Challenge to the Sceptics and Mr Randi

[Yennaija]

Dear all Sceptics and Mr Randi...

First of all, I see myself as some kind of a warrior for the underdog and in this case it is the poor old psychic (sigh)... and...on the other hand, I do love debate....

But so far the psychics in question... have not been able to give a good argument. The problems in general with psychics is a total acceptance in their belief of whatever kind of abilities they claim without analysing it.

They, from what I understand don't really question the how, what, where and who of things. They just do... So they act on a "possible" talent that has never been analysed seriously (but ridiculed).

Having a talent doesn't necessarily mean you also have the ability to analyse and perfect that talent without any help.

Just look at the mundane example of the programme the "X-Factor" where a majority of people have the illusion of being good singers and the good singer being insecure about their talent...

It is so easy to slag off and ridicule the singers who are a nightmare to ones ears and we laugh even more when they cry their eyeballs out when their dream is shattered by Simon's sarcastic remarks. Or there are the ones that get angry as they truly believe that the pro's are "wrong" about their abilities. The sad things is, is that they truly believe that they were good. The ones with an ear for music will agree with Simon and the ones without an ear for music will agree with the performer

Replace the singers with the so called "psychics" and you'll find a similar situation. However as this is such an uneasy and unexplored territory there are no Pro's and there is no "talent show". The majority of psychics you will come across on tv is most likely the equivalent of the rubbish that applies to the x-factor.
But there is no Simon to put them in place. But... as the Media loves to sell the stuff and it does bring in a lot of viewers..which is in better known terms called: MONEY! That's what it is truly all about...

Any possible "true" psychic with common sense will not put themselves up as a gladiator fighting lions in an arena.

And when it comes to the "Spiritual law" of balance (Yes, come on you lot...look that one up). They will not put themselves in a situation like that... as to the true ones (Based on the Spiritual law of balance) They'll not seek monetary reward or fame etc. hence they will not step up to Randi's challenge...

Which in other words makes debate based on the celeb psychics pretty useless... and so also Randi's challenge for proof against a monetary reward.

"There was a time that the sceptics didn't believe that the world was round. They were convinced that it was flat and the scientists then also known as quacks. charalatans and complete idiots were saying that the world was round". Sceptics asked for proof and it took a long time before there was anyone indeed brave enough - to sail over the "edge of the world"...

What I am trying to say with this example is that until the time that somebody was courageous enough to stand up to the challenge, the sceptics always had the upperhand but never dared or ventured out in a ship to proof that they were right. Those sceptics in that time are the ones that are being laughed at and ridiculed in this time ...most likely by some of you sceptics that are doing this to the "none understood and properly explored phenomena" now...which is represented in the form of psychic ability....

My challenge to you is for you sceptics to explain your understanding or belief of:

++ what psychic ability is and what one is supposedly be able to do
++ Your understanding or opinion about life after death
++ Your religious belief

With that knowledge about your belief and opinions, I will offer arguments in return for you to explain what your foundation of these beliefs are, and you try to convince me that you are correct about your beliefs.

I'll fight it with my knowledge of religion and spiritualist philosophy....
which is the "often confused and mixed up, misunderstood roots of some psychics".

Come on....

I am in for a good debate...

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Any possible "true" psychic with common sense will not put themselves up as a gladiator fighting lions in an arena.
No True Scotsman fallacy

And when it comes to the "Spiritual law" of balance (Yes, come on you lot...look that one up). They will not put themselves in a situation like that... as to the true ones (Based on the Spiritual law of balance) They'll not seek monetary reward or fame etc. hence they will not step up to Randi's challenge...
An excuse based upon mythology.

"There was a time that the sceptics didn't believe that the world was round. They were convinced that it was flat and the scientists then also known as quacks. charalatans and complete idiots were saying that the world was round". Sceptics asked for proof and it took a long time before there was anyone indeed brave enough - to sail over the "edge of the world"...
Bollocks. The Greeks, which formulized skepticism and logic knew the world was round.

What I am trying to say with this example is that until the time that somebody was courageous enough to stand up to the challenge, the sceptics always had the upperhand but never dared or ventured out in a ship to proof that they were right. Those sceptics in that time are the ones that are being laughed at and ridiculed in this time ...most likely by some of you sceptics that are doing this to the "none understood and properly explored phenomena" now...which is represented in the form of psychic ability....
Asking someone to prove a negative is general considered a logical fallacy.

++ what psychic ability is and what one is supposedly be able to do
It "is" whatever the psychic claims it to be, and should be tested as such.

++ Your understanding or opinion about life after death
There is no objective, testable evidence to suggest there is such a thing.

++ Your religious belief
Agnostic atheist.


With that knowledge about your belief and opinions, I will offer arguments in return for you to explain what your foundation of these beliefs are, and you try to convince me that you are correct about your beliefs.

I'll fight it with my knowledge of religion and spiritualist philosophy....
which is the "often confused and mixed up, misunderstood roots of some psychics".
Start by stepping away from "belief" and look at evidence.

[juryjone]

With that knowledge about your belief and opinions, I will offer arguments in return for you to explain what your foundation of these beliefs are, and you try to convince me that you are correct about your beliefs.


Tell you what. How about, instead of showing us arguments, you show us evidence. You could start by showing us evidence that there are "true" psychics that are "insecure about their talents".

Can you weave a tapestry of words that will highlight your "knowledge of religion and spiritual philosophy"? Good for you. You might want to go over to the "Religion and Philosophy" subforum. In this subforum, we are looking for evidence.

[Beady]

First of all, I see myself as some kind of a warrior for the underdog...

Sorry, but I go out of my way to avoid people who are on Missions From God.

You old warrior, you.

[Yennaija]

No True Scotsman fallacy

??


An excuse based upon mythology.

Wrong! you have to do better that that. What mythology are you referring too? There are so many....


Bollocks. The Greeks, which formulized skepticism and logic knew the world was round.

Just a matter of time frame.
What about the onces before these knowledgable Greeks?


Asking someone to prove a negative is general considered a logical fallacy.


negative or positive is merrely another matter of opinion. what is negative to one is positive to the other.... explain your tought process...as you made the quote in your opinion a negative one, so explain your thought process....


It "is" whatever the psychic claims it to be, and should be tested as such.
support your statement as the same can be said about your opinions....

if you claim to be good in something be it your job or whatever... it will always be debatable... this relates to everything and anything and not just psychic ability.


There is no objective, testable evidence to suggest there is such a thing.

visa versa.

Agnostic atheist.

So explain why you chose to be an Agnostic atheist?




Start by stepping away from "belief" and look at evidence.
Belief is the result to what people assume or have learned to be true.
evidence is not fact and merrily the result of something. Evidence can be that a chair has moved from one side of the room to another side of the room. How it has moved is the question that is up for debate her. was it a person or was it a ghost?
evidence will not give you all the answers...to what lies between

[Reno]

I'd like to congratulate you on your competent use of a spellchecker.

Other than that, I have nothing to say.

[Richard]

"There was a time that the sceptics didn't believe that the world was round.

No, believers thought the world was flat and it took the sceptics to dare to question that belief. Believers thought the Sun revolved around the Earth and it took sceptics to dare to question that belief (and some of them suffered for that at the hands of close-minded believers, mostly from Christianity.)


++ what psychic ability is and what one is supposedly be able to do
++ Your understanding or opinion about life after death
++ Your religious belief


1. Whatever the 'psychic' is claiming. Something that is not a magic trick or psychological trick.

2. No evidence for it so at the moment I would say it is wishful thinking.

3. None. I hope one day to find the term "religious belief" only in the history books. I cannot hold a belief that is based on wishful thinking or on lack of evidence. I do not count 'personal revelation' as good evidence as this is used by devotees of different and conflicting religions as proof they are right. Simply logic shows us that is cannot be the case, therefore 'personal revelation' is flawed.

[Yennaija]

Sorry, but I go out of my way to avoid people who are on Missions From God.

You old warrior, you.
You assume that I am on a mission from God.

Am not on a mission from God. Am not religious and don't belief in God. But your assumption is a classic one that is being made by quite a lot of Sceptics....

Thank you...

[Yennaija]

No, believers thought the world was flat and it took the sceptics to dare to question that belief. Believers thought the Sun revolved around the Earth and it took sceptics to dare to question that belief (and some of them suffered for that at the hands of close-minded believers, mostly from Christianity.)



1. Whatever the 'psychic' is claiming. Something that is not a magic trick or psychological trick.

2. No evidence for it so at the moment I would say it is wishful thinking.

3. None. I hope one day to find the term "religious belief" only in the history books. I cannot hold a belief that is based on wishful thinking or on lack of evidence. I do not count 'personal revelation' as good evidence as this is used by devotees of different and conflicting religions as proof they are right. Simply logic shows us that is cannot be the case, therefore 'personal revelation' is flawed.
A) You are just reversing the role of sceptic and non-sceptic in a manner that suits you. The belief that the world was flat was ingrained into society of that time and it was a "new" idea that made the believers of a flat world sceptical about the round world...

1) There is a proper description to what psychic ability entails. So it isn't what the psychic "Claims" they are able to do... So why not say...You don't know....
2) You still haven't explained what your idea is... Can only assume that you belief that this life is your one and only life...
3) Simple logic can also show that afterlife can exist or psychic ability can exist. Am not Albert Einstein but there are some very interesting theories.
But like with most theories...they will remain a theory until practically proven.

My question to you is...Why would feel happy if you are proven right that this life is it? And there is no afterlife.... Is your life so miserable that you don't want to go through anything similar again?

[juryjone]

Asking someone to prove a negative is general considered a logical fallacy.
negative or positive is merrely another matter of opinion. what is negative to one is positive to the other.... explain your tought process...as you made the quote in your opinion a negative one, so explain your thought process....


No, I'm sorry, proving a negative is not "a matter of opinion". A negative in this case is trying to prove non-existence. Please try to prove that Russell's teapot circling the Sun and Sagan's dragon in his garage don't exist. No opinions need apply here.

visa versa.

Ooh, good argument. Is that called the "so's your mother" ploy?

[Yennaija]

Tell you what. How about, instead of showing us arguments, you show us evidence. You could start by showing us evidence that there are "true" psychics that are "insecure about their talents".

Can you weave a tapestry of words that will highlight your "knowledge of religion and spiritual philosophy"? Good for you. You might want to go over to the "Religion and Philosophy" subforum. In this subforum, we are looking for evidence.

