Split thread: Belief in communication with the dead

[CFLarsen]

Spit from http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=59530 , this thread is not under special moderation.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Darat

(sigh) from wordreference dot com on the term "inference":



Hence you cannot possibly know what I am or am not inferring unless you claim to be a telepath. You can infer anything you want from the information presented. In response, I reiterate that any inferences made were yours and yours alone. Readers of information make inferences, reporters
of the information do not.

You are not fooling me, Steve. You have been on a crusade against skeptics ever since they explained why psychics can't talk to dead people.

 

[Matthew Best]

I was right!

 

[hgc]

You are free to do what you want. Have you contacted CSICOP and told them how you feel?

No. I, for one, don't really care that much about what goes on at CSICOP. You seem to have a lot invested though.

I am not shooting scattershot at the messenger. I am pointing out that this is yet another attempt of Steve's to cast suspicion on skeptics. And yes, I can back that up with many examples. You want to see them?

How compactly and efficiently self-contradictory of you. Not shooting the messenger? Want to see what Steve's all about? Can't you hear the dissonance? Steve has pointed out that CSICOP has suspicious characters around it. I find the information mildly interesting. I don't care what special meaning he may or may not want you to attach to it. And his past antics are evidence of nothing as to what he said in this thread.

 

[SteveGrenard]

No. I, for one, don't really care that much about what goes on at CSICOP. You seem to have a lot invested though.

How compactly and efficiently self-contradictory of you. Not shooting the messenger? Want to see what Steve's all about? Can't you hear the dissonance? Steve has pointed out that CSICOP has suspicious characters around it. I find the information mildly interesting. I don't care what special meaning he may or may not want you to attach to it. And his past antics are evidence of nothing as to what he said in this thread.

My past antics revolve around this. In 2001 my son died. My wife wanted to contact him via mediums and we embarked on this. I received some absolutely astounding information from mediums I wont go into here, found it impossible to believe and still do, but I turned to the skeptical community for explanations and carefully debated and considered all of them. I remain open minded and am interested in the research being done on this subject. I am grateful for the skeptical community's devotion to this subject and the explanations they gave me. To say I am completely convinced such explanations were operative in all cases would not be true. There are also skeptics who are absolutely nasty and prosecute their debate by ridicule and rudeness and name calling. There are others with whom I have discussed this such as Ray Hyman and writers such as Michael Shermer whom I have the highest respect for. When I learned by reading and researching of Bullough, after finding out he was a CSICOP fellow, and then John Money who was published by Prometheus, which is connected to CSICOP by its founder and owner, and its editor of its sexual titles, I became concerned that these folks were fostering positions which were antithetical to the skeptical movement and good science. I appreciate it's a tough road to hoe. But this is what happens when the scope of interest of an organization (originally devoted only to scientific investigation of the paranormal) broadens its subject matter. Hansen neatly discusses their high profile defections in the URL above and I am glad I found Hansen's work.

Somewhere along the line somebody named Claus Larsen, who was using a different name then, decided I was fodder for his attacks. He's still at it, what I can I say?

 

[hgc]

My past antics revolve around this...

Oh boy. I really meant it when I said that your past antics were not germaine. Now that you've gone into it anyway, here goes the thread in a whole new direction. Wheeee!

 

[CFLarsen]

My past antics revolve around this. In 2001 my son died. My wife wanted to contact him via mediums and we embarked on this. I received some absolutely astounding information from mediums I wont go into here, found it impossible to believe and still do

That is not correct. You have, by word and deed, believed in spirit communication since the death of your son.

, but I turned to the skeptical community for explanations and carefully debated and considered all of them. I remain open minded and am interested in the research being done on this subject. I am grateful for the skeptical community's devotion to this subject and the explanations they gave me. To say I am completely convinced such explanations were operative in all cases would not be true.

What explanations are not operative?

