Clancie said:

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.")

Ergo....toads is good?

What precisely is the difference between your beliefs and those of my noble savages? They have personal evidence, and they have, as a people doing their silly thing a lot longer than too well off westerners.

What is the difference?
 
Ed,

I'm still waiting for all those references and links re: toads (also the testimonials from meteorologists). You say it's analogous to the mountain of anecdotal evidence from credible people re: psychics (including professionals using them in their work--like police and psychics).

So...where is all this "evidence"?

(P.S. Just because someone believes one thing that you feel is preposterous doesn't mean they believe any of the other things you feel are preposterous. To you, it may be "all the same". Most other people would view it on a "case by case basis", as I do. We probably agree about most other things, maybe even all.)
 
Clancie said:
Ed,

I'm still waiting for all those references and links re: toads (also the testimonials from meteorologists). You say it's analogous to the mountain of anecdotal evidence from credible people re: psychics (including professionals using them in their work--like police and psychics).

So...where is all this "evidence"?

(P.S. Just because someone believes one thing that you feel is preposterous doesn't mean they believe any of the other things you feel are preposterous. To you, it may be "all the same". Most other people would view it on a "case by case basis", as I do. We probably agree about most other things, maybe even all.)

Claus posted a link to Frazier's work. It is heavily referenced.

Just because western scientists might not support the use of toads for meteorological purposes, you cannot gainsay the years of anecdotes and personal experience behind these beliefs. In fact, I think that you will find as much hard science behind most of the things Frazier reports and mediumship or any other trendy western belief. In fact, the very lack of proof might demonstrate the "negative influence" of those scientists which in itself, in the world of woo at least, consititutes affirmation.

Why do you look for good science when it comes to toads but somehow get credulous when it comes to your own belief system? Are the beliefs of savages beneath you? How very un-PC of you.
 
What pages re: anecdotal evidence re: toads and weather in the Golden Bough? Give me a few days and I'll get my copy back from my ex.

But, if the toad evidence is comparable to the evidence for mediumship/psychcs, as you say, then it can't possibly be limited to one book only. What are the other books devoted to this? Where are your links?

Still no answer re: "police using psychics to help solve crimes" and "meteorologists using toads to help with weather predictions"?

C'mon, Ed. You said the evidence is comparable so...pony it up! Otherwise, I'll start to think your claim for toads is a bit...disingenuous. :(
 
CFLarsen said:
How many anecdotes do we need, before we can call it a mountain?

What he said. This stuff goes way back. Certainly further back than TV mediums.
 
Clancie said:
Ed,

(P.S. Just because someone believes one thing that you feel is preposterous doesn't mean they believe any of the other things you feel are preposterous. To you, it may be "all the same". Most other people would view it on a "case by case basis", as I do. We probably agree about most other things, maybe even all.)

But, aside from the rather rank nature of their proponents, not believe these native thingies? Does the nature of evidence change? Why? Why not toads? Or is it that your beliefs are rather like the toad believers who scoff at their neighbors who believe that swallowing worms influences the weather?

What is the difference?
 
Clancie said:
What pages re: anecdotal evidence re: toads and weather in the Golden Bough? Give me a few days and I'll get my copy back from my ex.

But, if the toad evidence is comparable to the evidence for mediumship/psychcs, as you say, then it can't possibly be limited to one book only. What are the other books devoted to this? Where are your links?

Still no answer re: "police using psychics to help solve crimes" and "meteorologists using toads to help with weather predictions"?

C'mon, Ed. You said the evidence is comparable so...pony it up! Otherwise, I'll start to think your claim for toads is a bit...disingenuous. :(

No need to wait. Nothing disingenuous about the claim:

Chapter 5. The Magical Control of the Weather.
Section 2. The Magical Control of Rain.


The intimate association of frogs and toads with water has earned for these creatures a widespread reputation as custodians of rain; and hence they often play a part in charms designed to draw needed showers from the sky. Some of the Indians of the Orinoco held the toad to be the god or lord of the waters, and for that reason feared to kill the creature. They have been known to keep frogs under a pot and to beat them with rods when there was a drought. It is said that the Aymara Indians often make little images of frogs and other aquatic animals and place them on the tops of the hills as a means of bringing down rain. The Thompson Indians of British Columbia and some people in Europe think that to kill a frog will cause rain to fall. In order to procure rain people of low caste in the Central Provinces of India will tie a frog to a rod covered with green leaves and branches of the nîm tree (Azadirachta Indica) and carry it from door to door singing:

“Send soon, O frog, the jewel of water!

And ripen the wheat and millet in the field.” 18

The Kapus or Reddis are a large caste of cultivators and landowners in the Madras Presidency. When rain fails, women of the caste will catch a frog and tie it alive to a new winnowing fan made of bamboo. On this fan they spread a few margosa leaves and go from door to door singing, “Lady frog must have her bath. Oh! rain-god, give a little water for her at least.” While the Kapu women sing this song, the woman of the house pours water over the frog and gives an alms, convinced that by so doing she will soon bring rain down in torrents. 19

Source: Frazer: The Golden Bough.
 
