Looking for Skeptics

[jsfisher]

I don't want to take your money either floccan. If you lose you might want to consider a donation to a charity. James Randi Educational Foundation would be appropriate.

Let's get back to the test. Flashcards. How would that work? What would success be for you and what would be failure? How would it be decided?

Maybe I am misreading things, but I didn't think flaccon had yet committed to an actual test. Your visit is for a demonstration ("hands-on") which could become a stepping stone to perhaps a discussion with the spirits for what might be a good next step.

Is it cynical for me to assume flaccon will never get to anything close to an actual test?

 

[Cassidy]

Maybe. We shall see. That might not be worth the trip for Pixel42, but for Alderbank and the Chester Sceptics in the Pub group, that might still be a fun field trip. I know that if I were local, I wouldn't be able to resist a visit even if there were no formal test. It'd give me a better handle on what was going on, even if I thought I already knew.

Ward

Yes, I feel it's best for Alderbank to get the feel of what to expect. Then report his findings on the thread. I don't know if Alderbank has mentioned, but he's had a solid background career that requires common sense. I couldn't have hoped for a more better reply in the PM from Alderbank.

 

[Cassidy]

Maybe I am misreading things, but I didn't think flaccon had yet committed to an actual test. Your visit is for a demonstration ("hands-on") which could become a stepping stone to perhaps a discussion with the spirits for what might be a good next step.

Is it cynical for me to assume flaccon will never get to anything close to an actual test?

"We should make flash cards for sceptics" They were being sarcastic, but sarcasm aside, I think it's a good idea.

 

[Cassidy]

Maybe I am misreading things, but I didn't think flaccon had yet committed to an actual test. Your visit is for a demonstration ("hands-on") which could become a stepping stone to perhaps a discussion with the spirits for what might be a good next step.

Is it cynical for me to assume flaccon will never get to anything close to an actual test?

"We should make flash cards for sceptics" They were being sarcastic, but sarcasm aside, I thought it was a good idea.

 

[Orphia Nay]

Here is the test Adman suggested in post #42:

Here's something you should try, if you haven't already:

Invite a friend or acquaintance over to listen to your recordings. This should be someone who ideally you haven't spoken with about what you are hearing on the recordings. Let them listen to them one by one and ask them what they hear, if anything. Remember--it's vital you don't tell them what you hear in advance. If you do, the test is meaningless.

If they consistently hear the same sentences or phrases you hear, before you tell them what you're hearing, you might have something. If not, well that's what you would expect if nothing supernatural were going on.

ETA: You can go something similar with the pictures. Show the images to someone who hasn't seen them before. Don't tell them what you see, and ask them what they see, if anything. For example, try it with the image Orphia has in the next post, without the labels, of course.

By the way, why do you think you need the labels?

And keep in mind that seeing faces in random patterns is what we humans are most likely to do.

And the image he refers to:

Are the voices of the spirits as clear as this image from your website?

[qimg]http://i176.photobucket.com/albums/w194/orphia/flaccon_zpsde784512.jpg[/qimg]

Couldn't this be performed in the function room of the pub, using people from the local skeptics' group who haven't been informed what to expect, and/or perhaps random patrons of the pub?

 

[Cassidy]

Maybe I am misreading things, but I didn't think flaccon had yet committed to an actual test. Your visit is for a demonstration ("hands-on") which could become a stepping stone to perhaps a discussion with the spirits for what might be a good next step.

Is it cynical for me to assume flaccon will never get to anything close to an actual test?

"We should make flash cards for sceptics" They were being sarcastic, but sarcasm aside, I thought it was a good idea.

(Sunday is set, 5pm)

 

[Pixel42]

I use Word half the time. Doesn't happen to me. I think what she's doing is quoting the wrong post, then fixing it. It happened to me too... ☻☺☻

At some point someone screwed up the quote tags and everyone who quotes replies in that particular sequence inherits the screwup. I had to fix the tags manually when making my previous post.

 

[Cassidy]

Here is the test Adman suggested in post #42:



And the image he refers to:



Couldn't this be performed in the function room of the pub, using people from the local skeptics' group who haven't been informed what to expect, and/or perhaps random patrons of the pub?

Yes that would work, but it means little. I'd need to have the spirits talking with me to back me up, and a pub is no use. The slightest click here as I record, is really loud on playback, and knocks their voices off, back to almost silent.

 

[Cassidy]

Maybe I am misreading things, but I didn't think flaccon had yet committed to an actual test. Your visit is for a demonstration ("hands-on") which could become a stepping stone to perhaps a discussion with the spirits for what might be a good next step.

