Hello from a non-skeptic

[Halfcentaur]

It will. Adhering to such rigid systems is basically a huge ego stroke.

Of course weird things will keep happening but if the skeptics shout long, and science keeps scrambling to catch to keep the lid on phenomena, safely contained with rationality so not one person in the world is left to muse over 'weird things' maybe the weird stuff will go away on its own.



If it doesn't I sense the world would implode. I had no idea, absolutely no idea, the thought of psychic phenomena generated so much fear and subsequent ego attack. Or so many subconscious religious behaviors.

I've seen more petty crucifixions and persecutions in this thread when someone doesn't goose step in alignment with their precise thinking. More than any number of Christians could produce on their own , yet skeptics claim they are above all that nonsense.

Are you all REALLY sure you have purged yourself of that crap . I mean what is the difference between persecution in the name of god and persecution in the name of rationality?

I mentioned core beliefs and suspending beliefs a million threads back. Maybe someone will get what I mean now.

You're very dishonest, but I would not call it lying. I would wager it's unintentional and necessary to keep you feeling so much more lucid than other people. Probably due to overcompensation for low self esteem, or perhaps you've just had a bad run with meeting people in general and you're isolated.

The fact of the matter is, many of the people here would love it if someone could demonstrate evidence of paranormal ability. Imagine how much more fantastic and full of wonder life would be. In fact, it's that reason specifically we should be so critical of those claiming abilities otherwise. These people have it in their ability to introduce us all to a world of possibility and wonder we never knew existed, but they don't because they just don't have the time, or it "belittles" them? They could change life as we know it and how we view the world in a positive way, but they don't. It's quite a warped view you have of reality to suggest it's something that makes us afraid, I suspect it's a little bit of you projecting you're own shortcomings on others. Often we project what we despise and fear in ourselves on others.

As for psychic ability and paranormal activity of some sort, I welcome such a thing. I would love for it to be true. I yearn for it. This is why one must be so skeptical of the things we would otherwise give unfair credibility, we're more prone to pretending we don't see the gaps. We have to be extra critical, and asking for someone to prove something like this is something a rational person who cares more about the truth than how they feel about things would do. That fact you expect people to just believe something someone tells them, in light of it suspending the known laws of reality no doubt, says a lot about your world view. The added fact that you approach a community of skeptics and attempt to challenge them in light of that says even more.

 

[majamin]

[...] And you want me to believe in your "random chance" theories? How could she have known what I was thinking???!!!

You guys really don't know what you are talking about...

It is uncomfortably frustrating to deal with a person that throws the words 'chance' and 'random' around so haphazardly. Nothing in your posts indicate that you know how you would know that some real affect or ability was present. Worse, you seem to think that we're the one positing theories (it's actually you whose posing them).

Please consider the following list of heads (H) and tails (T) one of my students produced by flipping a fair coin. My challenge to you is to explain what is it that is so remarkable about this list.

HTHTTHTHHTHTTHTHHHTTHHTTHTHTTHTHHTHTHTHTTTHTHTHTHHTHTHHTHHHTTTHHTHTHTHTTTHHTHTHHTHTHHTHTHTHHTHTHTHHTTTHTHTHTTHTHTT

I'm hittin' the hay ... hope to see your answer soon, Charles.

 

[Pixel42]

At no other moment, in the twelve years I took part in the spiritualist center I have mentioned, was anything similar ever said to me

So that's just one meaningful hit (two if you count the pregnancy thing) in twelve years? That's a very very poor hit rate. And the hits really aren't that impressive, you know.

How likely is it that I will be struck by lightening? As unlikely as it was that the person who has just been struck by lightening somewhere in the world would be. Yet he was, poor sod.

From the link I gave you right back at the beginning of this thread: (http://www.skepdic.com/lawofnumbers.html)

"That a particular specified event or coincidence will occur is very unlikely. That some astonishing unspecified events will occur is certain. That is why remarkable coincidences are noted in hindsight, not predicted with foresight."--David G. Myers

Most people can expect to witness or experience several highly unlikely events in the course of an average lifetime. You haven't even reached the quota you could reasonably expect yet.

ETA:

You guys really don't know what you are talking about...

Do you have a degree in Mathematics, Charles? Because I do. And I'm one of the least qualified regular posters here. Do you really think you know more about the law of large numbers than we do?

A lot of statistical and probability theory is counter-intuitive. Most people, for example, find it diffficult to believe that a representative sample of just a couple of thousand people can be used to accurately estimate the voting intentions of millions, but I can point you to mathematics that proves this. Never assume, just because something seems to contradict what your common sense is telling you, that it can't be true. Common sense has proved to be a very poor guide to the true nature of the universe.

 

[3point14]

As for "not reasoning with a man who does not wish to be reasoned to", I'll just say that I am all for critical thinking and coherent argumentation. Another reason why I came here in the first place. Certainly not to try to sell you guys a book that you would never buy in the first place.

You really do miss my point.

My point is this - what's the use in debating with you when you can't say what it is that will make you change your mind.

I can tell you exactly what will change my mind.

Others here will also be able to tell you exactly what will change their minds.

You cannot say what is required to change your mind, your mind is closed, shut tighter than a box with no lid, your mind is made up and no amount of evidence will change it bacause you cannot tell us what it will take to change it. I can tell you what it takes to change mine, most of the people here will happily tell you what it will take to change theirs, you cannot tell us what will change yours, therefore, while I admire those who try to use logic to convince you, I'm not going to join in as your mind is not subject to change.

Open your mind and perhaps it will become so.

Pi.

 

[Charles Boden]

Well, there's certainly one way to test that claim. Since this person is so great, please

contact her and invite her to come here and verify the claims you have made and all the many others she must have gotten right. Better yet, have her immediately sign up for the million dollar challenge. She's a sure winner.
Will you do that?

I'm sure the medium herself would jump at the opportunity. The spiritual entities / spiritual guides she works with would not. In truth it would be even better if a team from the foundation came to Rio and went to encounter this for themselves. I have told you I can provide the address for the spiritualist center I used to take part in.

I did provide another example (that she should have known what I had been thinking a couple of days before concerning the non-existence of God) and will give others, if you will just give me a little more time to do so before jumping down my throat. But that's it, all I can provide you with are personal experiences. Would the foundation be willing to pay my air-ticket so we can test the hypothesis of doing the Ouija blindfolded? Personally I do not think that a true spiritual entity responding should need a medium's eyes to do so.

Ladies and Gentlemen, rather than beating believers to a pulp with your argumentations, in which I am also having to take your word for them, what you really should be saying is not that such phenomena does not exist, but that you don't know the answer to this question because to this date you still do not have the means to test such phenomena..."

 

[Mirrorglass]

Would the foundation be willing to pay my air-ticket so we can test the hypothesis of doing the Ouija blindfolded?

Does that really matter? It's a million dollars. Surely you could afford to spend a fraction of that on tickets? Just think of it as an investment that pays thousand-fold.

Or alternatively, start by contacting a local newspaper and showing them your ability. Actually, you'll have to start by doing that, as the foundation won't let you take the test without media presence. But I'm sure any newspaper would be happy to publish a report about such an extraordinary event.

But in the meantime, could you give a simple explanation of what exactly it is you can do with an ouija board? Remember, it has to be something that could not be accomplished by mundane methods.

 

[Pixel42]

I'm sure the medium herself would jump at the opportunity. The spiritual entities / spiritual guides she works with would not. In truth it would be even better if a team from the foundation came to Rio and went to encounter for yourselves. I have told you I can provide the address for the spiritualist center I used to take part in.

Nope, that's not how the JREF challenge works. The person making the claim must apply and pay all costs (though a local test can usually be arranged to save on air fares etc).

There is, however, nothing to stop you doing properly blinded and controlled tests yourself, now that you know how to do them (and there are people here who will help you every step of the way). What are you waiting for?

I did provide another example (that she should have known what I had been thinking a couple of days before concerning the non-existence of God) and will give others, if you will just give me a little more time to do so before jumping down my throat. But that's it, all I can provide you with are personal experiences.

Which are unreliable evidence and more likely to lead you to the wrong conclusion than the right one, for the reasons that have been patiently explained to you.

Would the foundation be willing to pay my air-ticket so we can test the hypothesis of doing the Ouija blindfolded? Personally I do not think that a true spiritual entity responding should need a medium's eyes to do so.

No, JREF won't foot any costs except those entailed in providing staff time to negotiate a protocol and observe the resulting test. But as I said, there's nothing to stop you doing such tests yourself. There are probably JREF forum members near you who would be happy to help for nothing, and indeed the help right here from forum members is also free.

Ladies and Gentlemen, rather than beating believers to a pulp with your argumentations, in which I am also having to take your word for them, what you really should be saying is not that such phenomena does not exist, but that you don't know the answer to this question because to this date you still do not have the means to test such phenomena..."

But we do have the means to test most such phenomena, and every time they have been tested they have failed completely. Can we say with certainty that the next person to claim to have such abilities is also either a fraud, deluded or honestly mistaken? Of course not, there's always the remote possibility that they might be the real thing. But when the claims all of them make, and the evidence all of them provide for making them, are identical to those of all the ones who failed, it's not unreasonable to take as your working assumption that they, too, will prove unable to do what they claim they can do under proper observing conditions.

It is not necessary for me to look inside every single volcano on the planet to take as my working assumption that all are due to eruptions of hot magma. The burden of proof is on anyone who claims that at least some of them are due to volcano gods to produce some pretty convincing evidence to make me reconsider that assumption.

