Challenge to the Sceptics and Mr Randi [Archive]

Yennaija

16th February 2007, 03:21 PM

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

16th February 2007, 03:27 PM

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

16th February 2007, 03:42 PM

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

16th February 2007, 03:44 PM

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

16th February 2007, 03:53 PM

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

16th February 2007, 03:53 PM

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

Other than that, I have nothing to say.

Richard

16th February 2007, 03:53 PM

"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

16th February 2007, 03:55 PM

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

16th February 2007, 04:04 PM

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

16th February 2007, 04:05 PM

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

16th February 2007, 04:11 PM

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

16th February 2007, 04:15 PM

Yennaija

16th February 2007, 04:19 PM

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

16th February 2007, 04:22 PM

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

16th February 2007, 04:23 PM

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

16th February 2007, 04:23 PM

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

16th February 2007, 04:24 PM

Yennaija

16th February 2007, 04:34 PM

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

16th February 2007, 04:43 PM

(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

16th February 2007, 04:48 PM

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

16th February 2007, 04:48 PM

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

16th February 2007, 04:48 PM

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

16th February 2007, 04:49 PM

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

16th February 2007, 04:50 PM

Chicken Pot Pie

16th February 2007, 04:51 PM

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

16th February 2007, 05:03 PM

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

16th February 2007, 05:11 PM

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

16th February 2007, 05:38 PM

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

16th February 2007, 05:48 PM

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

16th February 2007, 05:48 PM

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

16th February 2007, 05:57 PM

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

16th February 2007, 06:00 PM

??

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

16th February 2007, 06:03 PM

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

16th February 2007, 06:42 PM

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

16th February 2007, 07:14 PM

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

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

ObscureReferenceMan

16th February 2007, 07:42 PM

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

Mr. Skinny

16th February 2007, 08:08 PM

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

16th February 2007, 08:24 PM

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

16th February 2007, 08:51 PM

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

16th February 2007, 09:56 PM

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

16th February 2007, 10:02 PM

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

16th February 2007, 11:01 PM

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

16th February 2007, 11:18 PM

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 ********..."

autumn1971

16th February 2007, 11:51 PM

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

17th February 2007, 09:46 AM

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

17th February 2007, 10:36 AM

gave me a good laugh. thanks.

Panhead56

17th February 2007, 11:29 AM

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

17th February 2007, 01:20 PM

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

17th February 2007, 01:36 PM

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

17th February 2007, 01:38 PM

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

17th February 2007, 01:46 PM

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

17th February 2007, 01:46 PM

Dear all Sceptics and Mr Randi...

Your stupidity has been handled elsewhere, multiple times.

M.

Panhead56

17th February 2007, 01:47 PM

Yennaija

17th February 2007, 01:49 PM

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

17th February 2007, 01:55 PM

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

17th February 2007, 01:57 PM

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

17th February 2007, 01:59 PM

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

17th February 2007, 02:00 PM

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

17th February 2007, 02:09 PM

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

17th February 2007, 02:09 PM

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

17th February 2007, 02:10 PM

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

17th February 2007, 02:13 PM

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

17th February 2007, 02:15 PM

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

17th February 2007, 02:20 PM

Loss Leader

17th February 2007, 02:48 PM

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

17th February 2007, 02:58 PM

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

17th February 2007, 03:29 PM

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

17th February 2007, 03:30 PM

...

Grimoire

17th February 2007, 03:33 PM

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

17th February 2007, 03:36 PM

catbasket

17th February 2007, 03:52 PM

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

17th February 2007, 04:13 PM

Yahzi

17th February 2007, 05:03 PM

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

17th February 2007, 05:07 PM

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

17th February 2007, 05:10 PM

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

17th February 2007, 05:26 PM

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.

17th February 2007, 05:36 PM

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.

17th February 2007, 05:53 PM

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

17th February 2007, 05:55 PM

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

17th February 2007, 07:20 PM

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

17th February 2007, 07:56 PM

...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

17th February 2007, 08:22 PM

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

17th February 2007, 08:34 PM

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

17th February 2007, 09:21 PM

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

17th February 2007, 09:21 PM

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

17th February 2007, 09:23 PM

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

17th February 2007, 09:42 PM

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

17th February 2007, 10:02 PM

...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

17th February 2007, 10:37 PM

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

17th February 2007, 11:08 PM

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 your points.

$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.What a complete crock. If some psychic doesn't want the cash, I'm sure there are many very worthy charities that could do a lot of good with the money. They should take the money from Randi and donate it. But they don't. They come up with lines like "I don't need/want the money", or "I am beyond the need for worldly possessions". A real psychic, an honest one, would take the challenge, if only to do some good with the money.
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..If I see a piece of dog feces on the ground, I won't call it a rose. I won't go out of the way to offend someone, but I won't pull any punches to prevent someone who is overly sensitive from getting their feelings hurt.

