Thing is, if I were able to perceive internal organs it would cease to be a paranormal phenomenon and it would find an explanation that belongs to the world of natural science.
That is
if you were able to perceive internal organs, but you haven't been able to support that claim with anything other than your say-so. And as mentioned before, since you are a proven liar, your say-so just doesn't carry any weight.
There is so much in this world, and human senses of perception are limited. Just imagine how few of the soundwaves that are there, that we hear, how little of the electromagnetic spectrum we see, or feel, and we try to complement that with scientific instrumentation. You are talking as if the discovery of "vision from feeling" would ruin the foundations of science that we have, but it isn't so. Any contribution to our growing perception of the world is welcomed, because it gives a little more glimpse into what the world is, and as human beings we should not object to that.
Yeah, yeah, and nobody believed Galileo either. Funny, there's a guy who believes the surface of the Sun is made of solid iron, and that's exactly how he justifies clinging to his delusion, too.
I fully understand, just that I did detect that the kidney was missing.
As far as we know, only in your mind.
Repeated trials can cause past data that are outliers to vanish as all data is averaged together, but as scientists we are taught that we are not allowed to discard outliers from our data tables just to make a better fitting graph.
A scientist would have pursued the mundane explanations first and made a vigorous and thorough effort to eliminate them from the mix before claiming some kind of magical x-ray vision was responsible. A real scientist, that is.
I do admit that the data of detecting the missing kidney in the past was not collected in the necessary way, but in itself it remains what it was.
As far as we know, only in your mind.
I think you will need to settle on knowing that if I produce inaccurate results on all trials on the IIG Preliminary, then what ever the past experience was, will go away.
No, it will not just go away, like when you failed that class, that F you got and chose to simply pretend doesn't exist. Real life doesn't work that way. Honest, sane, responsible people don't just ignore their failures and pretend they never happened. They own up to their mistakes.
Please put your faith in the upcoming results, and do not worry about the past incident. I wholeheartedly acknowledge that it was not performed or collected under adequate conditions and that it can never provide support in favor of the claim.
Yet you've never wavered from your stand that it really truly happened.
The IIG data will hold greater weight.
Greater than the simple say-so of a proven liar? I should hope so.
Anita: What you're doing when you disconnect your prior perception with the results of the IIG test, whatever they may be, is discarding some of the most fundamental philosophical principles which underpin the entire practice of scientific enquiry. I'm astonished that a science student at undergraduate level (and one with a "perfect" GPA, nonetheless) would be not so much willing to jettison the entire basis of the scientific method but seemingly be ignorant of it, and wilfully so.
Don't say that, I am going to fully embrace the results of the IIG Preliminary. You won't allow me to claim that I detected the kidney being missing in the past case, but here you are making actual accusations against me based on your expectations.
Nobody is making any accusations based on our expectations. Any accusations are being made based on an overwhelming body of evidence which you have provided.
Please don't accuse me of being a bad scientist or of neglecting data, until I would actually do so with the IIG data.
But given your repeated demonstrations of misunderstanding and misapplication of legitimate science, it's reasonable to say that you are a bad scientist (if by any stretch of the imagination anyone would consider you a scientist at all).
Otherwise it is just your speculations, but ones that are becoming very real in your mind. Isn't that saying something very interesting about human sense of reality? You think things of me that aren't true, and based on things that haven't even happened.
That's called projecting.
And that's worse than when I'm claiming something about a past experience, that very well could have happened the way I say it has.
But the other people present when it supposedly happened disagree with your description, so reasonable people don't accept that it happened the way you say it happened.
What error? I have acknowledged that it is valid to bring up the concept of false memory, meanwhile I maintain that this was not a case of false memory simply because I would have done something you can't explain.
That's not why anyone is suggesting it might be a false memory. They're suggesting that because you've shown a habit of inventing your own reality and ignoring what's really going on in the real world with actual sane people. They're suggesting it because it is one possible mundane explanation for you claiming to have magical x-ray vision.
The paranormal claim is fully falsifiable, since if I fail to produce accurate data on the Preliminary, the claim is proven to not be as claimed. And as for the past case of accurate perception, just forget about it.
Oh given the circumstances, that you only knew the guy's kidney was missing after he told you it was missing, everyone accepts your perception as accurate. But you perceived it with your ears when he said it, same as any old regular person would, and not with some magic x-ray vision.
And if Occam's razor were always true, we would still live in a flat Earth and many of our most beautiful and complex scientific principles would simply not be acknowledged. The world is beautifully simple in itself, but in the human mind things that we have hard to perceive can seem very complicated, and so we can not let human judgement decide what we think is the simplest answer. Because what we might think as simple or not simple, might not be so for the world at all.
The obligatory crackpot reference to the flat Earth becoming round when people began to universally understand it was round, and a little Occam tossed in for good measure.
The problem here simply is that I maintain that the memory is genuine and not false, and that you will not grant me the right to that.
Oh nobody is denying you the right to maintain that. But allowing you to declare it as true, based on your say-so, with your demonstrated lack of honesty? We're not here to indulge anyone's fantasy. This is, if you hadn't noticed, a skeptic's group, where if you come in with an unsupported claim of having magical x-ray vision, you'd better be able to demonstrate it with rock solid scientific evidence. And that's one thing you've never even come close to doing. So stop whining and deal with the skepticism. You invited it.
), the posts from the FACT group and much, much more.