You assume that I am a psychic. Again exactly my point. Assumption. How can you find evidence on anything unless you have some kind of understanding. It is a lazy way of debate.

Any argument that doesn't fit in your personal "box" will be disregarded by yourself as "rubbish".

So challenging the psychics is fine but not the sceptics? This heading falls under sceptics doesn't it? And that is why I placed this debate here!

[TheBoyPaj]

You seem to think that you can win this argument by playing with words, when really the only thing that matters to sceptics is evidence. As you have none, so you'll have a job finding someone who cares.

[Yennaija]

No, I'm sorry, proving a negative is not "a matter of opinion". A negative in this case is trying to prove non-existence. Please try to prove that Russell's teapot circling the Sun and Sagan's dragon in his garage don't exist. No opinions need apply here.


The way someone reads a bit of text is always a problem when having a debate on a forum. The "negative" referred to was in this case a personal opinion. Now, you confuse it even more by jumping by translating the word negative into non-existence which are two completely different things.

The negative versus positive and visa versa I refer to is.,, to give an example:

A bus driver dies = which is seen as a negative in the eyes of the people who loved him and will miss him.
But is a fortunate event for people that he might have made misserable in his life and the one who has replaced him in his job...

[fuelair]

A) You are just reversing the role of sceptic and non-sceptic in a manner that suits you. The belief that the world was flat was ingrained into society of that time and it was a "new" idea that made the believers of a flat world sceptical about the round world...

1) There is a proper description to what psychic ability entails. So it isn't what the psychic "Claims" they are able to do... So why not say...You don't know....
2) You still haven't explained what your idea is... Can only assume that you belief that this life is your one and only life...
3) Simple logic can also show that afterlife can exist or psychic ability can exist. Am not Albert Einstein but there are some very interesting theories.
But like with most theories...they will remain a theory until practically proven.

My question to you is...Why would feel happy if you are proven right that this life is it? And there is no afterlife.... Is your life so miserable that you don't want to go through anything similar again?

Now you have annoyed me. Please show me your simple logical proof that psychic ability or an afterlife must exist - and do not even think of playing the idiots' game of changing the definition of any of the words you use to do it. We already have trolls enough doing that. You cannot prove by simple logic that either boats or trains MUST exist (though you can prove by observation that they do). (proving that something can exist is pointless - it is possible that a 3-headed dog named Cerebus guards the way to the underworld - prove that he does or that there is an underworld ).:jaw-dropp

And, what iin dogs' sake does being happy or unhappy about something have to do with whether it exists. If there is an afterlife, we will be participating in it and saying "crap, I was wrong about that, but you know, Slyvia Brown-Nose is still ugly and still a liar!" and if there isn't, we'll just be, as we science types phrase it, "Dead" - and we really won't care.

And, no, there is not a standard definition of what constitutes psychic ability: Telepathy (receiving, sending or both), telekinesis, "far-seeing" , predicting not-too-distant future, communing with the dead (some disagreement as to whether this is psychic but...) and others would qualify but the tests for each would be different as the technical results of each would be different.

[Zep]

You assume that I am a psychic. Again exactly my point. Assumption. How can you find evidence on anything unless you have some kind of understanding. It is a lazy way of debate.

Any argument that doesn't fit in your personal "box" will be disregarded by yourself as "rubbish".

So challenging the psychics is fine but not the sceptics? This heading falls under sceptics doesn't it? And that is why I placed this debate here!

Here's how it works:

1) What unassailable incontrovertible evidence do you have that psychics can do what they claim to do?








Simple, isn't it.

[Yennaija]

You seem to think that you can win this argument by playing with words, when really the only thing that matters to sceptics is evidence. As you have none, so you'll have a job finding someone who cares.

If you care or don't care is really sausage to me...

Indeed Like yourself.. I have no evidence.

I have no evidence that it does exist and you have no evidence that it doesn't exist.

Call it common ground.

But you might say that you don't care... than what is the point of having a debate about sceptisism at all?

Or is this forum just an opportunity to pat each other on the back and a moment and feeling of "togetherness and sharing"
You don't have to be a sceptic of psychic abilities to find that in life?

Some will find that by hugging a tree :)

[Yennaija]

Here's how it works:

1) What unassailable incontrovertible evidence do you have that psychics can do what they claim to do?








Simple, isn't it.

The same evidence that you can provide that they don't :)

[Yennaija]

Now you have annoyed me. Please show me your simple logical proof that psychic ability or an afterlife must exist - and do not even think of playing the idiots' game of changing the definition of any of the words you use to do it. We already have trolls enough doing that. You cannot prove by simple logic that either boats or trains MUST exist (though you can prove by observation that they do). (proving that something can exist is pointless - it is possible that a 3-headed dog named Cerebus guards the way to the underworld - prove that he does or that there is an underworld ).:jaw-dropp

Before sub-marines were invented, there was this SF writer Jules Verne who wrote about submarines. They only existed in his mind. Today they truly do exist.

When you refer to mythology, it is what you do with it and how you interpret it. You can either read it and value the symbolism in it or you can read it as truth.

I haven't said I have proof. How can you add up 1+1 until you first learn to count? My point is that so many debates on this forum, especially from the "sceptical" point of view is so.... airy fairy and based on other people's experiences and opinions who recide in the limelight. None of you really talk about your own first hand experiences.

Which I thinkwould make a debate so much more interesting instead of just saying "b....ks" to everything.

[Mr. Skinny]

(snip) None of you really talk about your own first hand experiences.

Which I thinkwould make a debate so much more interesting instead of just saying "b....ks" to everything.
Well, if it makes you feel any better, I have never had a paranormal experience (except for a green baloon caught on a telephone wire once..), I've never had a revelation from god, never felt I could read someones mind, never saw a ghost, etc.

You? :)

[TheBoyPaj]

If you care or don't care is really sausage to me...

Indeed Like yourself.. I have no evidence.

I have no evidence that it does exist and you have no evidence that it doesn't exist.

Call it common ground.

Not really. Your request for evidence that the paranormal does not exist is nonsensical. It bears no comparison to our simple request for people to substantiate their claims.

But you might say that you don't care... than what is the point of having a debate about sceptisism at all?

I don't see much point in having a debate about scepticism. Scepticism is simply the act of not accepting claims without evidence. What's to debate about that?

Or is this forum just an opportunity to pat each other on the back and a moment and feeling of "togetherness and sharing"
You don't have to be a sceptic of psychic abilities to find that in life?

This particular part of the forum is about discussing paranormal issues in a sceptical way. There are other, "community" parts of the forum which might be said to fulfil the role of "togetherness".

If there were a part of the forum dedicated to evasion and word-redefinition, it would not be on my reading list.

[pchams]

Yennaija, with all due respect, unless you can provide evidence (in this case that psychics have some special ability) a skeptic can ignore it.
People here have explained that you may as well believe that a purple dragon
is in your garage. Without evidence, I will dismiss your claim.
If you provide some evidence in the future, I will be willing to reassess your claim.

[John Jackson]

The same evidence that you can provide that they don't :)

Why don't you look up the logical fallacy "Argument to Ignorance" a.k.a. Argumentum ad Ignorantiam.

I suspect that you think you've got skeptics on the back foot here, but your arguments are so inane that I'm surprised that anyone has bothered to answer.

[Mr. Skinny]

Before sub-marines were invented, there was this SF writer Jules Verne who wrote about submarines. They only existed in his mind. Today they truly do exist.(snip)
Oh, and BTW, Verne wrote 20,000 Leagues under the Sea in 1870. Submarines were used during the American Civil War as early as 1863.


Edited to say: the book was published in 1870.

[Questioninggeller]

Dear all Sceptics and Mr Randi...

First of all, I see myself as some kind of a warrior for the underdog and in this case it is the poor old psychic (sigh)... and...on the other hand, I do love debate....

But so far the psychics in question... have not been able to give a good argument. The problems in general with psychics is a total acceptance in their belief of whatever kind of abilities they claim without analysing it.

They, from what I understand don't really question the how, what, where and who of things. They just do... So they act on a "possible" talent that has never been analysed seriously (but ridiculed).

Having a talent doesn't necessarily mean you also have the ability to analyse and perfect that talent without any help.

Just look at the mundane example of the programme the "X-Factor" where a majority of people have the illusion of being good singers and the good singer being insecure about their talent...

It is so easy to slag off and ridicule the singers who are a nightmare to ones ears and we laugh even more when they cry their eyeballs out when their dream is shattered by Simon's sarcastic remarks. Or there are the ones that get angry as they truly believe that the pro's are "wrong" about their abilities. The sad things is, is that they truly believe that they were good. The ones with an ear for music will agree with Simon and the ones without an ear for music will agree with the performer

Replace the singers with the so called "psychics" and you'll find a similar situation. However as this is such an uneasy and unexplored territory there are no Pro's and there is no "talent show". The majority of psychics you will come across on tv is most likely the equivalent of the rubbish that applies to the x-factor.
But there is no Simon to put them in place. But... as the Media loves to sell the stuff and it does bring in a lot of viewers..which is in better known terms called: MONEY! That's what it is truly all about...

Any possible "true" psychic with common sense will not put themselves up as a gladiator fighting lions in an arena.

And when it comes to the "Spiritual law" of balance (Yes, come on you lot...look that one up). They will not put themselves in a situation like that... as to the true ones (Based on the Spiritual law of balance) They'll not seek monetary reward or fame etc. hence they will not step up to Randi's challenge...

Which in other words makes debate based on the celeb psychics pretty useless... and so also Randi's challenge for proof against a monetary reward.

"There was a time that the sceptics didn't believe that the world was round. They were convinced that it was flat and the scientists then also known as quacks. charalatans and complete idiots were saying that the world was round". Sceptics asked for proof and it took a long time before there was anyone indeed brave enough - to sail over the "edge of the world"...

What I am trying to say with this example is that until the time that somebody was courageous enough to stand up to the challenge, the sceptics always had the upperhand but never dared or ventured out in a ship to proof that they were right. Those sceptics in that time are the ones that are being laughed at and ridiculed in this time ...most likely by some of you sceptics that are doing this to the "none understood and properly explored phenomena" now...which is represented in the form of psychic ability....

My challenge to you is for you sceptics to explain your understanding or belief of:

++ what psychic ability is and what one is supposedly be able to do
++ Your understanding or opinion about life after death
++ Your religious belief

With that knowledge about your belief and opinions, I will offer arguments in return for you to explain what your foundation of these beliefs are, and you try to convince me that you are correct about your beliefs.