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.No, absolutely not! No number of "rude" comments can over rule a valid remark, ever.

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.Playing word games won't help. You made the implication. It was unnecessary and rude. Unless you want others to respond in kind, please avoid making those kind of implications in the future.

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.There is a difference between quoting the bible (or any non-fact based text) and a well researched scientific theory. The bible has little or no basis in reality. It contains factual errors. It contains conflicting statements. Using it as a reference in an argument carries no weight.

Using a scientific theory as a reference in an argument carries a great deal of weight, since it is supported by real world evidence.

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?Other than saying that I can not find a flaw in the reasoning of the scientist/philosopher in question, what more is there to say?

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.
I believe I understand the intent. But you shouldn't need to make a crash helmet comment. It implies that you expect the following comments to be damaging to you. Instead, you should look at the comments as a way to learn.

Many of your previous comments show a lack of understanding of the concepts that the poster is using. Look at the comments as a chance to educate yourself instead of something to "crash" through.

Richard

17th February 2007, 11:17 PM

Umm, is this whole thing getting us anywhere??

TjW

17th February 2007, 11:41 PM

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, going underwater using 15th-century technology would certainly scare the p*ss out of me.

CLD

18th February 2007, 12:49 AM

What a complete crock. If some psychic doesn't want the cash, I'm sure there are many very worthy charities that could do a lot of good with the money. They should take the money from Randi and donate it. But they don't. They come up with lines like "I don't need/want the money", or "I am beyond the need for worldly possessions".

And there lies the crux of it. What do psychics want? Apparently they don't want a million dollars. And they don't want to provide verifiable proof of their powers to the world. It seems they just want Randi to leave them alone so they can continue to collect believers.

Soapy Sam

18th February 2007, 01:14 AM

I have to ask.

Who is "Simon"? (As referred to in the OP).

enjoytheview

18th February 2007, 01:18 AM

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.

Having to deal with sceptics? Are you kidding me? A person with real psychic abilities would love having to 'deal' with sceptics, in fact if anybody had real psychic powers there wouldn't be people who are sceptical of psychics. Not to mention they'd be a nice $1million richer. I'll expect that it would've been a very hard days work indeed.

Have i ever tried? well i deal with sceptics on a daily basis, but i don't have the added problem of trying to prove imaginary abilities.

The problem with the "chosen profession" argument is that many people in their chosen profession, although not perfect, can generally provide a service to consumers and there's standards and rules which they much adhere to in their line of work. Not to mention that the guy who runs the nearest supermarket to you for instance, doesn't make large sums of money off the grieving and gullible. He gives a service you can physically see. You know your money has been spent well, and if what you buy doesn't meet your standards you can get a refund. Try telling a psychic that their 'predictions' for you didn't meet your standards and you'd like a refund. Now that would be hard work.

Can i prove that my point of view is always right? No. Of course not. But i can try and back my point of view up with as much evidence as possible where appropriate. A lot of the time my point of view doesn't have to be right, it is after all only my opinion, not fact.
I hope i've given you the answers you're looking for.

Zep

18th February 2007, 05:23 AM

What unassailable incontrovertible evidence do you have that psychics can do what they claim to do?No answers yet...

Has our psychic booster gone on leave? Taken the weekend off?

jimbob

18th February 2007, 05:28 AM

Having to deal with sceptics? Are you kidding me? A person with real psychic abilities would love having to 'deal' with sceptics, in fact if anybody had real psychic powers there wouldn't be people who are sceptical of psychics. Not to mention they'd be a nice $1million richer. I'll expect that it would've been a very hard days work indeed.

That's only from the challenge, if I were psychic, I'd be playing poker/roulette to build up my seed capital*, then spread betting on the stock exchange.

Maybe I'd also do something useful too...

*I wouldn't win too often, as I wouldn't like to end up inside a concrete bridge.

tonyyouens

18th February 2007, 05:51 AM

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.

Nice answer John. If someone is so unaware of the basis of rational argument it's simply too tedious having to explain everything for them.

If proving a negative is what it takes then I claim I to posess a document that conclusively proves all psychics are just con-artists who prey on the vulnerable and are no more than simple-minded windbags who want the world to think they're 'special'.

I challenge anyone to prove I don't have such a document and if Yennaija manages it I'll pay him/her a $1 million myself.

Tony

juryjone

18th February 2007, 09:50 AM

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

No answers yet...

Has our psychic booster gone on leave? Taken the weekend off?

To be fair, Yennaija may not be here constantly enough to hold a true conversation. I'm certainly not. I posted Friday and haven't had a chance to return before now.

