The paranormal requires a mobius strip of perpetual excuses.
John Edward - psychic or what?
- Thread starter RemieV
- Start date
-
- Tags
- john edward
The paranormal requires a mobius strip of perpetual excuses.
Fast Eddie B
Philosopher
That's AMAZING!
Within the last two weeks I made a paper strip Möbius Loop and showed Karen how to draw a line on just one side of it and then we cut along that line. She had not seen that "trick" before.
What are the chances??? Call James Randi!!!
As an aside, did you ever read the John Barth (very) short story that was written on a Möbius Loop?
No, but now I'll have to.
Fast Eddie B
Philosopher
http://www.enotes.com/lost-funhouse
And just last night in bed I revisited a pdf I had downloaded on the FIAT ABARTH edition!
How do it know???
Last edited:
Pixel42
Schrödinger's cat
Unless you can show that remarkable coincidences happen more often than would be expected by chance, the most likely explanation of a remarkable coincidence is that it was one of the remarkable coincidence that are expected to happen by chance.
That's not an excuse, it's a fact.
P.J. Denyer
Penultimate Amazing
The message was obviously for me not you as I was discussing 'Once upon a time in America' with my wife the other day as it is a major omission from my viewing history as I'm a big FFOD trilogy fan and I also spotted it by chance on Netflix AND have been meaning to watch 'Once Upon a Time' (infact I recorded the first season then deleted it purely because it was on Netflix, how much more obvious need it be that the subtle forces of the universe are talking to me through you?) AND I am (genuinely) awaiting delivery of a copy of Dire Straits first album which should arrive today, the last of their albums that I hadn't got around to replacing vinyl with CD. I'm hoping the message is that it will be waiting for me when I get home....
Actually, I call shenanigans.. No-one could mistake those two tracks for one another....
Resume, you haven't heard about it because they are all just coincidences. : )
Even though you are perhaps half-joking, it should be pointed out that if your paranormal experiences are indistinguishable from coincidence, they have no explanatory merit.
Batvette, Sorry if I missed it or can't remember : ), what was the girl's name?
xterra
So far, so good...
I did 80 percent of the work for you. If you're not willing to do the other 20 percent, I will take that as an admission you're not interested in addressing the issue of when your intuitions are correct or not.
Resume, I believe some experiences offered here (including Remie's pizza story, although she doesn't think so) are glaringly distinguishable from mere coincidence. You and others believe the direct opposite. Never the twain shall meet.
xterra, I just don't think (Admittedly could be wrong) but really don't think I directly referenced my gut with regard to many different experiences that many times. But, If i am wrong, I will address.
xterra, also please remember I already addressed 3 different instances where I referred to my gut:
1 Kerikiwi
2 Remie
3 Crazy alias guy
As to the highlighted, your belief is fine; when you make the distinction is where evidence is required because you are making a claim.
Pixel42
Schrödinger's cat
Please explain exactly how you distinguish a coincidence which is just a coincidence from a coincidence which is something more than a coincidence. How did you do it for the "glaringly distinguishable" pizza story, for example.
It's not a matter of belief, it's a matter of fact.
Most people vastly underestimate how often coincidences should be expected to occur by chance. It's a consequence of how our brains have evolved to work. It means we can't trust our gut instinct/intuition on such matters, and have to check before we can be sure patterns we think we see really are there.
Last of the Fraggles
Illuminator
- Joined
- Nov 9, 2006
- Messages
- 3,986
If they are glaringly distinguishable then it should be relatively straightforward to demonstrate that to be the case.
Like cheese is glaringly distinguishable from brick.
The bit I highlighted is where we could say that you are not listening. It is not unique, at least not in the sense that matters. The absolute best we can say about it is "Wow! That happened despite the really long odds against it!" But as everyone here has been saying repeatedly in varying ways, things that are against really long odds happen all the time. Literally all the time. Your "against-the-odds" phenomena have all the hallmarks of remarkable coincidence. Your job, if you wish to demonstrate something paranormal, is to show that there are hallmarks beyond those which attend the merely coincidental.
And in Meg's defense, while you did say you researched cold reading beyond simply going to psychics, she came in late to the thread and may have missed it. For my point, I believe you that you did research. Where I differ with you is the value and extent of your research. You ignored my posts and Gee Mack's follow ups regarding our expertise. I will summarize it here:
I am an expert on mentalists and magic; I will wager any amount you care to name that your research does not approach what is on one shelf of my personal library or in one tub of magical apparatus in my storage locker. I could fool you in person. I have fooled very smart, educated people who considered themselves knowledgeable in the subject. There is more than one person out there who believes I have supernatural powers despite my reassurances otherwise.
That's not the important part, though. The important part is that since have never been a professional performer and have never performed a full stage show, I can still be fooled and frequently am. I am an expert, but I wouldn't bet my ability to remain unfooled by Gee Mack who has performed professionally or by Randi or by any of a thousand others whose livelihood relies on their ability to fool people.
Regardless of your protestations, Robin, and despite that there are truly amazing secrets available at the library and for free on the internet, your research was insufficient to guard you against all the things a charlatan relies upon.