I'll fight it with my knowledge of religion and spiritualist philosophy....
which is the "often confused and mixed up, misunderstood roots of some psychics".

Come on....

I am in for a good debate...

Here's the deal. Provide proof: A doubleblinded test of a "psychic" doing what he or she claims. Just one case, just one psychic will do.

Once you've established that we can move forward.

[Chicken Pot Pie]

You're the one who asked for debate...

If you care or don't care is really sausage to me...

But you might say that you don't care... than what is the point of having a debate about sceptisism at all?



...yet you present nothing debatable. You have turned other posters' words around. You have used some remarks I frequently hear from my more disrespectful elementary school children. I'm certain your arguments make less sense than theirs do. However, I must admit your spelling is just as horrendous.

(...and I have an irresistible urge for a sausage and green pepper grinder...make that a submarine sandwich...)

Hungry troll, you'll get no scraps from me.

[pchams]

Yennaija, I am a 14 foot tall alien who sprays chemtrails in the air in order to take over the earth. I am hiding from your governments, and I'm good at it, as I can make myself invisible with no heat signature.

Now accept that as true in your life, or prove me wrong.

[Fengirl]

Dear all Sceptics and Mr Randi...



(Words, words, words, words, something about psychics, more words, spiritual law of balance, words, words, words....)


Come on....

I am in for a good debate...


I'm sure you are, my dear.
May I first suggest you state the proposition you would like to discuss in a clear, concise and comprehensible fashion so that the debate may get under way?
Thanks.

[Ravenwood]

Oh, and BTW, Verne wrote 20,000 Leagues under the Sea in 1870. Submarines were used during the American Civil War as early as 1863.


Edited to say: the book was published in 1870.

David Bushnell used his submarine "turtle" in the American Revolution... :)

[fuelair]

Before sub-marines were invented, there was this SF writer Jules Verne who wrote about submarines. They only existed in his mind. Today they truly do exist.

When you refer to mythology, it is what you do with it and how you interpret it. You can either read it and value the symbolism in it or you can read it as truth.

I haven't said I have proof. How can you add up 1+1 until you first learn to count? My point is that so many debates on this forum, especially from the "sceptical" point of view is so.... airy fairy and based on other people's experiences and opinions who recide in the limelight. None of you really talk about your own first hand experiences.

Which I thinkwould make a debate so much more interesting instead of just saying "b....ks" to everything.

Argument not debate. Rational debate requires facts. A debate on the merits/"truth" of two things of which neither can be proven factually is mental/verbal whacking off.

[DangerousBeliefs]

Oh, and BTW, Verne wrote 20,000 Leagues under the Sea in 1870. Submarines were used during the American Civil War as early as 1863.

Don't you knock Verne! That man was a genius. He wrote about a NUCLEAR submarine... although he didn't call it that... he also wrote about Star Wars-type weapons and many other things. Genius!

Now back to Yennaija... and evasions/sidetracking.

[TheChadd]

Dear all Sceptics and Mr Randi...

First of all, I see myself as some kind of a warrior for the underdog and in this case it is the poor old psychic (sigh)... and...on the other hand, I do love debate....

Ok, but I hope you realise junior school debating techniques aren't going to be all that impressive...

But so far the psychics in question... have not been able to give a good argument. The problems in general with psychics is a total acceptance in their belief of whatever kind of abilities they claim without analysing it.

We've had many 'psychics' or 'psychic believers' come and attempt to give a good argument for psychics. They cannot any more than I can give a good argument proving I am a god myself.

They, from what I understand don't really question the how, what, where and who of things. They just do... So they act on a "possible" talent that has never been analysed seriously (but ridiculed).

Psychic ability has been analysed seriously by a great many people. Alot of people want it to be true (I'm in that category myself) but it simply isn't.

Just look at the mundane example of the programme the "X-Factor" where a majority of people have the illusion of being good singers and the good singer being insecure about their talent...

Anecdote... a very unreliable one.

It is so easy to slag off and ridicule the singers who are a nightmare to ones ears and we laugh even more when they cry their eyeballs out when their dream is shattered by Simon's sarcastic remarks. Or there are the ones that get angry as they truly believe that the pro's are "wrong" about their abilities. The sad things is, is that they truly believe that they were good. The ones with an ear for music will agree with Simon and the ones without an ear for music will agree with the performer

Sigh

Replace the singers with the so called "psychics" and you'll find a similar situation. However as this is such an uneasy and unexplored territory there are no Pro's and there is no "talent show". The majority of psychics you will come across on tv is most likely the equivalent of the rubbish that applies to the x-factor.

No we won't as there are no cases (that I know of) of a demonstratably real psychic.


And when it comes to the "Spiritual law" of balance (Yes, come on you lot...look that one up). They will not put themselves in a situation like that... as to the true ones (Based on the Spiritual law of balance) They'll not seek monetary reward or fame etc. hence they will not step up to Randi's challenge...

- They won't recieve fame if that is their wish.
- They can have the money donated to a charity if that is their wish.
- 'Spiritual laws' sound like bunk.

Which in other words makes debate based on the celeb psychics pretty useless... and so also Randi's challenge for proof against a monetary reward.

"There was a time that the sceptics didn't believe that the world was round. They were convinced that it was flat and the scientists then also known as quacks. charalatans and complete idiots were saying that the world was round". Sceptics asked for proof and it took a long time before there was anyone indeed brave enough - to sail over the "edge of the world"...

Other than not being true (as other people have pointed out) even if it was it wouldn't really matter. If you're basing your reality on the best knowledge you can critically gather in your time/place then you're being a skeptic. Skeptics in 15th century england probably would have doubted the existance of black swans, while they were ultimately wrong, it doesn't change the fact that they were being logical at the time.

What I am trying to say with this example is that until the time that somebody was courageous enough to stand up to the challenge, the sceptics always had the upperhand but never dared or ventured out in a ship to proof that they were right. Those sceptics in that time are the ones that are being laughed at and ridiculed in this time ...most likely by some of you sceptics that are doing this to the "none understood and properly explored phenomena" now...which is represented in the form of psychic ability....

No, I don't think anyone would ridicule some ancient who believed the world was flat if that was the best knowledge they had at their time.


++ what psychic ability is and what one is supposedly be able to do

Some sort of supernatural magic ability. The full explanation differs from psychic to psychic but they always claim some form of super powers lol

++ Your understanding or opinion about life after death

There is none.

++ Your religious belief

Philisophically? Agnostic. To you? Atheist.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

??


No true Scotsman is a term coined by Antony Flew (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antony_Flew) in his 1975 book Thinking About Thinking - or do I sincerely want to be right?:
Imagine Hamish McDonald, a Scotsman, sitting down with his Press and Journal and seeing an article about how the "Brighton Sex Maniac Strikes Again." Hamish is shocked and declares that "No Scotsman would do such a thing." The next day he sits down to read his Press and Journal again and this time finds an article about an Aberdeen man whose brutal actions make the Brighton sex maniac seem almost gentlemanly. This fact shows that Hamish was wrong in his opinion but is he going to admit this? Not likely. This time he says, "No true Scotsman would do such a thing." Flew's original example is often replaced by the following[citation needed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citing_sources)]:
Argument: "No Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge." Reply: "But my uncle Angus likes sugar with his porridge." Rebuttal: "Ah yes, but no true Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge." This form of argument is a fallacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_fallacy) if the predicate ("putting sugar on porridge" or "doing such a thing [as committing a sex crime]") is not actually contradictory for the accepted definition of the subject ("Scotsman"), or if the definition of the subject is silently adjusted after the fact to make the rebuttal work.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_scotsman

Wrong! you have to do better that that. What mythology are you referring too? There are so many....
Doesn't matter what mythology. Your basing a claim upon a verbage that is functionally no different than IPUs, FSMs. etc

Just a matter of time frame.
What about the onces before these knowledgable Greeks?
Red herring. Your claim was that skeptics doubted the world was round. I provided an example showing that, not only skeptics, but those that formalized skepticism knew the world was round. This example directly contradicts your claim.

negative or positive is merrely another matter of opinion. what is negative to one is positive to the other.... explain your tought process...as you made the quote in your opinion a negative one, so explain your thought process....
Stop with the equivocation. A proof of impossibility, sometimes called a negative proof or negative result, is a proof demonstrating that a particular problem cannot be solved, or cannot be solved in general. Often proofs of impossibility have put to rest decades or centuries of work attempting to find a solution. Proofs of impossibility are usually expressible as universal propositions in logic (see universal quantification (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_quantification)).

support your statement as the same can be said about your opinions....

if you claim to be good in something be it your job or whatever... it will always be debatable... this relates to everything and anything and not just psychic ability.
Aside from the fact that this is barely literate, every controlled environment test that has eliminated factors such as cold reading has shown psychics to be no better at their "jobs" then someone randomly guessing.


visa versa. Whiskey Tango Foxtrot?

So explain why you chose to be an Agnostic atheist?
Red herring. How I came to my provisional conclusions on the matter of deities is irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

Belief is the result to what people assume or have learned to be true.
evidence is not fact and merrily the result of something. Evidence can be that a chair has moved from one side of the room to another side of the room. How it has moved is the question that is up for debate her. was it a person or was it a ghost?
evidence will not give you all the answers...to what lies between


Michael Shermer on "The Scientific Method"*
Elements of the scientific method (http://spider.ipac.caltech.edu/staff/jarrett/talks/LiU/sci_method.html) ( hypothetico-deductive):

Induction -- Forming a hypothesis by drawing general conclusions from existing data.
Deduction -- Making specific predictions based on the hypothesis.
Observation -- Gathering data, driven by hypothesis that tell us what to look for in nature.
Verification -- Testing the predictions against further observations to confirm or falsify the initial hypothesis.Through the scientific method, we may form the following generalizations:

Hypothesis -- A testable statement accounting for a set of observations.
Theory -- A well-supported and well-tested hypothesis or set of hypotheses. Fact -- A conclusion confirmed to such an extent that it would be reasonable to offer provisional agreement.Through the scientific method, we aim for objectivity: basing conclusions on external validation. And we avoid mysticism: basing conclusions on personal insights that elude external validation.
Science leads us toward rationalism: basing conclusions on logic and evidence. And science helps us avoid dogmatism: basing conclusions on authority rather than logic and evidence.
It is important to recognize the fallibility of science and the scientific method. But within this fallibility lies its greatest strength: self-correction.
A scientific law is a description of a regularly repeating action that is open to rejection or confirmation.