Is it cynical for me to assume flaccon will never get to anything close to an actual test?

£100 for a local charity says I do?

 

[Orphia Nay]

Yes that would work, but it means little. I'd need to have the spirits talking with me to back me up, and a pub is no use. The slightest click here as I record, is really loud on playback, and knocks their voices off, back to almost silent.

You wouldn't need to record.

Just play recordings you've already made and see if others hear what you heard. You should write down what you heard before the test.

 

[jsfisher]

"We should make flash cards for sceptics" They were being sarcastic, but sarcasm aside, I think it's a good idea.

Really?

They say "We don't belong in a circus" (that was raw EVP, electronic rather than with tone) One suggested I make flash cards for sceptics. Yes they really do express hurt, thanks for asking."

 

[Maurice Ledifficile]

At some point someone screwed up the quote tags and everyone who quotes replies in that particular sequence inherits the screwup. I had to fix the tags manually when making my previous post.

oops.

 

[Cassidy]

flaccon, did you read the following post?
It's really important, because this is not about getting personal, or calling names. It's about legality of claims according to the authoriities.

Yes I understand the legal side. I did sit and think.. First thought; if the people don't try for a prosecution on believing these are false claims, then the Church might have a go.

Then I sat and thought about each claim I've made. Weighed up the evidence I have now, and much documented outside-help from a decade ago, and yes, every claim is true.

I don't predict future events, but at an educated guess, there is going to be a dramatic change for the love of the common people. Watch how fast the world wakes up.

 

[Pixel42]

Couldn't this be performed in the function room of the pub, using people from the local skeptics' group who haven't been informed what to expect, and/or perhaps random patrons of the pub?

The problem is that everybody sees the man in the moon and the face on Mars, even though neither are really there. Yes flaccon's examples of visual pareidolia are very poor so it's unlikely that others will see exactly the same, but even if they did it wouldn't prove anything, just as it doesn't prove anything when other people think they hear voices in her recordings. Only a controlled test will produce meaningful results.

 

[AdMan]

The problem is that everybody sees the man in the moon and the face on Mars, even though neither are really there. Yes flaccon's examples of visual pareidolia are very poor so it's unlikely that others will see exactly the same, but even if they did it wouldn't prove anything, just as it doesn't prove anything when other people think they hear voices in her recordings. Only a controlled test will produce meaningful results.

Agreed.

 

[Cassidy]

oops.

Here's a thought, we can afford £5 right? IF Alderbank is convinced these "noises" are words, and voices in sentence, you all donate the fiver to JREF, against my £10.

 

[Pixel42]

Yes I understand the legal side. I did sit and think.. First thought; if the people don't try for a prosecution on believing these are false claims, then the Church might have a go.

It's nothing to do with belief. It's illegal to make claims for a service for which you are charging (even if you are only charging expenses) if you cannot substantiate those claims. If someone claimed to be able to cure cancer, say, but had no objective evidence (which in this case would be positive results from a clinical trial) then they would not be allowed to make that claim in an advertisement. Surely you can see that that is reasonable?

It is possible to objectively test your claims, but so far you have not done so. Until you do, and you get positive results, it is illegal for you to make those claims in your advertising.

 

[jsfisher]

Here's a thought, we can afford £5 right? IF Alderbank is convinced these "noises" are words, and voices in sentence, you all donate the fiver to JREF, against my £10.

Won't the spirits be identifying cards in sealed envelopes?

 

[truethat]

I have a great test for this.

Flaccon, sit down and listen and record what you are listening to. Write down what you think is being said at the moment. Number that recording.

Then send the recordings to someone via the email that we have made available to you. After you have ten recordings they will be uploaded by someone here who will privately note the number.

They will be randomly posted on here.

You will listen to the recording and tell us which of the statements you have previously written down match that recording based on number.

Even if it is "just you" that can hear it, you should be able to hear it again no?

If you can do this simple task it will go far IMO in convincing me at least that you are hearing what you think you are hearing.

 

[jsfisher]

I have a great test for this.

Flaccon, sit down and listen and record what you are listening to. Write down what you think is being said at the moment. Number that recording.

Then send the recordings to someone via the email that we have made available to you. After you have ten recordings they will be uploaded by someone here who will privately note the number.

They will be randomly posted on here.

You will listen to the recording and tell us which of the statements you have previously written down match that recording based on number.

Even if it is "just you" that can hear it, you should be able to hear it again no?

If you can do this simple task it will go far IMO in convincing me at least that you are hearing what you think you are hearing.

The issue is not whether people hear voices, but whether the voices are from the after-life.