There are also skeptics which are absolutely nasty and prosecute their debate by ridicule and rudeness and name calling. There are others with whom I have discussed this such as Ray Hyman and writers such as Michael Shermer whom I have the highest respect for. When I learned by reading and researching of Bullough, after finding out he was a CSICOP fellow, and then John Money who was published by Prometheus, which is connected to CSICOP by its founder and owner, and its editor of its sexual titles, I became concerned that these folks were fostering positions which were antithetical to the skeptical movement and good science. I appreciate it its a tough road to hoe. But this is what happens when the scope of interest of an organization (originally devoted only to scientific investigation of the paranormal) broadens its subject matter. Hansen neatly discusses their high profile defections in the URL above and I am glad I found Hansen's work.

And you say you are not trying to infer that CSICOP condones or glorifies pedophilia.....

Somewhere along the line somebody named Claus Larsen, who was using a different name then, decided I was fodder for his attacks. He's still at it, what I can I say?

I didn't use a different name, Steve. I used another nick. I have never hidden my real identity.

 

[Matthew Best]

And you say you are not trying to infer that CSICOP condones or glorifies pedophilia.....

You're playing into Mr Grenard's hands by continuing to misuse this word, Mr Larsen.

 

[SteveGrenard]

That is not correct. You have, by word and deed, believed in spirit communication since the death of your son.

Not in all cases but I still have unanswered questions which neither the parapsychological or the skeptical community have been able to answer. Neither community has satisfied my quest for the certain knowledge that either what I was told was true or some kind of a hoax or trick.

What explanations are not operative?

Explanations for highly obscure, accurate information which could not be known to the medium based on prior knowledge (hot and warm reading)nor extracted via cold reading or any variant thereof. I am talking about information like the name of my family dog that died in 1965, its breed (by actual description as the medium didn't know what it was) and then saying there was another dog just like X present whose name is Y. As a child didn't know my dog's brother's name which went to another family unrelated to us but my mother knew this (because she spoke to the other family a few times over 40 years ago) and confirmed it afterwards. Another dog appeared to the medium. She got its name and the fact that it was holding its right rear leg off the ground. This was correct. It was hit by a car, had the leg repaired and limped by keeping weight off this leg. This happened on the other side of the country more 14 years earlier and is not available in any public record because I was not involved with the dog and its veterinary care at the time. Nor was it every placed anywhere in the public record after this either.

Or the circumstances of my father's death over 40 years ago which were highly specific (not sick, not in a hospital, etc) -- where and how he died "away from home." Or when I went to the JE taping, and afterwards was introduced to him. He shook my hand, stepped back and said the name of a nun "Sister M" -- JE repeating: "She's one tough nun" which is what my son used to call her. There is no way JE or anyone knew this although I have seen him on Larry King apparently cold reading telephone callers. I can go on and on for a hundred more pieces of information, some of which could've been obtained through trickery but others that defy explanation. Instead of finding out how Claus, you think its okay just to say its has to be trickery because there is nothing else. As someone who believes in science, I don't subscribe to such explanations and seek real ones. When I get some, if I get some and I am still around, you will be the first to know.

And you say you are not trying to infer that CSICOP condones or glorifies pedophilia.....

You are incorrect. I have repeatedly told you there are two committee members with whom I have a problem. One is the late V. Bullough and the other a self-confessed drug user (e.g.addict) involved with a drug that may appear in DSM-V as being addictive with all that that entails. It is being debated by the APA now. Ask JC about this. I have inferred nothing. You are inferring things and stating them. If I were to state my inference, if there was one, you would free to make this charge. I did not because there is no inference on my part which I have stated. Nor does an inference exist on my part. You can scramble all the facts you want together and string them around with your arrows and they still do not add up to the definition of inference.

I didn't use a different name, Steve. I used another nick. I have never hidden my real identity.

Okay, a nick is not a name then. And a different nick is not a different name. I see now. It's just a nick instead of your name. Sorry I didn't realize your nick was equivalent to Claus Larsen for some time after we met.

 

[CFLarsen]

Not in all cases but I still have unanswered questions which neither the parapsychological or the skeptical community have been able to answer. Neither community has satisfied my quest for the certain knowledge that either what I was told was true or some kind of a hoax or trick.