Scientific progress is the cummulative growth of a system of knowledge over time, in which useful features are retained, and nonuseful features are abandoned, based on the rejection or confirmation of testable knowledge.
Pseudoscience: claims presented so that they appear scientific even though they lack supporting evidence and plausibility.

Modern skepticism is embodied in the scientific method, which involves gathering data to test natural explanations for natural phenomenon. A claim becomes factual when it is confirmed to such an extent that it would be reasonable to offer temporary agreement. But all facts in science are provisional and subject to challenge, and therefore skepticism is a method leading to provisional conclusions.
A skeptic is one who questions the validity of a particular claim by calling for evidence to prove or disprove it.


Albert Einstein:

One thing I have learned in a long life: that all our science, measured against reality, is primitive and childlike -- and yet it is the most precious thing we have." *from Why People Believe Weird Things, by Michael Shermer (1997)

http://spider.ipac.caltech.edu/staff/jarrett/talks/LiU/sci_method_2.html

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

If you care or don't care is really sausage to me...

Indeed Like yourself.. I have no evidence.

I have no evidence that it does exist and you have no evidence that it doesn't exist.

Call it common ground.

But you might say that you don't care... than what is the point of having a debate about sceptisism at all?

Or is this forum just an opportunity to pat each other on the back and a moment and feeling of "togetherness and sharing"
You don't have to be a sceptic of psychic abilities to find that in life?

Some will find that by hugging a tree :)

Wronger Than Wrong Not all wrong theories are equal By Michael Shermer

In belles lettres the witty literary slight has evolved into a genre because, as 20th-century trial lawyer Louis Nizer noted, "A graceful taunt is worth a thousand insults." To wit, from high culture, Mark Twain: "I didn't attend the funeral, but I sent a nice letter saying I approved of it." Winston Churchill: "He has all the virtues I dislike and none of the vices I admire." And from pop culture, Groucho Marx: "I've had a perfectly wonderful evening. But this wasn't it." Scientists are no slouches when it comes to pitching invectives at colleagues. Achieving almost canonical status as the ne plus ultra put-down is theoretical physicist Wolfgang Pauli's reported harsh critique of a paper: "This isn't right. It's not even wrong." I call this Pauli's proverb.
Columbia University mathematician Peter Woit recently employed Pauli's proverb in his book title, a critique of string theory called Not Even Wrong (Basic Books, 2006). String theory, Woit argues, is not only based on nontestable hypotheses, it depends far too much on the aesthetic nature of its mathematics and the eminence of its proponents. In science, if an idea is not falsifiable, it is not that it is wrong, it is that we cannot determine if it is wrong, and thus it is not even wrong.
...

http://sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa006&articleID=00028C98-6F5C-152E-A9F183414B7F0000

[Yahzi]

The same evidence that you can provide that they don't :)
Remarkably, that's exactly the same evidence that you can provide that you don't owe me $20,000.

Until you either pay up, or conclusively prove that you don't owe me this money, why should we listen to you, a self-acknowledged welsher? What credit should a man who doesn't pay his debts receive?

[TX50]

David Bushnell used his submarine "turtle" in the American Revolution... :)

John Lethbridge was using his "diving machine" in 1715. :)

[ObscureReferenceMan]

Standard post-and-run troll, then? (Yennaija, feel free to prove me wrong.)
(http://forums.randi.org/member.php?u=14235)

[Mr. Skinny]

David Bushnell used his submarine "turtle" in the American Revolution... :)

Don't you knock Verne! That man was a genius. He wrote about a NUCLEAR submarine... although he didn't call it that... he also wrote about Star Wars-type weapons and many other things. Genius!


John Lethbridge was using his "diving machine" in 1715. :)
All right, you turds! :)

I can play this game of oneupsmanship too!

Evidence? :D

[Loss Leader]

Just look at the mundane example of the programme the "X-Factor" where a majority of people have the illusion of being good singers and the good singer being insecure about their talent...

I dispute your premise. Yes, many people are self-deluded and yes, many people with talent are shy about it. However, somehow those people with talent manage to be found. American Idol (as it is rightly called) does produce people who can sing. And the recording industry in general does bring to the fore individuals with talent.

Perhaps those with talent are insecure but some of them have found a way to surmount it. Even in high school, people in my class knew who could sing. One of my classmates is now an award-winning composer and just about everyone back then knew that one day he would be.

In the case of psychics, though, we do not see this. People with psychic talent are not emerging. Others are not recognizing talent at a young age as with my classmate. And, despite the fact that there are a surfeit of tv shows that would love to throw money at a real psychic, none are to be found. If the talent existed, the law of averages dictates that it should show itself.

It does not.

Thus, unless you can point me to a true psychic whose gifts have gone unrecognized, I dispute that you have even stated a valid premise.

Your premise not being in accord with reality, the rest of your argument should be dismissed.

And when it comes to the "Spiritual law" of balance (Yes, come on you lot...look that one up). They will not put themselves in a situation like that... as to the true ones (Based on the Spiritual law of balance) They'll not seek monetary reward or fame etc. hence they will not step up to Randi's challenge...

This is your debate style? You have built yourself a backdoor that allows you to escape from any corner at any time?

"I don't have to show you evidence of a true psychic because any true psychic would not be allowed by karma to present evidence of her abilities."

This is a very weak escape hatch you have built yourself.

Please provide evidence that there is such a thing as a "spiritual law of balance." The last time I looked, Hitler killed six million of my relatives and yet he died just the once - after living a pretty opulent and exciting life. Where is my balance?

Define this law and show evidence of its existence or abandon your little logical hidey-hole.

There was a time that the sceptics didn't believe that the world was round. They were convinced that it was flat and the scientists then also known as quacks. charalatans and complete idiots were saying that the world was round." Sceptics asked for proof and it took a long time before there was anyone indeed brave enough - to sail over the "edge of the world"

This entire paragraph is factually inaccurate. Scientists provided proof in the form of angles of the sun, observations of the planets, proof that the moon was round - even the fact that a ship's mast appears on the horizon before the rest of the ship is proof of a round earth. The skeptics accepted this proof. The faithful refused to accept it even in the face of evidence. Even today there are those who do not accept it.

As an aside, one of the keys to a good debate posture is to know what you're talking about.

My challenge to you is for you sceptics to explain your understanding or belief of:

++ what psychic ability is and what one is supposedly be able to do
++ Your understanding or opinion about life after death
++ Your religious belief

With that knowledge about your belief and opinions, I will offer arguments in return for you to explain what your foundation of these beliefs are, and you try to convince me that you are correct about your beliefs.

Why? What's the point? This has nothing to do with anything that you've said before. It does nothing to make the existence of psychics more or less likely. It's a complete non sequitor.

How does your challenge relate to your ultimate aim?

I am in for a good debate...

You have not demonstrated the skills necessary for a good debate.

[CLD]

what is negative to one is positive to the other....

Belief is the result to what people assume or have learned to be true.

evidence is not fact and merrily the result of something.

Evidence can be that a chair has moved from one side of the room to another side of the room. How it has moved is the question that is up for debate her.

was it a person or was it a ghost? evidence will not give you all the answers...to what lies between

Yes, yes, I think I understand what you're saying!..."There is a fifth dimension beyond that which is known to man. It is a dimension as vast as space and as timeless as infinity. It is the middle ground between light and shadow, between science and superstition, and it lies between the pit of man's fears and the summit of his knowledge. This is the dimension of imagination. It is an area which we call "The Twilight Zone". Woooooo!" [[Theremin music]]

[lolurigeller]

My challenge to you is for you sceptics to explain your understanding or belief of:

++ what psychic ability is and what one is supposedly be able to do
++ Your understanding or opinion about life after death
++ Your religious belief

With that knowledge about your belief and opinions, I will offer arguments in return for you to explain what your foundation of these beliefs are, and you try to convince me that you are correct about your beliefs.

I'll fight it with my knowledge of religion and spiritualist philosophy....
which is the "often confused and mixed up, misunderstood roots of some psychics".

Come on....

I am in for a good debate...

No you are not, you should read these forums a bit more carefully before deciding what topic to post.

[lolurigeller]

i'd also like to add, as everyone has said before me, that if you are coming to a rational debate, with no empirical evidence or proof as ammunition, then you have no base to stand on and it's a complete waste of time to even think of getting into a debate.

It is worth the time and energy to spend finding the empirical evidence for yourself, and if you don't find it, change your position until you find it.

[Jackalgirl]

Oh, and BTW, Verne wrote 20,000 Leagues under the Sea in 1870. Submarines were used during the American Civil War as early as 1863.


Edited to say: the book was published in 1870.

In 1775, David Bushnell invented the Turtle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turtle_%28submarine%29), which was actually deployed during the War of Independence in 1776 to try to sink the HMS Eagle (it didn't work).

Also, submersibles have apparently been around since at least the 1600s (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Submarine#Early_history_of_submarines_and_the_firs t_submersibles).

So submarines -- and the idea of submarines -- have been around a while.

Edited to add: drat. This has already been covered by several other people. Teach me not to read to the end of the thread before posting! <pout>

[Reno]

Yennaija,

God appeared to me today. He had a halo around his head and I perceived an air of Godliness about him. He told me you would come to Scotland and give to me all your worldly possessions and monies.

He said; "This is the word of the Lord, Reno, and I would not kid you, honestly"

But I questioned the Lord. I sayeth unto Him; "Come on Lord, don't take the piss."

And he replieth unto me; "Reno, I kid you not."

So I then replieth to the Lord; "Fair enough Lord, I'll take you at your word. But if you are jerking my chain, I swear to your Son I'll..."

Anyway, it seemeth that the Lord had hadeth enough of this and he spake into the clouds a mighty rumbling, which caused me to quake in my boots. As I begged for forgiveness and bowed in his mighty presence, the sun peeked out from behind the clouds and a last whisper came to mine own ears:

"The Yennaija is an arsehole..."

[autumn1971]

I've often wondered if those who throw around terms like "spiritual law", "moral law", "karmic law", et al., while also citing scientific law, realise that if even one instance of their law not being upheld can be demonstrated, then their law has been proven irretrievably wrong. This is an amazing advantage for science and logic. That which can be shown not to work can be, and must be, discarded. The woos, I fear, see this fact as a weakness, rather than the strength, of sceptisism.

