• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

"The Unstoppable Schwartz"

Lothian said:
Originally Posted by Interesting Ian :
I agree that from the 3rd person perspective this would be a reasonable explanation. However it is not such a reasonable explanation if it is common for the organ recipients to deny this and claim something more interesting is occurring. We can't claim we know better than they do. At least not if we intend to be rational about this.

Lothian
No, It is still the most rational and reasonable explanation

I don’t think the patients are the best people to comment on this.
Click to expand...

I think they are. That is not to say, however, that their reports can be relied upon. But their reports should be given a certain amount of weight. We, who do not have their experiences, cannot claim that we know better than they do. We still cannot claim this even if it should transpire they are mistaken.

That is not to say the recipients should be ignored. However this is speculation. Is it common (outside the national enquirer) for organ transplant patients to claim that they have inherited traits of the donor ?
Click to expand...

I keep reading about it all over the place. As you'll know I don't read frivolous stuff. I really don't know how common it is, but I got the impression that it was. If it's not then I would really like some sort of substantiation for this claim.

You keep ‘claiming’ it is common but don’t provide any evidence, saying it is just your perception. My perception is that you are trolling..
Click to expand...

And take note I don't ask you to prove that. Or ask for a link.
 
Correa Neto said:
Ian, if these reports are as common (and reliable) as they are said to be, don´t you think its at least a bit unlikely that such phenomena has been "under the radar" of medicine for so long?

Specially if one takes in to account the possibility -already raised by other posters- that such effect, if real, would probably also be seen, say in blood and marrow transfusions/transplants?
Click to expand...

I don't know if the effect is not seen in these cases. Can you substantiate your claim here?

Anyway Beth said that blood cells have a short lifespan which kinda blasts away that argument from the skeptics.
 
Interesting Ian said:
I keep reading about it all over the place. As you'll know I don't read frivolous stuff. I really don't know how common it is, but I got the impression that it was. If it's not then I would really like some sort of substantiation for this claim..
Click to expand...
So if I understand you correctly you are saying. You think it is common but if people disagree with you about how common it is you want them to prove it is not common ?
 
Interesting Ian said:
Anyway ... blood cells have a short lifespan which kinda blasts away that argument from the skeptics.
Click to expand...

Mmm yes, we sceptics have a thirst for dead blood cells, especially when, as now, we're vampirically in extremis. Keeps us doubting, you know.

'Luthon64
 
Lothian said:
So if I understand you correctly you are saying. You think it is common but if people disagree with you about how common it is you want them to prove it is not common ?
Click to expand...

By Jove, I think he's got it!

Just as in the first post, he doesn't think Randi should a priori dismiss the claim until he can disprove the "common" anecdotal evidence.
 
Anacoluthon64 said:
Does this mean that Wegener's colleagues were unjustified in rejecting his notions? Clearly not, because the converse would permit, or even compel, them to accept any old hypothesis into the canon of geology. By a similar line of reasoning, it is sensible to reject the idea of "cell memory." This should not be taken to mean that the latter does not exist
Click to expand...

To reject an alleged phenomenon means to assume it doesn't exist.

The rational thing to do is to neither reject nor embrace some alleged hypothesis or phenomenon until we have very good reasons for our decision.
 
Mojo said:
The statement you quoted in post no. 27 of this thread (the post I was replying to; I even cut and pasted the statement quoted in your post to keep it in context).

Yes you have. It's right there in the middle of this post, where you are claiming that it is proof of your assertion that reports of transplant recipients inheriting character traits from the donor are seem to be very common indeed.
Click to expand...

Eh? But that was a joke!

You have said that there seems to be plenty of evidence (albeit anecdotal) supporting this claim, in the form of reports of it happening, but for some reason you are unwilling or unable to give any actual links to such reports, or references to where they might be found.
Click to expand...

Why should I have any more idea than you or anyone esle where they might be found?
 
kitakaze said:
Which would be uncommon?:boggled:
Click to expand...
I think Ian is saying. He has an impression. If people think his impression is wrong then they have to prove he is wrong. It is not for him to prove anything as he only has an impression.


So I think Ian is trolling. If anyone disagrees then they must prove to me that he is not trolling. I have nothing to prove as I am not making a claim that he is trolling I am just telling the impression I get.

Until it is proved he is not trolling I will go on asserting my impression that he is trolling. I will not claim he is trolling but will repeat my impression ad nauseam. I won’t provide any evidence he is trolling as it is not a claim I am making. If anyone thinks he isn’t trolling they must prove it.
 
Interesting Ian said:
I keep reading about it all over the place. As you'll know I don't read frivolous stuff. I really don't know how common it is, but I got the impression that it was. If it's not then I would really like some sort of substantiation for this claim.
Click to expand...

You are the one who claimed that this phenomenon is common. Now, you admit that you have no idea, but you want others to provide the evidence.

Ian, don't you understand just how idiotic you sound?

Interesting Ian said:
That is is unreasonable to a priori dismiss this phenomenon.
Click to expand...
Nobody is dismissing it a priori. We are dismissing it because there is:

1) No reason to think it can happen.

2) No reason to think it has happened. Ever.

Show us a case which you think supports the idea, and let's investigate it.
 
Another question is why should anyone wish to stop Schwartz? Should we attempt to stop all scientific enquiry into the nature of the world and consciousness?

If he's unstoppable then good for him.
 
Lothian said:
But if they claim my impression that you are trolling is wrong then they are de facto claiming you are not trolling and must therefore prove it.

.
Click to expand...

Not if they just feel your impression is wrong rather than making a definitive claim.

On the other hand people on here seem to be making the definitive claim that this alleged phenomenon is uncommon.
 
Interesting Ian said:
To reject an alleged phenomenon means to assume it doesn't exist.
Click to expand...

My point exactly: assume it doesn't exist until there's good and sufficient cause for a revision of this stance.

Interesting Ian said:
The rational thing to do is to neither reject nor embrace some alleged hypothesis or phenomenon until we have very good reasons for our decision.
Click to expand...

By that argument no criminal who simply claims that the real perpetrator was in fact his exact doppelgänger who usually resides in another universe, need ever face conviction regardless of how convincing the evidence since such a defence requires a similar suspension of judgement. Would this gain credence if all accused began resorting to the same defence?

Preposterous.

'Luthon64
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom