Hello from a non-skeptic

[Charles Boden]

Quote:

I am not expert in this, but my understanding is that no matter how subtle the measurement instrument attempts to be, no matter how delicate the probe, you will always cause some information (phase, intensity, wavelength, etc) to be lost, and the consequence is that the interference pattern is lost. The real reason is that the photon is really going through both slits, but you cannot confirm this because it is only true if no measurement is made. It is the act of detection that kills the effect of the interference pattern.

Well I tried my best.

That is what I am trying to do too...

[Lothian]

Originally Posted by Charles Boden

The questions are being posted at such a rate that I am honestly finding it difficult to keep up, so I apologise if I am not managing to reply to all of them.

The fourth Lord of Appin, Duncan Stewart (1515-1547), married Janet Gordon, daughter of Lord John Gordon (1477-1517) and Lady Margaret Jane Stewart (1493-1517), eldest but "illegitimate" daughter of King James IV and Lady Margaret Drummond (1476-1501). I am descended from the 2nd son of Duncan Stewart 6th of Appin (b. abt 1570), John Stewart.

So you are also related to the Spanish Royal family and Greek and Danish and Swedish, Belgium, Bulgaria and Portuguese Royal families. Congratulations but Diana still didn't die in the specified week.

[vszero]

"As long as will, freedom and consciousness are done away as mentalistic and pre-scientific there can be no reconciling or integration of a larger conception." - Changing Images Of Man (not a paper i entirely agree with, but then again, I don't entirely agree with just about anything... but this quote is pretty good hint at what science is LACKING)

[vszero]

"The grandeur of Darwinian thought is not disputed, but it does not explain the integral evolution of man… So it is with all purely physical explanations, which do not recognise the spiritual essence of man's being." - Jennifer Gidley


Science barely explains what is happening (constantly amending or throwing itself on the trashheap), and doesn't even consider how, why, and where else...

[Jack by the hedge]

Originally Posted by vszero

"As long as will, freedom and consciousness are done away as mentalistic and pre-scientific there can be no reconciling or integration of a larger conception." - Changing Images Of Man (not a paper i entirely agree with, but then again, I don't entirely agree with just about anything... but this quote is pretty good hint at what science is LACKING)

Aside from being a non sequitur, this doesn't appear to make a scrap of sense. So, well done for not entirely agreeing with it.

[catsmate1]

Originally Posted by Olowkow

I cannot understand what it is that causes the paranormal believer to persist, to the degree we all have witnessed, in untenable beliefs in the face of real world logical thought showing the absurdity of such claims. Life is so much more fun when we don't have to worry that our dreams have predicted our fate.

It appears to me that some people have a need to believe, in something. Sometimes it fills a vacancy in their psyche, a fear of death or uncertainty in the face of an uncaring and chaotic universe. Othertimes it appears to be a simple ego thing; the need to feel superior to others by having "special" knowledge that is unknown to the majority.

[fuelair]

Originally Posted by Charles Boden

Hi all, and thanks for your promt replies...

Yes, I agree that certain terminology should be used more accurately here, but in the case of what was said concerning my wife's pregnancy I could not refer to the "personal experience" as anything else but "personal evidence", for when she got pregnant of my daughter my youngest son (I am the father of four) was just three months old, and I even asked if there was not a confusion being made betwen the two. There wasn't, as we later found out...

A lucky guess? Maybe. Maybe not.

I didn't go into any further details concerning the case of Jacqueline Pool because I saw that the topic was amply debated previously in the thread that has been shared above.

But still my questions remains: there is still an obvious interconnection between the act of observation influencing the result, so how could this interconnection occur?

Keep in mind that applies only in the quantum level - that is particles far less in size than a single atom. They have no application proved or suggested by science in the gross level world.

[Madalch]

Originally Posted by Charles Boden

(1) How do you know your predictions couldn't have happened by chance only?
The sheer volume of them would make it difficult for this to be so...

