Why you you skeptics deny the scientists who concluded that psychic abilities exist? [Archive]

Seismosaurus

3rd October 2004, 12:08 PM

Dymanic

3rd October 2004, 12:09 PM

Originally posted by 1inChrist

You also go to Christian forums to try and convert them to naturalism and all that other scientific philosophy garbage.Actually, I don't. Never have, never will.
Read Victor Zammit's book
I couldn't get past the subtitle:

A Lawyer Presents the Case for the Afterlife

Dragon

3rd October 2004, 12:12 PM

Originally posted by 1inChrist
Debunk his book then genius. How about you post a study from a real scientist which supports the existence of pyschic ability. One of the many you claim to have read.
Then we can discuss it.
Just one.

JPK

3rd October 2004, 12:15 PM

Originally posted by 1inChrist
Debunk his book then genius.

If you remove the bunk from his book this is what you have left...

That certainly makes it for a quicker read.

JPK

CFLarsen

3rd October 2004, 12:18 PM

1inChrist,

Could you please answer the questions?

Who are Dr. A, B and C? I would like to contact them for further information.

Where is the report? Was it peer-reviewed?

Grendel

3rd October 2004, 12:21 PM

1inChrist... parapsychological research is not going to validate your religious belief in afterlives and souls with physical evidence.

I suggest you believe on faith. Apparently you do not.

1inChrist

3rd October 2004, 12:27 PM

Originally posted by Grendel
1inChrist... parapsychological research is not going to validate your religious belief in afterlives and souls with physical evidence.

I suggest you believe on faith. Apparently you do not.

I HAVE FAITH IN THE LORD JESUS CHRIST.

1inChrist

3rd October 2004, 12:28 PM

Originally posted by CFLarsen
1inChrist,

Could you please answer the questions?

Who are Dr. A, B and C? I would like to contact them for further information.

Where is the report? Was it peer-reviewed?

I just showed you that there are scientists who are convinced of the paranormal.

Dragon

3rd October 2004, 12:30 PM

Originally posted by 1inChrist
I HAVE FAITH IN THE LORD JESUS CHRIST. And in the CapsLock key, apparently.

1inChrist

3rd October 2004, 12:30 PM

Originally posted by Dragon
How about you post a study from a real scientist which supports the existence of pyschic ability. One of the many you claim to have read.
Then we can discuss it.
Just one.

Typical pseudo-skeptical thinking. If a scientists goes public with evidence of the paranormal you dismiss them as ''not a real scientist''.

CFLarsen

3rd October 2004, 12:35 PM

Originally posted by 1inChrist
I just showed you that there are scientists who are convinced of the paranormal.

Really? So far, we have three anonymous people, who might be scientists.

Even if they do believe it, does that prove that the paranormal exists?

Dragon

3rd October 2004, 12:42 PM

Originally posted by 1inChrist
Typical pseudo-skeptical thinking. If a scientists goes public with evidence of the paranormal you dismiss them as ''not a real scientist''. You claimed in your OP to "have read many reports from REAL scientists that said they tested psychics and found evidence of psychic ability" - Jos&eacute Silva has no formal scientific training. He has not published any research in a scientific journal.
Those facts in themselves do not mean that he is inacpable of coming up with something interesting, though. So lets leave the REAL scientist bit to one side - why not just quote one experiment or study of SIlva's which supports the existence of psi.

thaiboxerken

3rd October 2004, 12:49 PM

I'll admit that a few scientists might believe there is paranormal phenomena. However, these scientists have yet to provide scientific evidence to support their beliefs.

Yahweh

3rd October 2004, 01:06 PM

Originally posted by 1inChrist
Especially this chapter (http://victorzammit.com/book/chapter02.html).
That particular chapter doesnt make any testable claims. What is their to debunk?

Zammit has a few quotes from authority figures, what does that prove? It proves he has quotes from authority figures. He takes many many quotes and calls this evidence... do you know how upset he gets when close-minded evil skeptics use this same rhetoric against him?

And he cites Emanuel Swedenborg. Talk to Iacchus about Emanuel Swedenborg, or better yet read his book (specifically, this excerpt on Swedenborg (http://www.dionysus.org/index.htm?x0101.html#11)).

Here is a nice quote from the article:
And even electrons, protons and neutrons, the particles which make up atoms, are now thought to be energy rather than matter.
So energy and matter are not the same thing? Color me surprised. The moral of the story is as follows: Zammit is a buzzword philosopher, who's aim is to use "important sounding" words so that the average reader might say "yeah, this sounds about right", but on a close or meagerly academic look it becomes obvious that Zammit has little idea of the concepts he's rambling about.

Throughout Zammit's book, you wont find a single example of any experimentation that can be replicated and affirms any of his beliefs in souls at the same time. Zammit is a laughable authority. However, you might find many insulting and belittling remarks about people who dont buy into his garble. I dont recommend you appeal to Zammit, because it makes you look silly.

Try this, come up with single reliable observation of any supernatural phenomena, and get back to us. Or better yet, find a way to experiment for any supernatural phenenomena, and we'll see what the science says.

Temp3st

3rd October 2004, 01:33 PM

Originally posted by 1inChrist
I HAVE FAITH IN THE LORD JESUS CHRIST.

Why?
What has he done for you lately?

T'ai Chi

3rd October 2004, 01:55 PM

I have "faith", through evidence, in evolution, physics, chemistry, mathematics, geology, and other sciences, because they work, and you can show that they work to anyone, anytime, regardless of their beliefs.

BillC

3rd October 2004, 02:04 PM

Originally posted by 1inChrist
Typical pseudo-skeptical thinking. If a scientists goes public with evidence of the paranormal you dismiss them as ''not a real scientist''.

Giving one's own name as "Dr A" is hardly "going public" with anything.

Vikram

3rd October 2004, 03:04 PM

Originally posted by 1inChrist
I just showed you that there are scientists who are convinced of the paranormal.

It would be great if the names of these alphabetical scientists could be revealed to us so that we could contact them and ask them whether they have any proof that the events described in the article actually occured.

Ladewig

3rd October 2004, 03:29 PM

1inChrist
I have read many reports from REAL scientists that said they tested psychics and found evidence of psychic ability. Anytime this is brought up you just say those scientists were gullible or liars. You dismiss them all and fall back on the bogus Randi challenge.

One of the most powerful aspect of science is that when REAL scientists find evidence of some kind of ability, no one can stop them from clearly identifying and measuring that ability or from receiving world-wide recognition of that ability or from developing technology to magnify that ability. Skeptics in general and JREF in particular are not powerful enough to stop REAL scientists from publishing their work, from receiving funding from a variety of sources, or from winning scientific awards.

So why are you ragging at us?

1inChrist
You also go to Christian forums to try and convert them to naturalism and all that other scientific philosophy garbage.

Can I play too?

You go to skeptic forums to try to convert them to Christianity and all that other religious garbage.

Your turn.

Vikram

3rd October 2004, 03:31 PM

Originally posted by 1inChrist
Especially this chapter (http://victorzammit.com/book/chapter02.html).

Astrophysicist Michael Scott of Edinburgh University argues that:

"the advancement of quantum physics has produced a description of reality which allows the existence of parallel universes. Composed of real substances they would not interact with matter from our own universe."

Professor Fred Alan Wolf seems to concur with these findings. In his book The Spiritual Universe: How Quantum Physics Proves the Existence of the Soul he states:

"as fantastic as it sounds, the new physics called quantum mechanics posits that there exists, side by side with this world, another world, a parallel universe, a duplicate copy that is somehow slightly different yet the same. And not just two parallel worlds, but three, four or even more! In each of these universes, you, I and all the others who live, have lived, will live, and will ever have lived, are alive! (Wolf 1996)."

The evidence from many scientists that the afterlife exists is overwhelming.

Ok 1inChrist, since you offer this chapter as proof of life after death, I would be greatly obliged if you could explain the above passage to me (I've quoted it from the end of Chapter 2.)

If you state Zammit's book as your proof, I'm sure you must have good reason to accept his authority - namely that you must have read his work and that it must have made perfect sense to you. (Otherwise it would seem that you just blindly accepted what he had to say.) Hence, I would appreciate if you could help me make sense of the quoted passage.

Dymanic

3rd October 2004, 03:35 PM

Originally posted by Ladewig

You go to skeptic forums to try to convert them to Christianity and all that other religious garbage.
The conclusion reached on another thread (and never refuted by 1inChrist) was that the one he is most interested in convincing is himself.

Zep

3rd October 2004, 04:40 PM

Originally posted by 1inChrist
Read Victor Zammit's book (http://victorzammit.com/book/index.html). 1inC, let me tell this to you bluntly.

Victor Zammit is a kook, a looney, a nincompoop of the first water. He's not even a respected philosopher, and he admits hasn't practiced law these past ten years or so. He is intelligent, yes, and in that respect, his writings may certainly sound "rational" to someone like you who is suitably impressed by words with more than one syllable.

But let me step you though Victor's "philosopy" for you, and I think you will find that you will need to look for another hero fairly quickly.

Here's Victor's ideas on "The Seven Laws of Psychic Energy - These laws of energy are not alterable. These laws have always been and will always be in existence."
http://www.victorzammit.com/articles/sevenlaws.html
Traditional secular scientists are now in agreement with the spiritual scientists and have conceded that all visible matter and invisible waves in the world can be reduced to 'vibrating energy'. ... Accordingly, now for the very first time it is proposed that specific laws be codified about psychic energies - not just those which operate in the physical world but energies that also transcend the physical world. ... The afterlife has different levels of energy which form different spheres according to the speed of vibration - The faster the vibrations of a sphere the higher and more spiritually evolved are the entities which reside there. ... Slowing down the speed of the atomic vortices of the energy will result in materialisation. Speeding up the vortices will result in de-materialisation." Etc, etc, and that's just one page of his website. Victor's "psychic scientists" include some American Indian shamans named White Eagle and Silver Birch (true, read if you don't believe me), and long-proven psychic fraudsters and con-men. He literally worships John Edwards and various English stage-act mentalists as "genuine proof" of the afterlife, and has a long-standing irrational hatred of James Randi. Again, as others above have said, if you don't believe us, please read ALL of Victor's website yourelf.

Oh, and I can confirm for you that Victor IS considered an eccentric: I have had personal communication with him, and he lives in the same city I do. Let's just say that he needs a psychiatrist far more than he needs a psychic. Victor is in our Hall of Fame as a leading barking mad, screw-loose woo-woo. Any faith you have in his work is built on sand...quicksand.

Interesting Ian

3rd October 2004, 05:23 PM

Originally posted by thaiboxerken
I'll admit that a few scientists might believe there is paranormal phenomena.

A few? Most do don't they?

Grendel

3rd October 2004, 06:21 PM

1inChrist could give a rat's ass for Victor Zammit, except to the extent that he poses as a scientist who believes in what 1inChrist requires. The minute Zammit were to renounce paranormal belief is the minute 1inChrist renounces Zammit.

Twenty kazillion scientists in this world, and three -anonymous, mind you -endorse these inane beliefs. Ah, but that's enough, eh? That's just an appeal to authority, the dubious status of these 'scientists'. It's not about the scientists, it's about the evidence. Google "Cold fusion, Pons, Fleischman" sometime.

I still say that if 1inChrist gets so inflamed over others' refusal to buy into these guys' nonsense, it is a CLEAR sign that 1inChrist is desperate for physical, scientific proof of his beliefs, something his own religion preaches against. He is a skeptic, albeit a poor one.

This search for scientific evidence is the mark of a totally faithless man. Ironically, this good thing will feel like a bath in lava to 1inChrist.

How do you feel about so openly revealing your faithlessness in front of God, 1inChrist? And for taking His name in vain? for going against the tenets of your faith?

thaiboxerken

3rd October 2004, 06:49 PM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
A few? Most do don't they?

I doubt it, have any statistics?

SezMe

3rd October 2004, 07:15 PM

Originally posted by CFLarsen
1inChrist,

Could you please answer the questions?

Must be early on in the thread. Larson used "please." I'll bet that word disappears pretty soon.

DangerousBeliefs

3rd October 2004, 07:54 PM

Originally posted by thaiboxerken
I doubt it, have any statistics?

Over 100,000 scientists believe in ghosts (or will to see Demi Moore naked)

CFLarsen

3rd October 2004, 09:45 PM

Originally posted by 1inChrist
Read Victor Zammit's book (http://victorzammit.com/book/index.html).

Zammit claims to use logic. Doesn't that make him an instrument of the devil?

singlemalt

3rd October 2004, 10:07 PM

Originally posted by 1inChrist
Read Victor Zammit's book (http://victorzammit.com/book/index.html).

Ah yes. The same quality of work that gave us that wonderful boon to mankind: COLD FUSION.

Proof please. Peer reviewed, published proof from a real scientist or better yet a real research group affiliated with a REAL institute of higher education or a REPUTABLE lab. Not too much to ask, just do the tests in front of real scientists in their specialties, with maybe a couple conjurors tossed in just to keep the Gellers of the world honest. (Not Oral Roberts U either, a real one).

