend and story." The words "legend" and "story" are the foundational problem of this discussion. Stories are fabrications meant either to entertain or demonstrate a truism. Legends are sometimes incorrectly ascribed as "always having a grain of truth in them," but are really enhanced or completely made-up memories that explain past events, or (again) entertain or demonstrate a truism.

Cayce's life, as the public has come to understand it, is exactly what you describe it to be: a legend and a story. He undoubtedly gave thousands of people medical advice. He undoubtedly made many predictions for the future. I have no doubt that some of his patrons were eventually cured of their conditions, even though there is not one shred of non-anecdotal evidence for this. (Again, people routinely experience spontaneous healings. His patrons could have been healed by commensurate, conventional medical treatments. They could have been healed by their illogical, yet efficacious belief in Cayce's abilities - the placebo effect.) I do know that he was wildly inaccurate in his supposed ability to see into the future. I do know that many people now make a comfortable living off of this legend and story.

I notice that nowhere in that sentence did the word "evidence" appear. You didn't say "I am impressed by the evidence for Cayce's abilities." Until you go and do the research for yourself, you can't say anything about his abilities. I don't know if you are familiar with the basic outline of Cayce's life, let alone his archival materials. We can't have a discussion about Cayce until we both have a basis on which to conduct a conversation.

[About visiting the ECF] If you think I will come away unimpressed, then that is your opinion. I can't say how I'd respond to the content of the ARE, but from what I've read and seen about Cayce, I don't think I would come to such a singular conclusion.

But what have you read about him? What have you seen? You're questioning my miserable, hot summer in Virginia, but won't even tell us what materials you've consulted?

What have you read and seen?

Yeah. All that Atlantis/death ray stuff makes me a disbeliever in the whole Cayce package so to speak. However, I'm not willing to dismiss him totally.

Do you see the contradiction in this, though? On one hand, we have a wild prognosticator who predicted Atlantis rising in 1968, a death ray in America, and China completely converted to Christianity. We have a fellow who told people to do things for medical problems - things that have been proven to be totally ineffective (homeopathy). Why not dismiss him? What makes you even hold out a glimmer of hope for this?

If you went to the ECF back in '91, and took a look in the bookstore, you'd have seen books about Cayce from all sorts of authors (none critical, of course), as well as dozens of different pamphlets and newsletters, all purporting to show that his predictions had either come true, or were coming true imminently. There's a room under the Sphinx' front paw; the rocks off the coast of Bimini are the remainder of an Atlantean wall; Christianity is gaining ground in China, etc. The Foundation claimed that they were doing "cutting-edge" archaeology and research to establish the truthfulness of these claims once and for all, and expected results very shortly, thanks to the donations of Cayce's supporters and students at the ECF.

Fast forward to 2006, and those same claims are still being made on Cayce's behalf, and now on the Web. There just isn't anything there.

(Not evidentiary, of course, but I remember the term "cutting-edge" so well, because it appeared everywhere, and Jon made a remark about what cutting edge he'd like to use on the materials, were he allowed to do so.)

So the dollar to disbelief ratio favors the dollar. Good answer. But if there wasn't anything there at all, then would there really be a following and foundation? Possibly. But at least there's a foundation and following; that's something isn't it? Be it right, wrong, or immoral, there is something there, and we can learn from it--even if it is what not to do with our time and money.

You and I agree on this, though. I think the study of Cayce's perceived abilities is worthwhile. I think belief in his abilities as a psychic and healer is demonstrable nonsense.

If you are preaching Cayce as a social and historiographical phenomenon, then I'm right in line with you. But anyone who preaches Cayce as a legitimate practicioner of the paranormal must do so in opposition to all evidence, and that makes the argument baseless.

Do I believe a fraud - either intentional or delusional - would continue to have a foundation and followers after all this time? Yes, of course. Look at Islam. Look at any number of world religions who base their assertions about the world on the deeds and words of (yet another) paranormal claimant. Followers, foundations and money-making ventures aplenty.

