Upton Sinclair, Albert Einstein, and Telepathy

[T'ai Chi]

It seems that Einstein had some interest in the topic. That doesn't mean he believed in it of course, but at least he didn't outright reject it, call it bunk, and so on.

That is why, in addition to his science, he is respected.

 

[Interesting Ian]

Put the drink down, Ian.



"He" is Einstein. Gotcha. Who are the "Skeptics" you are talking about?

Not watching the match?

 

[CFLarsen]

Yes.

Who are the "Skeptics" you are talking about?

 

[Interesting Ian]

Yes.

Who are the "Skeptics" you are talking about?

Those who have the attitude that no paranormal phenomena can possibly exist. Now I won't be responding anymore until the match is over.

C'mon Denmark!

 

[CFLarsen]

Those who have the attitude that no paranormal phenomena can possibly exist. Now I won't be responding anymore until the match is over.

And I will be awaiting the names of those skeptics.

 

[amherst]

2. This doesn't make any sense at all. Einstein DID offer a mundane explanation - that it was self-deception. Ignoring that and pretending it doesn't exist is hardly a valid argument. And regardless of whether he did or not offer a mundane explanation it doesn't mean he COULDN'T do so. "Didn't" doesn't mean "couldn't".

I never ignored what Einstein said about unconcious hypnotic influence possibly being the cause of the results. My stance has always been that if you actually read the book, you'll see that this isn't a plausible explanation.

5. Claus declared his position to be the same as Einstein's. So is mine. Your argument is predicated on the assumption that Einstein had no mundane explanation, which is obviously untrue because he GAVE such an explanation. And secondly, even if Claus (or I) agree with Einstein that the matter is "interesting", that in no way implies that ANY of us are unable to offer a mundane explanation. I have already offered one, so did Einstein and I can't remember if Claus did or not!

Again, the key word here is plausible. Einstein didn't have a plausible mundane explanation for the results.

6. I guess we should clarify what is meant by "compelling". Compelling to WHAT is the question? Einstein did not say the evidence was compelling, you did. What Einstein said and what you THINK he was trying to say, are two different things. There is no evidence that Einstein found the results "compelling".

He found them compelling enough to recommend the book be given serious consideration. This doesn't mean he was convinced, but it does mean he was impressed, and that is interesting.

amherst

 

[Interesting Ian]

And I will be awaiting the names of those skeptics.

The majority of people on here are Skeptics for a kick off (not all of course). Yourself, Zep, Ed, Darat. I could go on and on.

Other people do not believe in the existence of any paranormal phenomena but are not Skeptics. And it is also perfectly possible to be a sceptic and a believer.

 

[CFLarsen]

The majority of people on here are Skeptics for a kick off (not all of course). Yourself, Zep, Ed, Darat. I could go on and on.

While I can't speak for the others, I have to object strongly to your assumptions about me:

They believe that no research into the paranormal should be allowed at all.

I don't believe that.

The reason given for this is that it definitely doesn't exist.

I don't believe that.

So they're not even interested in subconscious self deception.

I am interested in subconscious self deception.

And it is also perfectly possible to be a sceptic and a believer.

Depends. Believer in what? A non-interfering, non-creative god? Possibly. But it is not possible to believe in NDEs or clairvoyance and still be a skeptic, regardless of spelling.

So, Ian, do you admit that you were wrong to include me in your list? Yes or no, please.

 

[Interesting Ian]

Czech Rep 1 Denmark 0 so far

 

[Darat]

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/t...104-4422143-4292713?v=glance&s=books&n=507846

The book does talk about Sinclair's book, and how that quote from Einstein came about, if you're interested.

Thanks.

 

[Interesting Ian]

Czech Rep 2 Denmark 0 now

Oh well, looks like Denmark is on the way out

 

[Interesting Ian]

Czech Rep 3 Denmark 0

Damn!

 

[CFLarsen]

Ian, do you admit that you were wrong to include me in your list? Yes or no, please.

 

[Darat]

So he's adopting a stance opposite to Skeptics. They believe that no research into the paranormal should be allowed at all. The reason given for this is that it definitely doesn't exist. So they're not even interested in subconscious self deception.

I have never stated that no research into the paranormal should be allowed, because that is not what I believe.

I have never stated the paranormal doesn't exist, because that is not what I believe.

I have never said I'm not interested in subconscious self deception, because that is not what I believe.