Damned mumbo jumbo artist. If it is real it is repeatable.

Why do we bother trying to reason with this guy? His world doesn't have room for reality.

Stitch

4th October 2004, 12:44 AM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
A few? Most do don't they?

Any chance of a link to the Gallup poll that leads you to believe that statement is correct?

Interesting Ian

4th October 2004, 03:25 AM

Originally posted by Stitch
Originally posted by Interesting Ian
A few? Most do don't they?

Stitch
Any chance of a link to the Gallup poll that leads you to believe that statement is correct?

I don't have a link, but I do think that I recollect it as being the majority of scientists. I'm not sure though and was hoping that TBK could provide some sort of reference since he made the original claim.

Lothian

4th October 2004, 04:41 AM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
I don't have a link, but I do think that I recollect it as being the majority of scientists. Trouble is that scientist is a wide description. So a geologist believes in paranormal phenomena, so what ? Is he anymore qualified than an ice cream man ?

But who cares about people beliefs when we are looking at science. ? Science is about fact rather than belief. To date facts are on the side of their being no paranormal phenomena.

In any case when it comes to interpreting facts as been demonstrated on countless occasions, quantity is far less important than quality.

So how many scientists believe is not relevant.

Dr Adequate

4th October 2004, 04:46 AM

Originally posted by 1inChrist
I have read many reports from REAL scientists that said they tested psychics and found evidence of psychic ability. Anytime this is brought up you just say those scientists were gullible or liars. You dismiss them all and fall back on the bogus Randi challenge.

Face it you are FUNDAMENTALIST.

You also go to Christian forums to try and convert them to naturalism and all that other scientific philosophy garbage.
1inCHrist, I'm astonished. I'm perpetually astonished by you. What are you on? You post blithering rubbish like this about "many reports from REAL scientists" and then refers us to a website naming doctors A, B, and C.

Is that actually the best you can do? Is this "many reports". It is one, which names no "REAL scientists". Now, were you just lying to us, or do you have anything else?
Anytime this is brought up you just say those scientists were gullible or liars.
No, this is not true. As you will see if you read our posts instead of just frothing at us.

:cs: Victor Zammit :cs: is so funny that when I discovered him I sent the address of his website to all my friends.

" the bogus Randi challenge". If you have the slightest shred of evidence for traducing Randi's integrity in this way, we'd all like to hear it. If not then you are a malicious liar.

Finally, could I ask why raving Christian fundementalists always fall back on calling non-nuts FUNDAMENTALISTS and telling us that EVOLUTION IS A RELIGION and all the other woo-woo talk? It appears that the worst thing you can think of to say about me is that my thinking is like yours. What does that tell you? THE WORST ACCUSATION YOU CAN COME UP WITH --- THE ONE YOU KEEP REPEATING --- IS TO SAY THAT WE ARE LIKE YOU. Which, by the way, is an offensive lie, for which, as with all your delusions, you have presented no evidence whatsoever.

Think about it.

canadarocks

4th October 2004, 04:53 AM

Trouble is that scientist is a wide description. So a geologist believes in paranormal phenomena, so what ? Is he anymore qualified than an ice cream man ?

As a geologist, I resent being characterized as a scientist that would believe in the paranormal! The geologist's I know have above-average critical thinking skills and are IMO more qualified than non-scientists.

Please pick on another professional (like lawyers [Zammit]) to use for your comparisons. Thank you. ;)

TheBoyPaj

4th October 2004, 05:03 AM

I have a report from Priests A, B and C which says god doesn't exist.

Stitch

4th October 2004, 05:09 AM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
I don't have a link, but I do think that I recollect it as being the majority of scientists. I'm not sure though and was hoping that TBK could provide some sort of reference since he made the original claim.

Hmm so what we really have is: "an unquantified number of scientists believe in the paranormal"

OK I'll accept that, not sure how it helps, but I'll accept it :D

Zep

4th October 2004, 05:09 AM

Zammit is as much a lawyer as he is a scientist. And he's as much a scientist as he is a milkman. And he's as much a milkman as he is a nuclear physicist.

In reality, he is none of these things. He's a super-nutty fruitcake, a looney-tune, a Froot-Loop<sup>(TM)</sup>, two wholemeal sandwiches short of a small cut lunch, 18 bob in the pound, two kangaroos loose in the top paddock, etc, etc, etc. Even as we speak, somewhere in Sydney, Victor is out in a park on a small ladder preaching his babble to the evening cockatoos, who, being in their right mind, are flying away somewhere else - they know when they meet their match.

It's a fine line between being a harmless local eccentric and being treated for frank schizophrenia. For mine, Victor treads that line...

Lothian

4th October 2004, 05:14 AM

Originally posted by canadarocks
As a geologist, I resent being characterized as a scientist that would believe in the paranormal! The geologist's I know have above-average critical thinking skills and are IMO more qualified than non-scientists.

Please pick on another professional (like lawyers [Zammit]) to use for your comparisons. Thank you. ;) Many apologies, indeed most geologists I have met are gneiss.

Sorry , sorry bad joke but I couldn't resist it. :D

CurtC

4th October 2004, 07:40 AM

1inC, I'll help you out here, since you seem to be foundering. Here are two scientists who believe in the paranormal:

Gary Schwartz
Brian Josephson

Further, there are many many scientists who believe in a god (belief in god often isn't what's meant by "paranormal," but it qualifies).

El Greco

4th October 2004, 07:54 AM

If I am a scientist and I believe that you are an idiot, does this mean that I don't have to prove it ?

Woa! :D

bjornart

4th October 2004, 07:54 AM

Originally posted by TheBoyPaj
I have a report from Priests A, B and C which says god doesn't exist.

I can do better, here's a report about a named Danish priest who says God doesn't exist. Danish Priest suspended (http://www.beliefnet.com/story/127/story_12766_1.html)

CFLarsen

4th October 2004, 08:53 AM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
I don't have a link, but I do think that I recollect it as being the majority of scientists. I'm not sure though and was hoping that TBK could provide some sort of reference since he made the original claim.

Ian, you can't remember what you said five minutes ago (yes, I am thinking about your performance on Paltalk yesterday). Why should we trust your memory on this one?

Dr Adequate

4th October 2004, 08:57 AM

Originally posted by 1inChrist
Read Victor Zammit's book (http://victorzammit.com/book/index.html).
... and you will be absolutely convinced, if you were not before, that there is no life after death. If these threadbare arguments and feeble rhetoric are the best arguments in favour, after millenia of wishful thinking, then there must be nothing in it.