 

[iknownothing]

I've seen more petty crucifixions and persecutions in this thread when someone doesn't goose step in alignment with their precise thinking.

Don't you think that's a little over the top? Crucifixions and persecutions? How have you or anyone else been persecuted? You've just been disagreed with. Pretty politely. You seem to see informed disagreement as very threatening.

I'm sure the medium herself would jump at the opportunity. The spiritual entities / spiritual guides she works with would not.

Why not? Do you know their motives? I can't think of any reason why some disembodied spirit who regularly makes contact with the physical world would turn down an opportunity to do so on a larger scale.

I did provide another example (that she should have known what I had been thinking a couple of days before concerning the non-existence of God

I don't think it's very surprising that a perceptive person could realize that you -- attending the spiritualist center -- were coping with the big questions about God and reality. That's kind of like, if I wanted to set myself up as a psychic, telling a teenager that I can sense he has conflict with his parents.

Ladies and Gentlemen, rather than beating believers to a pulp with your argumentations,

Again, no beating into a pulp here. Informed, and mostly polite, disagreement. Based on logic, and on evidence of how people make mistakes of believing things that aren't true.

what you really should be saying is not that such phenomena does not exist, but that you don't know the answer to this question because to this date you still do not have the means to test such phenomena...

Well, what does it mean that we don't have the means to test? It means simply that these phenomena don't affect the real world in any demonstrable way. So you are left with believing based on your personal experiences -- but there is a lot of information out there on why personal experience is a poor means to judge.

 

[Garrette]

In truth it would be even better if a team from the foundation came to Rio and went to encounter for yourselves. I have told you I can provide the address for the spiritualist center I used to take part in.

Burden is on the claimant.

This position is untenable, Charles. There are people who can prove the paranormal, change the foundations of science and the world, use it to better humanity, but we're not going to go to the trouble to do it. Neener neener.

I did provide another example (that she should have known what I had been thinking a couple of days before concerning the non-existence of God) and will give others, if you will just give me a little more time to do so before jumping down my throat.

It won't matter, Charles, and that's not a bad thing. Remembered anecdotes from years ago are not evidence, regardless how fervently you wish to think they are. The discussions here about your experience haven't been a tacit admission that you have been evidence that must be refuted; the discussions have been an attempt to show you why your anecdotes are not evidence.

Would the foundation be willing to pay my air-ticket so we can test the hypothesis of doing the Ouija blindfolded?

No.

Personally I do not think that a true spiritual entity responding should need a medium's eyes to do so.

Then test it. It is simple and inexpensive. Write up your proposed protocol, present it here for advice, modify as needed, then do it. If it turns out that the board still works, then coming up with the money to take the JREF Challenge will be a fine investment.

Ladies and Gentlemen, rather than beating believers to a pulp with your argumentations,

I understand it can feel as if you are being beaten to a pulp, but it isn't really an accurate representation. It is the belief and the supposed evidence that get beaten to a pulp. The distinction is key.

in which I am also having to take your word for them,

Not really. You can ask for sources any time. I provided no links in my discussion of Poole, but I can if you like. Part of being skeptical is NOT taking someone at their word.

what you really should be saying is not that such phenomena does not exist,

Yes, it is, though what we are saying is short hand for "Such phenomena has never been shown to exist; therefore, the default position is that it does not exist though this position is provisional and subject to change upon presentation of sufficient evidence."

That is the position about everything, not just the paranormal; it isn't being treated differently or more harshly than anything in science. Paranormal claims have no special place.

[Note that I have ignored for the moment that you have not even defined "such phenomena." That's part of the problem.]

but that you don't know the answer to this question

Which question? Do you mean "Does such phenomena exist?" Then you need to define "such phenomena."

because to this date you still do not have the means to test such phenomena..."

Pish tosh and poppycock. Define "such phenomena" so that it is testable then have a claimant submit to the test. Both of those requirements are lacking. Even the key proponents of "such phenomena" do not agree on what the phenomena are -- what can be done, by whom, under what circumstances, with what accuracy?

Try to come up with that definition, Charles, really try, and what you will find is that so long as you are a believer in the claimant's setting without imposing truly controlled conditions, then the claims are large and perhaps specific. But attempt to move it to a controlled and testable setting and the claims and specificity fall off.

What do you want tested? That spirits talk through the Ouija? Fine. Make it testable. Do spirits answer questions? Do they answer questions to which the sitter does not know the answer? Can they do it when the sitter is blindfolded? When the board is turned in a fashion unknown to the sitter? When the board is screened from the sitter's sight? To what degree of accuracy? Can the spirit read a random number on a die in the next room and relay that number on the board?