Anything else you want correcting about my beliefs?

 

[Darat]

The majority of people on here are Skeptics for a kick off (not all of course). Yourself, Zep, Ed, Darat. I could go on and on.

Other people do not believe in the existence of any paranormal phenomena but are not Skeptics. And it is also perfectly possible to be a sceptic and a believer.

Sorry I didn't see the last bit.

I have never said it is not possible to be a sceptic and a believer. Indeed just a short time ago I was arguing with a lot of people on this very forum that a believer can be just as sceptical as a non-believer.

 

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
The majority of people on here are Skeptics for a kick off (not all of course). Yourself, Zep, Ed, Darat. I could go on and on.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



While I can't speak for the others, I have to object strongly to your assumptions about me:

Object all you like. This is the impression you very strongly convey.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Interesting Ian
The reason given for this is that it definitely doesn't exist.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



I don't believe that.

How likely do you believe that reincarnation occurs?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Interesting Ian
And it is also perfectly possible to be a sceptic and a believer.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Depends. Believer in what?

In any phenomenon which would tend to be labelled paranormal.

So, Ian, do you admit that you were wrong to include me in your list? Yes or no, please.

No.

 

[Interesting Ian]

I have never stated that no research into the paranormal should be allowed, because that is not what I believe.

I have never stated the paranormal doesn't exist, because that is not what I believe.

I have never said I'm not interested in subconscious self deception, because that is not what I believe.

Anything else you want correcting about my beliefs?

It doesn't seem to me that I'm incorrect about anything at all. You are an arsehole Skeptic and have a priori decided that the no paranormal phenomena exists whatsoever.

You are a complete f*ck for brains like the vast majority of people on here.

Don't bother denying it; I'm simply not interested.

 

[CFLarsen]

Object all you like. This is the impression you very strongly convey.

Please point to the posts from me that gives you this impression.

How likely do you believe that reincarnation occurs?

I have not seen any evidence that reincarnation occurs. However, I am quite open to the possibility that it exists.

In any phenomenon which would tend to be labelled paranormal.

You need to be specific.

No.

So, you admit that you have no evidence. You merely assert it, and we must accept what you say. Otherwise, we are "arseholes".

Way to go, Ian.

 

[Pragmatist]

I never ignored what Einstein said about unconcious hypnotic influence possibly being the cause of the results. My stance has always been that if you actually read the book, you'll see that this isn't a plausible explanation.

Again, the key word here is plausible. Einstein didn't have a plausible mundane explanation for the results.

Well your original argument was that Einstein had NO mundane explanation, period. And that Claus had no plausible mundane explanation.

MY argument is that the first is demonstrably wrong and you can't possibly know the second. It might be your OPINION that nobody has a "plausible" (to you) explanation, but your opinion is not an established fact.

By the way, you seem to be laboring under the impression that skeptics have to provide some alternative "explanation" for this material, and if they don't, that it somehow validates the material. If you are, you have it back to front.

He found them compelling enough to recommend the book be given serious consideration. This doesn't mean he was convinced, but it does mean he was impressed, and that is interesting.

amherst

This is just word play. There is no evidence that Einstein found anything "compelling". You may have your own private interpretation of that word, but it's clearly not one I (or, I suspect, others) would share. "Compelling" means specifically something that tends to persuade by force of evidence/argument, as in "compelling evidence". Since it has already been shown that Einstein did NOT believe the evidence - in his own words: "I did it without revealing my lack of conviction", and "I admit frankly my skepticism in respect to all such beliefs and theories" it most certainly cannot reasonably be called "compelling". Nor does the above sound like he was particularly impressed by it either. Again, in his own words, Einstein explains WHY he wrote that preface: "I prepared the introduction to Upton Sinclair's book because of my personal friendship with the author".

So in summary, the only things he actually said about it were that it was "interesting" but that he didn't believe it. End of story. Those are the demonstrable facts, anything else is just wishful thinking.

 

[Darat]

It doesn't seem to me that I'm incorrect about anything at all. You are an arsehole Skeptic and have a priori decided that the no paranormal phenomena exists whatsoever.

You are a complete f*ck for brains like the vast majority of people on here.

Don't bother denying it; I'm simply not interested.

(Edited to add.) Did you read what you quoted?

I have never ever said that no paranormal phenomena exist.

You can claim I have but you won't find any words of mine to support your claim.