It's like reading Creationist literature. They've had 150 years to come up with an objection, and all they can offer is a handful of pathetic lies that could be torn to shreds by a bright twelve-year-old with an encyclopaedia. We conclude: Darwin was right.

Dr Adequate

4th October 2004, 09:04 AM

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Zammit claims to use logic. Doesn't that make him an instrument of the devil?
From 1inChrist's view, obviously Victor Zammit must be Satanic, as he practices necromancy, as condemned in the Bible. But just 'cos he serves the Father Of Lies doesn't mean he's not a reliable source, eh, 1inC? Just as scientists who use "reason and logic" (Witches! Satanists! Burn them!) can be used as authorities when 1inChrist thinks they agree with him. If he asked them their opinion on evolution, suddenly they'd be mouthpieces of Beelzebub again.

thaiboxerken

4th October 2004, 09:23 AM

When I said that I'm sure a few scientists believe in the paranormal, I mean that, at least, some do. I don't know if it's a majority or a minority. My point was that their beliefs really have no bearing, it's the scientific evidence that matters. So far, there is no scientific evidence.

Crap, Ian, you really like to toss out red-herrings, don't you?

Ashles

4th October 2004, 09:37 AM

So anyway dinosaurs, rock strata...

Oh sorry.

Let me get this straight - we can listen to scientists when they declare belief and experiments in paranormal abilities. But not when they talk about carbon dating, fossil evidence and evolution?

What if Doctors A, B and C believe in evolution - can you still trust them 1inChrist?
What if Doctors A, B and C believe in psychic abilities, yet think Zammit is a buzzword-tossing lunatic?

I think whoever said 1inChrist is trying to convince themself more than anyone else could be on to something.

Interesting Ian

4th October 2004, 09:57 AM

Originally posted by Lothian
Trouble is that scientist is a wide description. So a geologist believes in paranormal phenomena, so what ? Is he anymore qualified than an ice cream man ?

I don't think any of them are qualified apart from parapsychologists.

But who cares about people beliefs when we are looking at science. ?

Who's looking at science?

Science is about fact rather than belief.

It's a combination of both. Beliefs influence facts.

To date facts are on the side of their being no paranormal phenomena.

No, the converse.

In any case when it comes to interpreting facts as been demonstrated on countless occasions, quantity is far less important than quality.

So how many scientists believe is not relevant.

Of course not. What do scientists know about such things.

T'ai Chi

4th October 2004, 10:09 AM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian

Beliefs influence facts.

I can believe the Earth is flat all I want, but that won't change things.

Ashles

4th October 2004, 10:44 AM

To date facts are on the side of their being no paranormal phenomena.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No, the converse.

Ian, just writing something doesn't make it true, no matter how much you mght wish for something to be true.

We could sit here all day and say is, isn't, is, isn't. But the actual fact remains that for things that have been shown to exist by science you could demonstrate any of them today.
You couldn't do this with paranormal phenomena.

And as for this bizarre implication that scientists shouldn't be the ones to do paranormal research, well who would you recommend then? Should I take a random person from the local holistic healing centre and say "Go find evidence of psi?" Scientists are trained in experimental methodology, setting up and performing an experiment and of statistically analysing the results.

Of course there are good and bad scientists. Those who follow the procedures and those who don't for their own agendas, which is why the work needs to be clearly described and outlined, and, above all, repeatable.

I'm not quite sure who you would get to carry out reasearch Ian, or how they would be doing it.

AlienX

4th October 2004, 11:49 AM

Since when does Faith = Truth?

The only way any progress in the field will be made is if it's done using proper scientific methodology, unfortunately when this is done the results are seriously negative.

Faith is not a factor.

AX

Dr Adequate

4th October 2004, 11:53 AM

Originally posted by Ashles
I think whoever said 1inChrist is trying to convince themself more than anyone else could be on to something.
I don't think anyone said it. But we all thought it.

Ashles is psychic!

Dr Adequate

4th October 2004, 11:55 AM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
:cs: Beliefs influence facts. :cs:

Marquis de Carabas

4th October 2004, 12:23 PM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Beliefs influence facts.

There's a lot to be said for this, actually. To wit:

I believe Interesting Ian is being quite woo-ey.
Therefore, it is a fact that I believe II is being quite woo-ey. (Unless someone cares to call into question my honest and forthright character, of course :D)

Dr Adequate

4th October 2004, 12:57 PM

To wit: too woo-ey.

Dr Adequate

4th October 2004, 02:21 PM

Originally posted by 1inChrist
Especially this chapter (http://victorzammit.com/book/chapter02.html).
Apart from referencing woos like Swedenborg and Freud, not to mention Kant ("â€¦ while I doubt any of them, still I have certain faith in the whole of them taken together." ) hohoho --- he mentions a few scientists actually trying to study psi "phenomena". I quote:
In England one of the founders of the Society for Psychical Research (SPR) was Sir William Crookes, a Fellow of the Royal Society â€” a very prestigious association of the most learned scientists elected by their peers â€” and later its President. He discovered six chemical elements including Thallium; many people considered him to be the greatest scientist of his time.

Crookes worked extensively investigating levitation phenomena which were associated with the medium D.D. Home. Conclusive photographs were a part of this record and the authenticity of the appearances, as well as the total absence of fraud and trickery were verified by a number of other leading scientists of the day. One of these was Cromwell F. Varley, an early researcher into ionization and supervisor of the initial laying of the Atlantic Cable. Crookes was finally convinced of the reality of the afterlife by a series of remarkable full materializations of his wife. Interestingly no mention of his considerable contribution to afterlife research is ever made in biographical entries on him in mainstream scientific biographies.

Also in his group were scientists Lord Balfour, Sir William Barrett, Sir Oliver Lodge, Lord Raleigh, J. J. Thompson (who discovered the electron) and Alfred Russell Wallace (who propounded the theory of evolution at the same time as and independently of Charles Darwin).
And their conclusions? They looked, certainly? What did they find? Well, we look on another 'survivalist' website (http://www.survivalafterdeath.org/books/ducasse/critical/18.htm), and find:
In 1932, Mrs. Sidgwick wrote an account of the history and work of the Society for Psychical Research during its FIRST FIFTY YEARS. She being at the time President of Honor of the Society, her paper was presented by her brother, Lord Balfour at the jubilee meeting of the Society, July 1, 1932. After he had done so, he added that some of the persons present "may have felt that the note of caution and reserve has possibly been over-emphasized in Mrs. Sidgwick's paper!' Then he went on: "Conclusive proof of survival is notoriously difficult to obtain. But the evidence may be such as to produce belief, even though it fall short of conclusive proof. Lord Balfour then concluded with the words: "I have Mrs. Sidgwick's assurance - an assurance which I am permitted to convey to the meeting - that, upon the evidence before her, she herself is a firm believer both in survival and in the reality of communication between the living and the dead."(16) This belief, he had himself come to share.

