Telepathy Debate in London

[thaiboxerken]

If there is solid scientific evidence, and if people throughout human history and across all cultures have believed that they have experienced telepathy, then it is incumbent upon those that deny the reality of this alleged phenomenon to argue their case.

Yes.. IF there was solid scientific evidence. There is not. Also, the phenomenon, as you stated, is still just "alleged".

Established facts need to be disproven if denied. Telepathy isn't an established fact. It is up to the people that claim telepathy is real to provide the evidence.

 

[Tricky]

To me, the greatest evidence that telepathy doesn't exist is the invention of the telepathic telephone, the telepathic television the telepathic radio and the telepathic camera. That's right, they're not even on the drawing board. People have been suggesting that telepathy existed practically since the invention of language, but in all these thousands of years, not one single practical paranormal device has ever been produced.

By contrast, radio waves were first predicted in 1864 and first produced later that decade. In less than 150 years, radio waves and their offshoots have made instant global communication possible while telepathy researchers are still struggling to get a measurable suggestion of its existance. One would think that with such a head start, telepathy would have been developed far beyond those upstart electronic gizmos.

But no telepathy waves have been discovered, in fact no medium at all that would explain telepathic communication. The only thing that telepathy has been able to do with consistancy is to capture the imagination (and often the money) of people who desperately want there to be some magic in the world.

 

[Interesting Ian]

Ian
I repeat, there is no solid evidence to substantiate any claims that paranormal phenomena can be switched on and off at will.

You may or may not like that, but I suggest you deal with it.

Garrette
Your apparent definition of solid evidence is both loose and inconsistent.

Please point me to the definition I have provided which is loose and inconsistent.

According to your standards on this Forum, there is as much solid evidence for Sylvia Browne, John Edward, the huckster medium who occasionally shows up at the Louisville Public Library, and the palm reader down the street as there are for your amorphous and ill-defined body of true paranormalists/parapsychologists or what have you.

As I say, you need to point to anything I have said which would remotely imply this.

Ian
I have absolutely zero interest in people who claim they can reproduce paranormal phenomena at will. As far as I'm concerned they're as big a pr*cks as skeptics.

Garrette
Why? What evidence do you have to suggest that they are wrong or lying? Their evidence is as solid as any you have presented for any other phenomena.

Well let's have concrete examples shall we? You see the problem here is that it seems to me that a lot of these individulas claim they can produce what we might describe as "superpsi" on demand. Now if the world were such that a few gifted individuals were able to do this, then surely the claims would not be controversial??? We wouldn't need Randi to debunk them!

But we know from all the evidence that psi phenomena is not like this. There is no particularly credible scientific evidence for "superpsi", and the vast majority of anecdotes are of the normal psi variety.

Basically, if these people coulkd do what they say, eg explode the andromeda galaxy, kill people instantly with their thoughts etc, then we would know about it anyway!

Ian
I have absolutely zero interest in what simple minded fools or charlatans can claim they can perform.


Garrette
Then it’s a good thing you don’t run the JREF Challenge.

Er . .yes. An accurate albeit wholly irrelevant observation.

Since it is not the Interesting Ian Challenge, please be so kind as to let it operate under its own rules which, to any detached observer, are far more coherent, consistent, and fair than anything you have presented.

I have absolutely no problem with this! Why don't you attempt to read my posts if you're going to repond to them?

I merely attack those who suggest that Randi's challenge remotely has any implications for the paranormal phenomena which scientific evidence and anecdotes throughout history very strongly suggest exist. If people accept that this challenges constitutes no evidence whatsoever against such phenomena then this is absolutely fine. The problem here is that skeptics are complete scumbags who will try and cheat and imply that Randi's challenge somehow provides some evidence against non-"superpsi" phenomena as well. If they do this, then I'll say what I think of them ie thoroughly despicable individuals who have no interest whatsoever in an honest debate, because they would know they're on a loser.

 

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian

If there is solid scientific evidence,


Shemp
It's up to you and other claimants of telepathy to provide such evidence. I've never seen any. Randi has never seen any. Provide the evidence.

If you're unsatified with the present evidence then there is very little that one can do since parapsychological research is starved of funding.

and if people throughout human history and across all cultures have believed that they have experienced telepathy,



Anecdotes = evidence? Maybe on Planet Ian, but not on Earth.

Yes of course they do. It's a matter of sheer logic. Clearly it is more likely that telepathy exists if the foregoing is true than if no-one had ever experienced any apparent telepathy ever. Of course you might wish to argue that people are so psycholically disposed to suppose that there is telepathic communication where none really exists. This is a fair point, but doesn't of course affect the evidential point, providing you bear in mind this is not scientific evidence.

 

[Suezoled]

Ya know something? Toasted onion bagels with cream cheese is pretty good for breakfast sometimes.

 

[Interesting Ian]

Ian, here's an analogue by way of a mind experiment.

Please prove that I cannot play the violin. Show your working.

I do not know that you cannot play the violin, and I wouldn't assert that you couldn't. This is different from the skeptics who assert very confidently that there has been no paranormal phenomena whtsoever throughout the history of the Universe. What they are doing is asserting that they know that their model of reality is correct. But this is breathtakingly both arrogant and irrational. Every culture thinks that they have reality completely sussed out. I'm only interested in reason and evidence.

 

[Interesting Ian]

Ya know something? Toasted onion bagels with cream cheese is pretty good for breakfast sometimes.

I've reported you for spamming.

 

[Kerberos]

You see the problem here is that it seems to me that a lot of these individulas claim they can produce what we might describe as "superpsi" on demand. Now if the world were such that a few gifted individuals were able to do this, then surely the claims would not be controversial???

So PSI effects can only be produced inconsistently and weakly? Kind of like we'd expect if they didn't exist, and the results were products of cheating and coincidence?

 

[Interesting Ian]

It is fantastic that the public that decided that telepathy exists.

Yes I agree it is indeed fantastic! They heard the evidence on both sides, realised there is no evidence for the skeptical model of reality, and made their decision accordingly

The war against the skeptics might be won yet!

 

[Interesting Ian]

I know it exists.It has been as unpleasant as you would imagine.
but it is possible......

Yes we know it exists. I've had experiences myself, although almost all were when I was a child

 

[Garrette]

All quotations from Interesting Ian:

Please point me to the definition [of solid evidence] I have provided which is loose and inconsistent.

And you accuse me of not reading your posts...

I said quite plainly "your apparent definition", making it clear that you haven't given one. You merely claim anecdotes are evidence so long as they are anecdotes of things you want to believe.

As I say, you need to point to anything I have said which would remotely imply this [That there are true paranormalists/parapsychologists.]

Shall I retract? I will happily do so if you are now stating that there are no true paranormalists/parapsychologists.

Well let's have concrete examples shall we? [Of evidence which I said is as solid as Ian's]

Okay. Here is evidence which is exactly as solid as any you have presented on this thread:

And I'm not joking.

I merely attack those who suggest that Randi's challenge remotely has any implications for the paranormal phenomena which scientific evidence and anecdotes throughout history very strongly suggest exist. If people accept that this challenges constitutes no evidence whatsoever against such phenomena then this is absolutely fine. The problem here is that skeptics are complete scumbags who will try and cheat and imply that Randi's challenge somehow provides some evidence against non-"superpsi" phenomena as well. If they do this, then I'll say what I think of them ie thoroughly despicable individuals who have no interest whatsoever in an honest debate, because they would know they're on a loser.

Here's my take:

1. The fact that the Challenge exists has no implications for anything.

2. The fact that no one has passed it has implications for those people.

3. The fact that no heavy hitters attempt to pass it, together with the fact that no one, not even the surpassingly brilliant Interesting Ian, can suggest anyone with the remotest chance of passing it, does in fact have implications for the paranormal phenomena which anecdotes throughout history strongly suggest exist but which are sorely lacking in scientific evidence which Interesting Ian continues to claim exists but which he continues to fail to produce. It does, though, have only an implication. It proves nothing, but does suggest that the correct stance is to not believe in the existence of these phenomena until proven otherwise with something beyond anecdote.