However, given that he didn't ever respond to my question from page 1, even when other posters reposted my question, and instead passed it off as though I was saying he was psychic, I don't hold out any great hopes that he will answer your excellent question either.

Yennaija

18th February 2007, 10:18 AM

No answers yet...

Has our psychic booster gone on leave? Taken the weekend off?
Hi, bit impatient are we?

Are you still assuming that I am psychic and have some miraculous claims to make?

I must say, I haven't come across the kind of psychics that are being discussed here on the forum. I don't know who this Sylvia Brown is but from what I have read so far... it doesn't surprise me that feelings run high by the way she employs her claimed talents...

If it helps to share some of the experiences that I have had with psychics.
In a nutshell, the majority are in full time mundane employment and work "free of charge" in spiritualist churches. Some are healers, who also don't charge. Some are involved in paranormal investigations (haunted houses etc.)

Of course here in the UK you also have the so called professionals who charge a certain amount for their services. And amongst them you'll have the greedy and as some of you have said in your own responses, you cannot understand that a "psychic" will not take the challenge for the $1,000,000 as if it was you, you certainly would!

The reason I do involve differnt forms of Philosophy is that many people who are claiming to be psychic also have a firm believe of their form of religion (probably not a good word, lets say belief) . Some indeed are even christians, but some have a mixture of believe that involves Zen, Buddhism etc. Some are firm believers of karma.
And although you might suggest that a psychic that wins the challenge can offer the money to charity... they will not be able to remain out of the lime-light or any other unpleasant aftermath or it is against their own code of conduct based on the way they translate their belief.

Like trying to convince a Jehovah Witness to celebrate a birthday.

The majority of spiritualist mediums, psychics etc. work under a code of conduct. Which from what I understand is severly lacking in this Sylvia Brown, you all get so excited about.

(It is getting again a bit of a long nutshell).

Arkan_Wolfshade

18th February 2007, 10:36 AM

So, in short, you haven't bothered to actually read any of the responses posted here, eh?

Yahzi

18th February 2007, 10:38 AM

Are you still assuming that I am psychic and have some miraculous claims to make?
No, but we are still laboring under the delusion that you are rational and have something coherent to say.

Don't ask me why. We're just unreasonably optimistic that way.

I don't know who this Sylvia Brown is
So, you don't own a television or a radio, you've never read a newspaper, and you've never heard of "Google."

And amongst them you'll have the greedy and as some of you have said in your own responses, you cannot understand that a "psychic" will not take the challenge for the $1,000,000 as if it was you, you certainly would!
Are you aware that this sentence makes no sense?

The point is that psychics who work for money are the kind of psychics who work for money. So why wouldn't they work for money?

And although you might suggest that a psychic that wins the challenge can offer the money to charity... they will not be able to remain out of the lime-light or any other unpleasant aftermath or it is against their own code of conduct based on the way they translate their belief.
So they can prove to their clients that they are real psychics; they just don't dare prove it to the world?

Does that make even the slightest bit of sense to you? Can you think of anybody else who wants you to believe in their competence, but does not want their competence to be a matter of public fact?

Why, I can... criminals.

The majority of spiritualist mediums, psychics etc. work under a code of conduct.
Say, what's the weather like on your planet?

If you were on my planet, Earth, I would ask you things like: what code of conduct, what are its details, who made it up, who enforces it, who educates new psychics on it; but I'm sure the answers are clear and obvious on your planet.

Which from what I understand is severly lacking in this Sylvia Brown, you all get so excited about.
It is lacking in anyone who expects the mark - I mean client - to believe in them while demanding that the authorities do not believe in them. It is lacking in anyone who brags about their psychic abilities to their friends but does not wish to discuss their abilities with people they can't fool - I mean scientists.

It is lacking in anyone who sits on the greatest secret in the history of science but refuses to share it because it might cause them some inconvience.

(It is getting again a bit of a long nutshell).
Nonetheless you managed to contradict yourself several times.

Gord_in_Toronto

18th February 2007, 11:55 AM

And there lies the crux of it. What do psychics want? Apparently they don't want a million dollars. And they don't want to provide verifiable proof of their powers to the world. It seems they just want Randi to leave them alone so they can continue to collect believers.

No, they don't want to take that evil atheist's money and make a fool out of him in front of the whole World -- they want to take the money $10 -$100 -$1000 at a time from poor people in great distress. Pah! :boggled:

Robaato

18th February 2007, 11:57 AM

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.The fact that you live in Japan and can say this makes me wonder about you...:D

Actually, after having lived and taught English in Japan for almost six years, I can see your point. But Japanese is right up there, and the fact that it's spoken (natively) in only one place in the world doesn't help any.