Nobody claimed you believed in all cases.

Explanations for highly obscure, accurate information which could not be known to the medium based on prior knowledge (hot and warm reading)nor extracted via cold reading or any gvariant thereof. I am talking about information like the name of my family dog that died in 1965, its breed (by description as the medium didn't know what it was) and then saying there was another dog just like X present whose name is Y. As a child didn't know my dog's brother's name which went to another family unrelated to us but my mother knew this (because she spoke to the other family a few times over 40 years ago) and confirmed it afterwards. Or the circumstances of my father's death over 40 years ago which were highly specific (not sick, not in a hospital, etc) -- where and how he died "away from home."

Unverifiable anecdotes from a believer.

Or when I went to the JE taping, and afterwards was introduced to him. He shook my hand, stepped back and said the name of a nun "Sister M" -- "She's one tough nun" which is what my son used to call her. There is no way JE or anyone knew this although I have seen him on Larry King apparently cold reading telephone callers.

Now, why would he cold read on Larry King if he can talk to dead people?

I can go on and on for a hundred more pieces of information, some of which could've been obtained through trickery but others that defy explanation. Instead of finding out how Claus, you think its okay just to say its has to be trickery because there is nothing else. As someone who believes in science, I
don't subscribe to such explanations and seek real ones.

I am asking for evidence, Steve. Do you have anything we can verify?

You are incorrect. I have repeatedly told you there are two committee members with whom I have a problem.

You are, again, not telling the truth. It goes way deeper than that. You have repeatedly criticized Paul Kurtz. You have also instigated an anonymous smear campaign in order to have access to JREF blocked from libraries.

One is the late V. Bullough and the other a self-confessed drug user (e.g.addict) involved with a drug that may appear in DSM-V as being addictive with all that that entails.

How do you know she is an addict, then?

It is being debated by the APA now. Ask JC about this.

Who is JC? Jesus Christ?

I have inferred nothing. You are inferring things and stating them. If I were to state my inference, if there was one, you would free to make this charge. I did not because there is no inference on my part which I have stated. Nor does an inference exist on my part. You can scramble all the facts you want together and string them around with your arrows and they still do not add up to the definition of inference.

The evidence is there, Steve.

Okay, a nick is not a name then. And a different nick is not a different name. I see now. It's just a nick instead of your name. Sorry I didn't realize your nick was equivalent to Claus Larsen for some time after we met.

Yet another example of you being very quick to point your finger at skeptics.

 

[SteveGrenard]

Nobody claimed you believed in all cases.

Thanks.

Unverifiable anecdotes from a believer.

Sorry I am not publishing a peer reviewed study. These are MY unverifiable anecdotes. Its not like I dont have anything better to do but then to investigate them. If you have nothing to offer don't bother responding.

Now, why would he cold read on Larry King if he can talk to dead people?

Don't know. My question also.

I am asking for evidence, Steve. Do you have anything we can verify?

Not on this subject. It my personal project. If you have anything to offer substantial feel free otherwise also feel free not to respond. I am sure you have better things to do.

You are, again, not telling the truth. It goes way deeper than that. You have repeatedly criticized Paul Kurtz. You have also instigated an anonymous smear campaign in order to have access to JREF blocked from libraries.

Yes I criticized Paul Kurtz as President of Promnetheus. The basis for that criticism can be found in Hansen's paper. The part about his publishing program has been explored above over hundreds of posts already.
JREF added their own filters and rules since then which serve to have the website unblocked. This was a positive and welcome step. You have a problem with it?

How do you know she is an addict, then?

Because by her own written admission she uses this substance 335 days of the year.

is JC? Jesus Christ?

How quickly we forget our friends who have knowledge of the DSM.

The evidence is there ...

Where is that?Where have you proved you are telepathic?

Another mple of you being very quick to point your finger at skeptics.

Eh? How is this pointing my finger? Can't I be a skeptic too ...Are yousaying I am not a skeptic?