(16) Proc. S.P.R. Vol. XLI:16,1932-3.

Certainly, few persons have been both as THOROUGHLY ACQUAINTED WITH THE EVIDENCE from cross-correspondences for survival and for communication with the deceased, and at the same time as objective and keenly critical, as were Mrs. Sidgwick and Lord Balfour.
CAPITALS mine --- italics Lord Balfour's. Fifty years' of psychic research. This man is "thoroughly acquanted with the evidence". He is one of Zammit's showpiece group of scientific investigators, and the most thoroughly woo-woo of them. And his conclusion? "The evidence may be such as to produce belief" and yet "falls short of conclusive proof".

And seventy-two years later, what have you got? References to the same utterly inconclusive, unconvincing set of investigations... and belief.

Achán hiNidráne

4th October 2004, 02:47 PM

Originally posted by 1inChrist
I HAVE FAITH IN THE LORD JESUS CHRIST.

So....?

Achán hiNidráne

4th October 2004, 02:49 PM

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Zammit claims to use logic. Doesn't that make him an instrument of the devil?

Considering 1inC's assertion that psychic powers are the work of the Devil, I think it would.

1inChrist

4th October 2004, 02:53 PM

Debunk his book then if you are so smart and win 1 million dollars!

Marquis de Carabas

4th October 2004, 02:55 PM

Originally posted by 1inChrist
Debunk his book then if you are so smart and win 1 million dollars!
This post should be reported. I feel that it was a deliberate attempt to make my spleen rupture from laughter. :D:D:D

Ashles

4th October 2004, 03:38 PM

Debunk his book then if you are so smart and win 1 million dollars!
1inChrist do you understand the problems in debunking the unprovable?

Some fish turn into chocolate for short periods.
Debunk that.

After we die EVERYONE goes to hell.
Debunk that.

I can levitate when not being monitored in any way.
Debunk that.

Pretend I have a million dollars for you to debunk any of those.

Admittedly this does involve logic and I know you hate that, but, just for fun, have a go.

By the way, I am really curious as to whether you have a job.

Tricky

4th October 2004, 04:05 PM

Originally posted by Ashles
1inChrist do you understand the problems in debunking the unprovable?

Some fish turn into chocolate for short periods.
Debunk that.

After we die EVERYONE goes to hell.
Debunk that.

I can levitate when not being monitored in any way.
Debunk that.

Pretend I have a million dollars for you to debunk any of those.

And don't forget that you and your hand-picked circle of friends get to decide if any of the above have been debunked.

billydkid

4th October 2004, 05:17 PM

Originally posted by 1inChrist
I HAVE FAITH IN THE LORD JESUS CHRIST.

I have always been extremely confused by this sort of claim. What does it mean? Do you know Jesus Christ? I mean in the sense of have you met him, spoken with him - in the sense of having a conversation with him talking back and all. So here is the deal as far as I can tell. Unless you have personally encountered this person and have in some way verified his extant existance what does it mean to say you have faith in him?

If you have not encountered him personally then it is all heresay. I don't know, but I am not going to take someone's word that this or that is the truth of the universe. Do you mean you have faith in the stuff he espoused - love thy neighbor, turn the other cheek and such - as reported in the bible? Let's face it believing in Gods and stuff because someone told you so does not sound very sensible.

Those are the only two alternatives - you have either had a face to face encounter with the all-mighty himself and he told you what was what or you are taking someone's word for it. You could argue that you get it from the bible (Jesus loves me this I know.....), but the bible is really heresay isn't it (I mean, "word of God" sounds so cool and everything, but I'm pretty sure God didn't sit down with a pencil and steno pad and write it out. I'm pretty sure it was actually written by a whole bunch of different guys who likely had their own spin on things.) And then there's the the fact that you have to first take someone's word that the bible is THE book to read if you want to get the straight scoop.

But even if you did have a face to face with the big guy you'd still have to take his word for it that he is the big guy. He could be Satan masquerading around as the big guy. You see, there are all these inescapable dilemas with this faith business. You've got all these people over here believing this thing and then you've got all these people over there believing the other thing and there is no good reason for believing in any of it, but all these people get to go around feeling all self righteous and superior because they have "faith".

My personal feeling is put all these "faithful" people on some island and let them spend all their time "sharing" their faith with each other and slitting each other's throats because one's load of BS is better than another's load of BS - and they can leave all the rest of us alone who are a little bit interested in the actual truth of things in as much as that truth is knowable. There are those of us who believe that the ACTUAL truth of things is something worth believing in and that it lays 1000 times more claim to GOODNESS than do all the "faiths" in the world combined.

nbenami

4th October 2004, 05:44 PM

Just to touch on the "scientists believe in the paranormal" nonsense, there are plenty of studies showing a high degree of atheism among scientists. I'd assume this would correlate fairly linearly with belief in superstitions (a.k.a. the paranormal.)

Lets see, now, how is this done? Ah yes...

http://www.objectivethought.com/atheism/iqstats.html
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file002.html
http://www.all-science-fair-projects.com/science_fair_projects_encyclopedia/The_relationship_between_religion_and_science

According to a recent survey, belief in a God that is "in intellectual and affective communication with humankind" and in "personal immortality" is most popular among mathematicians and least popular among biologists. In total, about 60% of scientists in the United States expressed disbelief or doubt in the existence of God in 1996. This percentage has been fairly stable over the last 100 years. Among "leading" scientists (surveyed members of the National Academy of Sciences), 93% expressed disbelief or doubt in the existence of a personal God in 1998. (Larson and Witham, 1998)

There. That should do it.

Jeff Corey

4th October 2004, 05:58 PM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
... What do scientists know about such things. We know more than you.

CurtC

4th October 2004, 07:14 PM

Originally posted by billydkid
Originally posted by 1inChrist
I HAVE FAITH IN THE LORD JESUS CHRIST.
I have always been extremely confused by this sort of claim. What does it mean? Do you know Jesus Christ? I mean in the sense of have you met him, spoken with him - in the sense of having a conversation with him talking back and all.There are two definitions of "faith" in the dictionary. One is "belief without evidence," and that's one that applies when you're talking religion. The other is "trust," as in "I have faith in my brother."

So yes, I'm sure that 1inC believes in Jesus Christ, although she has no evidence that JC is still arount.

T'ai Chi

4th October 2004, 10:11 PM

Originally posted by 1inChrist
Debunk his book then if you are so smart and win 1 million dollars!

If the things he claims are so real, why has he not snatched up the JREF prize money?

Vikram

4th October 2004, 11:21 PM

Originally posted by jzs
If the things he claims are so real, why has he not snatched up the JREF prize money?

Because the JREF prize is bogus, silly.

and the money is cursed

and Randi doesn't actually have any money at all

etc.

DarkMagician

5th October 2004, 12:30 AM

And to think, I was once one of these psychic phonomena believers. I seriously though I was a psychic. I even had notes. Now that I know those were anecdotal, the powers were barely 80% on an "excellent" day (and I've only had one "excellent" day in 16 years, not counting the first three since I can't remember back that far), and my "divineing" was only working because of near-infinite trials.

If there was something unbiased to study, I'd read it, then make my own conclusions. I'd really like my "research" to actually reflect something realistic, but I'm now a whole lot more critical.

Anders

6th October 2004, 01:29 AM

Originally posted by 1inChrist
Debunk his book then if you are so smart and win 1 million dollars!
It actually works the other way around. Zammit proves his claims and he wins the million. I debunk his claims and end up with nothing but the acknowledgement from the skeptic society.

Dr Adequate

6th October 2004, 03:06 AM

Originally posted by 1inChrist
Debunk his book then if you are so smart and win 1 million dollars!
Debunk his book, you say? With pleasure. In three words:

Hearsay isn't evidence.

All Victor Zammit (www.victorzammit.com) (The World's Most Gullible Man) has done is copy what other woo-woos have written. How else do you think he managed to discover that Einstein was a Troo Bleever in the Other Side? It wasn't from reading Einstein. It wasn't from reading a biography of Einstein. It was from listening to another flake with a choice bit of misinformation. And now you are citing Zammit.

"A lie can go round the world before the truth has got its boots on."

Open Mind

6th October 2004, 05:04 AM

'Hearsay is evidence'

Everything we have not personally checked is hearsay. In that regard sceptic websites are providing hearsay too.

Edit due to typos

Dr Adequate

6th October 2004, 05:46 AM

Originally posted by Open Mind
'Hearsay is evidence'

Everything we have not personally checked is hearsay. In that regard sceptic websites are providing hearsay too.

We provide references to people who do have evidence If we don't the other sceps complain, let alone the Troo Bleevers. Victor Zammit just uncritically believes everything that supports his woo-woo views. Such as his rubbish about Einstein. He might have tried to source it, but life is short, genuine scholarship is hard, and he wouldn't find the "fact" he's looking for, 'cos it's made up. He is too lazy to avoid telling lies.

Hearsay is not evidence.

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

6th October 2004, 05:50 AM

The word hearsay is a synonym for rumor. Statements we have not checked are not all hearsay; some are much more substantiated than others.

~~ Paul

steenkh

6th October 2004, 06:15 AM

Originally posted by Open Mind
'Hearsay is evidence'

Everything we have not personally checked is hearsay. In that regard sceptic websites are providing hearsay too.

No, it is not as simple as that. You do not have to check everything yourself. It is a question of trustworthiness.

I have not personally checked that the U.S.-led coalition has actually invaded Iraq, but all the media say so, and I know that I can trust at least some them, so I believe that Iraq is invaded, and it is not hearsay.

Some things that journalists tell us is hearsay: they have not checked it out personally, and indeed, nobody has checked it out at all. A sign of good journalism is that the journalist actually makes an effort to check out the sources and determines if the sources are trustworthy, and accordingly, good journalism should not be hearsay.

When a person tells us that he has seen a paranormal phenomenon, the question of trustworthiness comes to fore in a higher degree, because it is also obvious that this experience is unlikely. At this stage, we must demand some kind of documentation in order to heighten the trustworthiness. As expected, this documentation is never available.

A sceptic website will not be a great source of hearsay. We usually do not claim to experience extraordinary phenomena ourselves, so the only hearsay we can deliver is the material of people who have investigated the claims themselves. You will find that most references are to scientifical studies, and carry a high degree of trustworthiness.

Of course, you can think it to be hearsay when Randi claims that everybody up till now have failed the preliminary test for the million dollar challenge. But his statement can be trusted because otherwise he would have been sued, and we have no sources that claim that this is the case.

CurtC

6th October 2004, 06:26 AM

Another key reason that skeptics sites don't use hearsay is that, for the most part, we're not presenting evidence. You can't have evidence that something *doesn't* exist. What we do is point out that the woo-woo sites don't *have* evidence, or that the evidence is seriously flawed.

Open Mind

6th October 2004, 08:41 AM

Originally posted by CurtC
Another key reason that skeptics sites don't use hearsay is that, for the most part, we're not presenting evidence. You can't have evidence that something *doesn't* exist. What we do is point out that the woo-woo sites don't *have* evidence, or that the evidence is seriously flawed.

How do you know it 'doesn't exist', is that due to 'faith' in others commentary or was it known by some paranormal power ;)

What we do is point out that the woo-woo sites don't *have* evidence, or that the evidence is seriously flawed.
You can find flaws in anything, there are flaws in Einstein's conclusions and consequences should we debunk them when there is nothing better to change it to?

The problem with PSI, is the anomalous effects in controlled trials are weak, this allows psychologists,etc. to assume experimental errors are the cause and nitpick detail, if that is still unsatisfactory, sceptics can always claim fraud, etc. and demand the trials be repeated in front of sceptics in hostile environments which is perhaps enough to erode the weak effect drop to chance.

The problem is many people ARE deluding themselves into thinking they have strong psychic powers, that however doesnâ€™t means some weak PSI effect exists. The debate over â€˜experimental errorsâ€™ are far from clear cut.

I make no defense of Zammit, Zammit should not be mentioning those like Einstein, he is however justified in mentioning many of the others such as Crookes, etc. They clearly were convinced that what they reported (real or not) was genuine. To assume those scientists were all idiots, all committing fraud or all tricked all off the time, requires evidence that is not obtainable today, we weren't there. Skeptic books on them have been written using 'hearsay' .

Post edited ..... I'm going to start a new topic, not this one

Lothian

6th October 2004, 09:09 AM

Originally posted by Open Mind

The problem with PSI, is the anomalous effects in controlled trials are weak, this allows psychologists,etc. to assume experimental errors are the cause and nitpick detail, if that is still unsatisfactory, sceptics can always claim fraud, etc. and demand the trials be repeated in front of sceptics in hostile environments which is perhaps enough to erode the weak effect drop to chance.
Perhaps those hostile (presumably spitting, jeering and throwing things) skeptics mere presence does erode the weak PSI effect. Then again perhaps there is no PSI effect.