(sorry for this little off-topic aside...)

Baron Samedi

18th February 2007, 04:52 PM

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.

<snip>

To add to this, let me use and expand on Randi's favorite example of why it's impossible to prove a negative. (I apologize to those of you who have been around to have seen this tons of times, but it really is a good one.)

Believer: Flying reindeer do exist, and it's not a myth. It's true!

Skeptic: There is no such thing as flying reindeer. What's your proof that they exist?

Believer: No, prove to me that they don't exist.

Skeptic: Well, for one, no one has ever seen a photograph of reindeer flying. I certainly haven't seen any, have you?

Believer: Reindeer are just camera shy. Just because no one actually has yet to take a photo of one doesn't mean that they aren't out there.

Skeptic: Okay then. Let's try an experiment. Let's take some reindeer and push them off a cliff, and we'll see what happens.

(a few days later)

Skeptic: There, we pushed 100 reindeer off a cliff and none flew.

Believer: Did you test all reindeer? There still may have been some flying reindeer somewhere around ther world. We have to test them all.

(still later)

Skeptic: Well, we traveled the globe, and pushed each and every reindeer off a cliff, and none flew. Is that proof enough?

Believer: No. Flying reindeer are fast. They could have flew to Russia while we were off in Canada. They could still be out there.

Skeptic: Okay, let's circle around the globe a few more times.

(even more later)

Skeptic: After 25 years, we still haven't found any flying reindeer. We have a lot of reindeer meat, but no flying reindeer. Can we stop now and admit that there are no flying reindeer?

Believer: But look at the data! See, in some cases, some reindeer took longer to hit the ground than others. That's proof that they were learning to fly!

Skeptic: No, that could be due to aerodynamics, different antler shapes, updrafts, whatever. The reindeer won't always hit at exactly the same time, since there's natural variation.

Believer: But look here! One reindeer was in the air for a whole 10 seconds and still didn't hit the ground!

Skeptic: That's because we pushed it off a cliff 1,000 meters high. After 11 seconds, it was another red spot on the ground.

Believer: This doesn't prove anything. As we all know, no true reindeer would fly for just anybody. They only fly for Santa Claus on Christmas Eve when all the boys and girls are fast asleep. You're not Santa Claus, so they didn't want to fly for you.

Skeptic: But Santa Claus doesn't exist.

Believer: Prove to me that he doesn't!

This is why the process becomes pointless after a while. You can try and try and try to prove non-existance, but there's always another situation that needs to be investigated. Take this as another example. You find tracks outside in the snow. They could have been made by dogs or something else. Which route would be quicker and easier?

A: Prove that they weren't made by dogs. Are the prints cat shaped? Yes/No. Were they made by people? Yes/No. Were they made by chipmunks? Yes/No. Were they made by swallows? Yes/No. Were they made by eels? Yes/No.

B: Prove that they were made by dogs. Are they dog shaped? Yes/no

Jackalgirl

18th February 2007, 05:20 PM

The fact that you live in Japan and can say this makes me wonder about you...:D

Actually, after having lived and taught English in Japan for almost six years, I can see your point. But Japanese is right up there, and the fact that it's spoken (natively) in only one place in the world doesn't help any.

(sorry for this little off-topic aside...)

Hee hee! I'm taking Japanese right now, and actually don't think it's too terribly difficult. It's pretty regular and logical -- not a lot of exceptions (the Doom of English Students). It's just radically different from, say, English in its structure.. Oh, I'm sure it'll be ferociously difficult to really get the subtleties of it (if, in fact, I'm ever capable of doing that), but I think the basics of it are far, far, far easier than English.

Don't apologise for the derail, please -- it's an interesting topic! ; )

Arkan_Wolfshade

18th February 2007, 05:28 PM

Japanese isn't that bad, Cantonese on the other hand.

omegablue

18th February 2007, 05:47 PM

snip

....since English is, I feel, probably the most difficult language in the world.
snip

Nice joke.

Ginarley

18th February 2007, 07:24 PM

...snip

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

snip...

I'll take the challenge.

IMO:

++ A psychic ability is an ability to use the mind in a manner that one would consider "supernatural" - that is to do things that are impossible by standard reckoning. Note this excludes powers of persuasion, cold/hot reading, making stuff up, and random guesses. It is possible sometimes to read what people are thinking through body language and other signs - again this is not a psychic ability. Examples of a purported psychic ability might be moving objects just by thinking about them, reading or manipulating someone else's thoughts entirely by thinking about it, communicating with someone you shouldn't be able to (too far away, dead, etc).

++ Life after death is an oxymoron. There is currently exactly no reason to suppose any manifestation of a person continues once their brain permanently ceases functioning.

++ Atheist. There is currently exactly no reason to suppose any kind of supernatural super-being exists.

Jackalgirl

18th February 2007, 07:37 PM

...The reason I do involve differnt forms of Philosophy is that many people who are claiming to be psychic also have a firm believe of their form of religion (probably not a good word, lets say belief) . Some indeed are even christians, but some have a mixture of believe that involves Zen, Buddhism etc. Some are firm believers of karma.
And although you might suggest that a psychic that wins the challenge can offer the money to charity... they will not be able to remain out of the lime-light or any other unpleasant aftermath or it is against their own code of conduct based on the way they translate their belief...

I think you're suffering from a misconception here. The fact that many psychics do or do not seek money, or do or do not work with a code of conduct, for what they do isn't really the issue here, nor is it proof that they can or can't do what they claim to be able to do.

Certainly, skeptics are quite frothy in the mouth about famous psychics (like the aforementioned Browne) who charge large amounts of money for their services but won't pursue the Challenge. We're also a bit frothy in the mouth about people who refuse to pursue the Challenge because "they're not in it for the money," given that passing the Challenge would be a first step in a completely new field of physics and understanding of the abilities of the human mind (and any altruistic psychic could simply refuse the money or contribute it to a worthy cause). But all of that is a side show. It's not the main point, which is:

a skeptic requires objective evidence to believe that a claim is factual.

That's it, in a nutshell. Of course you'll find people who disagree with your philosophies here. You might find people who agree. There's no disagreement that many people who claim to be psychic are religious or have all kinds of philisophical ideas about what they do (the ones who genuinely believe that they are psychic, mind you, not the cons). The point is that in order for a skeptic to accept their abilities as factual, factual (objective) evidence has to be provided. I'll say it again:

a skeptic requires objective evidence to believe that a claim is factual.

I am not meaning to be snarky or dismissive when I ask these questions, which I ask honestly and sincerely:

o Do you understand this requirement, and what it means?
o Do you understand the distinction between philosophical ideas and ideas that are supported by objective evidence?
o Do you understand that most skeptics in this forum are not interested in the philosophical underpinnings of belief in paranormal abilities, but are only interested in objective evidence of the same?

Aussie Thinker

18th February 2007, 07:53 PM

Cmon guys.. hes not reading (or cannot understand) your well thought out responses.

He is just cherry picking the ones that (correctly) call him an idiot.

I read his first post and thought he honestly wanted a debate.. he degenerated into pathetic whining so quickly I think it might be a record !

He just doesn’t get why we declare “psychics” to be nonexistent so quickly.. he doesn’t get that their existence has the same logic, evidence and relevance as the existence of fairies and santa claus !

Humphreys

19th February 2007, 05:52 AM

Hi, bit impatient are we?

Are you still assuming that I am psychic and have some miraculous claims to make?

I must say, I haven't come across the kind of psychics that are being discussed here on the forum. I don't know who this Sylvia Brown is but from what I have read so far... it doesn't surprise me that feelings run high by the way she employs her claimed talents...

If it helps to share some of the experiences that I have had with psychics.
In a nutshell, the majority are in full time mundane employment and work "free of charge" in spiritualist churches. Some are healers, who also don't charge. Some are involved in paranormal investigations (haunted houses etc.)

Of course here in the UK you also have the so called professionals who charge a certain amount for their services. And amongst them you'll have the greedy and as some of you have said in your own responses, you cannot understand that a "psychic" will not take the challenge for the $1,000,000 as if it was you, you certainly would!

The reason I do involve differnt forms of Philosophy is that many people who are claiming to be psychic also have a firm believe of their form of religion (probably not a good word, lets say belief) . Some indeed are even christians, but some have a mixture of believe that involves Zen, Buddhism etc. Some are firm believers of karma.
And although you might suggest that a psychic that wins the challenge can offer the money to charity... they will not be able to remain out of the lime-light or any other unpleasant aftermath or it is against their own code of conduct based on the way they translate their belief.

Like trying to convince a Jehovah Witness to celebrate a birthday.

The majority of spiritualist mediums, psychics etc. work under a code of conduct. Which from what I understand is severly lacking in this Sylvia Brown, you all get so excited about.

(It is getting again a bit of a long nutshell).

Wake up, man!

That 'code of conduct' was deliberately fashioned to dodge any required proof of their claims, and the fact you are unable to see that is, quite frankly, shocking.

How can any legitimate healer/psychic, with conscience, work under a code of conduct that specifically prohibits the masses from benefitting from her gift?

MRC_Hans

19th February 2007, 07:18 AM

Entering the fray in my usual egoistic way, that is, reading till I find a post I'd like to respond to, without bothering to find out if it has already been answered ;).

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...

This is wrong. Being skeptical about something is not the same as being "a skeptic". The people who believed Earth was flat did not do it because they were skeptics, they did it because they were traditionalists. Their resistance to new ideas was not a skeptical mindset, quite the contrary.

Being a skeptic is not about whether the idea you defend or resist is new or old, it is about your reasons for doing it. It is about whether you base your opinion on evidence or not.

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....

If you feel there is such a definition, I suggest you state it. Most of us don't like guessing games.

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...

Duh. Since many (but far from all) skeptics are at least functional atheists, yes that is our assumption.

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.

"Can exist" doesn't cut the case. You can also show by simple logic that the proverbial invisible unicorn can exist.

But like with most theories...they will remain a theory until practically proven.

"Can exist" is not a theory, it is speculation.

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?

Irrelevant, but typical. I have stopped counting the believers who ask skeptic atheists: "Why don't you want there to be an afterlife?". It is not a matter of what we want. It is a matter of what we find evidence for. You see, one important aspect of being a skeptic is the realization that the world does not comply with our wishes.

Hans

kitakaze

19th February 2007, 08:06 AM

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.

The fact that you live in Japan and can say this makes me wonder about you...:D

Actually, after having lived and taught English in Japan for almost six years, I can see your point. But Japanese is right up there, and the fact that it's spoken (natively) in only one place in the world doesn't help any.

(sorry for this little off-topic aside...)

Hee hee! I'm taking Japanese right now, and actually don't think it's too terribly difficult. It's pretty regular and logical -- not a lot of exceptions (the Doom of English Students). It's just radically different from, say, English in its structure.. Oh, I'm sure it'll be ferociously difficult to really get the subtleties of it (if, in fact, I'm ever capable of doing that), but I think the basics of it are far, far, far easier than English.

Don't apologise for the derail, please -- it's an interesting topic! ; )

Japanese isn't that bad, Cantonese on the other hand.As a fluent bilingual person (English/Japanese) and having a grasp on the basics of a few others I'd say that neither Japanese or English is that hard to get the basics of. Both Japanese and English speakers often assume their language is overly challenging but for different reasons. Japan is one of the most homogenous societies on earth and most Japanese have no experience personally communicating with a foreigner, let alone in Japanese with one who's mastered the language. The global nature of English and it's many variances often cause some native speakers to assume it to be so challenging. Indeed, the subtleties, nuances, and writing systems of both are the wild cards for those attempting to gain a command of the languages except in the case of other Asians who are already familiar with Chinese characters.

Anyway,　I think English ain't so bad.

まぁ。。。とにかく、日本語はそんなに難しくないだと思います。

autumn1971

19th February 2007, 10:26 PM

English wouldn't be so bad, if only English speakers could agree on how it is to be spoken.

Huntster

19th February 2007, 10:29 PM

The "god" James Randi doesn't participate in this forum with mere men.

Don't bother asking Him any questions.

You'll get answers from the peanut gallery, and nothing more.

Grimoire

19th February 2007, 11:03 PM

The "god" James Randi doesn't participate in this forum with mere men.

Don't bother asking Him any questions.

You'll get answers from the peanut gallery, and nothing more.

http://www.howdydoodytime.com/sound/pgalmp3.swf

Glad you could drop by. Got anything relevant to bring to the conversation?

Zep

19th February 2007, 11:10 PM

English wouldn't be so bad, if only English speakers could agree on how it is to be spoken.Crikey, cobber! There's flamin' sharks in the billabong!

Zep

19th February 2007, 11:25 PM

The "god" James Randi doesn't participate in this forum with mere men.

Don't bother asking Him any questions.

You'll get answers from the peanut gallery, and nothing more.Jealous much?

Huntster

20th February 2007, 12:04 AM

http://www.howdydoodytime.com/sound/pgalmp3.swf

Glad you could drop by. Got anything relevant to bring to the conversation?Yup.

You?

Grimoire

20th February 2007, 12:31 AM

Yup.
Really? We are waiting.

You?
Yup.

Huntster

20th February 2007, 01:26 AM

Originally Posted by Huntster
Yup.

Really? We are waiting.

Shall we start at the beginning?:

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....

Let me reword that:

"First of all, I see myself as some kind of a warrior for the underdog and in this case it is Christianity on this particular website. And...in addition, I do love to fight...."

Good enough?

Quote:
You?

Yup.

Your turn................

SezMe

20th February 2007, 02:19 AM

Also: from now on submarines will be defined as entirely submersible vehicles capable of traveling faster than a human can swim.
That's the No True Submarine Fallacy.

SezMe

20th February 2007, 02:37 AM

Who is "Simon"? (As referred to in the OP).
A judge on American Idol (http://www.americanidol.com/) and here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Idol) (an American TV program which is a talent show for singers) who is known for his blunt, harsh comments.

Jackalgirl

20th February 2007, 04:21 AM

Anyway,?I think English ain't so bad.

Well, I wish it weren't so bad -- maybe it wouldn't take a half-hour for me to make reservations with JAL's domestic reservation people. ; )

kitakaze

20th February 2007, 04:43 AM

Master of the Obvious says:

psst... It helps if you can speak Japanese.:D

BTW, where'd that frisky question mark in my quote come from?

Jackalgirl

20th February 2007, 04:49 AM

Master of the Obvious says:

psst... It helps if you can speak Japanese.:D

Well, duh! I was talking about how difficult English is -- if this is your solution, you prove my point! ; )

kitakaze

20th February 2007, 06:38 AM

Well, duh! I was talking about how difficult English is -- if this is your solution, you prove my point! ; )Doh! :D I think you can probably expect for routine things in which you have to speak to other people to take quite a bit longer than usual if the language you are speaking to them in is not one they have a functional command of. There are lots of reasons, mostly cultural, why English is not commonly spoken in Japan but the language truly being prohibitively difficult is not one of them.

Since you were calling JAL's domestic flights section from within Japan there's little reason why those staff should be expected to have a functional command of English. If they did they would certainly be working for another better paying position of the company. I say this as I have a close friend who works for JAL and is fluent in both English and Japanese. Oh yeah, did you call an English service number?

Now if you're talking about the lack of English speaking staff at immigration centres such as the main one in Shinagawa on the other hand...

BTW, If you don't mind me asking where in Japan do you live? I'm just curious as Honshu (the main island) is a little vague. And I'm just gonna chuck out one of these :boxedin: and a couple of these :) :) so that my post isn't thought of as being sarcastic.

Loss Leader

20th February 2007, 10:40 AM

Anybody else notice that the OP is MIA. I guess he wasn't as up for that debate as he thought he was.

Grimoire

20th February 2007, 01:27 PM

ETA: Looks like Hunster managed to get himself banninated. Since my response to him doesn't advance the thread any further, I will remove it.

Arkan_Wolfshade

20th February 2007, 01:33 PM

Huntster is no longer with us in this particular digital realm.

Grimoire

20th February 2007, 01:57 PM

Huntster is no longer with us in this particular digital realm.
Looks like I edited my post about the same time as you posted. :)

Arkan_Wolfshade

20th February 2007, 02:00 PM

Looks like I edited my post about the same time as you posted. :)
Well, I would say "great minds think alike," but there would be adamant protests against me trying to put myself in that category; so I'll opt for coincidence. :o

Jackalgirl

20th February 2007, 03:10 PM

...There are lots of reasons, mostly cultural, why English is not commonly spoken in Japan but the language truly being prohibitively difficult is not one of them.

Since you were calling JAL's domestic flights section from within Japan there's little reason why those staff should be expected to have a functional command of English. If they did they would certainly be working for another better paying position of the company. I say this as I have a close friend who works for JAL and is fluent in both English and Japanese. Oh yeah, did you call an English service number?

If I'm recalling correctly (it's been a couple of months and my memory is not all that hot), I called the domestic reservations line and pressed the button for "if you'd like to continue in English" option.

What I have found is that there is The Script. If you follow along with The Script, you will have no problems. The moment you have questions or issues that go outside of the scope of The Script, you're in trouble.

I can understand this. I'm at a level of Japanese now where I have a script, too. If someone tells me I am good in Japanese but doesn't use "joozu", I'm clueless.

...BTW, If you don't mind me asking where in Japan do you live? I'm just curious as Honshu (the main island) is a little vague. And I'm just gonna chuck out one of these :boxedin: and a couple of these :) :) so that my post isn't thought of as being sarcastic.

I'm in Misawa, on the air base there. And, mind you, I haven't had a lot of experience interfacing with the local JSDF folks, who are required to study English for their advancement exams. But I still think that fluency in English is pretty difficult -- it's not that I can't talk with people, or that I can't understand them (after I've had a minute or two to get their pronunciation pattern in my ears), but it's just frustrating not to be able to talk about anything. When I'm speaking with a fluent English speaker, our conversation goes everywhere. When I'm speaking with someone who's not fluent, the conversation is frustratingly limited (exactly so, too, when I try to speak in Japanese). It's one of the reasons why I like Esperanto (http://www.lernu.net) so much; it has a much flatter learning curve than other languages, even for folks whose languages have structures that are fundamentally different. But that's a whole 'nother topic way beyond what our OP is trying to get across. : ) Feel free to PM me anytime, of course! :)

