Psychic Detectives are real

[BrianSI]

This is where professionally untrained police make stupid blunders.

I'm going to send you the medical bill. My brain twisted up when I tried to parse this sentence.

 

[JimBenArm]

Hey! I'm professionally untrained, too! May I be a policeman, also?

 

[IMST]

Reason sure isn't working, let's try more ridicule.

 

[Hindmost]

What is soooooooooo commonly found in people that believe in paranormal or psychic ability is the total lack of understanding of scientific method and what constitutes evidence--and statistical evidence. polomontana does not seem to be an exception.

Let's keep educating people; there's got to be a chance for improvement.

glenn

 

[BrianSI]

I say we use the kittens in a more postive way. Maybe the OP will pay attention if we post our legitimate criticisms in the kitten pictures.

Come on folks, let's not just ridicule.

ETA: Sorry, I don't have my own cat, so I can't help.

 

[polomontana]

Slimething,

When you ask me to show you the math, it tells me alot. It tells me you don't understand the implications behind the equations and you can't debate these issues.

It makes no sense to sit in a skeptics forum and post equations. Einstein said something that's very important, he said imagination is more important than education. He said this because he realized while there were people who got better grades than him in class many of them were held prisoners of their education. Einstein first thought about how things would look if he could ride his motorbike at the speed of light. Excercising his imagination along with his knowledge led to Einstein making history. Have you ever read the Einstein/Bohr debates? They didn't say show me the math, they discussed the implications of the equations. Einstein thought quantum physics was too random and he told Bohr that,"God doesn't play dice" and Bohr responded,"Einstein, don't tell God what to do." These men understood the implications of the equation and they were not confined to "show me the math." Einstein would ask does this mean that the moon is not there when I'm not looking at it. Schrodinger came up with thought experiments like Schrodinger's cat because he understood the implications of the equations.

Slimethug, I can sit here and post equations all day, but what good would it do on a skeptics message forum? I can see if we were at a physics forum. If you can't debate and discuss these things then I suggest you began by going back and reading about the Einstein/Bohr debates, I think they will get you beyond show me the math.

I can sit here an post this:

h= 6.626 068 96(33) x 10-34 J . s = 4.135 667 33(10) x 10-15 eV . s

What good would that do? I'm here to debate not post equations. By your logic we should throw out string theory, M-theory, quantum loop gravity, black holes, virtual particles, holographic principle, quantum computing and more.

Think about these things slimething, it's ok to think for yourself instead of being trapped by your education. Remember what Einstein said, imagination is more important than education. So lets debate and stop with the show me the math. If you don't understand the implications behind the equations, I suggest also reading Hyperspace by Dr. Michio Kaku or Warped Passages by Harvard theoretical physicist Lisa Randall.

 

[CFLarsen]

polomontana,

Did you know about Goldner before I told you?

Which example did you refer to (white hair, author, etc)?

How can wrong guesses prove life after death? Why isn't that evidence of guessing?

If you dismiss skeptics because you claim they have a vested interest, why don't you dismiss Schwartz for the very same reason?

 

[quixotecoyote]

An excellent example of true adherence to the Woo-Woo credo! Keep it up and you'll be elevated to level 2 posthaste!

http://www.watchingyou.com/woowoo.html

Remember what Einstein said, imagination is more important than education. So lets debate and stop with the show me the math.

[Rule] 36. Quote Einstein, and do so often. Quote things he said if possible, but Einstein has been dead for ages now and so it's permissible to bring him up to date. Change the odd word here and there to make it clear that Einstein would have supported
your argument if only he knew what you know. Act as if any arbitrary Einstein quote supports your position.

If you don't understand the implications behind the equations, I suggest also reading Hyperspace by Dr. Michio Kaku or Warped Passages by Harvard theoretical physicist Lisa Randall.

Psychics in hyperspace! Arm phasers Mr Sulu!

[Rule] 29 Keep trotting out the one "respectable" scientist who might possibly have said something that could be construed as perhaps giving a hint that it may theoretically support your position. Even better if said scientist has said it outright. Ignore all complaints that the work is 50 years out of date, the scientist has no experience in the field in question or that other experts in the same field think said scientist is a complete loony (and they can prove it, too).

eta:edited for emphasis of rule 29

 

[ChristineR]

I bet Einstein could have imagined several ways to convince a cop who wasn't even the chief detective on a case that he was psychic.