 

[Upchurch]

Ya know something? Toasted onion bagels with cream cheese is pretty good for breakfast sometimes.

<table cellspacing=1 cellpadding=4 bgcolor=#333333 border=0><tr><td bgcolor=#333333><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" color=#ffffff size=1>Posted by Upchurch:</font></td></tr><tr><td bgcolor=white><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" color=black size=2>This post has been reported as being spam. However, it does not fit any definition of spam that I am familiar with. It is not advertising anything nor is it repeated posting the same thing over and over again. I see no violation of forum rules here.
[/i]</font></td></tr></table>

 

[BillHoyt]

I've reported you for spamming.

Ian, calm down before you lose it altogether.

 

[Interesting Ian]

This post has been reported as being spam. However, it does not fit any definition of spam that I am familiar with.

Then I suggest that you gain a greater understanding of what is meant by spam.

It is not advertising anything nor is it repeated posting the same thing over and over again. I see no violation of forum rules here.

Oh I see. So am I also allowed to post something entirely irrelevant to the discussion at hand?? Good, then I will do so. I'll start doing it to Suzelod's conversations and your conversations. How would you like that??

 

[BillHoyt]

Then I suggest that you gain a greater understanding of what is meant by spam.



Oh I see. So am I also allowed to post something entirely irrelevant to the discussion at hand?? Good, then I will do so. I'll start doing it to Suzelod's conversations and your conversations. How would you like that??

Ian, calm down. You are definitely losing it here.

 

[KelvinG]

Yes I agree it is indeed fantastic! They heard the evidence on both sides, realised there is no evidence for the skeptical model of reality, and made their decision accordingly

The war against the skeptics might be won yet!

Oh please, Ian. I find it highly doubtful that average person has done any sort of research on both sides of the paranormal issue. Sadly, I fear that the average person tends to make their decisions based on TV talk shows featuring the likes of John Edward and Sylvia Browne.
Again, why do I get the feeling you are more concerned about public opinion being on your side as opposed to the facts.

 

[thaiboxerken]

This is a fair point, but doesn't of course affect the evidential point, providing you bear in mind this is not scientific evidence.

If it's nto scientific evidence, then it's unreliable and worthless.

 

[Upchurch]

Then I suggest that you gain a greater understanding of what is meant by spam.

I'm going by the guidelines given in the forum rules:

Originally posted here
3. The post contains commercial advertisements or spam.
-Note: this does not mean that people cannot reference commercial ideas, but merely that one may not use the Forum as a literal market place to sell for-profit items.
Spamming is the multiple posting of items just to annoy or attract attention. It is not the same as cross posting to a relevant thread. The forum administration reserves the right to make a final determination as to the legitimacy of a ‘commercial’ post.

You are, of couse, welcome to appeal the decision to Hal as always.

Oh I see. So am I also allowed to post something entirely irrelevant to the discussion at hand?? Good, then I will do so. I'll start doing it to Suzelod's conversations and your conversations. How would you like that??

I wouldn't like it all, but it is your right to do so as long as you follow the forum rules (see link above).

 

[Interesting Ian]

Oh please, Ian. I find it highly doubtful that average person has done any sort of research on both sides of the paranormal issue. Sadly, I fear that the average person tends to make their decisions based on TV talk shows featuring the likes of John Edward and Sylvia Browne.

I feel they probably do, although this is just a guess. So I'm in agreement with you. But I believe the audience were presented with both sides of the argument? And possibly they might have been more discerning than the average man in the street.

In order to win the war we need to get intellectuals over to my side.

 

[Interesting Ian]

I'm going by the guidelines given in the forum rules:You are, of couse, welcome to appeal the decision to Hal as always.
I wouldn't like it all, but it is your right to do so as long as you follow the forum rules (see link above).

No I won't do it to you, but I might do it to Suezelod. A taste of her own medicine might do her some good.