Lamp turning on by itself [Archive]

glee

3rd November 2003, 11:31 AM

Originally posted by Fake Rudy
My wife has a mild case of the "woo-woo's" and thinks that in certain periods of her life, a ghost has been following her. Many of the things that have happened to her were before we were living together, so I haven't witnessed many of her claims (TV turning on at night, moving shadows, etc.). The things that I have witness I've been able to debunk.

Recently, she's been convinced that "the ghost" is back due to mysterious shadows and last week she felt something touch her arm while we were talking in bed. As the skeptic in the household, I've tried to help her find other possible solutions than a ghost.

Friday night (yes, Halloween) we were watching television and our lamp turned on by itself (it doesn't have a light switch, it's the kind that you twist). The first thing my wife said was "See, I told you that there is a ghost here!" I assured her that it wasn't a ghost and more than likely it was a power surge. The truth is, I don't know anything about power surges. Was my guess an accurate one? The lamp is a torch lamp, and there is another lamp (a small one) plugged into the same outlet that didn't turn on. Would a power surge cause one outlet to react and not the other? I'm curious to know what might have caused the lamp to turn on so I can convince my wife that there is not a ghost!

Thanks!

It is not possible to convince some people about the paranormal using logic and science.

You could ask your wife why she thinks ghosts exist.
You could point out that we have no evidence of any ghost existing. (Whenever haunted houses are examined scientifically, nothing unusual is detected.)

You could aks her what she thinks ghosts are. If they are the spirits of the dead trying to interact with us, why would one bother to turn on a lamp. Why not write a message?
"Dear Rudy,
my name is **** and I passed over a month ago. I can tell you that the theories of life-after-death are mainly inaccurate. Also I know which God really exists.
I don't suppose you are interested in these matters (!), so I'll content myself with blowing cold air across the back of your neck.
Bye!"

But I predict all this will have no effect on your wife, and any noise or similar occurence will be instantly put down to ghosts.

thaiboxerken

3rd November 2003, 11:33 AM

This just makes me very glad that I married an atheist and skeptic hotty.

Nyarlathotep

3rd November 2003, 11:37 AM

If it were me, if I had checked the bulb like Brown recomended, the next thing I would do is see if the lamp had a short in it. That was my first thought when I read your account anyway.

Ipecac

3rd November 2003, 11:38 AM

On both Saturday and Sunday night I was up late alone. As I sat there at the tv/computer, respectively, I heard several noises, apparently from things falling to the floor. Startled me a bit each time.

On one of the nights, I went upstairs and saw that my daughter had stuff piled on her bed and as she moved, things would slide off the bed.

Someone not thinking critically could very easily have interpreted the sounds as "paranormal".

Fake Rudy

3rd November 2003, 11:42 AM

Luckily, my wife is very open to my debunking and isn't gullible enough to dismiss everything as a ghost. Ghosts are pretty much the only paranormal activity that she believes in (hey, I was a woo-woo for many years, so I can't say anything!).

The lamp is right next to the couch where my wife was sitting, and I was sitting across the room. My wife had turned it off about 10 minutes before it "turned itself on." I heard the lamp click once when my wife turned it off, but I'm starting to think that it was turned too far, causing the current to connect. It didn't click when it turned itself on, and I unfortunately didn't count the number of clicks when I turned it back off (it's a 3 way lamp).

Thanks for the advice!

epepke

3rd November 2003, 12:12 PM

Originally posted by Fake Rudy
I assured her that it wasn't a ghost and more than likely it was a power surge. The truth is, I don't know anything about power surges. Was my guess an accurate one?

Very, very unlikely.

What is far more likely is this. Twist switches aren't very stable. The "off" position is just having the contact, with a force on it, on a hill of an insulating material (usually Bakelite). There are little ridges on the hills to keep the switch from sliding down the hill, which it would otherwise do because of the force on the contact. But these wear over time. It is very easy to turn off such a switch but have this contact resting on an unstable point. The force from the spring on the switch would cause it to creep down very slowly until it turned on.

Now, if this were an old-style toggle switch, where the spring is pushing in the direction to keep it off, then I'd be impressed.

Starrman

3rd November 2003, 01:33 PM

I vote for a touchy switch. My bathroom fan switch is very sensitive to vibrations, and can turn on or off with even the slightest disturbance.

--Insert Toilet Humor Here--

Ipecac

3rd November 2003, 02:07 PM

I have several three way lamps and one or two of the "settings" often burn out or not light. Something to do with the wiring of the bulb. Perhaps she didn't turn it off but merely turned it to another bulb setting which belatedly began to work.

Scorpy

3rd November 2003, 02:21 PM

Originally posted by Fake Rudy
Luckily, my wife is very open to my debunking and isn't gullible enough to dismiss everything as a ghost. Ghosts are pretty much the only paranormal activity that she believes in (hey, I was a woo-woo for many years, so I can't say anything!).

The lamp is right next to the couch where my wife was sitting, and I was sitting across the room. My wife had turned it off about 10 minutes before it "turned itself on." I heard the lamp click once when my wife turned it off, but I'm starting to think that it was turned too far, causing the current to connect. It didn't click when it turned itself on, and I unfortunately didn't count the number of clicks when I turned it back off (it's a 3 way lamp).

Thanks for the advice!

The bulb could have been loose, or the socket might be going bad.

3rd November 2003, 02:25 PM

Sell the lamp to Luci.

Fake Rudy

3rd November 2003, 02:50 PM

Originally posted by Ed
Sell the lamp to Luci.

I'm going to take a picture of it and see how many demons I can find...!:D

The Mighty Thor

3rd November 2003, 03:33 PM

Originally posted by Ed
Sell the lamp to Luci.

Now that made me laugh out loud.

This thread shows how ignorance of science can lead to magical thinking. To some folk, electricity has all the attributes of magic. Except of course, we can prove what electricity is, and explain it scientifically.

And one more thing: Why would 'spirits' be turning on lights, when mediums say they have to hold their seances in complete darkness?

Of course it could have been a mischevious spirit that exposed medium Colin Fry when it turned the lights on at the Scoles seance. Why do I doubt this?
:)

malc

T'ai Chi

3rd November 2003, 03:49 PM

Originally posted by Fake Rudy

...our lamp turned on by itself (it doesn't have a light switch, it's the kind that you twist). The first thing my wife said was "See, I told you that there is a ghost here!" I assured her that it wasn't a ghost...

http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/may98/893276774.Eg.r.html

is a good page on the explanations of how touch-lamps work.

Clancie

3rd November 2003, 07:17 PM

Fake Rudy,

Well, not surprisingly, my comments are going to be a bit different from the rest so far. :)

If I had the good fortune to live with someone who felt the presence of a spirit (a less creepy term, imo, than "ghost"), I would do everything I could to facilitate as many "experiences" with it as possible (talking to it...whatever). I'd also keep a log book, recording every interesting phenomena, dated, describing what occurred, how we looked into a variety of logical explanations (like with all the lamp ideas), and what my best guess was to explalin it, or what the -real- explanation was, if we had -definitely- found one. (And I don't think the definitive lamp explanation has been given in this thread so far--no "open and shut case", from what you've described. Also, as you undoubtedly already know, one of the most commonly described forms of "spirit communication" is via electricity).

Maybe a true believer would say, "Don't mess with it," but since I'm more at the "curious observer" stage and feel convinced that if -it's- real, there is nothing to be fearful of, I'd have her talk to the "spirit", see what happens, if there's any pattern to strange events, etc. And I would carefully document everything.

If nothing else, the document itself could be a good "debunking" exercise, if nothing -exciting- turns up.....

Let us know if more things happen. I think you're lucky! :)

thaiboxerken

3rd November 2003, 07:32 PM

I definitely wouldn't take Clancie's "entertain the belief" type of attitude. Maybe when your wife says she sees a spirit, you should grab her butt. After a while, maybe she'll be conditioned not to see spirits anymore. ;)

T'ai Chi

3rd November 2003, 08:53 PM

Originally posted by thaiboxerken
Maybe when your wife says she sees a spirit, you should grab her butt. After a while, maybe she'll be conditioned not to see spirits anymore. ;)

LOL!

For probably only the 4th or 5th time, I actually agree with Ken. :)

KelvinG

3rd November 2003, 09:03 PM

What you do is the next time your wife feels the presence of the spirit you go on a threatening tirade where you scream obscenities at the spirit telling it to get the hell out of your house, and then daring the spirit to prove just how "bad" he is by killing both you and your wife while you sleep. Say things like "What are you chicken, Mr. Ghost? Oooooh, I'm so scared." or "Think your a tough guy, eh Casper?"

When you're done say to your wife: "Wow, I'm beat. I'm hitting the sack."

renata

3rd November 2003, 09:14 PM

I do not know if this is the case with your lamp, but my torchere lamp plugs in behind the sofa, and the plug is a little loose. Sometimes when I walk by, or even the door slams, it is enough to jar the plug out of the socket and it will turn off. Similarily, sometimes I think it is off, and sit on the sofa, and it turns on. I periodically move the sofa back, and put the evil thing tight in the socket, but about once a month it works its way out, so it does that again. And I know it is not a ghost, because I need only to check behind the sofa, and I see the plug is loose. For some reason, it appears the socket is just too big for the plug.

Or, you could be a million dollars richer soon. :D

Now, can someone solve the mystery of the ghost who has been stealing all my chocolate? It can't be me, I am on a diet!! http://www.click-smilies.de/sammlung0903/engel/angel-smiley-008.gif Do spirits from beyond indulge in chocolate after they mess around with electricity?

CFLarsen

3rd November 2003, 09:31 PM

I agree with thaiboxerken.

Clancie, what you are doing is the exact opposite of looking for logical explanations. You always leave the door open for this being a real spirit phenomenon, and you always weigh that explanation more than rational ones.

Why?

You flat-out dismiss all the "lamp ideas", without even bothering to look inside the bleedin' lamp. You don't learn about how electricity works in the home. A faulty switch is not possible? Get real, Clancie!

You constantly choose - consciously - the better sounding term. "Spirit" sounds better than "ghost". "Psychic mediumship" sounds better than "necromancy". You are clearly infatuated with the idea, but it cannot sound negative in any way.

You encourage belief in this being a spirit, by doing everything you can to "facilitate" as many "experiences" as possible. You start with the premise that this is a real spirit.

