Police and Psychics

Posted by Ed

All of this is fine. You actually believe that a dead person can communicate with the living.
Click to expand...
Ed.

Where do I say that in what you quoted? :confused:

In fact, I -don't- "believe that a dead person can communicate with the living."

I -do- think ADC -might- be possible. ADC -might- be real. Unlike toads bringing rain, there is tons of anecdotal evidence from people I find credible indicating it -might- be possible. I also have personal experiences indicating it -might- be possible.

Not clear cut "Yes" or "No", imo. Could go either way. (But, yes, I actually do believe this man would be interesting to see on LKL. And I -do- assume that skeptics who always say, "Show me one child a psychic has found! Just one!!!" would be interested to check out this case.
 
Clancie said:
Where do I say that in what you quoted? :confused:

In fact, I -don't- "believe that a dead person can communicate with the living."

I -do- think ADC -might- be possible. ADC -might- be real. Unlike toads bringing rain, there is tons of anecdotal evidence from people I find credible indicating it -might- be possible. I also have personal experiences indicating it -might- be possible.
Click to expand...

You believe that psychic medium Robert Brown has talked to your dead husband. That's ADC. After Death Communication.

Clancie said:
Not clear cut "Yes" or "No", imo. Could go either way. (But, yes, I actually do believe this man would be interesting to see on LKL. And I -do- assume that skeptics who always say, "Show me one child a psychic has found! Just one!!!" would be interested to check out this case.
Click to expand...

Why don't you check out this case? Considering the amount of time and money you spend on this subject, why don't you do something, to find out whether this guy is real or not?
 
Clancie said:

Ed.

Where do I say that in what you quoted? :confused:

In fact, I -don't- "believe that a dead person can communicate with the living."

I -do- think ADC -might- be possible. ADC -might- be real. Unlike toads bringing rain, there is tons of anecdotal evidence from people I find credible indicating it -might- be possible. I also have personal experiences indicating it -might- be possible.

Not clear cut "Yes" or "No", imo. Could go either way. (But, yes, I actually do believe this man would be interesting to see on LKL. And I -do- assume that skeptics who always say, "Show me one child a psychic has found! Just one!!!" would be interested to check out this case.
Click to expand...

OK, perhaps my statement was too strong.

Toads have the same level of support (anecdotal) as communication with the dead. As Ian has famously asserted, things with tons of anecdotal support have an element of truth. Would you agree that the ancient teutonic tradition of "killing the God" after stuffing him with grains and reported by Tacitus and whose bodies were extensively written about by P. V. Glob has merit? If not, why not? Why do any of the things I wrote about some time ago have less merit (if in fact they do in your mind) than communicating with the dead? In fact, why do not the thousands of traditions, with masses of anecdotal support and practiced for a millenium, have a place in the world of woo?

Have you read Frazier? If not, I would be happy to buy you a copy provided you would tell me which ancient practices have merit and which do not. PM me your address and I will take care of getting you a copy today.

You, Ian, Luci, T'ai and others have a decidedly anti-intellectual and rather trendy bent in these matters. Is it that dirt smeared natives of the Orinoco less physically and emotionally attractive and therefore are less credable than <insert fraud of choice>? Do you discount the activities of your own ancestors, practiced for many years with full belief, for some reason? How does the question of celebrity enter into this?
 
Posted by Ed

OK, perhaps my statement was too strong.
Click to expand...
Yes, since I didn't say that. Thank you.
Toads have the same level of support (anecdotal) as communication with the dead.
Click to expand...
Really? There is the same amount and quality of anecdotal support for the toad claim as there is for ADC? Could you post some links and books about it? Because I'm really unfamiliar with it. (Not sure what the analogy would be for "police using psychics"...I suppose examples of "professional meteorologists using toads". Anyway, I look forward to seeing the mountains of evidence! :)

re: the other things. You list a lot of things I have no knowledge of (or interest in) and which have nothing to do with ADC. Could we stick to the topic? (Though, yes, I'll branch out enough to look into the anecdotal evidence that is comparable in quality and quantity for "toads bringing rain". You've got my interest for that one!)
 