Take Peter Popoff, the evangelical faith healer Randi outed in the 90s. After being proven a fraud, and a conman, and a huckster, Popoff is back on TV, bigger than ever, fooling the same sort of people the same way he did before. The willingness of people to believe in woo, despite any and all evidence to the contrary, knows no bounds. People come to him desperately ill, racked with pain, fervently wishing to hear from God, etc. The victims are the same, and the conman is the same. Do you think he has powers, or any special ability to project power, simply because he has a following and a TV show? I like to think you don't.

How do you know I'm not intending to go? On what are you basing this assumption. Can you prove I'm not intending to go to VA Beach? Are you making a claim here? Cayce makes a decent living? You mean he's still alive?

I earnestly hope you do go, and spend a couple of weeks there. Read as much of the archival material as you can, and decide for yourself. Virginia Beach will look very inviting after a couple weeks' worth of woo. (Don't go in August, though, because the humidity is sweltering).

Cayce makes money even today. Elvis makes money, even today. Shakespeare makes money, even today. Sylvia Browne, when she eventually dies, will make money. Others will be there to collect it, but the dead person's work is the reason the materials sell.

P.S. Approximately 69,600 attended the Spring Game in Columbus yesterday. I was stuck here, so didn't get to go, but watched on TV. The Bucks look young and hungry. I'll "predict" a 10-2 year.

 

[Rodney]

I have no doubt that some of his patrons were eventually cured of their conditions, even though there is not one shred of non-anecdotal evidence for this.

Is an affadavit filed by the superintendent of the Hopkinsville, KY school system that Cayce cured his daughter of what had been diagnosed by the best doctors of the day as an invariably fatal condition involving severe seizures "anecdotal evidence"?

 

[UrsulaV]

Is an affadavit filed by the superintendent of the Hopkinsville, KY school system that Cayce cured his daughter of what had been diagnosed by the best doctors of the day as an invariably fatal condition involving severe seizures "anecdotal evidence"?

As we've been over this already, Rodney, yes, it is. Merely because someone files an affadavit about their anecdote does not make it any less an anecdote. An affadavit does not magically turn an anecdote into a carefully carried out double-blind study. (Nor would an affadavit make t'other gentlemen who testified about the truth of this case any less Cayce's business partner, but I can understand that you wanted to leave that bit out of this discussion.)

And what if she did recover from what was considered a fatal condition of the time? All that would prove is that she had a surprising recovery. It would not prove that Cayce healed her through psychic means. Such a proposition is something that would require an enormous amount of testing and data to verify conclusively, which cannot be done at this late date, and cannot simply be assumed because a distraught parent signed an affadavit saying they thought it was so.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Is an affadavit filed by the superintendent of the Hopkinsville, KY school system that Cayce cured his daughter of what had been diagnosed by the best doctors of the day as an invariably fatal condition involving severe seizures "anecdotal evidence"?

Yes, it sure is.

 

[Taarkin]

The JREF's new requirement that applicants get affidavits prove that psycics exist!

 

[Spektator]

Not quite, Taarkin. The JREF asks for affidavits from third-party observers saying they have actually witnessed the applicants do what they claim to do, not that psychics exist. And even such an affidavit still isn't proof--the applicants still have to undertake the challenge and perform as they claim they can in order to be awarded the million-dollar prize.

 

[westphalia]

What a world. We have to define what "anecdotal evidence" is. We also have to reiterate the specific terms of the JREF challenge for people apparently incapable of reading it for themselves.

Unbelievable.

 

[Rodney]

What a world. We have to define what "anecdotal evidence" is. We also have to reiterate the specific terms of the JREF challenge for people apparently incapable of reading it for themselves.

Unbelievable.

Almost as unbelievable as you claiming to be a Cayce expert. But let me ask you a question: What kind of evidence what convince you that Cayce was the real thing?

 

[UrsulaV]

Almost as unbelievable as you claiming to be a Cayce expert. But let me ask you a question: What kind of evidence what convince you that Cayce was the real thing?

You didn't ask me, but I'll tell you anyway--I would first require absolute and concrete proof of the existence of psychic healers in general. Not just anecdotes about a dead guy, but an existing, testable psychic healer that could be 100% proved to be such, double blind and tested by the best.

Once that psychic healer was established as existing, I would still not be convinced that Cayce was the real thing, buuuuut, based on what we could then learn about the capacity and hallmarks of a psychic healer, I would then know what sort of historical evidence might exist (assuming that any might) that I would be able to ask for that might confirm Cayce as a second psychic healer.

But there is no historical evidence that could confirm Cayce as a psychic without first establishing the existence of psychics in general. He is too long dead to be tested the ways that I would require, the data is too old, and often too shoddy. He cannot be proved psychic based on what we've currently got.

However, assuming our understanding of psychic powers someday changes, it is possible that this will open up new avenues of inquiry about how to prove someone psychic, which may, depending on what they were, be something we could determine from the historical record of Cayce.

 

[Rodney]

You didn't ask me, but I'll tell you anyway--I would first require absolute and concrete proof of the existence of psychic healers in general. Not just anecdotes about a dead guy, but an existing, testable psychic healer that could be 100% proved to be such, double blind and tested by the best.

Once that psychic healer was established as existing, I would still not be convinced that Cayce was the real thing, buuuuut, based on what we could then learn about the capacity and hallmarks of a psychic healer, I would then know what sort of historical evidence might exist (assuming that any might) that I would be able to ask for that might confirm Cayce as a second psychic healer.

But there is no historical evidence that could confirm Cayce as a psychic without first establishing the existence of psychics in general. He is too long dead to be tested the ways that I would require, the data is too old, and often too shoddy. He cannot be proved psychic based on what we've currently got.

However, assuming our understanding of psychic powers someday changes, it is possible that this will open up new avenues of inquiry about how to prove someone psychic, which may, depending on what they were, be something we could determine from the historical record of Cayce.

I.e., nothing that reasonably could have been done by Cayce or his organization would convince you. Which is another way of saying: I don't believe in psychics, so don't confuse me with the facts.

 

[UrsulaV]

I.e., nothing that reasonably could have been done by Cayce or his organization would convince you. Which is another way of saying: I don't believe in psychics, so don't confuse me with the facts.

It'd seem you're the one trying not to be confused by the facts there, kiddo...like any of the facts of what I actually said! (It's okay. I know you don't like listening to me if you can avoid it.)

No, what it means is that there are not enough existing FACTS about Cayce to prove anything at the moment. The man's dead as a doornail, and can't be tested to my satisfaction.

However, what I said ALSO means that if it is ever proved that anyone is beyond a shadow of a doubt a psychic healer, then learning about them may provide us with enough information about psychic healers that we'll know what to look for in Cayce's historical records.

So yes, there's something that Cayce's organization could do that would start to convince me. They could find another psychic healer alive today, and we could go from there.

 

[thaiboxerken]

If there was scientific evidence of Cayce having superpowers, I'd believe.

 

[Taarkin]

Not quite, Taarkin. The JREF asks for affidavits from third-party observers saying they have actually witnessed the applicants do what they claim to do, not that psychics exist. And even such an affidavit still isn't proof--the applicants still have to undertake the challenge and perform as they claim they can in order to be awarded the million-dollar prize.

Err, I was joking based on Rodney's "The fact that someone signed an affidavit proves that the events described therein are true".

 

[Rodney]

No, what it means is that there are not enough existing FACTS about Cayce to prove anything at the moment.

More than 14,000 readings on file at Cayce Headquarters and also available on-line to anyone who cares to plunk down $44 for a year's membership isn't enough material? And many people who Cayce gave readings for are still alive. Take Joseph Granville, who was one of the most prominent American stock market analysts of the 1970s, and who received a life reading from Cayce at age 15. In the Granville Market Letter dated 2/18/80, Granville stated:

"On February 8, 1939 the great psychic Edgar Cayce of Virginia Beach, Virginia went into a self-induced trance. I was many miles away in Yonkers, New York at that time. What resulted was a life reading which currently is on file at the Association for Research and Enlightenment in Virginia Beach under the File Number 1815, open for inspection by the public. Everything
in that life reading has been dramatically fulfilled."

 

[Rodney]

Err, I was joking based on Rodney's "The fact that someone signed an affidavit proves that the events described therein are true".

Where, exactly, did I state that?

 

[thaiboxerken]

Rodney, anecdotal evidence in such cases are meaningless.