Prove it.
Looking for Skeptics
- Thread starter Cassidy
- Start date
- Status
Prove it.
Biscuit
Philosopher
- Joined
- Aug 16, 2007
- Messages
- 6,929
Oh Really? I have serious doubts as to the validity of this. If, in fact, a GP is reaching the conclusion you suggest based on the "evidence" provided he needs to have his license to practice reviewed.
Maurice Ledifficile
Lost in translation
- Joined
- Sep 21, 2010
- Messages
- 2,964
Hokulele
Deleterious Slab of Damnation
From just being someone who had flaccon perform a service to sitting in on a private medical consultation? Color me skeptical...
Pixel42
Schrödinger's cat
Both the priest and the GP are in a difficult position, I don't envy them trying to come up with an approach which helps flaccon deal with her beliefs in a way that doesn't reverse the progress she has made with her psychosomatic symptoms, and doesn't encourage her to do something silly like go to the press. They certainly aren't helped by how enablers like scrappy interpret the behaviour of a GP trying to find his way down that delicate path.
Vortigern99
Sorcerer Supreme
Rosemary Guiley's Encyclopedia of Ghosts and Spirits (Checkmark Books, NYC, 2nd edition, 2000) under the entry "electronic voice phenomenon" (pp. 120 - 121), offers the following information:
I'm going to stop there for now so I don't violate the terms of service, which prevent one from posting large blocks of info from other sources. "Stay tuned" for a forthcoming summary of the rest of the entry, including the relevant observation that "EVP voices are not heard during recording, only on playback."
The receiving of voice on audiotape for which there is no known physical source. ... EVP researchers believe they capture on tape the voices of the dead, spirit beings and extraterrestrials, but skeptics contend the voices come from radio, television and citizen band (CB) radio transmissions or are imagined from static and white sound. EVP voices often are faint and difficult to understand....
[SNIP discussion of Edison's idea for "an electronic device [which] could be built for communication [with the dead]." ... [After his death in 1931, Edison] "left behind no machine and no plans for one."]
In 1936, Attila von Szalay began experimenting with a record cutter and player in an attempt to capture voice on phonograph records. He said that he began to hear a "tiny voice" in the air near him in 1938. He believed the voice belonged to his dead son, Edson. The experiments yielded what sounded like male and female voices, whistles and RAPPING [qv another entry in the book]. In 1947, von Szalay tried using wire recorder in an effort to improve his results but had difficulty with the wire.
... In 1956 von Szalay began experiments with researchers (including Raymind Bayless and D. SCOTT ROGO [qv]) to capture voices on electromagnetic tape.
[SNIP discussion of Edison's idea for "an electronic device [which] could be built for communication [with the dead]." ... [After his death in 1931, Edison] "left behind no machine and no plans for one."]
In 1936, Attila von Szalay began experimenting with a record cutter and player in an attempt to capture voice on phonograph records. He said that he began to hear a "tiny voice" in the air near him in 1938. He believed the voice belonged to his dead son, Edson. The experiments yielded what sounded like male and female voices, whistles and RAPPING [qv another entry in the book]. In 1947, von Szalay tried using wire recorder in an effort to improve his results but had difficulty with the wire.
... In 1956 von Szalay began experiments with researchers (including Raymind Bayless and D. SCOTT ROGO [qv]) to capture voices on electromagnetic tape.
I'm going to stop there for now so I don't violate the terms of service, which prevent one from posting large blocks of info from other sources. "Stay tuned" for a forthcoming summary of the rest of the entry, including the relevant observation that "EVP voices are not heard during recording, only on playback."
pakeha
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2009
- Messages
- 12,331
It reads like the beginning of a hither-to unknown Agatha Christie.
How do you figure that, flaccon?
Vortigern99
Sorcerer Supreme
More from Guiley's Encyclopedia:
In short, this phenomenon is nothing new, and neither are attempts at quantifying the event or proving that they are paranormal. Yet over all the decades and after all the many investigators' attempts, nothing has ever been proven. Tracey has a long road ahead of her, a road trodden by many since the 1920s.
The next section of the Encyclopedia deals with the "various ways to attempt to record EVP voices".
EVP voices are not heard during recording, only on playback. They typically speak in short, cryptic and sometimes grammatically incorrect phrases. They speak in a variety of languages, regardless of the listeners, and sometimes sing indistinguishable lyrics. Sometimes the voices sound natural and sometimes they sound mechanical. Sometimes one or two voices are heard, at other times a multitude of them. The voices are identifiable as men, women and children. Animal sounds have been recorded as well. Some voices have said they are able to communicate on tape through ECTOPLASM [qv]. Voices also report that they communicate through one of many "central transmitting agencies" on the Other Side.
In short, this phenomenon is nothing new, and neither are attempts at quantifying the event or proving that they are paranormal. Yet over all the decades and after all the many investigators' attempts, nothing has ever been proven. Tracey has a long road ahead of her, a road trodden by many since the 1920s.
The next section of the Encyclopedia deals with the "various ways to attempt to record EVP voices".
Pixel42
Schrödinger's cat
All very interesting, Vortigern, but we've been pointing flaccon to articles on EVP since page one and she takes no notice whatsoever.
Here's the skeptic's dictionary one again, which includes some interesting insights from a professional sound engineer:
http://www.skepdic.com/evp.html
Here's the skeptic's dictionary one again, which includes some interesting insights from a professional sound engineer:
http://www.skepdic.com/evp.html
Biscuit
Philosopher
- Joined
- Aug 16, 2007
- Messages
- 6,929
It's posts like this that keep me coming back to the JREF. I know Flaccon and scrappy will toss your informative posts aside but rest assured the rest of us are taking the opportunity to learn more. I am going to see if I can find a ebook version of this the browse on my ipad. Thanks!
sleepy_lioness
Muse
- Joined
- Feb 17, 2008
- Messages
- 565
I'm a bit bemused, to be honest, by all the people here who insist that the GP and priest should be disagreeing fervently with flaccon and telling her she's deluded or mentally ill and needs treatment. Or even that the GP should be struck off for not so doing. Two points:
1. Weird behaviour and strange beliefs do not necessarily equal mental illness. It might well be that flaccon's right that her GP says psychiatry is inappropriate, and who knows, he might well be right too, according to proper diagnostics. There's a huge range of behaviour and belief that is not considered socially normal or even acceptable, that still isn't evidence of mental illness. If her beliefs are interfering with her life to a strongly detrimental extent the GP might take notice, but otherwise s/he might well be perfectly correct in not attributing flaccon's statements to mental illness. In fact, referring to psychiatry every time a patient comes in displaying beliefs or a worldview at variance with one's own is a great way to be in conflict with medical ethics.
2. EVEN IF the GP or the priest suspect mental illness when they see someone exhibiting delusions, the way to deal with this is not to challenge the delusions directly. All guidelines I am aware of say this. You see what happens in this thread, and myriad like it, when someone who has firm unusual, possibly deluded, beliefs is challenged head-on. The GP needs to establish a relationship with their patient, a 'therapeutic alliance', and to do this s/he has to tread the difficult line between encouraging delusion and not making the patient instantly walk out (and shop around for a more sympathetic doctor). They might even seem to encourage the delusions by finding a way to get the person help that makes sense to them and thus improves their health and wellbeing (for example, I can't help you with the spirits, but perhaps a nice priest might give you a blessing to make sure they can't harm you?). This is hard, and of course many patients come out of such a consultation thinking that the doctor agrees with them, but it has to be done.
As a final point, we only have flaccon's perception of what went on, and what her GP and priest are/were doing. If they are doing their jobs correctly she will feel that there's a door open for her to go and talk to them again, while they are gently pushing her in the direction of ensuring her beliefs don't negatively impact her life. But it's not their job - especially not the GP's - to 'prove' to her that spirits don't exist.
1. Weird behaviour and strange beliefs do not necessarily equal mental illness. It might well be that flaccon's right that her GP says psychiatry is inappropriate, and who knows, he might well be right too, according to proper diagnostics. There's a huge range of behaviour and belief that is not considered socially normal or even acceptable, that still isn't evidence of mental illness. If her beliefs are interfering with her life to a strongly detrimental extent the GP might take notice, but otherwise s/he might well be perfectly correct in not attributing flaccon's statements to mental illness. In fact, referring to psychiatry every time a patient comes in displaying beliefs or a worldview at variance with one's own is a great way to be in conflict with medical ethics.
2. EVEN IF the GP or the priest suspect mental illness when they see someone exhibiting delusions, the way to deal with this is not to challenge the delusions directly. All guidelines I am aware of say this. You see what happens in this thread, and myriad like it, when someone who has firm unusual, possibly deluded, beliefs is challenged head-on. The GP needs to establish a relationship with their patient, a 'therapeutic alliance', and to do this s/he has to tread the difficult line between encouraging delusion and not making the patient instantly walk out (and shop around for a more sympathetic doctor). They might even seem to encourage the delusions by finding a way to get the person help that makes sense to them and thus improves their health and wellbeing (for example, I can't help you with the spirits, but perhaps a nice priest might give you a blessing to make sure they can't harm you?). This is hard, and of course many patients come out of such a consultation thinking that the doctor agrees with them, but it has to be done.
As a final point, we only have flaccon's perception of what went on, and what her GP and priest are/were doing. If they are doing their jobs correctly she will feel that there's a door open for her to go and talk to them again, while they are gently pushing her in the direction of ensuring her beliefs don't negatively impact her life. But it's not their job - especially not the GP's - to 'prove' to her that spirits don't exist.
pixel can I ask why you assume flacon doesn't take notice? flacon takes notice, researches and even sends me links to mull over.
Biscuit
Philosopher
- Joined
- Aug 16, 2007
- Messages
- 6,929
I am willing to bet the GP has covered his arse and made referrals to the appropriate medical practitioners if he indeed believes this is anything of detriment to flaccon's life and well being. Getting her to go to those appointments is not something he can do.
I doubt the church, the good doctor, or the voices themselves give a darn if she goes to the media.
I doubt the church, the good doctor, or the voices themselves give a darn if she goes to the media.
And why do you assume we toss aside info? because we cannot agree to paredolia? there has to be a reason why you think we don't take on board info like this. Flaccon has read these posts and is checking out links and references often. She has to for her own benefit. Thanks Vortt99
Last edited:
Biscuit
Philosopher
- Joined
- Aug 16, 2007
- Messages
- 6,929
Which you both promptly discard with out understanding what you have mulled. It took pages and pages to explain the pareidolia is not a mental illness, a fact I still don't think is clear to either of you.
You two are not the first or the last to use technology to claim you are talking to the dead. The one thing you all have in common is a complete lack of objective evidence. Another term I don't think you understand.
Biscuit
Philosopher
- Joined
- Aug 16, 2007
- Messages
- 6,929
I assume nothing. I have 117 pages of evidence to know this to be true.
sleepy_lioness
Muse
- Joined
- Feb 17, 2008
- Messages
- 565
Again the assumption of bad faith: the GP 'covered his arse'. Perhaps he was just following best practice guidelines and acting, as far as he was able, in flaccon's best medical interest?
Daylightstar
Philosopher
We really have no objective data to conclude either way what this GP (if at all) thinks about flaccon's spirits-charade.
We only have unsubstantiated anecdotes from two characters whose word appears to be unreliable at best ... and a letter, purportedly from flaccon's GP, with content hidden by flaccon.
Vortigern99
Sorcerer Supreme
You're all welcome, though for Tracey's benefit it bears repeating that this kind of phenomenon has been recorded, investigated and pored over for almost 100 years, with no conclusive results. Obviously you're entitled to continue breaking your waves upon a vast shore of improbability, but the fact that after all this time -- and sometimes lifetimes of research -- nothing has been produced should, in the opinion of most skeptics here, serve to turn you away from further wasting your time.
There are so many possibilities as to what these "voices" could be, apart from spirits -- and pareidolia is only one realistic, evidence-based conclusion -- that for you to continue to settle on that single hypothesis, while ignoring all other rational explanations, is self-deception.
- Status