Or does the spirit just talk with wisdom and insight without being specific?

The fault, dear Boden, is not in our stars...

 

[Garrette]

Charles, this may sound as if I'm joking, but I'm not -- though I do find it humorous:

We may just as well say that your psychic telling you about a death in the royal family was not evidence of anything psychic on her part but rather an indication that she has read Nostradamus, who, after all, predicted Diana's death hundreds of years ago. Just read the thread by Rwalsh and you'll see.

If you have a disagreement with this, please tell me why.

 

[aggle-rithm]

Why not?

Well, let's think about this.

Assuming you conceptualize the afterlife as an Eden-like garden where the lion lies down with the lamb, and all that good stuff. Given the fact that the life-cycle of many animals is far shorter than that of humans, and there were many more of these animals than there were humans in the first place, then humans would be VASTLY outnumbered by other species. Probably a billion pounds of beetles for every pound of human flesh.

On the other hand, let's say you think of the afterlife as a totally spiritual existence, where you float around as a disembodied ghost, pondering the mysteries of the universe or interacting with other ghosts from the distant past. Sure, that sounds great if you're a human, but if you're a beetle or a plant, what would be the point of such an existence? You can't ponder any future. Your interactions with other ghosts of your kind would be extremely limited (you would try to eat them or have sex with them, failing in both cases).

OK, then let's say you believe in reincarnation. There is a finite number of souls and they move from host body to host body, perhaps crossing over species boundaries at times.

What happens when there are no more host bodies?

So...that's why not, IMHO.

 

[aggle-rithm]

Ladies and Gentlemen, rather than beating believers to a pulp with your argumentations, in which I am also having to take your word for them, what you really should be saying is not that such phenomena does not exist, but that you don't know the answer to this question because to this date you still do not have the means to test such phenomena..."

Are you quoting someone here? I see closing quotes but no opening ones.

As a programmer, bad form bugs me. But that's beside the point.

I'll just assume that this reflects your own opinion.

Do you think we should reserve judgement on whether Santa Claus exists, because we don't yet have the means to detect his secret lair on the North Pole?

 

[Mojo]

Would the foundation be willing to pay my air-ticket so we can test the hypothesis of doing the Ouija blindfolded?

No:

All of the applicant's expenses such as transportation, accommodation, materials, assistants, and/or all other costs for any persons or procedures incurred in pursuit of the reward, are the sole responsibility of the applicant. Neither the JREF nor JR will bear any of the costs.

But you would not need to travel for the first stage of the test, which can be carried out locally by any group that you and the JREF can agree on (usually a local skeptical group).

 

[SusanB-M1]

Several pages back Charles mentions four children. I wonder if he is encouraging them to believe in what he does, and how he justifies this?

I apologise if the answer has already been given - using a screen reader, it is difficult to catchup on several pages.

 

[Akhenaten]

Several pages back Charles mentions four children. I wonder if he is encouraging them to believe in what he does, and how he justifies this?

The answer isn't very cheery, I'm afraid.

Someone here mentioned that they felt sorry for my children if I they came to believe in what I believe. I would rather they believed in the possibility of reincarnation and the evolution of the Soul than a belief in nihilism, which does leave life a bit meaningless, does it not? So we come, live, love and die and that's it? And if an asteroid should come and end life in this little planet of ours and end civilization, that's it? How sad...

I apologise if the answer has already been given - using a screen reader, it is difficult to catchup on several pages.

No problem, Matey.

 

[Lothian]

No problem, Matey.

Matette, shirley.

 

[Loss Leader]

Several pages back Charles mentions four children. I wonder if he is encouraging them to believe in what he does, and how he justifies this?

Hardly a fair question, in my opinion. I am sure that Charles is doing his loving best to pass on to his children all of the tools he thinks they need to be happy and successful adults. And he justifies it by actually believing that his theories are true.

I can't think of a lower blow than even hinting that there is something wrong with the way someone is raising his children. Phil Plait, I'm sure, would find it in remarkably bad taste.

 

[Garrette]

Hardly a fair question, in my opinion. I am sure that Charles is doing his loving best to pass on to his children all of the tools he thinks they need to be happy and successful adults. And he justifies it by actually believing that his theories are true.

I can't think of a lower blow than even hinting that there is something wrong with the way someone is raising his children. Phil Plait, I'm sure, would find it in remarkably bad taste.

I must agree.

 

[Percent]

Several pages back Charles mentions four children. I wonder if he is encouraging them to believe in what he does, and how he justifies this?

I apologise if the answer has already been given - using a screen reader, it is difficult to catchup on several pages.

Susan, you will enjoy Agatha's post #376. It is lovely, as noted by Helen a few posts later.

Anne

 

[Akhenaten]

How about PERSONAL JOURNEY?

What about it?

He's gone on one.