 

[strathmeyer]

By your logic we should throw out string theory, M-theory, quantum loop gravity, black holes, virtual particles, holographic principle, quantum computing and more.

No. Repeating the same wrong argument doesn't make it less wrong.

 

[Moochie]

Why didn't the psychic say San Diego? Why did she say somewhere south like San Diego or San Bernardino?

What is a "classical" object? What is a non-classical object?

That's a major problem with all so-called psychics: their multiple-choice answers. The mark client can pick and choose which answers apply, if any.

This method can make anyone a "psychic" in short order, particularly with a modicum of training in cold reading. Heck, play it yourself with someone you've just met, or at least don't know very well. You might be surprised at how perspicacious you really are.

M.

 

[Slimething]

Slimething,

When you ask me to show you the math, it tells me alot. It tells me you don't understand the implications behind the equations and you can't debate these issues.

Well, lokee here. You answered in a semi-legitimate manner. I'm honored.

Let me explain to you why we ask for the math first. The math determines what is possible. Perhaps the solutions to the equations are a little vague and point to possibilities that may or may not be real but the math will always tell you what is NOT possible.

It makes no sense to sit in a skeptics forum and post equations.

Beg pardon but it does. If you make a claim about physics, you should be able to substantiate it with math or at least factual results. That's the coinage of that realm. So, as soon as I saw you were abusing Quantum Mechanics, I wanted to make sure you knew what you were talking about. Unfortunately, you do not. QM is based on various mathematical models. That's the extent of it. Physicists don't go around looking at trees and wondering where those trees will be in five minutes or even if they're really advarks based on their inability to spin. If you can't justify a QM proposition with mathematics consistent with the known properties of the particles involved, you have a non-starter.

Have you ever read the Einstein/Bohr debate? They didn't say show me the math, they discussed the implications of the equations.

Yes, that is right. They discussed the implications of the equations. So, they already had shown you the math if you had cared to look it up. Of course, it's not your job to do the legwork, right?

Their math was well published by the time they had the debates. Do you really believe these two physicists just chatted about stuff they made up on the cusp? Is that what you're saying? These guys were discussing implications of the mathematics. You're gonna make me cry, you will!

Einstein thought quantum physics was too random and he told Bohr that,"God doesn't play dice" and Bohr responded,"Einstein, don't tell God what to do." These men understood the implications of the equation and they were not confined to "show me the math."

There you go contradicting yourself again. So, these two chums would sit up at night discussing an equation but not math? That is what you wrote, correct? Is it beginning to make sense to you yet? They had shown each other the math and that was what they were discussing.

So, if you want to have a discussion about physics, what do you need? Yes, math! Math is what you need!

Slimethug, I can sit here and post equations all day, but what good would it do on a skeptics message forum?

Quite a bit, polio. At least we could have an intelligent discussion regarding QM. However, I'm not really asking you to post your math because it's plainly obvious you don't have the background to generate this level of elegance. Can you cite any peer-reviewed publications by physicists who have included their QM calculations that would support your position that sub-nuclear particles are altered by death?

I can see if we were at a physics forum.

This is an "anything" forum. There's lots of physicists here who know more about QM than I do. I'm a chemist but I still had to study this stuff to get my parchment. Don't be intimidated, though. You can post anything you want. The Forum even has special code for math (called Latex, IIRC). There's nothing to stop you.

If you can't debate and discuss these things then I suggest you began by going back and reading about the Einstein/Bohr debates, I think they will get you beyond show me the math.

We can't have any type of debate about physics without you posting the math behind your hypothesis. That is what the Bohr-Einstein "debates" were all about. IOW, you have the math before you can get "beyond the math". Pretty existential, isn't it?

By your logic we should throw out string theory, M-theory, quantum loop gravity, black holes, virtual particles, holographic principle, quantum computing and more.

What have I written that would cause anyone to throw any of those phenomena/hypotheses out? They are all bolstered by math. Got that yet? They are considered viable hypotheses because they are consistent with our mathematical models of the universe.

Stop your whining and post your math or someone's math that supports your contentions. If you can't, perhaps you should stop making insipid claims based on physics. Instead, pick on chemistry! You and I could have loads of fun there!

 

[polomontana]

polomontana,

Did you know about Goldner before I told you?

Which example did you refer to (white hair, author, etc)?

How can wrong guesses prove life after death? Why isn't that evidence of guessing?