Where is your money ?

Stitch

6th October 2004, 09:14 AM

Originally posted by Open Mind
How do you know it 'doesn't exist', is that due to 'faith' in others commentary or was it known by some paranormal power ;)

I think you have misinterpreted what was said. 2 points were made. The first was that you can't proove a negative i.e. you cannot proove something does not exist. The second was that you can proove that something does exist, it just so happens that nobody has presented any credible evidence to support the existence yet. That doesn't mean there isn't any, just nobody has found any. Whether you belive any will ever be found or not is another matter.

Originally posted by Open Mind

The problem is many people ARE deluding themselves into thinking they have strong psychic powers, that however doesnâ€™t means some weak PSI effect exists. The debate over â€˜experimental errorsâ€™ are far from clear cut.

The problem is the effects are SO weak that we can't distinguish them from chance.

Ashles

6th October 2004, 10:00 AM

You can find flaws in anything, there are flaws in Einstein's conclusions and consequences should we debunk them when there is nothing better to change it to?
Er yes. If a theory is shown to be incorrect it should be discarded. We don't keep demonstrably wrong scientific theories just because we don't have a better one to replace it with.

If it's wrong it's wrong.

Hellbound

6th October 2004, 10:09 AM

And just to point out something here, Einstein's relativity is one of the most successfully tested theories to date, rivalled only by QM. Complaining about flaws in it means you also need to throw out pretty much everything else.

However, there are not really flaws in it, per se. For the sizes and speeds we've tested, SR and GR are amazingly accurate and correct. They are, however, incomplete, which is not the smae as saying flawed.

Newton's Laws are in this same category. For eveyday masses at everyday speeds, Newton's Laws of Motion work wonders. IN fact, they are still used in most aerospace applications, for example to land a rocket on Mars. Are they flawed? No, they work well within certain limits. Are they complete? No, they are not complete, and SR and GR cover a broader range of situations than Newton's Laws did.

Now, compare these examples to PSI. In Psi research, data is very often ambiguous or unclear; controls are often inadequate or improperly implemented; well-controlled tests show results that, if positive, are barely above insignifigance; many, many well controlled and blinded tests show negative results; and many of the claimed psi feats can be done by magicians, cons, and tricksters. Not to mention that some of these psi effects would overturn well founded theories such as SR, GR, or QM. As such, the very scant and contradictory evidence so far presented for psi effects is nowhere close to being robust enough to challenge the literally thousands of tests of SR and GR that have been carried out over many years, by many researchers in many nations, with decidely consitant and accurate results.

SR and GR are arrows all firmly within the target's inner ring. Psi research, to date, has tried to claim that the ring around the entire target is the bullseye.

rppa

6th October 2004, 10:14 AM

Originally posted by Open Mind
Originally posted by CurtC
Another key reason that skeptics sites don't use hearsay is that, for the most part, we're not presenting evidence. You can't have evidence that something *doesn't* exist. What we do is point out that the woo-woo sites don't *have* evidence, or that the evidence is seriously flawed.
How do you know it 'doesn't exist', is that due to 'faith' in others commentary or was it known by some paranormal power ;)

Read it again. Nobody is claiming to know it doesn't exist. We are saying we haven't seen evidence (in the form of controlled experiment) that it DOES exists. So the status is "not yet proven to exist", which is different from "proven not to exist". Do you see the difference?

It's like the legal standard for proof of guilt. If the state fails to prove the defendent guilty, the status is "not proven guilty" and therefore "not punished." Very different from "proven innocent".

You can find flaws in anything, there are flaws in Einstein's conclusions and consequences should we debunk them when there is nothing better to change it to?

Really? What are those flaws? I hope you're not going to pull the kind of stuff I see in physics discussion groups, where the "flaws" are "I don't understand it" or "It goes against my intuition". Those aren't flaws. The test of a theory is if it correctly predicts the results of an experiment. If it does, that's evidence in favor of the theory (not proof). If it doesn't, if the experiment is INCONSISTENT with the theory, then you must indeed consider the theory invalid, even if you have nothing better to replace it with.

What happens more often is that we find the domain of applicability of the old theory, and continue to use it, knowing it is not generally valid, because we know it was and continues to be a darned good approximation in the right circumstances. Such is the status, for instance, of Newton's law of gravitation, still used for virtually all orbital calculations.

The problem with PSI, is the anomalous effects in controlled trials are weak, this allows psychologists,etc. to assume experimental errors are the cause and nitpick

If there are flaws in the experimental method, then this is a serious problem for attempting to interpret the data, whether the experiment is Psi or something less controversial, like measuring the speed of sound.

demand the trials be repeated in front of sceptics in hostile environments which is perhaps enough to erode the weak effect drop to chance.

The standard in science is that independent experimenters can reproduce the experiment if they so choose. One standard of a well-written scientific paper is that there is enough detail to allow this to happen.

The problem with the "hostile environment" claim is that it is never raised until after experimental failure. As I said, a good scientific theory has the quality that you can predict the result of the experiment successfully. For Psi, that would include saying "this is a hostile environment and the effect won't work" beforehand. Instead, what we see under the JREF protocol is that people are happy with the environment before, consider it acceptable, see the results, and then declare it "hostile".

I make no defense of Zammit, Zammit should not be mentioning those like Einstein, he is however justified in mentioning many of the others such as Crookes, etc. They clearly were convinced that what they reported (real or not) was genuine.

I don't know Crookes. I've read some Jung, and I agree with your assessment.

To assume those scientists were all idiots, all committing fraud or all tricked all off the time, requires evidence that is not obtainable today, we weren't there.

Assuming is bad. However, there's nothing wrong with attempting to reproduce the experiment under controlled circumstances, where you know you've controlled for trickery. Reproducibility is the heart of experiment. Trying to reproduce somebody else's result isn't "assuming they were an idiot", it's merely basic science.

However, if multiple experimenters attempt to reproduce an experiment AS IT WAS DESCRIBED and fail to get the same results, that does indeed strongly indicate something was missing or wrong in the description. And it does make the original author look like an idiot.

Grendel

6th October 2004, 11:13 AM

I am familiar, more than familiar, with Crookes and other researchers and investigators of 19th/early 20th century spiritualism, including the British and American versions of the Society for Psychical Research, and I can tell you that Crookes, while certainly competent in his original field, was a perfect example of the prototypical scientist who steps outside his area of expertise and gets bamboozled by era mediums and charlatans. What Crookes believed is irrelevant. That he did not establish scientifically credible evidence for paranormal powers is relevant.