But you do remember the ones that come to pass.

The hits are remembered, the misses fade into oblivion.

[Jack by the hedge]

Originally Posted by vszero

"The grandeur of Darwinian thought is not disputed, but it does not explain the integral evolution of man… So it is with all purely physical explanations, which do not recognise the spiritual essence of man's being." - Jennifer Gidley


Science barely explains what is happening (constantly amending or throwing itself on the trashheap), and doesn't even consider how, why, and where else...

What does the term "integral evolution" mean?

What makes you think science does not consider "how" things happen? Or indeed, "where else" that thing may happen. As for the "why", I suppose it depends on what you mean. If you are referring to what one might wistfully describe as Divine Purpose, then no, science is not the appropriate tool for that job.

[fuelair]

Originally Posted by vszero

"The grandeur of Darwinian thought is not disputed, but it does not explain the integral evolution of man… So it is with all purely physical explanations, which do not recognise the spiritual essence of man's being." - Jennifer Gidley


Science barely explains what is happening (constantly amending or throwing itself on the trashheap), and doesn't even consider how, why, and where else...

More precisely, science addresses what can be observed and described with a level of precision. Which is what it's purpose is. Complaining that science ignores your/anyone's assumptions that cannot be observed and measured/manipulated or beliefs which cannot be observed (etc.) is pointless, that isn't what science does or is supposed to do.

[catsmate1]

Originally Posted by vszero

"As long as will, freedom and consciousness are done away as mentalistic and pre-scientific there can be no reconciling or integration of a larger conception." - Changing Images Of Man

Is this supposed to be relevent to this discussion in some way?
Can you provide some evidence that "will, freedom and consciousness" (whatever is meant by those terms) exist?
Frankly your quote appears to be nonsensical.

[catsmate1]

Originally Posted by vszero

"The grandeur of Darwinian thought is not disputed, but it does not explain the integral evolution of man… So it is with all purely physical explanations, which do not recognise the spiritual essence of man's being." - Jennifer Gidley

What is this "spiritual essence of man's being"? Does it exist at all? (If so please provide some evidence).
Or is it merely a grandoise sounding term tossed around by people who want to believe that science cannot explain everything?

Originally Posted by vszero

Science barely explains what is happening (constantly amending or throwing itself on the trashheap), and doesn't even consider how, why, and where else...

Science changes in light of new evidence. This generally held to be a Good Thing as the alternative is ignoring evidence and relying on dogma.

[Garrette]

Originally Posted by Lothian

So you are also related to the Spanish Royal family and Greek and Danish and Swedish, Belgium, Bulgaria and Portuguese Royal families. Congratulations but Diana still didn't die in the specified week.

This was my thought, too. Frankly, I would think Charles Boden is more closely related to the Swedish Royal Family. King Charles XIV John began the fortification of Sweden in the early 1800s. Boden Fortress was among the last of those fortifications and was mainly finished in 1908, though construction on related facilities around Boden continued for many years.

And this is with a very cursory search into royal families. I wager a more in depth search of Royal Family Charles and Royal Family Boden and related terms would yield a treasure trove.

[Olowkow]

Originally Posted by catsmate1

It appears to me that some people have a need to believe, in something. Sometimes it fills a vacancy in their psyche, a fear of death or uncertainty in the face of an uncaring and chaotic universe. Othertimes it appears to be a simple ego thing; the need to feel superior to others by having "special" knowledge that is unknown to the majority.

Thanks, well stated indeed. I remember very well when I first joined JREF wondering how those "Psychic Detectives" could get so many cases solved. I did not think much about paranormal stuff, but I merely figured some ladies are just good at it. Well, then I learned from JREF that the show producers just lie! Well, now we have a problem...I have spent the last 3 years pretty much sorting this stuff out.

I did not argue that my previous thinking was the truth, it didn't even occur to me that the psychics were right, and JREF posters were wrong.

Life is so much more fun when you know for sure that psychics are all just folks who lie or are deranged.

[Garrette]

Originally Posted by Charles Boden

"A member of that Royal Family you have associations to is going to die this week. Pay attention to whom it might be..."

Ignoring your incredibly tenuous "associations" with the British Royal Family, your medium told you this on a Sunday. Princess Diana died on a different Sunday. It did not occur the same week.

Your medium was wrong.

[Charles Boden]

Quote:

This was my thought, too. Frankly, I would think Charles Boden is more closely related to the Swedish Royal Family.

Wrong. The closest connection I have to any "Royal Family", genealogically speaking, is to James IV.

Quote:

But you do remember the ones that come to pass.

The hits are remembered, the misses fade into oblivion.

You have repeated this umpteen times, but this argument does not explain away the hits, particularly the two I have mentioned. How can you justify that I should have been correctly told that my wife was pregnant when my youngest son was then just three months old and that this information should have been correct? What I seem to find here is an all too strong urgency to discard rather than seriously analyse, just like children who would rather close their eyes so that they might not see what they do not wish to.

I am very tired right now, and I think I have perhaps put more on your plates than you can handle for a day, so let's take a break and get back to this conversation tomorrow, shall we?

My regards to all...

Charles

[Emet]

Originally Posted by fuelair

More precisely, science addresses what can be observed and described with a level of precision. Which is what it's purpose is. Complaining that science ignores your/anyone's assumptions that cannot be observed and measured/manipulated or beliefs which cannot be observed (etc.) is pointless, that isn't what science does or is supposed to do.

Agreed. Matthew F. Bonnan, Ph.D., who wrote a marvelous treatise on evolution, said this:

Quote:

Q: What is Science?

A: Science is a very narrow discipline that seeks to pose answerable questions about the physical universe. In other words, science is a way of knowing about the physical universe that assumes the physical world can be explained through natural causes and effects.

ASSUMPTIONS IN SCIENCE

We make three major assumptions as practicing scientists:

There is a real physical universe that exists outside our bodies.
This physical world can be observed, tested, and explained using our five senses.
There are natural causes and effects in this physical world.

http://www.wiu.edu/users/mfb100/evolution.php

[Garrette]

Originally Posted by Charles Boden

Wrong. The closest connection I have to any "Royal Family", genealogically speaking, is to James IV.

No. Not wrong.

1: The medium did not say "geneaologically speaking."

2. You have not shown us your geneaological ties to other royal families.

This is a significant point, and if you cannot see it there is no sense in moving on until it is clear.

You have made a vague statement specific so that you can call it a hit. This is the confirmation bias that has been repeatedly mentioned.

[vszero]

Originally Posted by Jack by the hedge

Aside from being a non sequitur, this doesn't appear to make a scrap of sense. So, well done for not entirely agreeing with it.

Just because you lack the ability and experience to make a scrap of sense of this outstanding articulation of what you refuse to look at in the first place doesn't mean it's not absolutely true and plain to see and easy to make sense of for those in the know from experience (as opposed to those who merely believe or hope based on whatever they got their thought system from. I wonder whose ideas and views you are regurgitating... I am sure it's a mixed bunch)

[vszero]

Originally Posted by Jack by the hedge

What does the term "integral evolution" mean?

What makes you think science does not consider "how" things happen? Or indeed, "where else" that thing may happen. As for the "why", I suppose it depends on what you mean. If you are referring to what one might wistfully describe as Divine Purpose, then no, science is not the appropriate tool for that job.

If you wish to research integral evolution, by all means... otherwise, I can not do your homework, and that is some serious study to wrap your scientific (and counter intuitive) mind around.

And if you concede that science is not the appropriate tool for "that job", then most of what I enjoy can not be measured by your tools, and so they are short on design.

I can however take your tool and add onto, without taking away from the absolute truth, while sweeping away the intellectual and dogmatic debris that is slowing you down.