Keeping a log book is all very fine, but if you haven't started investigating if this could have a normal explanation, then you are doing more harm than good. If you want to find evidence of spirits, you will find it. Every little event that you could not explain (or, let's face it, don't want to find an explanation for), would be recorded, until you had a thick book full of events - hey, that's evidence, isn't it?

No it is not. You would be spooking yourself and the person into believing that "something" was there.

(And don't bother to pretend you have me on ignore....)

Hamish

4th November 2003, 01:04 AM

Originally posted by Clancie

And I don't think the definitive lamp explanation has been given in this thread so far--no "open and shut case", from what you've described

And that is why it must be a "spirit"?

It isn't an open and shut case, you are quite correct. That's because people here have been trying to diagnose a possible electrical problem with an unfamiliar model of lamp over the internet. We cannot make an open and shut case until someone looks at the lamp, tests the bulb to check its screwed in, opens up the lamp and checks the switch contacts, checks the plug and the wall socket and has a serious go at trying to replicate the phenomenon when the light is "switched off". We've had four or five different explanations, one of which is possibly correct but we just don't know because we don't have enough information.

Now, several electrical items I've owned have had minor intermittant faults with them, loose lamp bulbs, a washing machine with a bad plug, even my computer which turns itself off if you even cough anywhere near the plug. The point is that electrical faults are quite common. Why should this not be one of those?

Hand Bent Spoon

4th November 2003, 03:03 AM

Replace the lamp with a brand new one. One that has a more conventional switch.

If that one turns on/off all by itself, that would be in favor of the 'ghost'. But when it doesn't turn on/off by itself (and it won't), you'll have proven that it was just a faulty switch in the old lamp.

Oh, but don't woowoos say ghosts sometimes follow objects (so the ghost went with the old lamp)?:p

Ipecac

4th November 2003, 06:39 AM

Clancie,

Claus has you dead to rights on this one. If you go on a "paranormal" fishing expedition, you will likely catch fish. Because there really are paranormal occurrences? No. Because you're not looking for real explanations.

Start with the real, the possible. Once all of those are ruled out, then feel free to move into the impossible.

Clancie

4th November 2003, 06:53 AM

Posted by Hamish

And that is why it must be a "spirit"?
I never said it "must" be a spirit. I said to look at all possibilites (obviously considering the non-paranormal ones first, but not just making up non-paranormal explanations that don't fit the facts--just because you want it to be that way.
Posted by Ipecac

If you go on a "paranormal" fishing expedition, you will likely catch fish. Because there really are paranormal occurrences? No. Because you're not looking for real explanations.
(sigh)
Ipecac, I don't dismiss or rule out electrical problems. Obviously, that's the first place to look. But giving a patently -false- explanation to his wife as the truth (the power surge idea) is just as wrong as as not looking for the truth at all.

I've reread what I wrote and see nothing wrong with it, frankly. Looking at -all- possibilities, obviously giving priority to the non-paranormal ones, but not lying about it if they don't fit. (For example, an electrical problem that turns a lamp off or causes it to flicker is quite a different situation than one that turns one lamp sharing an outlet with another on while the other stays off. It may have a perfectly reasonable explanation, but let's not just "make it fit").

My point is to keep an open mind and see what it -really- was caused by, if he can, and document it for her. If he honestly -can't- explain it, though, he should document that, too.

And, as I said, the action of -logging- all the occurrences at the time (rather than relying on memory and perception later on) is a much better debunking activity than making up explanations just because you'd like them to be true. (No criticism implied of you in my saying this, btw, Fake Rudy. I'm just responding to some of the comments to me, comments that I feel have completely missed my point.....).

Ipecac

4th November 2003, 07:56 AM

Originally posted by Clancie
(sigh)
Ipecac, I don't dismiss or rule out electrical problems. Obviously, that's the first place to look. But giving a patently -false- explanation to his wife as the truth (the power surge idea) is just as wrong as as not looking for the truth at all.

I've reread what I wrote and see nothing wrong with it, frankly. Looking at -all- possibilities, obviously giving priority to the non-paranormal ones, but not lying about it if they don't fit. (For example, an electrical problem that turns a lamp off or causes it to flicker is quite a different situation than one that turns one lamp sharing an outlet with another on while the other stays off. It may have a perfectly reasonable explanation, but let's not just "make it fit").

My point is to keep an open mind and see what it -really- was caused by, if he can, and document it for her. If he honestly -can't- explain it, though, he should document that, too.

And, as I said, the action of -logging- all the occurrences at the time (rather than relying on memory and perception later on) is a much better debunking activity than making up explanations just because you'd like them to be true. (No criticism implied of you in my saying this, btw, Fake Rudy. I'm just responding to some of the comments to me, comments that I feel have completely missed my point.....).

No one suggested he make something up or lie to his wife. What was suggested were a wide variety of actual possibilities that could be investigated.

You dismiss the power surge idea as "patently false". Why? I find this rather ironic since you seem to be suggesting that a "spirit" is one of the possibilities.

This falls under the category of "mind so open your brain falls out". It's extremely likely this is an electrical problem. Keeping a journal, logging experiences, and even considering alternative explanations is silly at this point and a waste of time. He should proceed as if it's a real world problem.

peptoabysmal

4th November 2003, 08:30 AM

This is an easy one. Have had it happen to me a few times.

This kind of rotary switch, if you turn it a little too far when switching it off comes to a rest where it is about to click on again. The slightest vibration will turn the lamp on. Try turning the switch to the position where it past "off" and about to turn on again and stomp on the floor. You should have repeatable results.

renata

4th November 2003, 08:40 AM

This thread reminds me of another thread (http://host.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=19453), where skeptics shared their encounters with (almost) paranormal phenomena. It is curious to see their approach here and there. In that thread, all described a moment of forzen "what if", and a reasonable explanation. But I and others wondered- had no resolution been found, would our experience get us on the other side? My contribution to that thread was an encounter with a ghost, actually :)

As to ghosts messing with electricity- why is it potentially bad wiring and lamps. If they mess with electricity, it can it be measured, it is a testable claim. If a ghost can turn on a lamp, than if we build a little device, with a little red light bulb that lights up, when ghost wants to turn it on, can't it? It will be very unambiguous, not connected to anything else, ghostometer. I am sure people here can figure out a way to do something like that. That way, you can also probably check genuine mediums. If a medium talks to a spirit, you will have a ghostometer near him. If it lights up- genuine medium, if not, cold reader!

NoZed Avenger

4th November 2003, 08:41 AM

Originally posted by renata
And I know it is not a ghost, because I need only to check behind the sofa, and I see the plug is loose. For some reason, it appears the socket is just too big for the plug.

Maybe the ghost loosens the plug.

glee

4th November 2003, 09:26 AM

Originally posted by Clancie
Fake Rudy,

Well, not surprisingly, my comments are going to be a bit different from the rest so far. :)

If I had the good fortune to live with someone who felt the presence of a spirit (a less creepy term, imo, than "ghost"), I would do everything I could to facilitate as many "experiences" with it as possible (talking to it...whatever).

I already posted that this 'spirit' could tell us about life after death and whether God exists.
However it just 'turns a light on' once. How are we going to communicate with it?

Originally posted by Clancie
Also, as you undoubtedly already know, one of the most commonly described forms of "spirit communication" is via electricity).

What evidence is there of this?

If spirits can use electricity, why don't they send messages in Morse code?
Why don't they turn up when scientists are present?

Fake Rudy

4th November 2003, 09:58 AM

The mystery of the ghost lamp seems to have been laid to rest. During dinner last night I said to my wife, "About the lamp..." to which she responded, "I know, it has a short." Apparently the light had flickered a few times while on. This is why I refer to her as a "mild woo-woo," she might over react at first but will always accept the logical conclusion. She'll be a skepchick yet!

I completely forgot to check the lightbulb though!

CFLarsen

4th November 2003, 10:43 AM

Originally posted by Clancie
I've reread what I wrote and see nothing wrong with it, frankly. Looking at -all- possibilities, obviously giving priority to the non-paranormal ones, but not lying about it if they don't fit. (For example, an electrical problem that turns a lamp off or causes it to flicker is quite a different situation than one that turns one lamp sharing an outlet with another on while the other stays off. It may have a perfectly reasonable explanation, but let's not just "make it fit").

Let's see:

1: A lamp, not sharing the outlet with anything, is turned off or flickers.

2: A lamp, sharing the outlet with something else that stays off, is turned on.

Why is this different? The only difference lies in where the problem could be: In the first example, it could be anything, from the power grid to the bulb or switch. In the second example, the problem lies between the outlet and the lamp itself. Probably the switch.

How do I know this? Because a faulty switch can do this, and it does. With the crappy electrical equipment I have seen in the US, I have experienced it myself. Surely, you are not going to dismiss my anecdotal evidence, just because it does not point towards the existence of spirits, are you?

It is actually worse "evidence" of spirits if the second example happens. We can narrow down the possible sources of errors much better than in the first example.

That you don't see this, is evidence - very clear evidence - that you are not interested in learning about what could explain this by rational means. You choose - nay, jump at - the spirit option, no matter what, way before the rational ones are ruled out.

And until you - yes, you, because you are the claimant that this could be spirits - have investigated this, you cannot say anything about it being spirits.

(Note to non-Americans: Outlets in the US are "live" by default. There is no on/off switch on the outlet itself. Bloody dangerous, too....)

ADD Boy

4th November 2003, 10:59 AM

I actually have a paranormal television! :p For some reason (probably capacitors that don't hold charge well, or a faulty socket, or whatever), when you press the On button, it doesn't turn on automatically. In fact, sometimes it takes several hours for the thing to turn on, which was quite startling the first time it happened!

But I think one of the earlier suggestions is dead-on, that the switch was very close to being turned on, and just flipped over to the on position due to a bump or just the force of the spring finally overcoming friction.

renata

5th November 2003, 11:37 AM

Originally posted by Fake Rudy
The mystery of the ghost lamp seems to have been laid to rest. During dinner last night I said to my wife, "About the lamp..." to which she responded, "I know, it has a short." Apparently the light had flickered a few times while on. This is why I refer to her as a "mild woo-woo," she might over react at first but will always accept the logical conclusion. She'll be a skepchick yet!

I completely forgot to check the lightbulb though!

Ahh, good resolution :). But why did she think it was a ghost, other than the light, in the first place?

Now, no comments on my ghostometer idea? Can anyone with better understanding of these things than I tell me- if a spirit can turn on a light, can a device like I described be made? And if a medium contacts a spirit, can we assume that spirit is near, (they are showing me, it is standing behind you, it is touching your hair) so it can light the device? I mean I know it is too basic an idea, so it must have an obvious flaw I am just waiting for someone to point it out to me so I could say it was a trick question on my part....

I think it is in a similar vein as spirits flickering Morse code messages. If they can turn on and off lights, they can transmit messages via Morse code. Some spirit somewhere knows Morse code :)

Ipecac

5th November 2003, 11:45 AM

Nyarlathotep

5th November 2003, 11:46 AM

Originally posted by renata

Ahh, good resolution :). But why did she think it was a ghost, other than the light, in the first place?

Now, no comments on my ghostometer idea? Can anyone with better understanding of these things than I tell me- if a spirit can turn on a light, can a device like I described be made? And if a medium contacts a spirit, can we assume that spirit is near, (they are showing me, it is standing behind you, it is touching your hair) so it can light the device? I mean I know it is too basic an idea, so it must have an obvious flaw I am just waiting for someone to point it out to me so I could say it was a trick question on my part....

I think it is in a similar vein as spirits flickering Morse code messages. If they can turn on and off lights, they can transmit messages via Morse code. Some spirit somewhere knows Morse code :)

I think the 'Ghost-O-meter' is a good. Of course the 'mediums' out there will have a million excuses why the light never comes on ('negative energy from skeptics' seems to be a perennial favorite).

Of course if the light ever does come on, I'm immediately going to work on one of those nifty "proton packs" and buying an old ambulance and an old firehouse to set up my new business...

renata

10th November 2003, 04:44 PM

Bump for Clancie, due to her posting some info in another thread :)

Clancie

10th November 2003, 06:39 PM

Posted by Glee

Clancie
Also, as you undoubtedly already know, one of the most commonly described forms of "spirit communication" is via electricity).

Glee
What evidence is there of this?
The evidence of what I said above (namely, that "one of the most commonly described forms of 'spirit communication' is via electricity") can be found, among other places, in Bill and Judy Guggenheim's book compiling various ADC accounts, "Hello From Heaven".

My statement was that its common for people to describe ADC occuring for them via electricity. According to this book (the Guggenheim's interviewed 353 people who felt they'd experienced ADC's of many kinds), it is, quite common.....

BTox

10th November 2003, 07:48 PM

I had the kitchen light go on about 10 years ago, which is operated by a flip wall switch. Presumably it was turned on but stuck not quite on, but I could never reproduce it (couldn't get it to stick part way). Perhaps it was a ghost!

glee

11th November 2003, 12:23 AM

renata

11th November 2003, 01:08 AM

Originally posted by Clancie

The evidence of what I said above (namely, that "one of the most commonly described forms of 'spirit communication' is via electricity") can be found, among other places, in Bill and Judy Guggenheim's book compiling various ADC accounts, "Hello From Heaven".

My statement was that its common for people to describe ADC occuring for them via electricity. According to this book (the Guggenheim's interviewed 353 people who felt they'd experienced ADC's of many kinds), it is, quite common.....

I have not read this book, but I shall see if the library has it. Thanks for the recommendation :)

I recall Sylvia Browne talking about electricity and spirit communication
http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0305/16/lkl.00.html

CALLER: Hello. I would like to know, does my mother ring my telephone? And I would like to know something about my mother. She died in 2001 and I'm having a hard time getting over it. Can you tell me something she may want me to know?
BROWNE: Yes. It's like I said before, one of the things they do very characteristically is ring the phone. But she also does something with curtains or blinds. She makes the blinds and curtains -- she also makes a lot of electrical stuff go off.

and

http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0208/02/lkl.00.html

CALLER: I am such a fan of yours. I actually had a reading with you about a year-and-a-half ago when my dad passed away, and at that time you indicated that if he was able to communicate with me, he would via electricity.
BROWNE: Right.
CALLER: And it's just amazing. I have lights that flicker.
BROWNE: I know.
CALLER: And I have lights that have never worked that all of a sudden are working, but lately I've been having all these dreams that we're sitting outside on my patio and I'm talking about all of the day events and I'm wondering if this is...
BROWNE: No, you're really talking to him.
CALLER: Am I?
BROWNE: Oh, yes.
CALLER: Is he really here with me?
BROWNE: He is really there with you...

and (same appearance)

CALLER: Hi, Sylvia. I have a question. My father passed away about five years ago, and every night, almost about 1:30 in the morning, I usually hear footsteps, or sometimes when I wake up in the morning, he -- I think I see him walking across. I don't know if I'm dreaming, or...
BROWNE: No. No. I've said this many times on television: 1:30 to 3:30 in the morning -- and I could never understand why in the hell they can't come at a decent hour -- but I'll tell you why.
KING: They don't know the time?
BROWNE: No, they don't know the time, that's true. But also, the dew is heavier then and because they're electrical, they can conduct easier on that time. So at 1:30, I just say, hi, how are you doing? I mean, you know, it's just they're coming to visit.
KING: That's all it is?
BROWNE: That's all it is. Checking in.

I remembered the dew particularly, but I confess I do not recall JE ever mention the electricity bit. However, I assume since they are doing the seminar together in Hawaii, I guess he endorses her philosophy on that and other things. I do not know the work of other mediums well enough to know what they think about that. I wonder how spirits communicated before lamps :)

For the record, the reason this thread got bumped is because I mentioned it here (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=30377) . Here is the exchange (Parts of a larger posts)

Me
However, the bigger issue is what and who is ignored. I feel sometimes the issues and questions that are ignored are not merely the Clausian ones. Yes, Claus can behave like an a$$. But many of his questions are legitimate. It is likely in all the questions he has, there are some the rest of us have also! For example, the lamp thread http://host.randi.org/vbulletin/sho...&threadid=30007 Clancie made a claim about spirits communicating via electricity. About 4 skeptics responded to it (including Claus)....the thread sinks into oblivion. Well, I think it is an interesting claim with enormous implications, but as a nice person, I let it go. However, had this been something that happened repeatedly, I would have felt the urge to start a list myself. :)

For me, the most difficult thing in arguing with believers is simply understanding what exactly is being claimed. X is talking to the dead- How? Simple words. Clear language. Spirits can communicate with electricity- How? Again, simplicity.

Clancie

renata,

The "claim", if you recall, was that that people often say that spirit communication manifests through the use of electricity. I made no "claim" that it was actually true, only that it is not uncommonly expressed.

So...I assume that you are asking for a source that backs up my "claim" that people do say this? Fine, take a look at Judy Guggenheim's book, "Hello From Heaven". It's a compilation of many, many accounts and interviews with people who feel they have received spirit communication. A whole section is devoted to "communication via electricity."

Me-

LOL! Of my lengthy post, the one thing to focus on...
Thanks for the source, Clancie. I bumped that thread for you, some people had some questions. Perhaps you can just repost your clarification there, so we do not hijack this thread. Because then people would have to ask why you would bring it up, whether you yourself believed it, things like that :)

So, Clancie, thanks for mentioning the source.

Here is my question. I understand and appreciate your clarification- you did not claim that spirits communicate via electricity, merely that electricity is a most commonly described form of spirit communication.

As you read the book, and I have not, can you give me your opinion on legitimacy of that whole section? Do you think the interviews were adequately conducted? Do you think the case studies in the book presented compelling evidence for spirit communication via electricity? Were they anecdotes, or experiments?
The amazon description calls it

"After-death communications," or "ADCs, " occur when someone is contacted spontaneously and directly by a deceased family member or friend, without the help of any medium. The authors' research shows that these spiritual experiences offer hope, love, and comfort for thousands of people. Included are more than 350 first-hand accounts of those whose lives have been changed and even protected by messages or signs from the deceased.

That, I am afraid does not sound reassuring to me. Sounds a little like Chicken Soup for the Ghost In the Lamp Soul. It talks about phonecalls, butterflies, rainbows, it has chapters titled "Necklace of Pearls" and "Love is Forever", and "Joy: a Promise". While I am sure it is an inspirational and comforting book, that pretty much is all it claims to deliver, as evidenced by its backcover

Hello from Heaven! is the first complete study of an exciting new field of research called After-Death Communication, or ADC. This is a spiritual experience that occurs when a person is contacted directly and spontaneously by a family member or friend who has died. During their seven years of research, the authors collected more than 3,300 firsthand accounts from people who believe they have been contacted by a deceased loved one.

The 353 Accounts in Hello from Heaven! offer

Fascinating modern-day evidence of life after death
Comfort and emotional support for those who are bereaved
Hope for those who yearn to be reunited with a loved one who has died
Courage and strength for those who have a life-threatening illness
Inspiration for caregivers for to the elderly and the terminally ill
Insight and reassurance for those who are fearful of death
Inner peace for those whose hearts and minds are awaiting this good news

You will treasure these uplifting messages those who continue to exist in a life beyond physical death. Their profound communications of love offer comfort, hope, and spiritual inspiration to all readers

Looking at this, as well as customer reviews in which people talk about finally being able to understand why they have been dreaming about loved ones who have passed, and the fact that pets are there.....well, only reading the reviews and the backcover it appears to be that the authors chose comforting, reassuring, warm stories directed at people in very difficult situations. Absolutely nothing wrong with such a book, I am sure it sold well and brought comfort to its audience.

For example the Sylvia Browne snippets, look kind of bogus to me. I hope the book has better accounts- but can they be verified? Confirmed? Examined? Did anyone ever look inside the lamps of those people?

I am hoping, as you read it you could give us your perspective on the book as well as on this phenomenon.

Darat

11th November 2003, 01:56 AM

Hi Renata - Just read your mention of JE & SB doing a seminar together! Wow! So I guess it's like the Pet Psychic all over again for people who believe that JE can communicate with the dead.

When I first read the Psychic Mafia I was amazed about the web that connected many mediums and so on. It sure looks as if something similar still exists!

renata

11th November 2003, 02:18 AM

Originally posted by Darat
Hi Renata - Just read your mention of JE & SB doing a seminar together! Wow! So I guess it's like the Pet Psychic all over again for people who believe that JE can communicate with the dead.

