Merged Edgar Cayce

[thaiboxerken]

So affidavits filed by respected citizens are meaningless, then?

In a scientific inquiry, yes.

 

[Rodney]

Rodney, *I* have been mentioned in a New York Times article.

"In other offbeat news, Ursula Vernon pleaded not guilty to wasting bandwidth on the Randi Forums by virtue of being under the influence of uninformed skeptics."

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?

Yes, it was the initially skeptical doctor who was won over by Cayce's cure of the superintendent's daughter. But, if you doubt this "anecdote", why do you suppose that no skeptic ever mentions it when they attempt to debunk Cayce?

 

[Rodney]

In a scientific inquiry, yes.

Suppose at the next Randi Conference, 100 attendees witness a UFO land and take off and then each file an affidavit attesting to that. Should those affidavits be disregarded by the scientific inquiry that follows?

 

[thaiboxerken]

Yes, Rodney, they should. Afterall, it could just be a hoax.

 

[Hastur]

Suppose at the next Randi Conference, 100 attendees witness a UFO land and take off and then each file an affidavit attesting to that. Should those affidavits be disregarded by the scientific inquiry that follows?

Yes, since the only thing the affidavits can attest to is that 100 saw something. What that something was cannot be derived from the say-so of witnesses.

So affidavits filed by respected citizens are meaningless, then?

What part of appeal to authority do you not understand?

 

[UrsulaV]

So affidavits filed by respected citizens are meaningless, then?

For what you want them to mean, yes, they are. They're a notarized anecdote, Rodney. Get over it.

 

[UrsulaV]

Yes, it was the initially skeptical doctor who was won over by Cayce's cure of the superintendent's daughter. But, if you doubt this "anecdote", why do you suppose that no skeptic ever mentions it when they attempt to debunk Cayce?

Ah. So it WAS someone we know had a later financial stake in Cayce. Interesting.

As for why skeptics never mention this anecdote, I suspect that if some skeptics fail to mention it, it's because there's not enough there to debunk. A girl was sick. Okay. She got better. Hey, these things happen. Someone signed an affadavit about it, which, despite how impressed you seem to be by the shiny notary seal, is still a purely anecdotal account that proves nothing. What exactly are we supposed to debunk? What in there is something that we can test?

But if you've got a better anecdote, something, y'know, testable and falsifiable, feel free to share! (Look! Once again, I'm asking you for information and facts! And yes, I'll bring this up yet again the next time you accuse me of not wanting to know facts about Cayce!)

 

[westphalia]

So affidavits filed by respected citizens are meaningless, then?

As scientific evidence for a paranormal claim? Yes, absolutely meaningless. Anecdotes and testemonials are completely irrelevant to providing proof for a scientific claim.

I'm sure when you watch televangelists, you don't believe their testimonials, do you? Of course not. You don't believe Kevin Trudeau's paid testimonials, do you? Of course not. Why would you believe Cayce's?

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

You may do what I had to do, and inspect said correspondence at the ARE archives.

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.

I have no idea whether you've been to the archives or not. If you have, you show a remarkable unfamiliarity with the basic outline of his life and work. In toto, there are over 30,000 readings from Cayce available. The 14,000 for sale (surprise, surprise) are a selected portion only.

Look, by any standard imaginable, Cayce was no psychic, and certainly no miraculous healer. The man couldn't even heal his closest family. China converted to Christianity by 1968? A death ray in the US military's possession by 1958? Sweet almonds to prevent cancer?

Come on.

I'm always amazed that people insist on believing in Cayce, when other folks who didn't claim or promote their imaginary "powers" proved to be far more prescient in predicting future events. Why isn't H.G. Wells a psychic? Why not Jules Verne?

 

[Rodney]

You may do what I had to do, and inspect said correspondence at the ARE archives.

Again, I've been to ARE Headquarters many times and I don't know of any personal correspondence of Cayce that is available at Headquarters, but not on-line.

I have no idea whether you've been to the archives or not. If you have, you show a remarkable unfamiliarity with the basic outline of his life and work. In toto, there are over 30,000 readings from Cayce available. The 14,000 for sale (surprise, surprise) are a selected portion only.

According to --
http://edgarcayce.org/join_w_heavensastro.asp -- membership in the ARE entitles the member to: "Access to Edgar Cayce's 14,306 psychic readings on-line." Note that it does not say: "On-line access to 14,306 of Edgar Cayce's psychic readings." But aside from the fact that the ARE would be guilty of false advertising, what would be the point of making fewer than half of Cayce's readings available on-line?

 

[UrsulaV]

But aside from the fact that the ARE would be guilty of false advertising, what would be the point of making fewer than half of Cayce's readings available on-line?

This is just off the top of my head, you understand, purely hypothetical, a mere thought, just the glimmer of an inkling, but maybe if some readings did not serve to promote the image of Cayce as a wise prophet, by being, for example, failures, or blatantly obvious crapola...

Well, I just have a suspicious mind, I suppose.

 

[Rodney]

This is just off the top of my head, you understand, purely hypothetical, a mere thought, just the glimmer of an inkling, but maybe if some readings did not serve to promote the image of Cayce as a wise prophet, by being, for example, failures, or blatantly obvious crapola...

Well, I just have a suspicious mind, I suppose.

And, in this case at least, an illogical one. Our esteemed colleague Westphalia wants you to believe that, if you visit ARE Headquarters, you can access all "30,000" readings, including those countless thousands that make Cayce look dishonest. Now, for some reason, every reading that well-known skeptics such as Martin Gardner and Randi have used to try and discredit Cayce are readily available on-line. These include some where, without question, Cayce was wrong. Don't you find it kind of odd that Headquarters would have let those slip through to be accessed on-line? And, for that matter, why not just destroy all readings that make Cayce look bad, rather than allow anyone who wanders into Headquarters to find them?

The bottom line is that, as far as I can tell, Westphalia is the only person on earth who claims that there are 30,000 Cayce readings available at ARE Headquarters.

 

[UrsulaV]

And, for that matter, why not just destroy all readings that make Cayce look bad, rather than allow anyone who wanders into Headquarters to find them?

Why not, indeed?

 

[thaiboxerken]

Because they know that "bad" readings are readily ignored by believers.

 

[Palimpsest]

And because destroying even one reading would be an admission (to themselves, if nothing else) that Cayce wasn't perfect?

 

[westphalia]

Again, I've been to ARE Headquarters many times and I don't know of any personal correspondence of Cayce that is available at Headquarters, but not on-line.

I find it highly improbable you've been to Cayce's ARE. You don't know that the NYT was responsible for a round of false advertising vis-a-vis Cayce (the "illiteracy" nonsense, among others). You don't know that he has personal correspondence at the ARE, correspondence that contains readings not offered for sale by the ARE on-line. You don't know some very basic facts about Cayce's life.

If you've been to the ARE "many times" (before, it was a few), then I'd expect you to know that his correspondence is available. What were you doing there? Picking daisies? Resting on the beach?

Perhaps I'm wrong, and you were there for the class on Atlantis, or on therapeutic touch, or for the massage clinic. Who knows?

According to --
http://edgarcayce.org/join_w_heavensastro.asp -- membership in the ARE entitles the member to: "Access to Edgar Cayce's 14,306 psychic readings on-line." Note that it does not say: "On-line access to 14,306 of Edgar Cayce's psychic readings." But aside from the fact that the ARE would be guilty of false advertising, what would be the point of making fewer than half of Cayce's readings available on-line?

I can read the ARE site as well as you do. The site sells (surprise, surprise) access to 14,000 readings. Cayce performed approximately 30,000.

If you could stir yourself to real research, instead of limiting your knowledge to only one website, you might discover this for yourself.

Honestly, I'm more than a little tired of pointing woo hacks toward research. If woo hacks spent one quarter the amount of time on research that they spend on blabbering from ignorance, they'd cease to exist.

 

[Rodney]

I find it highly improbable you've been to Cayce's ARE.

If you care to make a large wager, I'll prove it.

You don't know that the NYT was responsible for a round of false advertising vis-a-vis Cayce (the "illiteracy" nonsense, among others).

I posted the information about that article! Now, as far as the "false advertising" about Cayce being illiterate, perhaps the author engaged in a little poetic license or perhaps he simply assumed that, since Cayce had only a grade school education, he was illiterate. There's no evidence that Cayce or anyone associated with him told the author to write that Cayce was illiterate. In fact, one of the worst mistakes Cayce ever made from a financial standpoint was not capitalizing on that article by mentioning it in advertisements in newspapers across the country. He could have been on his way to not only fame, but fortune, which he never achieved.

You don't know that he has personal correspondence at the ARE, correspondence that contains readings not offered for sale by the ARE on-line. You don't know some very basic facts about Cayce's life.

Oddly, no one but you seems to know these "facts." Can you back up your claims in any way, shape, or manner?

If you've been to the ARE "many times" (before, it was a few),

No, I said "several" (not "a few"), than "many." "Several" and "many" can mean the same thing, no?

then I'd expect you to know that his correspondence is available.

Again, do you have any evidence at all for this claim?

What were you doing there? Picking daisies? Resting on the beach? Perhaps I'm wrong, and you were there for the class on Atlantis, or on therapeutic touch, or for the massage clinic. Who knows?

I've done a fair amount of research at ARE Headquarters, and no one has ever mentioned anything about "30,000" readings nor correspondence that is available to the public there, but not on-line.

I can read the ARE site as well as you do.

So why do you dispute the number of readings that the site says exist?

The site sells (surprise, surprise) access to 14,000 readings. Cayce performed approximately 30,000.
If you could stir yourself to real research, instead of limiting your knowledge to only one website, you might discover this for yourself.

Okay, so give me ONE SITE -- ANY SITE -- that claims that Cayce performed 30,000 readings.

Honestly, I'm more than a little tired of pointing woo hacks toward research. If woo hacks spent one quarter the amount of time on research that they spend on blabbering from ignorance, they'd cease to exist.

If you researched this forum a little, you'll find that I have listed more facts about Cayce than anyone else.

 

[UrsulaV]

If you researched this forum a little, you'll find that I have listed more facts about Cayce than anyone else.

Still haven't answered my several calls for more facts, though. (Ooh! Now I can call that "many" calls!) But you've got a lot on your plate, I'm sure. Whenever's convenient for you is fine...

 

[Rodney]

Still haven't answered my several calls for more facts, though. (Ooh! Now I can call that "many" calls!) But you've got a lot on your plate, I'm sure. Whenever's convenient for you is fine...

Why, Ursula, I didn't know you were waiting for little ol' me to give you more facts. How about these: At pages 186-188 of Sidney Kirkpatrick's book, "Edgar Cayce: An American Prophet", the author describes how the eyes of Cayce's 6-year old son Hugh Lynn were seriously burned in a flash powder explosion. Several (or is it many ) "doctors agreed that the vision in Hugh Lynn's right eye was gone completely, and perhaps that of his left was gone, too." Cayce then gave a reading, disputing the doctors' diagnosis. Cayce prescribed a tannic acid solution for his son's eyes, and "specified times for changing the dressings, saying that after two weeks the mass of burned flesh and poisons would drop off, leaving the eyes healthy . . . . At the end of this period, as predicted, the white mass of burned flesh came loose and fell away, revealing his two brown eyes. He looked with a smile at his mother and father. 'I can see!' he announced."

 

[thaiboxerken]

It's no surprise that Rodney would use more anecdotes to support his position. Now he's using anecdotal recounts in "true story" books. What a hoot.... or, in this case, what a woot!

 

[UrsulaV]

Why, Ursula, I didn't know you were waiting for little ol' me to give you more facts. "

Well, actually what I'd asked for originally was something "testable and falsifiable," but I guess you weren't reading my posts all the way through. S'okay, though. Nice anecdote. Pity we can't prove anything from it.