Ed said:
OK, perhaps my statement was too strong.
Click to expand...

Not at all. Far from it. Your statement was nothing but correct.

Evidence that Clancie believes that psychic mediums can and do ADC:

<HR>

Gryphon2 207.175.243.209 November 4th, 2002 10:05 AM

I mean, I think both Brian (Hurst) and Robert Brown gave me evidence and messages.

<HR>

Gryphon2 207.175.243.209 November 4th, 2002 02:56 PM

Thanks, neo, I see what you mean. And I agree, its pretty amazing how much they *did* keep bringing through for your family in that difficult circumstance. If JE could have brought more...wow! It might have been one of his best that I've ever seen.

I guess the frustration is in not knowing how it would have turned out. On the other hand, can you imagine how many spirit energies were trying to get through in a room of 3500 people?

Source: TVTalkshows
Click to expand...

Now, can we dispense with the bull?

Clancie does believe that ADC is real - it's not just a "possibility" to her.
 
Posted by Ed

You, Ian, Luci, T'ai and others have a decidedly anti-intellectual and rather trendy bent in these matters.
Click to expand...
I think we all would consider ourselves philosophical skeptics (I shouldn't speak for others, I know, but that's what it seems the commonality is to me). I don't think that's an anti-intellectual approach at all. Quite the contrary. And, if something coincidentally is a trend...well, it doesn't credit or discredit a viewpoint.
And, I didn't understand any of the following.
Is it that dirt smeared natives of the Orinoco less physically and emotionally attractive and therefore are less credable than ?

Do you discount the activities of your own ancestors, practiced for many years with full belief, for some reason?

How does the question of celebrity enter into this?
Click to expand...
:confused:

edited to add: Ed, perhaps this is veering away too much from the thread topic? I'm not sure any of the exchange we're having has anything to do with Psychics and the Police. Aren't we just getting back to the old question (always and forever in dispute) of "Is ADC real or not?"

(And, btw, "Psychic Detectives" is being shown again on Court TV tonight, for anyone who's interested).
 
Clancie said:

Yes, since I didn't say that. Thank you.

Really? There is the same amount and quality of anecdotal support for the toad claim as there is for ADC? Could you post some links and books about it? Because I'm really unfamiliar with it. (Not sure what the analogy would be for "police using psychics"...I suppose examples of "professional meteorologists using toads". Anyway, I look forward to seeing the mountains of evidence! :)

re: the other things. You list a lot of things I have no knowledge of (or interest in) and which have nothing to do with ADC. Could we stick to the topic? (Though, yes, I'll branch out enough to look into the anecdotal evidence that is comparable in quality and quantity for "toads bringing rain". You've got my interest for that one!)
Click to expand...

Wait a moment.

I ask you why one class of largely unsupported belief is any better than others. I am interested in the workings of your mind; how certain classes of rather odd beliefs can be supported while others cannot. This discussion trancends ADE's and addresses the larger issue of what beliefs have merit. It is facile to dodge this meta issue by saying:

You list a lot of things I have no knowledge of (or interest in) and which have nothing to do with ADC
Click to expand...

Define "mountains of evidence". Clearly a society that practices something for a thousand years provides more evidence for that which is practiced (using Ian's dictum) than the handful of mediumistic frauds regularly, and tediously, cited on this board. Is that not so? I have no idea how long the Teutons practiced the killing of the God but the practice is firmly rooted in many society's and finds a more modern manifestation in Christianity. The God must die. You see that, don't you? Jesus, we do that today with celebraties. Does this not have merit?

The evidence is in the Anthropological literature. Frazier is a good place to start. My offer stands.
 
Clancie said:

edited to add: Ed, perhaps this is veering away too much from the thread topic? I'm not sure any of the exchange we're having has anything to do with Psychics and the Police. Aren't we just getting back to the old question (always and forever in dispute) of "Is ADC real or not?"

(And, btw, "Psychic Detectives" is being shown again on Court TV tonight, for anyone who's interested).
Click to expand...

To paraphrase the White Queen:

"The thread is what I choose it to be, nothing more and nothing less."
 