Clancie said:
What pages re: anecdotal evidence re: toads and weather in the Golden Bough? Give me a few days and I'll get my copy back from my ex.

But, if the toad evidence is comparable to the evidence for mediumship/psychcs, as you say, then it can't possibly be limited to one book only. What are the other books devoted to this? Where are your links?

Still no answer re: "police using psychics to help solve crimes" and "meteorologists using toads to help with weather predictions"?

C'mon, Ed. You said the evidence is comparable so...pony it up! Otherwise, I'll start to think your claim for toads is a bit...disingenuous. :(

Toads is but one example. As I said Frazier or any basic text on folklore will provide hundreds if not thousands of examples. All believed, all supported by anecdotes.

C'mon. You know damn right well that the anthropological literature is concerned largly with this loony stuff.
 
Looks like Clancie has appeal to populararity when it comes to anecdotes. She's never heard of the toad thing, it's not that popular, so anecdotes about them cannot be evidence. Mediumship, however, has lots of believers and appeals to her emotionally, so anecdotes about mediumship must contain some truth.
 
Posted by Thaiboxerken

Looks like Clancie has appeal to populararity when it comes to anecdotes. She's never heard of the toad thing, it's not that popular, so anecdotes about them cannot be evidence. Mediumship, however, has lots of believers and appeals to her emotionally, so anecdotes about mediumship must contain some truth.

Ah...a False Analogy, TBK.

(1) I have heard of "the toad thing".

(2) I never said, "it's not popular so anecdotes can't be evidence." Straw Man #1.

(3) I've never said because there are many mediumship believers and it appeals to me emotionally that therefore it must contain truth. Straw Man #2.
Posted by Ed

Toads have the same level of support (anecdotal) as communication with the dead.

Ed,

Sadly, you have not supported this claim. You've mentioned part of a 1922 book with some anecdotes about toads. You have -not- shown they have the same level of (anecdotal) support as mediumship. (Also, no apparent evidence--not even anecdotal--of professionals currently using toads to forecast the weather as professional police detectives -do- use mediumship).

If you ever -do- find a comparable level of anecdotal evidence/support for the toad claim, please reference it here and I'll look into it further and give you my opinion.

So far, there seems no point of comparison between the quantity and quality of information about "toads forecasting weather" and that for mediumship...at all.
 
Clancie said:
(1) I have heard of "the toad thing".

So, why is the "toad thing" not comparable to the belief in mediumship?

Clancie said:
(2) I never said, "it's not popular so anecdotes can't be evidence." Straw Man #1.

So, why is the "toad thing" not comparable to the belief in mediumship?

Clancie said:
(3) I've never said because there are many mediumship believers and it appeals to me emotionally that therefore it must contain truth. Straw Man #2.

But you draw a distinction between them, yet fail to tell us why they are different.

Clancie said:
Sadly, you have not supported this claim.

You have not even bothered to look up Frazer! Somebody, please repost the quote from Frazer for Clancie. Please!

Clancie said:
You've mentioned part of a 1925 book with some anecdotes about toads. You have -not- shown they have the same level of (anecdotal) support as mediumship.

OK, you want to play hardball: Please quantify the level of (anecdotal) support for mediumship.

Clancie said:
(Also, no apparent evidence--not even anecdotal--of professionals currently using toads to forecast the weather as professional police detectives -do- use mediumship).

Moving the goalposts: Now, it has to be "currently". Why 2004 and not 1925? Where do we set the limit, Clancie?

Clancie said:
If you ever -do- find a comparable level of anecdotal evidence/support for the toad claim, please reference it here and I'll look into it further and give you my opinion.

Then, pray, tell, what is a "comparable" level of anecdotal evidence/support of whatever claim available?

Clancie said:
So far, there seems no point of comparison between the quantity and quality of information about "toads forecasting weather" and that for mediumship...at all.

Where is the "quantity" and "quality" of information about mediumship???
 
Clancie said:

Ah...a False Analogy, TBK.

(1) I have heard of "the toad thing".

(2) I never said, "it's not popular so anecdotes can't be evidence." Straw Man #1.

(3) I've never said because there are many mediumship believers and it appeals to me emotionally that therefore it must contain truth. Straw Man #2.
[/b]
Ed,

Sadly, you have not supported this claim. You've mentioned part of a 1922 book with some anecdotes about toads. You have -not- shown they have the same level of (anecdotal) support as mediumship. (Also, no apparent evidence--not even anecdotal--of professionals currently using toads to forecast the weather as professional police detectives -do- use mediumship).

If you ever -do- find a comparable level of anecdotal evidence/support for the toad claim, please reference it here and I'll look into it further and give you my opinion.

So far, there seems no point of comparison between the quantity and quality of information about "toads forecasting weather" and that for mediumship...at all. [/B]

Nonsense. Reported by a scientist in a seminal work...far better than any woo stuff that I have come accross.