When I first read the Psychic Mafia I was amazed about the web that connected many mediums and so on. It sure looks as if something similar still exists!

Yup...I called them cut from the same rotten cloth in another thread. John Edward & Sylvia Browne Live in Hawaii February 22, 2004.

When you consider that some believers think Sylvia is a fraud and JE is real, you really gotta wonder, don't you? Do they think JE thinks she is real and so can't tell fake from real psychic? Do they think he thinks she is a fraud and is still doing the lecture? What does that say about his ethics, then? Do they think they were wrong and she is real after all? How can they reconcile the different viewpoints JE and Sylvia have of souls in afterlife and such? A whole new can of worms that is....

Darat

11th November 2003, 02:43 AM

Originally posted by renata

Yup...I called them cut from the same rotten cloth in another thread. John Edward & Sylvia Browne Live in Hawaii February 22, 2004.

When you consider that some believers think Sylvia is a fraud and JE is real, you really gotta wonder, don't you? Do they think JE thinks she is real and so can't tell fake from real psychic? Do they think he thinks she is a fraud and is still doing the lecture? What does that say about his ethics, then? Do they think they were wrong and she is real after all? How can they reconcile the different viewpoints JE and Sylvia have of souls in afterlife and such? A whole new can of worms that is....

I remember being on TVTalkshows when it was announced, the show JE did with the "Pet Psychic". What I found very interesting is that previously some people who believe that JE can communicate with the dead had been rather, shall I say disparaging about the PP. I saw people that (in my opinion) tied themselves in knots trying then to reconcile their previous position once they realised that JE in effect endorsed her as being genuine.

I suspect we shall see the same happening about this seminar.

Clancie

11th November 2003, 06:58 AM

Posted by renata

Were they anecdotes, or experiments?
renata,

They're anecdotes.
Posted by Darat

I saw people that (in my opinion) tied themselves in knots trying then to reconcile their previous position once they realised that JE in effect endorsed (the Pet Psychic) as being genuine.

I suspect we shall see the same happening about this seminar.
Well, I've been reading a little about it at believer boards, and you may be surprised at the apparent intensity of dislike of Sylvia even among people who believe in mediumship.

(And there are also issues about his decision, like Sylvia before him, to do a "pay per view" two and a half hour television call in show in December...)

renata

11th November 2003, 11:21 AM

Originally posted by Clancie
[B]
renata,

They're anecdotes.

So when I asked you about this you thought an inspirational book about about filled with anecdotes was the way to go? :)

Can you give me your opinion on legitimacy of that whole section? Do you think the interviews were adequately conducted? Do you think the case studies in the book presented compelling evidence for spirit communication via electricity?

Can the accounts in the book be be verified? Confirmed? Examined? Did anyone ever look inside the lamps of those people? Are they any better than the ones I presented by Sylvia Browne?

As you read the book, and recommended it for me to read, what do you think of these accounts? You were a skeptic, you say, you studied mediumship quite a bit. Do you think these described accounts are reliable? Do you think, for yourself, there is anything to spirit communication via electricity? Do you think this book adds anything to that case?

Why did you think it was a good idea to mention that alleged spirit communication via electricity is commonly described? Had Fake Rudy's wife said, instead that she dreamed of an alien abduction, would you say recommend she keep a log book and say that descriptions of dreams of alien abductions are very common flashbacks among alleged alien abductees?:) I am sure there are plenty of books about that- indeed I think there is one by a Harvard psychologist, John Mack, who is then at least as respected as Schwartz! :)

Well, I've been reading a little about it at believer boards, and you may be surprised at the apparent intensity of dislike of Sylvia even among people who believe in mediumship.

(And there are also issues about his decision, like Sylvia before him, to do a "pay per view" two and a half hour television call in show in December...)

And because they dislike her, does that reflect in any way on JE? Do they think JE thinks she is real and so can't tell fake from real psychic? Do they think he thinks she is a fraud and is still doing the lecture? What does that say about his ethics, then? Do they think they were wrong and she is real after all? How can they reconcile the different viewpoints JE and Sylvia have of souls in afterlife and such?

But I wonder- how can these people dislike her and like him? What they do is not that much different to my eye, she has been doing it a little longer, he is a little younger and smoother, and apparently they are content to do it together. Why do believers in JE dislike Sylvia, when, in effect she does the same thing? Do they think she is a fraud, and he is real (how can they tell the difference?) or do they think she is real, and just not like her personally?

As to the pay perview- I wonder how he is spinning that! Gee, I do hope he does better than LKL! I wonder why he needs pay per view- not enough LKL appearances, his own show not enough exposure, his books don't bring enough money? I suppose he will say there is too long a waiting list and he wants to help some people get in touch with him immediately. But I have another suspicion. It seems obvious to me and others that he bombs miserably on LKL, where CNN controls the calls, no opportunity for mischief. What better way to improve credibility than to set up his own call in show, and get some cash in the process. Skeptics are not going to pay and watch, of course, there will be no embarassing transcript for the misses, but any hits, whether by luck (even in LKL, there is usually 1-2 good readings in the lot) or design will be trumpeted forever by the only people who are ready to part with the cash- willing believers. Clever.

As JE and Sylvia, PP, Northrop, and the lot, what we need is a skeptical Mark Lombardi :) http://www.pierogi2000.com/flatfile/lombardi.html

Clancie

11th November 2003, 01:36 PM

Posted by renata

So when I asked you about this you thought an inspirational book about about filled with anecdotes was the way to go?
Actually, renata, refreshing your memory....You mentioned Glee's post to me and my lack of follow up...

Clancie

Also, as you undoubtedly already know, one of the most commonly described forms of "spirit communication" is via electricity).

Glee
What evidence is there of this?
On the other thread, you said I made a "claim" which, as I repeated, was this....

Clancie

The "claim", if you recall, was that that people often say that spirit communication manifests through the use of electricity. I made no "claim" that it was actually true, only that it is not uncommonly expressed.

So...I assume that you are asking for a source that backs up my "claim" that people do say this? Fine, take a look at Judy Guggenheim's book, "Hello From Heaven". It's a compilation of many, many accounts and interviews with people who feel they have received spirit communication. A whole section is devoted to "communication via electricity."
From this comment, you have now asked me this
Posted by renata

So when I asked you about this you thought an inspirational book about about filled with anecdotes was the way to go?
To which I can say only, renata...whether this book is "inspirational" or not is for readers of it to decide. (If you read it, I'm sure you'll have an opinion, one way or the other....)

As for me thinking that "recommending" a book with anecdotes was "the way to go" in response to the question?

Well, yes, frankly I do think it was a suitable response, since the question was whether there was a source that backs up my "claim" that people -do- say they feel spirit communication sometimes occurs via electricity....I think a book of accounts of people saying -exactly that- is a perfect reference in response to Glee's question.

In addition, my impression from your question/comment to me about it on the other thread was that you were interested in the issue of whether people actually made these kinds of statements and, if so, what they said. If you are, in fact, interested in that issue, then, yes, you might be curious to read this book. If you're not interested in a compilation of personal stories, then, no...I don't think you should bother with this at all....

As for the rest of your questions, they're irrelevant to the reason I mentioned the book to here in the first place, and I have no opinions to offer in response to them--since that wasn't my point in bringing it up to begin with. I offer them as anecdotes addressing my point in this thread, nothing more....

renata

11th November 2003, 03:32 PM

Originally posted by Clancie

To which I can say only, renata...whether this book is "inspirational" or not is for readers of it to decide. (If you read it, I'm sure you'll have an opinion, one way or the other....)

Well, actually, the book itself is trying to sell itself as "inspirational", Clancie :)

The 353 Accounts in Hello from Heaven! offer

Fascinating modern-day evidence of life after death
Comfort and emotional support for those who are bereaved
Hope for those who yearn to be reunited with a loved one who has died
Courage and strength for those who have a life-threatening illness
Inspiration for caregivers for to the elderly and the terminally ill
Insight and reassurance for those who are fearful of death
Inner peace for those whose hearts and minds are awaiting this good news

You will treasure these uplifting messages those who continue to exist in a life beyond physical death. Their profound communications of love offer comfort, hope, and spiritual inspiration to all readers

I do not think I was wrong to call the book inspirational, if the authors did! :)

Well, here is what puzzles me, Clancie- and let me expand on an earlier parallel.

Let's say Fake Rudy posted an account about his wife dreaming about alien abductions. Would you recommend she keep a log book and say that descriptions of dreams of alien abductions are very common flashbacks among alleged alien abductees? And then say you yourself never made a claim about veracity of alien abductions, but some people thing they are real, there are plenty of anecdotes, even by a Harvard psychologist!

It seems to me, if someone is recommending a course of action and then says X is very frequently described then it is not unreasonable to assume one has investigated X, and has an opinion on X.

X can be alleged alien abductees reporting having dreams of their abductions, or poison ivy sufferers reporting having rashings, or or in this case, people describing spirits communicating via electricity. I know Sylvia Browne has mentioned it on several occasions, and I provided examples.

I wanted a clarification, I received it, and a book recommendation- thank you. However, it seems the book you recommended about people describing spirit communication via electricity appears to my hardened cynical soul rather geared towards reassuring people in difficult situations. Once again, nothing wrong with such a book.

But I had several questions, as you read it, and I have not. It puzzles me you that decline to answer them. I am not sure why you find them not relevant- you brought up that people describe spirits communicate via electricity, you brought up that book as I can only assume a useful one for us to read if we want to familiarize ourselves with first hand accounts of such. Frankly, if they are all of the Sylvia Browne "light flickering" ilk, I think they are rather useless.

In addition, my impression from your question/comment to me about it on the other thread was that you were interested in the issue of whether people actually made these kinds of statements and, if so, what they said. If you are, in fact, interested in that issue, then, yes, you might be curious to read this book. If you're not interested in a compilation of personal stories, then, no...I don't think you should bother with this at all....

Ahh..Clancie, my posts from the other thread are right here! :) I posted it above just so there would be no misunderstandings like the one above. Let me correct your impression. I wanted to know, most and foremost how spirits can communicate with electricity, because that has very interesting implications. You then posted that you never said that, you just said people say so. Then were other side questions, like why you brought the matter up, whether you yourself believed it, etc. I will not requote it for you, it is right on this very page, a few posts up. For the record, I am sure for every claim possible I will find someone somewhere who claims to believe it, so saying- that you never claimed it, you are just claiming some people believe is not impressive. Now that I corrected your impression, would you answer my questions?

As for the rest of your questions, they're irrelevant to the reason I mentioned the book to here in the first place, and I have no opinions to offer in response to them--since that wasn't my point in bringing it up to begin with. I offer them as anecdotes addressing my point in this thread, nothing more....

Ok, perhaps now that I corrected your impression of what my questions were, you can answer them. Thanks in advance. I will not mention the questions again, they are in my post above, I am sure you can find them easily enough. And since you were kind enough to mention believers loathe Sylvia Browne, can you give an opinion on the seminar issue as well? I know it is quite a bit, and I apologize in advance. :)

By the way, what do people think of my ghost-o-meter idea?

glee

12th November 2003, 04:26 AM

Originally posted by Clancie
As for me thinking that "recommending" a book with anecdotes was "the way to go" in response to the question?

Well, yes, frankly I do think it was a suitable response, since the question was whether there was a source that backs up my "claim" that people -do- say they feel spirit communication sometimes occurs via electricity....I think a book of accounts of people saying -exactly that- is a perfect reference in response to Glee's question.

Um, I asked for evidence.
I appreciate your taking the time to respond, but I'm sure you know that anecdotes are not evidence. (There are plenty of anecdotes about people being abducted by aliens and taken to ther planets, then returned after bizarre sexual experiences. And nobody notices they were gone... - do you believe in this?)

MRC_Hans

12th November 2003, 05:24 AM

Originally posted by renata
*snip*

As to ghosts messing with electricity- why is it potentially bad wiring and lamps. If they mess with electricity, it can it be measured, it is a testable claim. If a ghost can turn on a lamp, than if we build a little device, with a little red light bulb that lights up, when ghost wants to turn it on, can't it? It will be very unambiguous, not connected to anything else, ghostometer. I am sure people here can figure out a way to do something like that. That way, you can also probably check genuine mediums. If a medium talks to a spirit, you will have a ghostometer near him. If it lights up- genuine medium, if not, cold reader!

Renata, it would be very easy to make a device like that.

But I have worked with electricity for about 40 years, and I have never seen it act not according to the laws of physics.

I'm always amazed at how people imagine that ghosts (or spirits, Clancy) can turn on and off lights. Let's face it, the majority of the population could not point to a drawing of a lamp or appliance, say "There, make a short there to turn it on" and be right.

Do they go on electrician school once they become ghosts? And even if they gain some hither insights in the workings of lamps, how do they manage to influence such a distinctly physial thing as an electric appliance?

And if they can do that, you are already sitting in front of a ghostometer. In a computer, currents are many orders of magnitude smaller, and functioning immensely more complex. If ghosts were influencing our lamps, our computers would NEVER work.

--- Why is it, when the light flicker, some people say "Ghosts!", but when their computer goes down, they just curse and restart it? :rolleyes:

Hans

Jaggy Bunnet

12th November 2003, 05:29 AM

Originally posted by ADD Boy
I actually have a paranormal television! :p For some reason (probably capacitors that don't hold charge well, or a faulty socket, or whatever), when you press the On button, it doesn't turn on automatically. In fact, sometimes it takes several hours for the thing to turn on, which was quite startling the first time it happened!

But I think one of the earlier suggestions is dead-on, that the switch was very close to being turned on, and just flipped over to the on position due to a bump or just the force of the spring finally overcoming friction.

I used to have a possessed television as well. It regularly used to change channels of its own accord (it was old and didn't even have a remote control) - strangely the ghost only ever wanted to change channel in one direction, for example if I was watching channel 1, he would change it to a higher channel but never from a higher channel to a lower one.

Deeply spooked by this I stopped using the telly (although the fact that you had to get up every two minutes to put it back to the program you wanted to watch may have had something to do with it) and threw it out. Bizarrely it vanished from outside my house before the binmen arrived! I reckon the ghost must have taken it (and not one of the large numbers of students in the area who just fancied a free telly).

Thought this was brilliant:

BROWNE: Yes. It's like I said before, one of the things they do very characteristically is ring the phone. But she also does something with curtains or blinds. She makes the blinds and curtains -- she also makes a lot of electrical stuff go off.

I can think of no reason why a phone would ring or a curtain move that didn't involve paranormal activity. :p

Why is it that ghosts never levitate the dog to let you know they're there but instead twitch a curtain or flicker a light?

Jaggy Bunnet

12th November 2003, 05:30 AM

Originally posted by MRC_Hans

--- Why is it, when the light flicker, some people say "Ghosts!", but when their computer goes down, they just curse and restart it? :rolleyes:

Hans

Is it because Microsoft don't make lamps? :D

nick

12th November 2003, 06:27 AM

Originally posted by thaiboxerken
This just makes me very glad that I married an atheist and skeptic hotty.

Dayum ! Does she have a sister ?

Clancie

12th November 2003, 06:43 AM

Posted by Glee

Um, I asked for evidence.

I appreciate your taking the time to respond, but I'm sure you know that anecdotes are not evidence.
Actually, Glee, I made no claim other than that people -do- say that spirits communicate via electricity. I never said I believed it. So when you asked for something to back up what I said, in fairness, I hope you see that I have provided it.

In this case, a compilation of anecdotes -does- show what I stated, i.e. yes, people say this.
(There are plenty of anecdotes about people being abducted by aliens and taken to ther planets, then returned after bizarre sexual experiences. And nobody notices they were gone... - do you believe in this?)
Ummmm...do you really think I do? :confused:

Anyway, to answer you (because maybe you sincerely are asking me this)...no.

Nor, for that matter, do I think a book of anecdotes shows anything other than that....yes, people say this.

Which was my point.

glee

12th November 2003, 07:04 AM

Originally posted by Clancie
Actually, Glee, I made no claim other than that people -do- say that spirits communicate via electricity. I never said I believed it. So when you asked for something to back up what I said, in fairness, I hope you see that I have provided it.

In this case, a compilation of anecdotes -does- show what I stated, i.e. yes, people say this.

Well you posted "If I had the good fortune to live with someone who felt the presence of a spirit...".
I assumed this meant you believed in spirits.
It's just a misunderstanding.
I already knew that people claim that spirits communicate by electricity (also cold air currents / ouija boards / telepathy to psychics / moving objects / slamming doors / squeaking floorboards etc).
People claim all sorts of imaginary things.
I thought you had evidence of spirits actually doing this stuff.

Yes, I was asking if you believe in alien abduction, because the only 'evidence' we have for it is numerous anecdotes.
Could I ask why you believe in spirits, since there is no evidence for them, either?

Clancie

12th November 2003, 07:43 AM

Posted by Glee

Yes, I was asking if you believe in alien abduction, because the only 'evidence' we have for it is numerous anecdotes.
Could I ask why you believe in spirits, since there is no evidence for them, either?
I don't "believe in spirits", Glee. Actually what I think is, "there might be something to it." (Then again, there might not).

Why do I think "there might be something to it"? First, I because don't only look for laboratory testing as "evidence" that something -might- be different than I previously thought (i.e. survival of consciousness..anomalous cognition).

The only laboratory test is Schwartz's which, though interesting and imo sincerely intended, has some flaws when it comes to supporting his conclusion. But there are a lot of other things to look at as well that, unlike most people here, I -do- find of interest and some value to consider patterns in.....NDE's...studies of mediums (Mrs. Piper was studied for 27 years, for example)...my own (many) readings....and, yes, even anecdotes of others can be interesting to read and analyze.

Does all that add up to "scientific proof", to "evidence" of survival? No, it doesn't. But based on what I've read...observed....discussed....experienced....it -has- added up to doubt now, instead of my old belief that definitely and indisputably, "Dead is dead. End of story."
Posted by Glee

Well you posted "If I had the good fortune to live with someone who felt the presence of a spirit...".
Well, yes, with my interest in the subject, I would find that very fortunate indeed!

BillHoyt

12th November 2003, 07:57 AM

Originally posted by Clancie

I don't "believe in spirits", Glee. Actually what I think is, "there might be something to it." (Then again, there might not).

Why do I think "there might be something to it"? First, I because don't only look for laboratory testing as "evidence" that something -might- be different than I previously thought (i.e. survival of consciousness..anomalous cognition).

If anecdotes are good enough, then, you must also believe in these possibilities:

o Acupuncture
o Astrology
o Alchemy
o Alien Abductions
o Aromatherapy
o Color Therapy
o Fairies
o Ghosts
o Healing magnets
o Homeopathy
o Incubi
o Leprechans
o Levitation
o Naturopathy
o Nessie
o Pschic Healing
o Psychic Surgery
o Reikki
o Reincarnation
o Sasquatch
o Succubi
o Therapeutic Touch
o Trepanning
o Wood Nymphs
o UFOs

If you don't, then please regale us with your real criteria for sorting wheat from chaff.

Scoobmaster

12th November 2003, 08:26 AM

Now that I have officially come out of lurking, I can post here!

I read this thread with great interest as my halogen torch lamp has turned on "by itself" twice in the past two weeks.

It has one of the infamous rotary switches on it and just as described earlier it is when it is switched off and sorta "in between" states that gravity and vibration can cause the contacts to close.

It IS kind of eerie the first time it happens to you and you are (obviously) not expecting it!

Clancie

12th November 2003, 11:38 AM

Hi Scoobmaster...Welcome! :)

Posted by Bill Hoyt

If anecdotes are good enough, then, you must also believe in these possibilities....
Bill,

Where exactly have I stated that I think "anecdotes are good enough" evidence of anything? Please provide the exact quote and thread. Thank you.

(Great sig line, btw. I hope you never change it... :) )

T'ai Chi

12th November 2003, 11:53 AM

Originally posted by BillHoyt

If anecdotes are good enough, then, you must also believe in these possibilities: (list snipped)

I do consider these things possible.

Darat

12th November 2003, 12:13 PM

Originally posted by T'ai Chi

I do consider these things possible. [/B]

Really? You consider all the things on that list possible?

BillHoyt

13th November 2003, 04:44 AM

Originally posted by Clancie

Bill,

Where exactly have I stated that I think "anecdotes are good enough" evidence of anything? Please provide the exact quote and thread. Thank you.

This thread. The post to which I responded. Did you not say you considered those anecdotes sufficient to allow the possibility that survival was real? If not, what did you say? What are your criteria? Which ones on that list meet your criteria? Which ones don't?

BillHoyt

13th November 2003, 04:53 AM

Originally posted by T'ai Chi

I do consider these things possible. [/B]

Don't equivocate, whodini. What criteria do you use to determine the plausibility of each one? Which ones do you include in the plausible list and which ones are excluded?

Clancie

13th November 2003, 06:35 AM

Posted by Bill Hoyt

Did you not say you considered those anecdotes sufficient to allow the possibility that survival was real?
That's your claim, Bill.

The exact quote?....Please.....

BillHoyt

13th November 2003, 06:51 AM

Originally posted by Clancie

That's your claim, Bill.

The exact quote?....Please.....

Then what is it you were saying about anecdote? What are your criteria for deciding the sufficiency of anecdote in this case?

T'ai Chi

13th November 2003, 03:54 PM

Originally posted by BillHoyt
What criteria do you use to determine the plausibility of each one? Which ones do you include in the plausible list and which ones are excluded?

I guess I look at the scientific evidence (or lack of), what other people have said about them (scientists and non-scientists), and my own belief/intuition about them. I guess that is how I make a decision about all things really.

Originally posted by Darat
Really? You consider all the things on that list possible?

Out of that list, I consider every one of them possible, some much less possible than others, kind of like how Shermer would do a Science, Borderlands, and Non-science categorization.

BillHoyt

13th November 2003, 05:29 PM

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
I guess I look at the scientific evidence (or lack of), what other people have said about them (scientists and non-scientists), and my own belief/intuition about them. I guess that is how I make a decision about all things really.
So far, it sounds like whatever strikes your fancy. And yet many of the claims are absolutely contradictory. You cannot possibly hold them both true simultaneously. Must be more.
Out of that list, I consider every one of them possible, some much less possible than others, kind of like how Shermer would do a Science, Borderlands, and Non-science categorization.
Like I said, some of them are contradictory or contradict fundamental science. And you seem to ignore that when Shermer puts things in the "non-science" catgegory he is excluding them from serious consideration. So far, you've excluded nothing. And yet, some of the claims are contradictory. Go figure.

T'ai Chi

13th November 2003, 06:40 PM

Originally posted by BillHoyt

You cannot possibly hold them both true simultaneously.

I dont. I said I consider them possible.

And yet, some of the claims are contradictory. Go figure.

Which ones are?

glee

14th November 2003, 01:19 AM

Originally posted by Clancie
I don't "believe in spirits", Glee. Actually what I think is, "there might be something to it." (Then again, there might not).

Well that is my attitude to the question 'Is there life elsewhere in the Universe?'.
After all there is life on one planet; there are billions of planets - so there is a mathematical chance aliens exist.
But note that I do have one proven piece of evidence for my belief - life on Earth.

Originally posted by Clancie
Why do I think "there might be something to it"? First, I because don't only look for laboratory testing as "evidence" that something -might- be different than I previously thought (i.e. survival of consciousness..anomalous cognition).

I accept that anecdotes can give scientists an idea what to explore next.
However I find it disappointing when a subject is heavily researched over decades (and attracts hoaxers and fraud) yet no single proven piece of evidence can be found. At what point do we move on and spend our time and money on other possibilities?

Originally posted by Clancie
The only laboratory test is Schwartz's which, though interesting and imo sincerely intended, has some flaws when it comes to supporting his conclusion. But there are a lot of other things to look at as well that, unlike most people here, I -do- find of interest and some value to consider patterns in.....NDE's...studies of mediums (Mrs. Piper was studied for 27 years, for example)...my own (many) readings....and, yes, even anecdotes of others can be interesting to read and analyze.

Does all that add up to "scientific proof", to "evidence" of survival? No, it doesn't. But based on what I've read...observed....discussed....experienced....it -has- added up to doubt now, instead of my old belief that definitely and indisputably, "Dead is dead. End of story."

I commend your honesty.
I repeat that, sadly, there is still not one piece of proven evidence.
So to me, spirits were originally a fascinating and important subject. However there have been so many hoaxes and simple misunderstandings without any successful test that I wonder why the legend lives on.
If spirits did exist, wouldn't one of them have 'broken through' by now?
I know that if I find I can communicate after passing, then I will. And I will play chess, not make lamps flicker.

BillHoyt

14th November 2003, 02:55 AM

Originally posted by T'ai Chi

I dont. I said I consider them possible.

Which ones are? [/B]
Your equivocation on "possible" was already noted. But now you are in a dilemma with the equivocation. You say you think them all possible, yet don't even realize that some are contradictory. Then you ask which ones in the list are contradictory. One might speculate here about explanations:
a. you take the postmodernist feint that there is no truth, or
b. you adopt a knee-jerk anti-skepticism.

Unfortunately, neither speaks well of your decision-making toolkit.

Perhaps you would like to study Chinese astrology versus any of the Western flavors. You would find the 12 Chinese signs are based on birth year, whereas the Western flavors are based on birth month. Digging into the western flavors further, you would find a school recognizing sidereal versus one that uses totally incorrect calendars. One person, one birthdate, three different horoscopes. Contradictions.

Perhaps you would like to look at Naturopathy's pharmacopoeia and then at Homeopathy's. Note the overlaps. Then look at the dosage/response relationships claimed by Naturopathy and the Alice-through-the-looking glass inversion of dosage/response from Homeopathy. Same substances. Absolutely contradictory curves.

Now, how would you hone your faulty toolkit?

Jaggy Bunnet

14th November 2003, 04:13 AM

Originally posted by BillHoyt

Your equivocation on "possible" was already noted. But now you are in a dilemma with the equivocation. You say you think them all possible, yet don't even realize that some are contradictory. Then you ask which ones in the list are contradictory. One might speculate here about explanations:
a. you take the postmodernist feint that there is no truth, or
b. you adopt a knee-jerk anti-skepticism.

Unfortunately, neither speaks well of your decision-making toolkit.

Perhaps you would like to study Chinese astrology versus any of the Western flavors. You would find the 12 Chinese signs are based on birth year, whereas the Western flavors are based on birth month. Digging into the western flavors further, you would find a school recognizing sidereal versus one that uses totally incorrect calendars. One person, one birthdate, three different horoscopes. Contradictions.

Perhaps you would like to look at Naturopathy's pharmacopoeia and then at Homeopathy's. Note the overlaps. Then look at the dosage/response relationships claimed by Naturopathy and the Alice-through-the-looking glass inversion of dosage/response from Homeopathy. Same substances. Absolutely contradictory curves.

Now, how would you hone your faulty toolkit?

Not that I necessarily agree that any of the list are possible, but I'm not sure that the simple fact that two things are contradictory means you must dismiss either of them as impossible.

For example, assuming a fair coin, both heads and tails are possible but, obviously, they are contradictory. If I were to ask you in advance to list the possible outcomes, you would need to include two contradictory possibilities.

BillHoyt

14th November 2003, 04:20 AM

Originally posted by Jaggy Bunnet

Not that I necessarily agree that any of the list are possible, but I'm not sure that the simple fact that two things are contradictory means you must dismiss either of them as impossible.

For example, assuming a fair coin, both heads and tails are possible but, obviously, they are contradictory. If I were to ask you in advance to list the possible outcomes, you would need to include two contradictory possibilities.
But that isn't what is meant by "contradictory." Here is what I had said earlier: "And yet many of the claims are absolutely contradictory. You cannot possibly hold them both true simultaneously" Your coin cannot simultaneously land heads and tails.

Jaggy Bunnet

14th November 2003, 04:31 AM

Originally posted by BillHoyt

But that isn't what is meant by "contradictory." Here is what I had said earlier: "And yet many of the claims are absolutely contradictory. You cannot possibly hold them both true simultaneously" Your coin cannot simultaneously land heads and tails.

You also said earlier "You say you think them all possible, yet don't even realize that some are contradictory."

That is the point I was addressing.

There is a difference between claiming something to be true and claiming something is possible. I didn't see anyone on this thread claiming the items listed were true.

BillHoyt

14th November 2003, 05:01 AM

Originally posted by Jaggy Bunnet

You also said earlier "You say you think them all possible, yet don't even realize that some are contradictory."

That is the point I was addressing.

There is a difference between claiming something to be true and claiming something is possible. I didn't see anyone on this thread claiming the items listed were true.

If "A' is true, then 'Not-A' is false. 'Not-A' is no longer possible. If physics is true, psychic surgery is false. Psychic surgery is not possible.

Jaggy Bunnet

14th November 2003, 05:08 AM

Originally posted by BillHoyt

If "A' is true, then 'Not-A' is false. 'Not-A' is no longer possible. If physics is true, psychic surgery is false. Psychic surgery is not possible.

Saying they contradict established science is true of all the items on the list, irrespective of whether they contradict each other.

However your argument appeared to suggest that the fact that two items on the list contradicted each other (ignoring whatever else they contradict) meant it was not logical to accept both as possible.

BillHoyt

14th November 2003, 05:17 AM

Originally posted by Jaggy Bunnet

Saying they contradict established science is true of all the items on the list, irrespective of whether they contradict each other.

However your argument appeared to suggest that the fact that two items on the list contradicted each other (ignoring whatever else they contradict) meant it was not logical to accept both as possible.

But the contradictions within the list are also real. I have already mentioned several. And might I suggest we stop the equivocation on "possible?"

Jaggy Bunnet

14th November 2003, 06:02 AM

Originally posted by BillHoyt

But the contradictions within the list are also real. I have already mentioned several. And might I suggest we stop the equivocation on "possible?"

So what if the contradictions are real? It has precisely NO bearing on whether they are possible. Would only including one of them on the list mean that one is more possible because nothing in the list contradicts it? Of course not!

You stated that "you must also believe in these possibilities". The answer was "I consider all these things possible". I see no evidence of equivocation, just a direct answer to your question.

For info I place no credibility in any of the things on the list.

BillHoyt

14th November 2003, 06:15 AM

Originally posted by Jaggy Bunnet

So what if the contradictions are real? It has precisely NO bearing on whether they are possible. Would only including one of them on the list mean that one is more possible because nothing in the list contradicts it? Of course not!

You stated that "you must also believe in these possibilities". The answer was "I consider all these things possible". I see no evidence of equivocation, just a direct answer to your question.

For info I place no credibility in any of the things on the list.

Jaggy,

"A" and "Not-A" cannot be simultaneously true. I'm not sure which part of that you don't understand.

Jaggy Bunnet

14th November 2003, 06:37 AM

Originally posted by BillHoyt

Jaggy,

"A" and "Not-A" cannot be simultaneously true. I'm not sure which part of that you don't understand.

Nobody has claimed that both A and not-A are true. If you dispute this, please direct me to where they have done so and I will agree that claim is nonsense.

People have claimed that they believe both A and not-A are possible.

Do you accept that before a coin is tossed, it is possible it will come down heads (A)? Do you also accept that it is possible it will come down tails (not-A)? Therefore both A and not-A are possible.

Once you toss the coin, one of them will not be true. It does not mean it wasn't possible.

Are you really telling me you don't understand the difference between possibility and truth?

BillHoyt

14th November 2003, 06:41 AM

Originally posted by Jaggy Bunnet

Nobody has claimed that both A and not-A are true. If you dispute this, please direct me to where they have done so and I will agree that claim is nonsense.

People have claimed that they believe both A and not-A are possible.

Do you accept that before a coin is tossed, it is possible it will come down heads (A)? Do you also accept that it is possible it will come down tails (not-A)? Therefore both A and not-A are possible.

Once you toss the coin, one of them will not be true. It does not mean it wasn't possible.

Are you really telling me you don't understand the difference between possibility and truth?

Address my points as I made them, please. I have no time for games.

Jaggy Bunnet

14th November 2003, 06:53 AM

Originally posted by BillHoyt

Address my points as I made them, please. I have no time for games.

Which points? I addressed the point about A and not-A not being simultaneously true (although why it is a point given that nobody has ever claimed otherwise I don't know.) I understand it perfectly, but truth is NOT what is being talked about on this thread, possibility is.

If you want to list your points that I haven't addressed, I'll answer them, if you will answer the questions I have asked in my previous post.

BillHoyt

14th November 2003, 07:12 AM

Originally posted by Jaggy Bunnet

Which points? I addressed the point about A and not-A not being simultaneously true (although why it is a point given that nobody has ever claimed otherwise I don't know.) I understand it perfectly, but truth is NOT what is being talked about on this thread, possibility is.

If you want to list your points that I haven't addressed, I'll answer them, if you will answer the questions I have asked in my previous post.

I have already enumerated several. Homeopathy versus naturopathy. You might as well toss in the fact that homeopathic claims cannot be true unless avogadro is wrong. I also enumerated three different astrologies as well as the contradiction between physics and the claims of psychic surgery.

Jaggy Bunnet

14th November 2003, 07:41 AM

Originally posted by BillHoyt

I have already enumerated several. Homeopathy versus naturopathy. You might as well toss in the fact that homeopathic claims cannot be true unless avogadro is wrong. I also enumerated three different astrologies as well as the contradiction between physics and the claims of psychic surgery.

Bill - what is your point? Are you saying that there is no evidence that anything in the list is true? If so I completely agree with you and have never intended to suggest otherwise.

I think this may have been where the confusion has arisen.

What I have been trying to show is that to include two mutually exclusive items on a list of possibilities is in no way logically flawed. This is completely irrespective of whether we are taking about things that we know are possible (heads/tails on tossing a coin) or things which would only be possible if just about every existing element of scientific theory and knowledge built up over centuries was incorrect (homeopathy/naturopathy). I am arguing purely about the logic, not the content.

On that basis, do you agree that having two possibilities which are mutually exclusive (heads/tails) is perfectly logical and, in fact, commonplace?

BillHoyt

14th November 2003, 08:05 AM

Originally posted by Jaggy Bunnet

Bill - what is your point? Are you saying that there is no evidence that anything in the list is true? If so I completely agree with you and have never intended to suggest otherwise.

I think this may have been where the confusion has arisen.

What I have been trying to show is that to include two mutually exclusive items on a list of possibilities is in no way logically flawed. This is completely irrespective of whether we are taking about things that we know are possible (heads/tails on tossing a coin) or things which would only be possible if just about every existing element of scientific theory and knowledge built up over centuries was incorrect (homeopathy/naturopathy). I am arguing purely about the logic, not the content.

On that basis, do you agree that having two possibilities which are mutually exclusive (heads/tails) is perfectly logical and, in fact, commonplace?
I repeat: "A" and "Not-A" cannot simultaneously be true. I have said this several times already. You reiterate your coin-toss example, ignoring its irrelevance here. "The coin landed heads up" and "The coin landed tails up" cannot be simultaneously true. "Crapolea's effect increases with increasing dosage" and "Crapolea's effect increases with decreasing dosage" cannot both be true. "You are a capricorn and have characterisitics x, y and z " and "you are a sagittarius and have these other characteristics not-x, not-y and not-z" cannot both be true.

Clancie

14th November 2003, 08:14 AM

Posted by Bill Hoyt

I repeat: "A" and "Not-A" cannot simultaneously be true
Yes, you've repeated it many times. Unfortunately, that's not the issue. No one said they were both true, Bill. They said they may be possible.

For example...."Life existing on other planets" is possible. "No life existing on other planets" is possible. Yes, they can't both be possible together. But until we have determined one or the other to be true or false, Bill....yes, both are possible.

(Its hard to think that your objection to this very obvious and uncontroversial statement is being sincerely made, btw).

BillHoyt

14th November 2003, 08:20 AM

Originally posted by Clancie

Yes, you've repeated it many times. Unfortunately, that's not the issue. No one said they were both true, Bill. They said they may be possible.

For example...."Life existing on other planets" is possible. "No life existing on other planets" is possible. Yes, they can't both be possible together. But until we have determined one or the other to be true or false, Bill....yes, both are possible.

(Its hard to think that your objection to this very obvious and uncontroversial statement is being sincerely made, btw).

And the relevance to the questions I posed is? Nothing. The questions I posed have to do with the tools you use to discern truth from fiction. The items listed contradict known science and, in some cases, contradict one another. They cannot be simultaneously true.

Jaggy Bunnet

14th November 2003, 08:49 AM

Originally posted by BillHoyt

I repeat: "A" and "Not-A" cannot simultaneously be true. I have said this several times already. You reiterate your coin-toss example, ignoring its irrelevance here.

Please don't make me agree with Clancie! :p Nobody has claimed that A and Not-A are simultaneously true. Therefore this is completely irrelevant to the discussion. If it makes you happy, we are in complete agreement that A and not-A cannot both be true.

I answered your points, would you answer mine?

Where has anyone claimed that the items on the list were true?

Do you accept that A and not-A can simultaneously be possibilities?

BillHoyt

14th November 2003, 09:09 AM

Originally posted by Jaggy Bunnet
Please don't make me agree with Clancie! :p Nobody has claimed that A and Not-A are simultaneously true. Therefore this is completely irrelevant to the discussion. If it makes you happy, we are in complete agreement that A and not-A cannot both be true.

I answered your points, would you answer mine?

Where has anyone claimed that the items on the list were true?

Do you accept that A and not-A can simultaneously be possibilities?
By claiming psychic surgery is possible, one is precisely saying that A and Not-A are simultaneously true. By claiming homeopathy is possible, one is precisely saying that A and Not-A are simultaneously true. The claims of homeopathy directly violate chemistry.

I did not say anybody claimed the listed items were true. Tr'oll specifically said they were possible. My response was to point out some of the inherent contradictions, and to state quite clearly that his response is unreasonable.

Jaggy Bunnet

14th November 2003, 09:35 AM

Originally posted by BillHoyt

By claiming psychic surgery is possible, one is precisely saying that A and Not-A are simultaneously true. By claiming homeopathy is possible, one is precisely saying that A and Not-A are simultaneously true. The claims of homeopathy directly violate chemistry.

I did not say anybody claimed the listed items were true. Tr'oll specifically said they were possible. My response was to point out some of the inherent contradictions, and to state quite clearly that his response is unreasonable.

The contradictions with existing science and knowledge I can see and completely agree with. I can understand why referring to these things as possible gets on your nerves - it does on mine.

But that has nothing to do with the point about separate items on a list of possibilities contradicting each other.

nick

14th November 2003, 09:40 AM

Sounds to me like Bill is taking "and" to mean the Boolean function, and Jaggy is taking it to mean sort of "and/or".

If we know that a coin has been tossed, it can't have come down heads and tails.

If we know a coin is about to be tossed, then heads is a possibility, and tails is a possibility. There's Jaggy's use of "and". It's perfectly OK English usage, but poor Boolean logic.

Now: either you two can accept that interpretation, shake hands, and get on with the rest of the debate; or, someone really is acting in bad faith. Currently I have no opinion on that. (Note, I used "or", not "and" here :D ).

BillHoyt

14th November 2003, 09:45 AM

Originally posted by Jaggy Bunnet

The contradictions with existing science and knowledge I can see and completely agree with. I can understand why referring to these things as possible gets on your nerves - it does on mine.

But that has nothing to do with the point about separate items on a list of possibilities contradicting each other.
I think you've been missing the underlying point here. To accept the list as all possible was and is a knee-jerk reaction. It evinces no baloney detection kit whatsoever. Homeopathy's claims contradict chemistry. The non-sidereal astrological calendar contradicts astronomy. Psychic surgery's claims contradict physics. And, yes, the list was deliberately constructed to cover the possibility that some respondents would take some form of an anti-science position; hence the internal contradictions.

Jaggy Bunnet

14th November 2003, 10:11 AM

Originally posted by BillHoyt

I think you've been missing the underlying point here. To accept the list as all possible was and is a knee-jerk reaction. It evinces no baloney detection kit whatsoever. Homeopathy's claims contradict chemistry. The non-sidereal astrological calendar contradicts astronomy. Psychic surgery's claims contradict physics. And, yes, the list was deliberately constructed to cover the possibility that some respondents would take some form of an anti-science position; hence the internal contradictions.

Well if I had EVER accepted that the list was all possible or even partly possible, you might have a point. However this is not and has never been my position - and I have clearly stated that several times. Simply repeating the areas where ideas you know I don't support contradict scientific knowledge is pointless.

I am only concerned with your suggestion that believing two contradictory things to be possible is illogical. This is true irrespective of whether we are talking about woowoo nonsense or the outcome of a coin toss. You have not answered this simple question:

Do you accept that A and not-A can simultaneously be possibilities?