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Before sub-marines were invented, there was this SF writer Jules Verne who wrote about submarines. They only existed in his mind. Today they truly do exist.

. . .



Late to the thread but here's a "History of Science / Science Fiction" factoid I do actually know about. Verne's "20000 Leagues Beneath The Sea" was published in 1870. The first actual sub was demonstrated in 1776 -- the Turtle. Much speculation and experimentation preceded that.

Sorry Mr. Skinny and everyone else who has been riding the submarine. I said I was late to the thread,

[Alan Heap]

gave me a good laugh. thanks.

[Panhead56]

Just a comment on the flat earth. It's a rather modern myth that people in general once thougth the earth to be flat. Stehphe Jay Gould wrote a nice essay on it in "Dinosaur in a Haystack", called "the late birth of a Flat Earth". Recommended.

And as others have mentioned, the greeks certainly knew that the earth was a sphere. The greek matemathician Eratosthenes made a very well founded calculation of the circumference of the earth in ca. 240 BC.

[Yennaija]

Hi again all of you!

Thank you all for your input so far...hmmm... very interesting. Don't need a psychic to predict the manner of response...

First of all, the response of some of you was:

1) (as expected) very vicious, aggressive...
2) some (as expected) would ridicule...
3) some were more concerned about the spelling and grammar...
4) some assumed that I am a psychic...
5) some assumed that my first language is English (which is pretty obvious that it isn't)
6) some of you (from what I understand) are teachers and I feel sorry for your students.
7) So far, most of you are quoting other peoples theories but don't back it up with your own experiences...(To do so will mean you will put yourself in a more vulnerable position)

In other words...it isn't much of surprise that a "possible" true psychic will not even attempt to proof anything to a sceptic, already just judging from what kind of reception they can expect? So hey, there you are they might have been able to foretell their own future and considered not to bother...

After all, despite what a psychic may claim to be able to do... they are still human with their own emotions and insecurities.

The difference so far I have experienced by "talking under the name of a sceptic on psychic forums" that despite my harsh arguments...the majority of psychics have been very polite, understanding, kind, trying to see my (sceptical) point of view...
which is severely lacking so far in this thread.
Who of the two has been more humane? Certainly so far, not the sceptics.
Does this mean that being a sceptic is the equivalent of being a "Bully"?

Yes... I admit, I have set some kind of trap, to see if there would be amongst you at least one that could be "accommodating or civil" about the subject at hand...

It is very hard to hold any kind of debate or have a discussion, when the emotional ability of "being able to relate" to something or somebody is missing.
Actually not being able to relate to somebody's feelings or show empathy and emotional understanding falls also under a mental disorder known as "aspergers"...

Now, having said that.... most likely some of you will first feel anger... and again want to come out on the counter attack... and giving some clever remarks quoting long dead scientists. Some of you will still get God involved...? why? You tell me... Never mentioned the poor old soul.

Well, think I have said enough so far... am waiting with my "crash helmet" on for the next response...

[DJM]

Well, think I have said enough so far... am waiting with my "crash helmet" on for the next response...

Seems like that's the only reason you post here, to get responses.

[kitakaze]

5) some assumed that my first language is English (which is pretty obvious that it isn't)Not really following the thread but I am curious what your first language is.

[Yennaija]

Seems like that's the only reason you post here, to get responses.

Congratulations... The first "Clever remark" (sigh)

Obviously I am not posting here to receive "clever remarks"

[Moochie]

Dear all Sceptics and Mr Randi...

Your stupidity has been handled elsewhere, multiple times.

M.

[Panhead56]

As asked already in post nr. 3:

[quote=juryjone;2349727]Tell you what. How about, instead of showing us arguments, you show us evidence. You could start by showing us evidence that there are "true" psychics that are "insecure about their talents".

Could we have an answer? Please?

And for your last post, you have written so much rubish that you have lost any power to offend anyone. Even with that silly reference to "aspergers".

Just come up with some evidence!

[Yennaija]

Not really following the thread but I am curious what your first language is.

Does it matter to the subject what my first language is?
If the circumstances weren't as ridiculing and hostile as they have proven to be so far, I wouldn' mind sharing with you my country of origin. But in order to avoid further conversation about my country of origin or mother tongue, I prefer for now to keep it to myself.

[Yennaija]

As asked already in post nr. 3:

[quote=juryjone;2349727]Tell you what. How about, instead of showing us arguments, you show us evidence. You could start by showing us evidence that there are "true" psychics that are "insecure about their talents".

Could we have an answer? Please?

And for your last post, you have written so much rubish that you have lost any power to offend anyone. Even with that silly reference to "aspergers".

Just come up with some evidence!

So far you are still assuming that either I agree with the psychics and believe in their abilities or that I am a psychic. How about "sitting on the fence"
I am placing myself and speculate what it would be like to be a psychic (assuming that the ability exists) having to deal with "sceptics"... as you can see very hard work...
Have you ever tried?
I am trying to compare it with mundane examples... my point is that it will be just as difficult to proof that anyone is an expert in their talent or chosen profession and doesn't make mistakes.
Can you proof that your point of view is alway right?
Can you proof that you never make mistakes in your chosen profession?
etc. etc.

[Moochie]

Does it matter to the subject what my first language is?
If the circumstances weren't as ridiculing and hostile as they have proven to be so far, I wouldn' mind sharing with you my country of origin. But in order to avoid further conversation about my country of origin or mother tongue, I prefer for now to keep it to myself.

ROFLMAO!

You're so full of it!

My "mother tongue" is German.

So What?

I have learned English well enough to teach others in its use.

Stop with the BS and get real, please. Or shut the [rule 8] up!

M.

[Yennaija]

As asked already in post nr. 3:

[quote=juryjone;2349727]And for your last post, you have written so much rubish that you have lost any power to offend anyone. Even with that silly reference to "aspergers".

Just come up with some evidence!

Rubbish is your opinion. which is fine... It isn't my intention to offend anyone but as you can see to how aggressive you react to my post. It proofs that I am right with my assumption.

My reference to aspergers isn't "silly". If you feel offended by it then you have offended yourself by being able to "relate" to it and apply it to yourself. Which means having that ability to "relate" that you can rest assured that you don't suffer from "aspergers".

[Yennaija]

ROFLMAO!

You're so full of it!

My "mother tongue" is German.

So What?

I have learned English well enough to teach others in its use.

Stop with the BS and get real, please. Or shut the [rule 8] up!

M.

Still rude???? Arrest my case....

[TjW]

Very well.
Case, you are under arrest. You have the right to remain silent.
However, available evidence shows you do not likely have the ability.

[Panhead56]

Still no answer to the question asked you by juryjone way back in post 3?

[quote=juryjone;2349727]Tell you what. How about, instead of showing us arguments, you show us evidence. You could start by showing us evidence that there are "true" psychics that are "insecure about their talents".

[MondoAtheist]

Dear all Sceptics and Mr Randi...

My challenge to you is for you sceptics to explain your understanding or belief of:

++ what psychic ability is and what one is supposedly be able to do
++ Your understanding or opinion about life after death
++ Your religious belief



All this 'Sceptic' talk, this must be the 'Sceptic [think] tank.' If only he didn't add the first C in Sceptic, that would have been much funnier.

1 . Anyways, sensitive to nonphysical or supernatural forces and influences? I don't know, that's the 3rd definition of Psychic in webster. The first two were fine and dandy but this one was talking about forces so I figured it was more dramatic. I honestly have no idea what a psychic ability is.

Is it Uri Geller bending spoons in a safe while staring at it on the internet?

Is it Kelsey Grammer's ability to find people lying their asses off and producing a show based on their lies and making loads of money? Which I'm totally fine with, I even watch the watch, I mean it's fiction and entertaining.

What is it? I don't know. I couldn't tell you, I can't say psychics don't exist. That would be absurd, but I cannot say they do exist and I have more evidence showing the latter. Maybe Banachek really is psychic and he's just screwing with us all, and pretending he's not psychic. I don't know, but I have no reason to believe Psychics or supernatural powers exist. I just haven't seen proof of it.

2. No, I do not know if there is or isn't a life after death. I'm still uncertain if I would even want there to be one anyways. I suppose it all depends on what would be there. If it's Earth part 2, sure I'll take that. But if it's anything like Heaven and Hell, I don't think I could handle either. Heaven would be bad knowing people were in hell for reasons you may not agree with. Hell would be bad for obvious reasons. Isn't there a 3rd option sometimes? Purgatory I believe, that one doesn't make sense to me, I never really understood it maybe someone else can explain that one to me.

3. Atheist

I'm not saying there isn't a God, and I'm not saying there is. I think it's safer to not believe than to believe. At least that is if there does happen to be a God, and he/she/it doesn't approve of who you worshiped instead of him/her/them. I'm pretty sure he/she/it would be nicer to Atheists because we just weren't sure, at least we didn't commit treason against him.

[MondoAtheist]

Still rude???? Arrest my case....

Would it be wrong of me to Nominate that post? I won't I swear, I'm just being a big bully.

[kitakaze]

Does it matter to the subject what my first language is?
If the circumstances weren't as ridiculing and hostile as they have proven to be so far, I wouldn' mind sharing with you my country of origin. But in order to avoid further conversation about my country of origin or mother tongue, I prefer for now to keep it to myself.Well, I did say I'm not really paying attention to the subject. It was just a question. Whatever your first language or country of origin might be I doubt many here would consider it relevant to anything you've said that generated discussion in the first place.

(following is Japanese)
とにかく、日本人じゃないですよね。

[Richard]

Hi again all of you!

Thank you all for your input so far...hmmm... very interesting. Don't need a psychic to predict the manner of response...

First of all, the response of some of you was:

1) (as expected) very vicious, aggressive...
2) some (as expected) would ridicule...


Yennaija, anyone can post to an egroup, play with words etc. annoy people. What is your point? Are you in fact at all interested in finding a psychic or do you have some sort of problem? Is it that you need attention? Do you think you are trying to teach us something? I bet lots of people are rude and aggressive to you, but I'm sure you can work on that. Please, tell us much more about what you are trying to do. I don't care what your first or second languages are but thank you for trying out English.

[Loss Leader]

my point is that it will be just as difficult to proof that anyone is an expert in their talent or chosen profession and doesn't make mistakes.
Can you proof that your point of view is alway right?
Can you proof that you never make mistakes in your chosen profession?
etc. etc.

As I have already said, your premise appears invalid.

You have variously stated that there is some group of "true" psychics who do not come forward because of their fear of: ridicule, their own failure, sometimes they are not perfect, some karmic balance.

I reminded you that in all fields all people with talent may feel this yet they still manage to come forward. We still produce singers and actors (some of the most neurotic people I know) and athletes (for whom any failure can be very painful) and writers (who face more rejection than I did on prom night) and more.

Why have those fields been able to produce standouts yet no true psychic has ever emerged?

In order for your premise to be valid, you need to provide evidence that there has ever been at least one true psychic anywhere. Otherwise, I will no more worry about how that mythical psychic feels than how the computer feels when I get to level 10 on Tetris.

Then, you can offer any evidence that there is some karmic "law" of balance. I have a hard time understanding how such a law would work without a constantly judging and evaluating personal God but if you say you never brought up the concept of God, that's your business.

P.S. The inability to successfully interact with groups and the need to be a "loner" or "outsider" is also characteristic of Aspergers.

[The Kilted Yaksman]

Before sub-marines were invented, there was this SF writer Jules Verne who wrote about submarines. They only existed in his mind. Today they truly do exist.

Wrong. Jules Verne wrote "20000 Leagues Under the Sea" in 1870. Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jules_Verne#Bibliography
The first "submarines" were built in the early 17th century.
The first submersible with reliable information on its construction was built in 1620 by Cornelius Jacobszoon Drebbel, a Dutchman in the service of James I. Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Submarine#History_of_submarines

[snowbird]

Dear all Sceptics and Mr Randi...

But so far the psychics in question... have not been able to give a good argument. The problems in general with psychics is a total acceptance in their belief of whatever kind of abilities they claim without analysing it.


I would like to see a psychic or medium take the challenge if they feel that they have valid abilities. As for the money aspect, they could donate the money to a charity of their choice and have no personal gain. The challenge could be a method that they could serve a higher purpose of proving the existence of supernatural abilities for humanity. Money should not be an impediment to a qualified psychic or medium taking the challenge. Personally, I agree with Mr. Randi's concept of an test with ten readings done on ten people and having each of them determine which is theirs (showing accuracy above random chance). (Failing the challenge could risk possibly their ability to make money.) In my view, this is not about disproving the existence of abilities but rather proving their existence. Instead of a debate of words (and beliefs), find the person that will meet the challenge and prove the existence of abilities. They could be fulfilling a higher service.

[snowbird]

...

[Grimoire]

Hi again all of you!

Thank you all for your input so far...hmmm... very interesting. Don't need a psychic to predict the manner of response...

First of all, the response of some of you was:

1) (as expected) very vicious, aggressive...
2) some (as expected) would ridicule...
Your posts are full of fallacious arguments, factual errors, and you choose to ignore the responses to your posts, other than to take offense. What did you expect? People have explained your errors, and you choose to ignore them.

In other words...it isn't much of surprise that a "possible" true psychic will not even attempt to proof anything to a sceptic, already just judging from what kind of reception they can expect?
$1,000,000.00

So hey, there you are they might have been able to foretell their own future and considered not to bother...I would "bother" for $1,000,000.00. Wouldn't you?

Does this mean that being a sceptic is the equivalent of being a "Bully"?Honesty sometimes hurts. Reality isn't always nice. I agree, fantasy is far more fun. Are skeptics intentionally trying to scare or bully people? No.


Yes... I admit, I have set some kind of trap, to see if there would be amongst you at least one that could be "accommodating or civil" about the subject at hand...From what I have read, everyone, other than one or two posts, has been quite civil. They have simply taken an aggressive, opposite viewpoint to yours.


It is very hard to hold any kind of debate or have a discussion, when the emotional ability of "being able to relate" to something or somebody is missing.
Actually not being able to relate to somebody's feelings or show empathy and emotional understanding falls also under a mental disorder known as "aspergers"...Are you calling the people on this forum mentally unstable? That isn't particularly civil of you...


Now, having said that.... most likely some of you will first feel anger... and again want to come out on the counter attack...No anger here. As for counter attack, it's a stronger phrase than I would use, but it suffices. That IS what you get in a discussion with people of differing viewpoints, is it not?
and giving some clever remarks quoting long dead scientists.
Would you prefer clever quotes from living scientists?

Some of you will still get God involved...? why? You tell me... Never mentioned the poor old soul.Most people that come on this forum with your style of posting and holding your professed viewpoint typically invoke god. It is unfair of people on this forum to assume that you also are invoking god.

Well, think I have said enough so far... am waiting with my "crash helmet" on for the next response...
Crash helmet? Do you feel you need to be protected from what people here will say?

[Grimoire]

Yennaija,

God appeared to me today. He had a halo around his head and I perceived an air of Godliness about him. He told me you would come to Scotland and give to me all your worldly possessions and monies.

He said; "This is the word of the Lord, Reno, and I would not kid you, honestly"

But I questioned the Lord. I sayeth unto Him; "Come on Lord, don't take the piss."

And he replieth unto me; "Reno, I kid you not."

So I then replieth to the Lord; "Fair enough Lord, I'll take you at your word. But if you are jerking my chain, I swear to your Son I'll..."

Anyway, it seemeth that the Lord had hadeth enough of this and he spake into the clouds a mighty rumbling, which caused me to quake in my boots. As I begged for forgiveness and bowed in his mighty presence, the sun peeked out from behind the clouds and a last whisper came to mine own ears:

"The Yennaija is an arsehole..."

I'm not sure if I should Nominate or Report this post...

[Snow]

Before sub-marines were invented, there was this SF writer Jules Verne who wrote about submarines. They only existed in his mind. Today they truly do exist.
Utter garbage. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Submarine#Early_history_of_submarines_and_the_firs t_submersibles for a sub made 200 years before Jules Verne was born.

You think you know far more than you actually do know.

ETA:
Edited to add: drat. This has already been covered by several other people. Teach me not to read to the end of the thread before posting! <pout>
Me too!

[Loss Leader]

Next person who posts one damn word about submarines is going on double secret probation.

ETA: I just spent fifteen minutes researching submarine sandwiches in an effort to beat the "Turtle" and I'm bitter.

[Yahzi]

Does it matter to the subject what my first language is?
Not at all.

You have nothing of substance to say in any language.

In fact, the subject does not call for language. The subject calls for evidence.

[Yennaija]

All this 'Sceptic' talk, this must be the 'Sceptic [think] tank.' If only he didn't add the first C in Sceptic, that would have been much funnier.

1 . Anyways, sensitive to nonphysical or supernatural forces and influences? I don't know, that's the 3rd definition of Psychic in webster. The first two were fine and dandy but this one was talking about forces so I figured it was more dramatic. I honestly have no idea what a psychic ability is.

Is it Uri Geller bending spoons in a safe while staring at it on the internet?

Is it Kelsey Grammer's ability to find people lying their asses off and producing a show based on their lies and making loads of money? Which I'm totally fine with, I even watch the watch, I mean it's fiction and entertaining.

What is it? I don't know. I couldn't tell you, I can't say psychics don't exist. That would be absurd, but I cannot say they do exist and I have more evidence showing the latter. Maybe Banachek really is psychic and he's just screwing with us all, and pretending he's not psychic. I don't know, but I have no reason to believe Psychics or supernatural powers exist. I just haven't seen proof of it.

2. No, I do not know if there is or isn't a life after death. I'm still uncertain if I would even want there to be one anyways. I suppose it all depends on what would be there. If it's Earth part 2, sure I'll take that. But if it's anything like Heaven and Hell, I don't think I could handle either. Heaven would be bad knowing people were in hell for reasons you may not agree with. Hell would be bad for obvious reasons. Isn't there a 3rd option sometimes? Purgatory I believe, that one doesn't make sense to me, I never really understood it maybe someone else can explain that one to me.

3. Atheist

I'm not saying there isn't a God, and I'm not saying there is. I think it's safer to not believe than to believe. At least that is if there does happen to be a God, and he/she/it doesn't approve of who you worshiped instead of him/her/them. I'm pretty sure he/she/it would be nicer to Atheists because we just weren't sure, at least we didn't commit treason against him.

Hi,

Thanks for your input.

1) OK from what i understand what psychic ability is, is the use of the term clair-voyance, clair-audience, clair-sentience. These abilities don't necessarily mean that whoever possesses them can make contact with dead people. This ability making contact with dead people is know as mediumship.
The term that I have learned from the "spiritualists" here is that All mediums have some form of psychic ability but not all psychics are Mediums.
What some people claim to be able to do might not necessarily fall under being a psychic. But probably falls under another Paranormal Heading.

Foretelling the future might use a psychic ability in order to see with the "third-eye" but the person using that ability is known as a prophet or in some cases Shamman.
Uri's spoon bending isn't that telekinesis (however you write that word)?

2) heaven and hell... Valhalla whatever... Prefer the term, next dimension or realm? It is difficult not to fall back on Biblical terms when it comes to what happens when we die...is a definate end? or not...
My train of thought is that we will never know for sure and if we do know for sure the way of live as we know it will cease to exist.
Think of the religious extremist who truly believes in their form of afterlife and happily becomes a suicide bomber. If we believe that the afterlife is so much better then what are we doing here....? The element of not knowing or doubt will at least give some kind of caution as to how we deal with one another...

3) Back to the God subject. I don't believe in God either. Neither do the Buddhists, they belief in reincarnation.... and when it comes to religion...I belief in Good and try to achieve it to the best of my ability but I also belief that their is a need for the negative as one cannot exist without the other and won't put anything into motion. In order to live we are forced to eat living things (plant or beast), thus killing it does that make us bad?

[Yennaija]

You think you know far more than you actually do know.

ETA:

Me too!

No, just trying to give a mundane subject to use as an analogy. Unfortunately am not much of an historian but then again never claimed to be one either.

[Yennaija]

Your posts are full of fallacious arguments, factual errors, and you choose to ignore the responses to your posts, other than to take offense. What did you expect? People have explained your errors, and you choose to ignore them.


$1,000,000.00

I would "bother" for $1,000,000.00. Wouldn't you?

Honesty sometimes hurts. Reality isn't always nice. I agree, fantasy is far more fun. Are skeptics intentionally trying to scare or bully people? No.

From what I have read, everyone, other than one or two posts, has been quite civil. They have simply taken an aggressive, opposite viewpoint to yours.

Are you calling the people on this forum mentally unstable? That isn't particularly civil of you...

No anger here. As for counter attack, it's a stronger phrase than I would use, but it suffices. That IS what you get in a discussion with people of differing viewpoints, is it not?

Would you prefer clever quotes from living scientists?

Most people that come on this forum with your style of posting and holding your professed viewpoint typically invoke god. It is unfair of people on this forum to assume that you also are invoking god.


Crash helmet? Do you feel you need to be protected from what people here will say?

My errors might have been in the analogies I tried to use. OK time frame whatever... I am trying to get back to the subject what I innitially posted.

$1,000,000 well I can honestly say no, there might have been a time that I found money important but these days...No, there are far more important things in live.

If honesty goes hand in hand with being rude and calling names. Then I don't understand the concept of honesty in the way that you understand it..

Indeed there has been the odd one that has made some valid remarks, but that is completely over ruled by the ones that don't.

I didn't call people mentally unstable but used it as a comparrison. If people felt offended by it is because they chose to apply it to themselves.

I would like to hear people's own train of thoughts and why they can or cannot agree with the scientists or philosophers that they refer to.

My hair also stands up when people keep on blindly quoting passages out of for example the bible without any further thought to somebody elses perspective. So well... can agree with you there. But is quoting works from philosophers or scientist without an explanation from somebodies own personal view not the same?
Bible-bashers or Science-bashers

Ah, the crash-helmet. As I am a newby to the forum...I am not allowed to use the little smilies etc. It was meant to be as a bit of humour. But when it comes to reading text, you cannot give the intonation of voice. Therefore people will often misinterpret the true intention of a writing.

For example, you can say "realy" in a very serious tone of voice with a hint of interest. or you can say "realy" with a tone of disbelief and sarcasm.

[Z]

Forgive me if I sound like I'm being deliberately obtuse; I probably am, but don't realize it. But I can't make heads or tails of what your challenge is - unless it's 'prove psychic powers don't exist.'

Now, if that IS your challenge, I regretfully inform you that you ask the impossible. This is called 'proving a negative' and has been dealt with by other posters, but I'll attempt again to make you understand.

A negative in this case is what we call a negative claim - that is, that something does NOT exist. It is never possible to prove a negative, ever. So asking someone to prove that unicorns don't exist, or that psychic powers don't exist, is impossible. The use of the term 'negative' here has nothing to do with good or bad, or with anions or cations; it deals with existence vs. nonexistence.

See, it's possible to prove a positive claim, or to disprove it; it is also possible to disprove a negative; but it is never possible to prove a negative. If I say that no pink ducks exist, all you have to do is show that one pink duck exists to disprove it. But there's no way at all to prove that no pink ducks exist.

Now, it is true that many people who post here do so aggressively and even offensively; I've been guilty of this a time or two myself. However, their aggression is generally the result of having dealt with people who come here with outrageous claims or beliefs, who cannot handle a rational discussion themselves without resorting to vitriole and insult. It's very easy, given the posting history of those with paranormal beliefs and claims, to assume that anyone posting an anti-skeptic position is going to be similarly self-deluded, ignorant, or insane. Yes, it's wrong to so assume; but thus far, the evidence strongly outweighs any chance that someone posting about psychic powers or the existence of God is going to be educatable and rational.

The standard Skeptic position appears, to me, to be, "I assume a thing does not exist until evidence of it existing is presented and verified, and all other explanations have been explored and found wanting." This is in direct opposition to the position of so many of those vested in the supernatural, whose position often is, "I believe a thing exists, because I have some circumstantial evidence of its existence, whether any counter-evidence is provided or not."

The JREF challenge is very simple: make a claim, then demonstrate that claim in a highly controlled situation which leaves no room for cheating, self-delusion, subconscious trickery, or unseen ordinary causes for the effect in question. Your challenge, however, if that is what your challenge amounts to, is simply impossible.

Now, I'd like you to consider a basic fact: humane, social behavior does not equal correctness; offensive, aggressive behavior does not equal wrongness. But skeptics have a very rigid, simple means of understanding the world, and that doesn't include room for such things as trying to believe someone else's claim without evidence.

And that's all the skeptics here really ask for, is evidence. Not anecdotal evidences; stories will get you nowhere here, because anyone can tell a story. Hundreds of 'eyewitness' sightings of Nessie didn't make Nessie real; fifty million Elvis fans can, in fact, be wrong.

Before you start in on me about my closed Skeptic mind, consider that I am, in fact, a Pagan, a believer in faeries and dragons, a believer in a higher power, and a believer in psychic abilities. But I also have chosen to examine each of those beliefs in terms of evidence, and I can honestly say that no compelling, scientifically valid evidence exists for any of those things. I choose to believe as I do based on intuition and the warm fuzzy feelings it gives me to believe these things; and I am comfortable in not making a claim that these things really exist; I'm quite happy with saying that they MAY exist, and exist in such a way as to avoid scientific discernment. However, I'm also quite comfortable with seeing Skeptics demand proof when someone claims to be psychic, or claims to be able to prove that Bigfoot exists, etc.

I'm also quite comfortable with the tone the posts tend to take here, because many believers who post here will refuse to answer direct questions, waffle on endlessly with irrelevant issues, resort to personal attacks and slanders, offer wide arrays of empty excuses, and otherwise refuse to apply proper logic and reason to their claims. Willful ignorance is an inexcusable offense, IMHO, and deserves viscious treatment.

For fence sitters, this may make skeptics appear draconian or scary or whatever; but if the passing reader DOES choose to apply reason or logic, or DOES consider the evidence for and against more rationally, then the skeptics have done their job.

And if they DON'T choose to do so, then I suggest they're a lost cause anyway, and probably would refuse to see actual evidence if it was right before their eyes. People take comfort in their beliefs, and are all too often frightened of anything which threatens those beliefs.

At any rate, if you have a claim to make, please do so. If, on the other hand, you just expect the skeptics to prove a negative, you're wasting your time and theirs.

Remember, a skeptic's position isn't that psychic powers do not exist (though some here will say that); it's that no valid evidence in support of psychic powers exist, and that those who have come forward with claims of psychic powers, who have agreed to proper testing, have been unable to support those claims.

Anyway, welcome to the forums, and I hope you soon find a style of posting that meshes well with others here, and I hope you find plenty of topics which interest you.

[Z]

Hi,

Thanks for your input.

1) OK from what i understand what psychic ability is, is the use of the term clair-voyance, clair-audience, clair-sentience. These abilities don't necessarily mean that whoever possesses them can make contact with dead people. This ability making contact with dead people is know as mediumship.
The term that I have learned from the "spiritualists" here is that All mediums have some form of psychic ability but not all psychics are Mediums.
What some people claim to be able to do might not necessarily fall under being a psychic. But probably falls under another Paranormal Heading.

Foretelling the future might use a psychic ability in order to see with the "third-eye" but the person using that ability is known as a prophet or in some cases Shamman.
Uri's spoon bending isn't that telekinesis (however you write that word)?

Actually Uri's spoon bending is an old fashioned parlor trick. He's even been caught in the act before.

There are many abilities that fall under the heading of psychic. Telekinesis, telepathy, empathy (to a point), clairsentience, clairaudience, clairavoyance, hydrokinesis, pyrokinesis, cryokinesis, mediumship, fortune-telling, scrying... I could probably give many more examples. What makes these abilities psychic, is that they supposedly employ the mind in some other-than-usual fashion.

The problem with any psychic ability is that the claim requires the brain to be capable of things which transcend physics and are not included in the design and materials of the brain.

2) heaven and hell... Valhalla whatever... Prefer the term, next dimension or realm? It is difficult not to fall back on Biblical terms when it comes to what happens when we die...is a definate end? or not...
My train of thought is that we will never know for sure and if we do know for sure the way of live as we know it will cease to exist.
Think of the religious extremist who truly believes in their form of afterlife and happily becomes a suicide bomber. If we believe that the afterlife is so much better then what are we doing here....? The element of not knowing or doubt will at least give some kind of caution as to how we deal with one another...

Though I personally choose to believe that our life essence continues after death, I don't at all think that our personalities survive our deaths. The fact remains that nearly every aspect of what makes us who we are can be altered, modified, erased, etc. through simple alterations to the brain; and when the brain dies, that's it, so far as the evidence goes.

Not long ago, a woman murdered her infant son, based on her belief that babies entered Heaven when they dies, since they were free of sin. By her beliefs, she was doing the BEST possible thing she could for her son.

Personally, that's a very big reason to stop people from belief in some fantastic afterlife.

3) Back to the God subject. I don't believe in God either. Neither do the Buddhists, they belief in reincarnation.... and when it comes to religion...I belief in Good and try to achieve it to the best of my ability but I also belief that their is a need for the negative as one cannot exist without the other and won't put anything into motion. In order to live we are forced to eat living things (plant or beast), thus killing it does that make us bad?

No, good and evil are nothing more than human-created abstractions, useful for engineering a society based on mutual cooperation and survival. True, there are some things a majority of us consider bad, and some that the majority considers good; but objectively, there's really no such thing.

Just thought your comments deserved a reply...

[Tricky]

I'm Pasting Yennaija's post in here because I'm pretty sure it got sent to the "Language Award Nominations (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=51331)" thread by accident. Not that Richard doesn't deserve to be nominated, but the message following the post didn't seem to relate to TLA.


I nominate Richard for the following post:
Yennaija, anyone can post to an egroup, play with words etc. annoy people. What is your point? Are you in fact at all interested in finding a psychic or do you have some sort of problem? Is it that you need attention? Do you think you are trying to teach us something? I bet lots of people are rude and aggressive to you, but I'm sure you can work on that. Please, tell us much more about what you are trying to do. I don't care what your first or second languages are but thank you for trying out English.


Maybe you can explain why people feel the need to be rude or aggressive to anybody really? I think it Lack of control or insecurity.
The confident will be civil, and try to explain their point of view in nice manner. You can agree to disagree and so be it. A form of mutual respect.

Thank Goodness that the point of view between believers in the paranormal and the non-believers has no harming effect. It doesn't kill us.

But the way this kind of conversation is going is like an extremist Muslim versus an extremist Christian...

The thing is that when an extremist Muslim blows him or herself up, they take some of their country fellows with them without remorse, claiming that it was in the name for their god and the other muslims killed are all martyrs.