What about all of the other claims in Frazier?

ince you question the date, from what point is anecdotal eviidence acceptable?
 
our local PD is using a psychic to help find a missing college student. I sent them a nasty letter explaining everything and listing Randi as a contact. then last month the lead detechive gave a long interview praising his own incompetence, I mean the results of the psychic.

I was going to send them a magic 8 ball but ...I don't need anymore parking tickets



Virgil
 
Posted by Ed

Reported by a scientist in a seminal work...far better than any woo stuff that I have come accross.
Ed,

What are you talking about? Fraser's an anthropologist, documenting folklore and religion. He conducts no experiments and makes no claims for toads in this "seminal work" of cultural anthropology.

I'll ask again (last time). Where are the books about toads predicting the weather? Where are the documented accounts and studies of anecdotal evidence, past and present, from educated and non-educated sources, from industrialized and pre-industrialized countries around the world? (aka, mountains of anecdotal evidence like there is re: psychics/mediumship).

Where are professionals (meteorologists, eg.) using toads to successfully help predict weather the way that police professionals say psychics help them in their work?

You have said that the anecdotal evidence for this toad claim and for mediumship is comparable. I can give you tons of anecdotal evidence (as I've requested from you above) on the subject of mediumship and psychics.

Where is your "comparable" quantity and quality of evidence re: toads and the weather?

Oh, let's just admit. It's a tactic to try to lump two things together than have nothing in common other than you think they're both equally ridiculous. But one has considerable evidence for it (though not "lab evidence")...the other has...minimal to none.
 
Where is your "comparable" quantity

Since we're talking anecdotes here, this IS an appeal to popularity.


and quality of evidence re: toads and the weather?


The quality of anecdotes are the same if there is no physical evidence to support it.
 
Clancie said:
What are you talking about? Fraser's an anthropologist, documenting folklore and religion. He conducts no experiments and makes no claims for toads in this "seminal work" of cultural anthropology.

The author does not have to make a personal claim: He is merely reporting it. Does that invalidate that people believe it? Of course not.

Anthropology is also about superstitious beliefs.

Clancie said:
I'll ask again (last time). Where are the books about toads predicting the weather? Where are the documented accounts and studies of anecdotal evidence, past and present, from educated and non-educated sources, from industrialized and pre-industrialized countries around the world? (aka, mountains of anecdotal evidence like there is re: psychics/mediumship).

Here's one:

"It is lucky to meet a toad. To kill one brings down rain or may cause a storm".
"The Encyclopedia of Superstitions".

It's from 1948. Still too old?


This legend is still believed, Clancie. But then, it is believed by Indians...so it doesn't count.

Clancie said:
Where are professionals (meteorologists, eg.) using toads to successfully help predict weather the way that police professionals say psychics help them in their work?

Try zoologists: Toads do actually appear when it rains - otherwise they might drown. This was not known before, but thanks to scientific methods, we have learned otherwise.

Clancie said:
You have said that the anecdotal evidence for this toad claim and for mediumship is comparable. I can give you tons of anecdotal evidence (as I've requested from you above) on the subject of mediumship and psychics.

Where is your "comparable" quantity and quality of evidence re: toads and the weather?

How much is enough? How well supported must this anecdotal evidence be?

Clancie said:
Oh, let's just admit. It's a tactic to try to lump two things together than have nothing in common other than you think they're both equally ridiculous. But one has considerable evidence for it (though not "lab evidence")...the other has...minimal to none.

Bullsh1t. You are the one trying to evade the dirty fact: There is absolutely no difference between a belief in mediumship and a belief that toads will bring rain.

That's hard to admit, though.
 
Ed said:
(S)ince you question the date, from what point is anecdotal eviidence acceptable?

Aparently, Clancie has mixed feelings about this. She rejects Frazer, because it is from 1925, but accepts Mrs. Piper, whose abilities were investigated by SPR in 1889.

36 years earlier. Just another case of how....versatile....the mind of a believer is.
 
Oops, one more reference about frogs and rain:

Chac

The Mayan god of fertility and agriculture, the one who sends thunder and rain. Later he appears as one of the Bacabs, a group of four protective deities, where Chac is the personification of the east. The center of his cult was in Chichen Itzan (Yucatan). He is the Tlaloc of the Aztec and the rain god Cocijo of the Zapotec. Chac is portrayed with two curling fangs, a long turned-up nose and tears streaming from his wide eyes. His hair was made up of a tangle of knots.

Chac was beneficent and a friend of man. He taught them how to grow vegetables and was the protector of their cornfields. The Maya appealed to him for rain by means of particular ceremonies by which the men would settle outside the village and adhere to strict observance of fasting and sexual abstinence. The animal associated with Chac is the frog, because it signals the coming of rain by its croaking.

He is also known as Ah Hoya ("he who urinates"), Ah Tzenul ("he who gives food to others"), and Hopop Caan ("he who lights up the sky").
Source: Encyclopedia Mythica

I really think it would be nice to know why a whole civilization can be wrong about this.
 

Back
Top Bottom