I guess I was not strong enough. Based on these things that Claus posted, it is pretty apparent that you are a believer:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Gryphon2 207.175.243.209 November 4th, 2002 10:05 AM

I mean, I think both Brian (Hurst) and Robert Brown gave me evidence and messages.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Gryphon2 207.175.243.209 November 4th, 2002 02:56 PM

Thanks, neo, I see what you mean. And I agree, its pretty amazing how much they *did* keep bringing through for your family in that difficult circumstance. If JE could have brought more...wow! It might have been one of his best that I've ever seen.

I guess the frustration is in not knowing how it would have turned out. On the other hand, can you imagine how many spirit energies were trying to get through in a room of 3500 people?

Source: TVTalkshows
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



You believe. You are not sceptical.

Now, why this and not toads?
 
Clanie, I said this:

Is it that dirt smeared natives of the Orinoco less physically and emotionally attractive and therefore are less credable than ?
Click to expand...

And you gave me that quizzical cartoon.

The point is that Hurst and the others are not mud dripping savages and play better in homes of a better sort. I wonder how much the medium is the message?

(God, I crack myself up, sorry McLuhan, you big lug:D )
 
Ed,

I argue mediumship from the "pro" point of view for a reason (which I've repeated before, probably too much). In reality, I -don't- "know" and have realized that I can't "believe". I'm okay with that gray area.

Claus's quotes are from 2002. It is now 2004. I continue to argue the pro side (and I think it's the stronger, more interesting side), but, regardless of the pov I take in discussion here and elsewhere, I -always- have doubts. I wouldn't mind being a believer, and I can argue that point of view, but in reality, I don't "believe". I want to "know", one way or the other...and I don't think that's going to happen any time soon.

Robert Brown...Brian Hurst....Kathleen Tucci....have all given me informative and interesting readings that made me feel "there might be something to this." Yet none of these readings has been so definitive that it has resolved each and every question about the process and been completely convincing that ADC is real.

I know this position is difficult for some here to grasp or accept...as is the "willing suspension of disbelief" in responding to other people's experiences with ADC. Oh well. So be it.
 
I still believe that you are a believer woo-woo, Clancie, simply because you only argue from the believer POV.
 
Posted by TBK

I still believe that you are a believer woo-woo, Clancie, simply because you only argue from the believer POV.
Click to expand...
Yes, that's fine. I don't make any distinction here for that reason.

But...just curious. You think there is the believer pov. And a skeptical pov that, to you, I think says all mediumship is fraudulent and all mediums are fake.

How would you define the position between these two extremes? And do you feel that "middle ground" position is as valid as the "skeptical" one?
 
Clancie,

Try to stay on topic. We are discussing your conflicting statements on your stance on mediumship.

How can you say that you have received information from spirits (through mediums) and at the same time say you do not believe that such information has been received?

Don't you see the contradiction here?
 

But...just curious. You think there is the believer pov. And a skeptical pov that, to you, I think says all mediumship is fraudulent and all mediums are fake.

I think there is a believer POV and a skeptic's POV.


How would you define the position between these two extremes?

One position makes no conclusion without evidence to support it.

And do you feel that "middle ground" position is as valid as the "skeptical" one?

There is no middle ground, you either believe or you don't. When it comes to mediumship, you are a believer. When it comes to other subjects, you might be a skeptic. You don't believe all that claim to be mediums are really mediums, but you definitely believe that some are. Your conclusions are not based on any evidence.
 
Posted by Thaiboxerken

Your conclusions are not based on any evidence.
Click to expand...
They are based on so called anecdotal evidence and "evidence" from personal observation/experience.

They are not based on scientific testing--i.e. results of laboratory testing that is replicable, double-blind, peer reviewed.

You think the latter is the only thing that counts as "evidence". I don't. That's the difference between your conclusion ("no evidence for it therefore, so far, it doesn't exist") and mine ("There might be something to it.")
 
Clancie said:

They are based on so called anecdotal evidence and "evidence" from personal observation/experience.
Click to expand...

Anecdotes are not reliable evidence at all. So basically, you are a believer because the stories sound good to you.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom