Merged Edgar Cayce

[UrsulaV]

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?

Nope. Cayce is dead. Cayce cannot be tested to my satisfaction, period.

You will need a living, testable, provable psychic healer before I'd know what to look for in the historical data on Cayce. I am not willing to call Cayce a psychic until we have a proved, tested, known psychic against which to measure him.

 

[westphalia]

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?

Who said I was a Cayce expert? I didn't say that. I said my friend Jon did a paper on Cayce for his Master's program, and that I helped him finish his research for three weeks. I only did so because Jon was behind. I'm only a layman, but smart enough to read and understand English.

I would be satisfied by knowing that Cayce's health quackery produced healings above and beyond the statistical level that might be expected in the general population at large. You'd have to gather the direct medical evidence of people who only sought and followed Cayce's advice, to the exclusion of everything else - conventional, commensurate medical treatment, other "off the record" medical treatments, spontaneous healings, etc.

I grow weary of silly believers who pick and choose a few success stories out of the 14,000 hand-picked readings available (for a fee, of course) and point to them as evidence - particularly when backed up only by an affidavit. Affidavits are not evidence, and if we can't understand why anecdotal evidence is meaningless, there's really no point to any discussion of Cayce, UFOs or any other woo phenonemon.

I can swear out an affidavit tomorrow that will explain how I was born on the planet Xenon, fell ill due to the effects of you Earthlings' atmosphere and bacterial life, sought treatment at a Peter Popoff crusade and got healed by a magical mammoth named Mr. Snuffalopogus. Would you take my affidavit as evidence?

 

[Huntster]

.....For the eighth year in a row, I am the East Coast's #1 Chrysler-Plymouth dealer. It's true.

As is required in this depressing forum, the required question is hereby posted:

Evidence, please?

 

[CFLarsen]

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."

But has it been independently verified?

 

[UrsulaV]

As is required in this depressing forum, the required question is hereby posted:

Evidence, please?

Did we leave our sense of humor in our other pants, or did we just not notice that was a joke response to AmyWilson the troll?

 

[Rodney]

I can swear out an affidavit tomorrow that will explain how I was born on the planet Xenon, fell ill due to the effects of you Earthlings' atmosphere and bacterial life, sought treatment at a Peter Popoff crusade and got healed by a magical mammoth named Mr. Snuffalopogus. Would you take my affidavit as evidence?

Do you seriously think that your example is the same as an affadavit filed by one of the most prominent and respected member of a community? Further, a doctor verified the facts of the case and it was mentioned in a New York Times article.

 

[Rodney]

Nope. Cayce is dead. Cayce cannot be tested to my satisfaction, period.

You will need a living, testable, provable psychic healer before I'd know what to look for in the historical data on Cayce. I am not willing to call Cayce a psychic until we have a proved, tested, known psychic against which to measure him.

Again, you're proving my point that, no matter how much evidence there is that Cayce was a genuine psychic, you won't -- absent evidence of someone similar to Cayce today --even examine the evidence regarding Cayce.

 

[Rodney]

But has it been independently verified?

How would that work?

 

[UrsulaV]

Again, you're proving my point that, no matter how much evidence there is that Cayce was a genuine psychic, you won't -- absent evidence of someone similar to Cayce today --even examine the evidence regarding Cayce.

Well, I've gotten you down from "Won't be confused with the facts," to "won't even examine the evidence." I suppose that's progress. We do this back and forth another dozen times, maybe we'll get you around to accuracy!

Rodney, you may have noticed that you and I have been arguing about Cayce in threads for awhile now. On several occasions, I've asked you, specifically, for cases of Cayce's amazing medical knowledge proved an accurate "hit" by modern medicine, (and I meant a REAL hit, not that almond crap) and examples of Amazing Miracle Cures that had better backing than this thing with the affadavit you keep trotting out.

Asking specifically for more evidence about Cayce hardly strikes me as refusing to "even examine the evidence regarding Cayce." But then, it's been obvious so far that you and I have very different definitions of some words. Like "hit" for example...

 

[westphalia]

Do you seriously think that your example is the same as an affadavit filed by one of the most prominent and respected member of a community? Further, a doctor verified the facts of the case and it was mentioned in a New York Times article.

My "Mr. Snuffalopogus" claim has precisely as much evidentiary value as an affidavit on file with the ARE - precisely zero. I would hope you could see that.

By the way, please educate yourself about Cayce before spouting off. The New York Times was instrumental in propogating a number of false claims about Cayce, and in getting his legend started. Here's just one reference for you:

http://skepdic.com/cayce.html

I hope that if I give you just one reference to the NYT's perfidy vis-a-vis Cayce, you'll read it. I know you woo folks usually don't have the patience for anything like real research.

P.S. Cayce's Foundation has 30,000 readings on file - not 14,000.

 

[westphalia]

And here's some info, from the same site, explaining why testimonial evidence seems to be so popular with the woo crowd.

http://skepdic.com/testimon.html

Maybe if it's on the same site, some of it will sink in.

 

[Luke T.]

Okay. For anyone who thinks "there might be something" to Edgar Cayce, here is what I suggest.

Buy a membership to A.R.E. When you are sick, use the Cayce cures. Abstain from modern medicine, no matter how sick you get. Rely entirely on the Cayce way. Don't taint your experiment with mainstream science. That way, there won't be any confusion as to what is responsible for your health.

Spend everything you have on Cayce books, tapes, magic crystals, aura readings, and elixers.

Study the materials like your life depends on it. Become an enlightened being.

I say, "Go for it!" Don't be half-assed in your faith.

Then you will have first-hand evidence of what there is to Cayce.

 

[Rodney]

My "Mr. Snuffalopogus" claim has precisely as much evidentiary value as an affidavit on file with the ARE - precisely zero. I would hope you could see that.

So all affidavits are created equal? I'm sure the legal system will be astounded at your breathtaking finding.

By the way, please educate yourself about Cayce before spouting off. The New York Times was instrumental in propogating a number of false claims about Cayce, and in getting his legend started. Here's just one reference for you:

http://skepdic.com/cayce.html

I hope that if I give you just one reference to the NYT's perfidy vis-a-vis Cayce, you'll read it. I know you woo folks usually don't have the patience for anything like real research.

Your source, Robert Todd Carroll, doesn't know what he's talking about. Among other things, he claims that Cayce "was the first to recommend laetrile as a cancer cure." Is that true or false?

P.S. Cayce's Foundation has 30,000 readings on file - not 14,000.

Wrong again. See -- http://www.edgarcayce.org/join_sitestandard.asp

So, you made three claims and they're all wrong.

 

[Hastur]

Do you seriously think that your example is the same as an affadavit filed by one of the most prominent and respected member of a community? Further, a doctor verified the facts of the case and it was mentioned in a New York Times article.

Yes, since the only thing your example brings to the party are three appeals to authority.

 

[Hastur]

So all affidavits are created equal? I'm sure the legal system will be astounded at your breathtaking finding

I'm an attorney and I never heard anything about affidavits being considered better if they were based on appeals to authority. It doesn't matter who the affidavit comes from so long as it is relevant. Then they are summarily discarded during hearings as hearsay barring an exception.

 

[westphalia]

So all affidavits are created equal? I'm sure the legal system will be astounded at your breathtaking finding.

Affidavits do not constitute scientific proof. Affidavits do not constitute scientific proof. Affidavits do not constitute scientific proof. Now, repeat.

Affidavits used in a court of law are used (criminally) to establish a ruling "beyond a reasonable doubt." Civilly, they are used to establish a ruling "by a preponderance of the evidence." Neither standards apply to scientific proof.

A remedial science class can teach you the difference.

Your source, Robert Todd Carroll, doesn't know what he's talking about. Among other things, he claims that Cayce "was the first to recommend laetrile as a cancer cure." Is that true or false?

Laetrile (as a anti-cancer treatment) was first tried in France sometime in the 1830s, and was discarded as useless. At no point did the French scientists recommend it as a cancer treatment - they tried it out. Krebs did not advocate its use before Cayce.

I'm amused to read the Cayce site vis-a-vis laetrile and cancer. The ARE is correct to state that nowhere in his readings did Cayce recommend laetrile as a treatment for cancer. It was in his personal correspondence - also kept at the ARE, that this treatment is recommended. A sly question of semantics.

Wrong again. See -- http://www.edgarcayce.org/join_sitestandard.asp
So, you made three claims and they're all wrong.

[/QUOTE]

The 14,000 readings the ARE will allow you to purchase are a selection from the approximately 30,000 archived. If you go to the ARE, the library assistants will tell you that. Of course, you woo believers think research consists of pulling items off the internet, not doing actual research, so I won't burden you with any more work.

Is there any "psychic" for whom you won't go to bat?

 

[Hastur]

Actually, affidavits are primarily used in preliminary motions since there is no actual court testimony at that point. Once court proceedings begin, they are put to the wayside as hearsay. There are exceptions to this -- cross-examination and established exceptions to hearsay, but they are regarded as hearsay until shown otherwise.

 

[westphalia]

Absolutely. Death bed testimony in the form of an affidavit, or some health problem that constrains someone from testifying in a usual manner (though court can certainly be held at bedside), etc.

I'm just trying to get the point hammered home that an affidavit is not scientific proof of anything, nor can it be used to provide evidence for a phenomenon. It's meaningless.

 

[UrsulaV]

Further, a doctor verified the facts of the case and it was mentioned in a New York Times article.

Rodney, *I* have been mentioned in a New York Times article.* Getting mentioned in the Times doesn't prove anything. The New York Times is A) not infallible, and B) they mention a lotta stuff. Hell, they ran a hundred and fifty articles on the Ponzi scheme, back when it was going on, but that doesn't mean that it worked.

As for the doctor...tell me, was that the one with the doctor who was Cayce's business partner, or is this another affadavit anecdote?



*Well, my webcomic. And they were very nice, too, so don't take this as a slam on their taste.

 

[Rodney]

Affidavits do not constitute scientific proof. Affidavits do not constitute scientific proof. Affidavits do not constitute scientific proof. Now, repeat.

Affidavits used in a court of law are used (criminally) to establish a ruling "beyond a reasonable doubt." Civilly, they are used to establish a ruling "by a preponderance of the evidence." Neither standards apply to scientific proof.

A remedial science class can teach you the difference.

So affidavits filed by respected citizens are meaningless, then?

Laetrile (as a anti-cancer treatment) was first tried in France sometime in the 1830s, and was discarded as useless. At no point did the French scientists recommend it as a cancer treatment - they tried it out. Krebs did not advocate its use before Cayce.
I'm amused to read the Cayce site vis-a-vis laetrile and cancer. The ARE is correct to state that nowhere in his readings did Cayce recommend laetrile as a treatment for cancer. It was in his personal correspondence - also kept at the ARE, that this treatment is recommended. A sly question of semantics.

So you have access to Cayce's personal correspondence that is not available to the general public??? Where may I examine it?

The 14,000 readings the ARE will allow you to purchase are a selection from the approximately 30,000 archived. If you go to the ARE, the library assistants will tell you that. Of course, you woo believers think research consists of pulling items off the internet, not doing actual research, so I won't burden you with any more work?

So apparently when the ARE categorically states -- "Edgar Cayce gave over 14,000 readings on more than 10,000 different topics to people all over the world" -- they're wrong. Also, I've been to ARE Headquarters several times and no one there ever mentioned anything about "30,000 archived" readings. But you undoubtedly have the inside scoop, just as you do on Cayce's personal correspondence.

Is there any "psychic" for whom you won't go to bat?

Yes, and even more so with respect to a certain skeptic . . .