If you think the answer is yes, then we are in agreement. If you think it is no, then please explain why not. It would be helpful if you would use a simply analogy like a coin toss to avoid confusing the matter with woowoo nonsense.

nick

14th November 2003, 10:16 AM

Originally posted by Jaggy Bunnet

Do you accept that A and not-A can simultaneously be possibilities?

They can simultaneusly be possible outcomes for any given future event. They can't simultaneusly be possible results for any past event.

Jaggy Bunnet

14th November 2003, 10:20 AM

Originally posted by nick

They can simultaneusly be possible outcomes for any given future event. They can't simultaneusly be possible results for any past event.

We toss a coin but it rolls under the sofa before either of us have a chance to observe which way it comes down. What are the possible outcomes?

nick

14th November 2003, 10:32 AM

Originally posted by Jaggy Bunnet

We toss a coin but it rolls under the sofa before either of us have a chance to observe which way it comes down. What are the possible outcomes?

The event is not the coin landing, it's us observing it. It's therefore still in the future. (Someone will mention Schrödinger's cat at this point, I'm sure.)

BillHoyt

14th November 2003, 10:49 AM

Originally posted by Jaggy Bunnet

Well if I had EVER accepted that the list was all possible or even partly possible, you might have a point. However this is not and has never been my position - and I have clearly stated that several times. Simply repeating the areas where ideas you know I don't support contradict scientific knowledge is pointless.

I am only concerned with your suggestion that believing two contradictory things to be possible is illogical. This is true irrespective of whether we are talking about woowoo nonsense or the outcome of a coin toss. You have not answered this simple question:

Do you accept that A and not-A can simultaneously be possibilities?

If you think the answer is yes, then we are in agreement. If you think it is no, then please explain why not. It would be helpful if you would use a simply analogy like a coin toss to avoid confusing the matter with woowoo nonsense.
Jaggy,

Did you miss the shift in the conversation? Go back through the exchange between Tr'oll and me. Note the shift from "possibility" to "plausibility" and then to "decisions". This seems to be the stumbling point here. Here is my post moving off the equivocation:
Don't equivocate, whodini. What criteria do you use to determine the plausibility of each one? Which ones do you include in the plausible list and which ones are excluded?
Tr'oll then responded:
I guess I look at the scientific evidence (or lack of), what other people have said about them (scientists and non-scientists), and my own belief/intuition about them. I guess that is how I make a decision about all things really.

Of course A and Not-A can simultaneously be possibilities, when knowledge is lacking.

Clancie

14th November 2003, 11:18 AM

Posted by Bill Hoyt

And the relevance to the questions I posed is? Nothing. The questions I posed have to do with the tools you use to discern truth from fiction. The items listed contradict known science and, in some cases, contradict one another. They cannot be simultaneously true.
Bill,
Three questions for you, "Yes" or "No".

1. Do you think saying something is "possible" is the same as saying it is "true"?

2. Do you think that something could be inconsistent with the laws of science as we currently know and understand them but still, one day, could be found to be true (i.e. we can still add to our understanding of scientific laws; we can not be certain we already know everything)?

3. (repeating Jaggy's question) Do you accept that A and not-A can simultaneously be possibilities?

And...if the answer to any of these is "No", would you please clarify why? Because a "No" position, if sincere, does not seem to make sense.....

CFLarsen

14th November 2003, 12:00 PM

Originally posted by Clancie
Three questions for you, "Yes" or "No".

Here are quite a few for you. (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=23764)

Hey, you get to ask other people questions, others get to ask you questions.... or do special rules apply to you?

Clancie

14th November 2003, 12:13 PM

It's a discussion, Claus. I'm asking for clarification from Bill on three discussion points. (i.e. It's not comparable to a list of 100 "questions" that you think I've never responded to...)

Bill can choose not to answer if he wishes, of course. But I can't see how my post to him involves you in any way, unless you have an opinion about these three items yourself (which doesn't seem to be the case....).

TLN

14th November 2003, 12:42 PM

Aww, c'mon Clancie! (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=30202) I'm really not so loathsome. :)

BillHoyt

14th November 2003, 12:43 PM

Originally posted by Clancie

Bill,
Three questions for you, "Yes" or "No".

1. Do you think saying something is "possible" is the same as saying it is "true"?
No.

2. Do you think that something could be inconsistent with the laws of science as we currently know and understand them but still, one day, could be found to be true (i.e. we can still add to our understanding of scientific laws; we can not be certain we already know everything)?
Yes. Perhaps you haven't understood my discussions about self-correction?

3. (repeating Jaggy's question) Do you accept that A and not-A can simultaneously be possibilities?
Did you not read my answer above?

And...if the answer to any of these is "No", would you please clarify why? Because a "No" position, if sincere, does not seem to make sense.....
Please re-read your questions to see that this comment doesn't follow.

CFLarsen

14th November 2003, 01:00 PM

Originally posted by Clancie
It's a discussion, Claus. I'm asking for clarification from Bill on three discussion points. (i.e. It's not comparable to a list of 100 "questions" that you think I've never responded to...)

Well, for one, you haven't. And don't complain about how terrible that list is. It only exists because you did not answer the questions in the appropriate threads either.

Originally posted by Clancie
Bill can choose not to answer if he wishes, of course. But I can't see how my post to him involves you in any way, unless you have an opinion about these three items yourself (which doesn't seem to be the case....).

This is an open forum, Clancie, and you do not decide who replies to whom, or with what. I have also seen you butt in other people's discussions. Special rules for you here, too?

(Oh, you'd better change that sig of yours. Wouldn't want people to think you ignore me...)

Jaggy Bunnet

14th November 2003, 02:03 PM

Originally posted by BillHoyt

Jaggy,

Of course A and Not-A can simultaneously be possibilities, when knowledge is lacking.

Then we are agreed!

Clancie

14th November 2003, 03:27 PM

Bill,

Thank you for answering my questions.

So

Q. 1...You think saying something is possible is not the same as saying it is true.

So...we agree.

Q, 2,,,You think something could be inconsistent with the laws of science as we know them now, but could be found true in the future.....

We agree again. (And, yes, I did rewrite it....No problem with a "yes" answer....)

Q.3....You accept that A and not-A can simultaneously be possiblities (which was all anyone suggested).

Again...we agree.

So????....:con2:

BillHoyt

14th November 2003, 05:21 PM

Originally posted by Clancie
Bill,

Thank you for answering my questions.

So

Q. 1...You think saying something is possible is not the same as saying it is true.

So...we agree.

Q, 2,,,You think something could be inconsistent with the laws of science as we know them now, but could be found true in the future.....

We agree again. (And, yes, I did rewrite it....No problem with a "yes" answer....)

Q.3....You accept that A and not-A can simultaneously be possiblities (which was all anyone suggested).

Again...we agree.

So????....:con2:

Goodie. So now you should be able to explain your version of the baloney detection kit, right? You should be able to give us a description of how rationally to decide fact from fiction. I'm all ears.

BillHoyt

15th November 2003, 03:59 AM

Still confounded, Clancie? You asked for facile answers, got them, and now shrug looking for the disagreement where you now see none. Perhaps you should read the answers and think about the questions you posed? Perhaps a re-examination of your presuppositions is in order?

First, let me expound on my retort to your statement about answering "no." You clearly expected a "no" answer to your first question and clearly accepted and agreed with it. Yet, you wrote that a "no" to any of your questions wouldn't make sense.

Second, you replied that all anyone had ever said was that A and non-A can be simulataneous possibilities. But my reply referred you to my previous answer, which was:
"Of course A and Not-A can simultaneously be possibilities, when knowledge is lacking."

The qualifier there is paramount. My list was peppered with claims for which much contrary evidence exists. Moreover, my list was peppered with claims that contradict known science in fundamental ways. When we know "A" we cannot rationally say "Not-A" is a possibility. One of the examples I have pointed to repeatedly is homeopathy which claims that the absence of a substance can cure diseases whose symptoms resemble the effects of the presence of that substance. Do you seriously entertain this as possible? Do you simply not know that that is the claim? Are you unaware of the fundamental chemistry that makes it clear that the substance is, indeed, absolutely absent?

Now we're onto the topic of science and, of course, your second question. You seem to think we agree here, but you've missed the import of my rhetorical question: "Perhaps you haven't understood my discussions about self-correction?" I have consistently and repeatedly written that science yields provisional truths and is self-correcting. I have also consistently and repeatedly written that it is only through the scientific process that those corrections will be made.

So, no, I don't agree with you about anecdotes. Here, for the record, is what you said:
Why do I think "there might be something to it"? First, I because don't only look for laboratory testing as "evidence" that something -might- be different than I previously thought (i.e. survival of consciousness..anomalous cognition).

The only laboratory test is Schwartz's which, though interesting and imo sincerely intended, has some flaws when it comes to supporting his conclusion. But there are a lot of other things to look at as well that, unlike most people here, I -do- find of interest and some value to consider patterns in.....NDE's...studies of mediums (Mrs. Piper was studied for 27 years, for example)...my own (many) readings....and, yes, even anecdotes of others can be interesting to read and analyze.

Does all that add up to "scientific proof", to "evidence" of survival? No, it doesn't. But based on what I've read...observed....discussed....experienced....it -has- added up to doubt now, instead of my old belief that definitely and indisputably, "Dead is dead. End of story."
These are words that seek to dance around the underlying reality of credulity. When you offer up anecdotes as "interesting to read and analyze" and "evidence" and cause for doubt, you are inarguably denying that you agree with my answers. You are now upholding the power of an anecdote to sway your mind. And you are quite clearly denying the import of scientific investigation and the self-correcting process. But this is nonsense, and equally lets in purple garage-dwelling dragons, succubi, incubi and homeopathy. It denies the reality of the placebo effect where 20% and more of test subjects given squat claim they were cured by that squat. Moreover, some even report side effects of that squat. People are easily fooled.

I have read many anecdotes about people levitating. Should I now doubt the reality of gravity or fear that my next step might cause me to fall up and into outer space? Is that rational? No, a rational person dismisses these notions until given real, non-anecdotal evidence. A rational person doesn't put lead weights on her belt or bolt herself to the sidewalk. A rational person disbelieves fanciful notions and goes on about their day.