For a to-the-point accounting of Crookes' adventures in woo woo land, read The Skeptics' Handbook To (Of?) Parapsychology, edited by Paul Kurtz, an excellent read all around, and a must-read for psychic believers and skeptics alike.

Much of the research and testing done in Britain and the US from 1850 to the 1920s was conducted by scientists who were conflicted by religious beliefs. A lot of it had less to do with science than with proving religious concepts such as the 'soul' and its survival after the death of the body, evidence hopefully to be found in mediumship, seances, and spiritualism in general, all of which was a boon industry in both countries in those times.

Another factor was the classism in effect. Scientists were educated. The educated tended to come from the elite classes. The elite and educated had a hard time believing they could be bamboozled by lowly peasant class folks, while scientists in particular were not prepared for a 'lab rat' capable and willing to fool the lab scientist.

Religious based subjectivity, classism, unwarranted trust with resultant lack of controls, working outside one's area of expertise, plus other factors conspired to produce some pretty inept investigations, research, and dubious conclusions. As time went by greater controls were effected, and results diminished accordingly, i.e., the new field of parapsychology began to grow up.

epepke

6th October 2004, 12:02 PM

Originally posted by Open Mind
How do you know it 'doesn't exist', is that due to 'faith' in others commentary or was it known by some paranormal power ;)

We don't "know" that it doesn't exist. We are being skeptical. Being skeptical means not concluding that it does exist without generously significant evidence, appropriate to the claim, in support of the claim.

We do this because we have learned from history that in order to rule something out, you have to attack it. If it survives attack, it cannot be ruled out, but the strength by which it is hard to rule out is related to the strength of the attack.

Philip K. Dick, hardly a paranormal-basher himself, put it rather well: "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, it doesn't go away."

You know, I've been to a lot of talks on skepticism put on by groups of skeptics. Paranormal researchers and UFOlogists are quite common there, and even they appreciate the value of skepticism and debunking and see it as something that advances their research. ANY sensible person who is not a charlatan would appreciate the value debunking, the removal of bunkum.

You do not seem to see value of skepticism or even understand it much, but that's your problem.

Dr Adequate

6th October 2004, 12:42 PM

Originally posted by Open Mind
How do you know it 'doesn't exist', is that due to 'faith' in others commentary or was it known by some paranormal power ;)
The default assumption is that things don't exist. Until you have evidence that they do. Otherwise, I should be frightened to go outside because of the giant purple monster that might be lurking outside my door.
You can find flaws in anything, there are flaws in Einstein's conclusions and consequences
Do tell...
should we debunk them when there is nothing better to change it to?
If Einstein is wrong, then we are certainly obliged to say that he is wrong, instead of pretending that he's right. That's no more than honesty demands. What was your point?
The problem with PSI, is the anomalous effects in controlled trials are weak, this allows psychologists,etc. to assume experimental errors are the cause and nitpick detail, if that is still unsatisfactory, sceptics can always claim fraud, etc. and demand the trials be repeated in front of sceptics in hostile environments
Florida?
which is perhaps enough to erode the weak effect drop to chance.
Yes, perhaps people have psychic powers which never ever work when you test them, but work perfectly if they don't. Perhaps I can levitate when no-one is looking.
To assume those scientists were all idiots, all committing fraud or all tricked all off the time, requires evidence that is not obtainable today, we weren't there.
Quite. So don't assume it. Perhaps some of them were tricked, perhaps some were lying, perhaps one of them saw a genuine psychic phenomenon. How could we find that out now?

However, since the early psi investigations were rubbish (http://www.livingtruth.net/foxsister.html), and since scientists keep getting fooled by people later exposed as tricksters (see John Taylor and the "Superminds" fiasco (http://www.randi.org/jr/06-19-2000.html) , and all the other scientists who gawped at Geller), and since many of the people involved were obviously gullible woos (Sir Arthur Conan Doyle (http://www.chriswillis.freeserve.co.uk/cottfair.htm) springs to mind) and since no-one's ever managed to produce an indisputable psychic phenomenon, the chances are that they were victims of hoaxers.

When I see a hoofprint, my default assumption is "horse", not "unicorn".
Skeptic books on them have been written using 'hearsay' .
Name the books. All those I have seen have been carefully and meticulously referenced. So maybe you just made that up.

The Mighty Thor

6th October 2004, 01:12 PM

Originally posted by Grendel
I am familiar, more than familiar, with Crookes and other researchers and investigators of 19th/early 20th century spiritualism, including the British and American versions of the Society for Psychical Research, and I can tell you that Crookes, while certainly competent in his original field, was a perfect example of the prototypical scientist who steps outside his area of expertise and gets bamboozled by era mediums and charlatans. What Crookes believed is irrelevant. That he did not establish scientifically credible evidence for paranormal powers is relevant.

For a to-the-point accounting of Crookes' adventures in woo woo land, read The Skeptics' Handbook To (Of?) Parapsychology, edited by Paul Kurtz, an excellent read all around, and a must-read for psychic believers and skeptics alike.

Much of the research and testing done in Britain and the US from 1850 to the 1920s was conducted by scientists who were conflicted by religious beliefs. A lot of it had less to do with science than with proving religious concepts such as the 'soul' and its survival after the death of the body, evidence hopefully to be found in mediumship, seances, and spiritualism in general, all of which was a boon industry in both countries in those times.

Another factor was the classism in effect. Scientists were educated. The educated tended to come from the elite classes. The elite and educated had a hard time believing they could be bamboozled by lowly peasant class folks, while scientists in particular were not prepared for a 'lab rat' capable and willing to fool the lab scientist.

Religious based subjectivity, classism, unwarranted trust with resultant lack of controls, working outside one's area of expertise, plus other factors conspired to produce some pretty inept investigations, research, and dubious conclusions. As time went by greater controls were effected, and results diminished accordingly, i.e., the new field of parapsychology began to grow up.

Great post! But don't forget the most powerful motive of all -- SEX!

For some of these old duffers it was a chance to get their hands on 'a bit of skirt.' The 'psychics' and their entourage often stayed at the homes of these wealthy patrons of the Societies. The 'putting the lights out' was part of an excuse to get a bit of 'unhealthy' kissing and groping going on. And, as you say, the women and girls were probably having a good laugh at the expense of these 'fine, respectable men of science'. Before the advent of feminism, it was a way of asserting power for the disenfranchised. The 'workhouse' often beckoned for widows or orphaned children of even the middle classes. So, if you could earn a living by psychic chicanery . . .

I think Houdini sussed the sexual allure of 'Margery the Medium'. :D