When American soldiers, feel threathend by an unkown force in Iraq, they attack first and check later what they have killed. When the people they have killed turned out to be their allies they name it "killed by friendy fire"

So far nobody truly knows for sure if I am a sceptic or not. But it is interesting how people jump to conclusions and act on it without any proof or evidence that I am a Sceptic or not....

The questions I have asked when I wrote this thread is to try to gain an understanding of the thought processess and the conclusions that might have been derived from it from the sceptics that are posting on this forum.
This in order to gain some understanding why proof of any paranormal happening seems to be so important.

Cause in the end...does it realy matter?

I cringe just as much for Greed as a lot of other people do. Be it greedy psychics or greedy non psychics. All the same to me...

(And thanks for the sarcasm about my english (smile))

[Loss Leader]

Forgive me if I sound like I'm being deliberately obtuse; I probably am, but don't realize it. But I can't make heads or tails of what your challenge is

I don't think he really has one. I think he just wants to elevate his personal opinions in his own mind by engaging us here and then assuring himself that his ideas have been "scrutinized" and have survived the test. I think it's similar to the post-and-run CTers.

Twice, I have posted specific objections to his statements along with questions about his logic. Others have also. He has not responded to any of this. He had a short conversation wherein he reitterated some of his beliefs but he has yet to actually defend his premise.

I once took batting practice with the New York Mets. I did not hit a thing and my one pitch fell disappointingly short of the plate. But I was thrilled just to be out on the same field as the big guys. I think it's about the same thing here.

P.S. No Mets jokes, please. It was a long time ago. Plus, I'm still upset about that submarine sandwich thing.

[Jackalgirl]

...Can you proof that your point of view is alway right?
Can you proof that you never make mistakes in your chosen profession?
etc. etc.

It's "prove", not "proof" ("prove" is the verb. "Proof" is a noun). Not trying to be flip or dismissive here; just trying to make a small correction and be helpful since English is, I feel, probably the most difficult language in the world.

Anyway, I thought I would jump in with a couple of observations. First, as has been pointed out by some folks here, I think you have come here with an agenda, namely to prove that skeptics are all closed-minded individuals who think that they know everything there is to know. I may be wrong, but from the tenor of your statements and questions, that's the sense I'm getting in between the lines.

I just wanted to point out that this point of view is very much mistaken. Oh, sure, there are blowhards who are dismissive and sarcastic from the get-go, but that's not the case with everyone. AND there's another critical factor: even the sarcastic blowhards can be proven wrong...with /factual evidence/.

Let me frame it to you this way, and please bear in mind that this is /my/ opinion, not every skeptic's: there are two things that generally get confused with one another in arguments here: TRUTH and FACT.

Truth is a philosophical thing. It's something that can be dreamed up, explained with all kinds of ideas, stories, theories, etc. For example, it's entirely philosophical for someone to say something like: "I believe that there is an underlying connection between all human beings, like a collective subconscious, that accounts for psychic phenomenon such as mind-reading, knowing who's calling on the phone, etc." or "I believe that there is a God, because the world is so infinitely miraculous in the way it came to be that there had to be some Hand in it." One can come up with all manner of compelling arguments for or against philosophical arguments, and often times the ideas are inherently paradoxical, which is okay in philosophy (depending on the philosophy).

Fact, on the other hand, refers to things that can be objectively demonstrated, or are otherwise backed up by objective observation and/or evidence, by repeatable experiment, etc. By "objective", I mean that the results of a test or experiment don't need to be interpreted or explained. You drop a ball, it falls. /ANYONE/ drops a ball, it falls (save in a zero-grav environment, of course). What's really important about FACT is that someone, or often multiple someones, have come up with ways to observe/experiment that rule out other explanations, and that other people have reviewed the experiments or observations and are unable to find any problems with the way it all was carried out. But, even more important, is that the idea being demonstrated is always falsifiable -- i.e., better ideas or explanations are allowed to come along.

This is an important point, and I want to highlight it in view of your challenge for us to somehow "proof [sic] that our point of view is always right." Skeptics don't generally believe that -- they're /definitely/ open to the idea of being proven wrong, but have a very specific (Fact-based) requirement in regards to the proof.

So how come skeptics are so generally dismissive of psychic phenomena? It's because those that come here to argue for them are mixing up Truth and Fact. For example, someone comes in here and says, "psychic phenomena are Fact and I'm going to prove that you skeptics are just closed-minded to the wonders of the universe." Psychic phenomena are /not/ factual, because no psychic phenomenon has been satisfactorily demonstrated, in a setting that controls for trickery or alternate explanations.

There certainly are many /philosophies/ that allow for psychic phenomena, but that is not of interest to the skeptic, whose idea of "proof" is a controlled experiment, and who gets very frustrated when someone comes and accuses them of being closed-minded because they won't submit to /philosophical/ arguments (i.e., Truth), and who don't seem to understand the skeptic's requests for "proof" or "evidence". Those of a philosophic bent are happy to provide all kinds of philosophical arguments, but fail to understand that what the skeptic means is that he or she wants /factual evidence/ -- objective, testable stuff.

You may ask all kinds of questions, trying to get into the meat of a skeptic's /philosophical/ beliefs (i.e., their religion or lack thereof, how they came to that assessment, etc), but that is irrelevant when asking about skepticism. If you want to understand the skeptic's approach to the paranormal, you simply must understand what the skeptic means when he or she says "prove it". I don't think there's any argument here WHATSOEVER against the argument that we, as a species, don't know everything there is to know about everything (especially about the human mind and its capabilities), but people have to be /very careful/ when they come here and talk about philosophical (or hypothetical) ideas as /Fact/.

So if you want to champion psychics here, which is perfectly fine by the way, you need to understand the requirements of the people here whom you are trying to convince: we require factual evidence. So you need to provide it. It can't be anecdotal (that is, stories from friends who all swear they experienced psychic abilities). It has to be something that was tested or is testable. For example, if you are able to find a "true" psychic that will submit to the Challenge -- a psychic passing the Challenge certainly will be very convincing to us, as it will provide /factual evidence/ that the claimed powers are actually there.

Please also remember that explanations as to why psychic phenomena are not testable do not constitute proof. All they do is place psychic phenomena squarely in the "philosophy" (Truth) category, and will not satisfy the skeptic's need for factual evidence (Fact).

I hope this makes sense. Sorry to ramble on so long!

[Little 10 Toes]

Next person who posts one damn word about submarines is going on double secret probation.

ETA: I just spent fifteen minutes researching submarine sandwiches in an effort to beat the "Turtle" and I'm bitter.

Since no one has brought up the diving suits, I will. Wikipedia says in the 15th century, "Leonardo da Vinci made the first known mention of air tanks in Italy: he wrote in his Atlantic Codex (Biblioteca Ambrosiana, Milan) that systems were used at that time to artificially breathe under water, but he did not explain them in detail due to what he described as "bad human nature", that would have taken advantage of this technique to sink ships and even commit murders. Some drawings, however, showed different kinds of snorkels and an air tank (to be carried on the breast) that presumably should have no external connections. Other drawings showed a complete immersion kit, with a plunger suit which included a sort of mask with a box for air. The project was so detailed that it included a urine collector, too."

Forsooth, I thinketh, I verily hath put upon thou a smackth down ye fact finders of the 1700's and 1800's. Ye upstarts and varlets.

And Loss Leader, I guess this will make your more bitterer?

(Yes, I know it's "more bitter", but can't I have some fun along with the Olde English / King James talk? :D )

[CLD]

Late to the thread but here's a "History of Science / Science Fiction" factoid I do actually know about. Verne's "20000 Leagues Beneath The Sea" was published in 1870. The first actual sub was demonstrated in 1776 -- the Turtle. Much speculation and experimentation preceded that.

Sorry Mr. Skinny and everyone else who has been riding the submarine. I said I was late to the thread,

The submarine's not dead yet. I think the OP has confused Verne's Nautilus with The Seaview from the 1960's film, "Voyage To The Bottom Of The Sea", in which the Van Allen radiation belt catches fire, causing global warming.

[Loss Leader]

The project was so detailed that it included a urine collector, too.

I was going to berate you but I got hung up on this. Why in the world would you need a urine collector underwater?

Also: from now on submarines will be defined as entirely submersible vehicles capable of traveling faster than a human can swim.

[Zep]

Here's how it works:

1) What unassailable incontrovertible evidence do you have that psychics can do what they claim to do?








Simple, isn't it.The same evidence that you can provide that they don't :)Quoting from that great David Lean film Lawrence Of Arabia, "THAT is NOT an answer."

So here's the question again (and I can repeat this until you DO provide an answer and stop dodging the issue):

What unassailable incontrovertible evidence do you have that psychics can do what they claim to do?

[Zep]

I was going to berate you but I got hung up on this. Why in the world would you need a urine collector underwater?

Also: from now on submarines will be defined as entirely submersible vehicles capable of traveling faster than a human can swim.Aka: Chamber pot. Presumably they threw the contents out the screen windows from time to time.


:D

[Little 10 Toes]

I was going to berate you but I got hung up on this. Why in the world would you need a urine collector underwater?

Also: from now on submarines will be defined as entirely submersible vehicles capable of traveling faster than a human can swim.

Well, if you're underwater, you just can't unzip and go without water getting back in.

[Jackalgirl]

...Also: from now on submarines will be defined as entirely submersible vehicles capable of traveling faster than a human can swim.

Just like a skeptic -- you don't like the way the conversation is going, so you move the goalposts! A truly open-minded person would accept that there are all KINDS of submersibles! <duck, run!> ; )

[YourSpleen]

Yennaija, the flat earth thing is sort of silly anyway. Everyone did believe that the Earth was flat back in ye oldern days, but do you know what changed that view? *Evidence*. You know, that thing you have yet to provide on anything beyond "no, *you're* a poo-poo head."

Hey, you know what would be good evidence? If some true psychic took the karma hit and underwent the JREF Challenge. Surely karma would understand it if the psychic FUNDAMENTALLY SHIFTED HUMAN THOUGHT AND CONSCIOUSNESS by winning the challenge. Heck, the winner could BURN the money and therefore cleanse themselves.

Just a thought.

[Grimoire]

My errors might have been in the analogies I tried to use. OK time frame whatever... I am trying to get back to the subject what I innitially posted.Poorly thought out analogies won't make it easier for us to understand