Robaato

21st February 2007, 05:24 AM

僕は5年間ぐらい日本に住んでいます。4年間ぐらい日本語を勉強しています。毎日勉強していますが、毎日忘れています。残念！新しい単語を覚えることは一番難しいと思います。

頑張りましょう！

Maybe we could do a Japan get-together at some point...

kitakaze

21st February 2007, 07:31 AM

僕は5年間ぐらい日本に住んでいます。4年間ぐらい日本語を勉強しています。毎日勉強していますが、毎日忘れています。残念！新しい単語を覚えることは一番難しいと思います。

頑張りましょう！

Maybe we could do a Japan get-together at some point...ラージャーも日本語を出来んじゃん。ちょっとビックリじゃない！？じゃ、これから僕は気をつける。の＿の。。。ラージャーちゃんと勉強して偉い。そうしたら毎日何か忘れてもちろん当然の事だと思うけど大事な言葉の一つ聞いて覚えらればちょっとずつ日本語をよく話せるのようになれる。僕は日本に住んでて今月ちょうど４年間になりました。僕は１６歳からカナダで日本語を当然に聞いて喋れるようになった。最近忙しくてあんまり勉強しない。ちょっとヤバイなぁ。ラージャーも東京に来たら是非一緒に遊ぼう！

I wonder how many JREF members are in Japan. You and Jackagirl are the only others I recall seeing. A hanami (cherry blossom viewing) event would be cool. Are you familiar with the other JREF forum?

Jackalgirl

22nd February 2007, 04:13 AM

?????????????????????????????????????????????????? ?????????????????????????????????????????????????? ?????????????????????????????????????????????????? ?????????????????????????????????????????????????? ????????????????????????????????????

I wonder how many JREF members are in Japan. You and Jackagirl are the only others I recall seeing. A hanami (cherry blossom viewing) event would be cool. Are you familiar with the other JREF forum?

I absolutely can't follow the Japanese : ( -- but I would LOVE a Japan get-together. Any hanami would be wonderful. The Hirosaki castle park, relatively near here in Hanami, is supposed to be very cool, but I'd have no problem with taking the bullet train down south if that's where you folks are. PM me if you have any other specific ideas and we can work it out. : )

kitakaze

22nd February 2007, 05:23 AM

My apologies, I just realized after Jackalgirl's post that I totally dornked up the page with a substantial amount of Japanese text. It's too late for me to edit it out but if a mod can fix that, by all means, go ahead.

Robaato

22nd February 2007, 08:40 PM

Jackalgirl

22nd February 2007, 08:44 PM

It's not that the page has been screwed up...it's that Jackalgirl's browser isn't set for the correct character set when making posts. Posting in Japanese isn't a problem if your computer is enabled to see it correctly.

Exactly so. I realized that the quote was dorked up after I actually posted it. Your Japanese appears perfectly in your posts (from my point of view). But I still can't read it (except for bits of the hiragana). I'm reminded of the old commercial for dog food, from the dog's point of view, "I smell bacon! Is it here? Is it here? I CAN'T REEEEEAAAD!" ; )

bignickel

22nd February 2007, 11:26 PM

I'm in Tokyo. I tried organizing a bunch to meet last year, but I'm the only one who showed up. If it's to be done, I recommend everyone get everyone else's cell phone #'s. So you can yell "where the f are you?" after an hour of waiting.

Theres a 'tokyo skeptics meetup' or such thread in the TAM forum, somewhere.

kitakaze

23rd February 2007, 05:20 AM

Bignickel, where in Tokyo are you at? I'm in Nakameguro.

That's two in Tokyo and two elsewhere. Any others? Let's try to make it happen.

bignickel

23rd February 2007, 06:28 AM

Nerimaku, over by Oizumi Gakuen, off the Seibu-Ikebukuro line.

Ove

27th February 2007, 07:00 AM

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.

Ok but some trivia for you: The French navy had a working submarine when Jules Verne wrote his book and supposedly he saw it several times. It was driven by compressed air and had very limited range. That was why he came up with is "super batteries". The nuclear power was strictly a Disney invention for the movie that had very little in common with the book, supposedly Captain Nemo found a mineral which made his batteries last longer than normally.
The French later named two of their first submarines "Nautilus" and "Jules Verne" and the first nuclear sub to sail under the ice at the North Pole was also named "Nautilus" (It was american ;) ).
Ohh and the first one to make a truly functioning submarine was John Phillip Holland and his first boat was called Fenian Ram. His brilliance was understanding that you needed TWO powersources. Combustion engine for surface sailing and batteries for submerged sailing. The combustion engine could also recharce the batteries.

:) Capiche????

Actually i find it more funny that the spot Jules Verne chose for his moonexplorers to place their cannon is very close to Cape Canavaral.

pv+

27th February 2007, 04:26 PM