If you dismiss skeptics because you claim they have a vested interest, why don't you dismiss Schwartz for the very same reason?

No, I didn't know about Goldner but it makes no difference. You would have to show that a, Goldner told the mediums about the deceased and b, that this is a comon practice of every sitter in the experiments. Since a and b can't be shown to be true then the argument makes no sense.

This is why you have a control group, to eliminate guessing. If the mediums are more accurate and specific than the control group, then there you have it.

Their are skeptics of string theory, should we discount all evidence from proponents of string theory from looking into the field? That makes no sense. If we eliminate everyone in every field who has a vested interest in the underlying field that they are investigating and researching then we would still be living in caves.

 

[-Fran-]

Stop your whining and post your math or someone's math that supports your contentions. If you can't, perhaps you should stop making insipid claims based on physics. Instead, pick on chemistry! You and I could have loads of fun there!

WOW, he really is dense, isn't he? I mean, you will not find a person in the known universe that is worse at math than me But even I understand what you are saying here.

 

[quixotecoyote]

This is why you have a control group, to eliminate guessing. If the mediums are more accurate and specific than the control group, then there you have it.

Had you actually read the link I provided that you pretended to read, you would see Schwartz doesn't do well with control groups.

 

[Drudgewire]

Had you actually read the link I provided that you pretended to read, you would see Schwartz doesn't do well with control groups.

Man, you really don't get string theory AT ALL do you.

 

[polomontana]

"Let me explain to you why we ask for the math first. The math determines what is possible. Perhaps the solutions to the equations are a little vague and point to possibilities that may or may not be real but the math will always tell you what is NOT possible".

Slimething, this one quote from your post shows why you asked for the math. You said the math shows what's NOT possible and yet you were not able to show how the things I said violated the math. It didn't so you asked for the equations. I'm not going sit here and give you equations for everything I mentioned. I would hope that you at least know the math enough to have a debate.

I never said they were altered at death. That's your words, not mine. In fact, I said the energy at death is not altered but remains the same. The energy can't be created nor destroyed even at death. So you are saying when a person dies, their energy dies as well? How does that make any sense? The term rest in peace makes no sense because we are never fully at rest even when you die. Have you ever heard of zero point energy and the harmonic oscillator? The particles that make up our bodies are never at rest. There's always a level of energy and motion even when we are dead. Do I need to post all the equations for zero point energy LOL? That makes no sense Slimething. If you don't already know the equations or about zero point energy than google it.

I also talked about decoherence, the wave function and more. Do I have to post the equations for all of these things to debate these things LOL? That makes no sense. If you don't know the equations already why are we even debating?

Here you go slimething, some links to read up on the things I mentioned.

Planck's Constant:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck's_constant

Quantum Decoherence:
http://www.ipod.org.uk/reality/reality_decoherence.asp

Quantum Entanglement:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_entanglement

Zero Point Energy:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-point_energy

Slimething, if I knew beforehand that you didn't understand the math, I would have never began to debate you on these things. I suggest you do some reading.

Should I post all the math for string theory and quantum loop gravity before we debate it LOL? That makes no sense.

 

[Moochie]

Ah, I think I'm beginning to understand. This entire thread was concocted for my amusement, wasn't it?

Am I close?

Put it down to intuition.

M.

 

[ChristineR]

 

[slyjoe]

...

I never said they were altered at death. That's your words, not mine. In fact, I said the energy at death is not altered but remains the same. The energy can't be created nor destroyed even at death. So you are saying when a person dies, their energy dies as well? How does that make any sense? The term rest in peace makes no sense because we are never fully at rest even when you die. Have you ever heard of zero point energy and the harmonic oscillator? The particles that make up our bodies are never at rest. There's always a level of energy and motion even when we are dead. Do I need to post all the equations for zero point energy LOL? That makes no sense Slimething. If you don't already know the equations or about zero point energy than google it.

I also talked about decoherence, the wave function and more. Do I have to post the equations for all of these things to debate these things LOL? That makes no sense. If you don't know the equations already why are we even debating?

You aren't debating these equations. Posting them doesn't help your case. You are trying to apply them to psychics and/or life after death. Those are the equations being requested. Or can't you comprehend?

Should I post all the math for string theory and quantum loop gravity before we debate it LOL? That makes no sense.

Of course not. They aren't the debate. Your use of theories and equations you don't understand is.