I have heard the same story Meg relayed, but I heard it specifically in reference to early flyers, particularly the barnstormers. Single prop planes, perhaps a biplane, who literally did feel the performance of the plane through the flimsy seat and framework. I've never verified this and so could be wrong, but it rings true, though I recognize there is no way it can apply to modern aircraft.
Serious question: Why should xterra do this when you repeatedly, blatantly, and even insultingly refused to do even less than that at the beginning of your own thread. You wouldn't even list which posts on your blog to read; you wouldn't summarize any of them. You simply insisted that everyone here had to read all the comments, all of them. Something which was simply untrue, by the way.
Your time is no more valuable than xterra's and certainly no more valuable than mine when I finally complied and read all the comments, including the useless ones that comprised the vast majority. And then when I did that, you refused to comment on my comments, particularly where I quoted you and your inconsistent recall of your John Edward experience.
So I ask again: why should xterra do this?
Fast Eddie B
Philosopher
Let me just suggest that since the Enlightenment, the Scientific Method has served us well in separating the wheat (reality) from the chaff (superstition/illusion).
When applied to many of these anecdotes/propositions, they really do come up short.
That may change over time, but science really has tried to tease out these effects for a century and more. And yet, the effects remain elusive.
When applied to many of these anecdotes/propositions, they really do come up short.
That may change over time, but science really has tried to tease out these effects for a century and more. And yet, the effects remain elusive.
I think we've actually reached an important point on this thread. I think we've identified where Robin and your average skeptic (let's call hiim POB, for the sake of argument 
) differ in their thinking.
Let's say Bob hears a particular Christmas song on the radio in his car. He gets out of his car, goes into the house and fires up Facebook. The first thing he reads is a post by his old friend, saying it's the six-month anniversary of the friend's wife's death. Bob is amazed, because the song he had just heard was the friend's favorite song.
One take on this, and we're calling that the Robin Interpretation, would be to say, "See? The friend's wife is contacting Bob from beyond the grave, and wants to let everyone know she's okay."
The other take, the POB Interpretation, is to say, "Hm. Funny coincidence."
Why does POB think this? Because Bob can't do it again. The essence of science is repeatability; if you can't repeat it, it means it was a fluke, or the test tube was dirty, or somebody's full of baloney, but whatever it is, it's not really important.
The fact that things like this happen every day is evidence of coincidence (in the POB Interpretation) because all the things are different. Refrigerators, pizzas, songs, and there's no coherence or repeatability to it.
I understand - I think I do, now - how you could see it differently, and say "this stuff can't be coincidence," particularly since it happens so much. (See above posts on frequency of "rare" events.) But it can be, because it's so random.
) differ in their thinking.Let's say Bob hears a particular Christmas song on the radio in his car. He gets out of his car, goes into the house and fires up Facebook. The first thing he reads is a post by his old friend, saying it's the six-month anniversary of the friend's wife's death. Bob is amazed, because the song he had just heard was the friend's favorite song.
One take on this, and we're calling that the Robin Interpretation, would be to say, "See? The friend's wife is contacting Bob from beyond the grave, and wants to let everyone know she's okay."
The other take, the POB Interpretation, is to say, "Hm. Funny coincidence."
Why does POB think this? Because Bob can't do it again. The essence of science is repeatability; if you can't repeat it, it means it was a fluke, or the test tube was dirty, or somebody's full of baloney, but whatever it is, it's not really important.
The fact that things like this happen every day is evidence of coincidence (in the POB Interpretation) because all the things are different. Refrigerators, pizzas, songs, and there's no coherence or repeatability to it.
I understand - I think I do, now - how you could see it differently, and say "this stuff can't be coincidence," particularly since it happens so much. (See above posts on frequency of "rare" events.) But it can be, because it's so random.
Last edited:
Following up on my above post, because I'm making a different point.
That happened to me. (I'm Bob, in other words.) But NOT the way I wrote it. I wrote it as someone might tell it a while after it happened. Even I may soon start telling it that way, because I'm a natural storyteller and it's a better story than what actually happened, and in a few months or years I'm betting that I'll actually remember the story in preference to the truth, so I'm helping myself by writing it down now.
The song was "Merry Christmas, Darling," and was NOT my friend's favorite song, but was by his favorite singer (Karen Carpenter), and I always think of him when I hear the Carpenters. It was NOT shortly after I heard the song that I went to Facebook; it may not have been the same day. (This was last month, and my memory's faulty already.) His post was definitely NOT the first one I saw.
But we as a species love to create narrative, and we remember what fits the narrative rather than the facts.
That happened to me. (I'm Bob, in other words.) But NOT the way I wrote it. I wrote it as someone might tell it a while after it happened. Even I may soon start telling it that way, because I'm a natural storyteller and it's a better story than what actually happened, and in a few months or years I'm betting that I'll actually remember the story in preference to the truth, so I'm helping myself by writing it down now.
The song was "Merry Christmas, Darling," and was NOT my friend's favorite song, but was by his favorite singer (Karen Carpenter), and I always think of him when I hear the Carpenters. It was NOT shortly after I heard the song that I went to Facebook; it may not have been the same day. (This was last month, and my memory's faulty already.) His post was definitely NOT the first one I saw.
But we as a species love to create narrative, and we remember what fits the narrative rather than the facts.