Cheers

[Sledge]

Originally Posted by Charles Boden

In my case, and according to my beliefs, they are all associated, Sledge...

That may or may not be the case. However, you are attempting to put the cart before the horse. If you wish to look for an explanation of something, you must first establish that the thing exists. I'm sure everyone here will be perfectly happy to look into how psychic predictions work if you can establish that they do work. Get it?

[Pure Argent]

Originally Posted by Charles Boden

The questions are being posted at such a rate that I am honestly finding it difficult to keep up, so I apologise if I am not managing to reply to all of them.

No problem. Take your time.

Quote:

The fourth Lord of Appin, Duncan Stewart (1515-1547), married Janet Gordon, daughter of Lord John Gordon (1477-1517) and Lady Margaret Jane Stewart (1493-1517), eldest but "illegitimate" daughter of King James IV and Lady Margaret Drummond (1476-1501). I am descended from the 2nd son of Duncan Stewart 6th of Appin (b. abt 1570), John Stewart.

How is this relevant?

Quote:

The prediction concerning my wife's pregancy was by no means vague, and neither were several others...

Please explain how. What, exactly, was the prediction?

Originally Posted by Charles Boden

(1) How do you know your predictions couldn't have happened by chance only?
The sheer volume of them would make it difficult for this to be so...

How many were there? How many came true?

Quote:

(2) Does every occurrence of somebody predicting a future event necessarily imply that they are clairvoyant?
No, but I do believe that we all carry a mediumnic capacity to a greater or lesser degree.

"No, but yes"? This answer does not make sense.

Quote:

(4) Does your medium often make predictions, on a regular basis, that come to pass?
I have had no contact with her or any other medium from the center I took part in for 5 years now, but the answer to your question throughout the 12 years I had contact with her would have to be "yes".

As before, we need numbers before we can accept this answer. How many predictions were made? How many came true?

Originally Posted by Charles Boden

In my case, and according to my beliefs, they are all associated, Sledge...

The question, though, is whether or not they are actually associated, not whether or not you believe they are.

[Jack by the hedge]

Originally Posted by vszero

If you wish to research integral evolution, by all means... otherwise, I can not do your homework

C'mon. You just posted a video of a guy who claims he's channeling hokey philosophy from space aliens.

I don't want to research integral evolution. I just asked you what it means.

[Pure Argent]

Originally Posted by Charles Boden

Wrong. The closest connection I have to any "Royal Family", genealogically speaking, is to James IV.

So you are actually only connected to the relevant royal family if you already assume the truth of reincarnation?

Quote:

You have repeated this umpteen times, but this argument does not explain away the hits, particularly the two I have mentioned.

Uh, yes, it does. If someone makes one million prophecies, but gets only one right, you can't take the one that was true and say "Ha! That proves it! He's a prophet!"

It doesn't. Sling enough crap, and some will stick. The number of predictions made is extremely relevant.

Originally Posted by vszero

Just because you lack the ability and experience to make a scrap of sense of this outstanding articulation of what you refuse to look at in the first place doesn't mean it's not absolutely true and plain to see and easy to make sense of for those in the know from experience (as opposed to those who merely believe or hope based on whatever they got their thought system from. I wonder whose ideas and views you are regurgitating... I am sure it's a mixed bunch)

Wow. Just... wow.

[majamin]

Thank you for attending to these questions, Charles (in reference to my previous post here).

Originally Posted by Charles Boden

(1) How do you know your predictions couldn't have happened by chance only?
The sheer volume of them would make it difficult for this to be so...

Was it your medium that claimed that she was successful on these occasions? If so, these are anecdotes of anecdotes, and we cannot have any useful discussion on them (the quality of data, based on bias and sampling, is near-zero).

What portion of this sheer volume represents predictions you, personally, have made?

Quote:

(2) Does every occurrence of somebody predicting a future event necessarily imply that they are clairvoyant?
No, but I do believe that we all carry a mediumnic capacity to a greater or lesser degree.

Ok, that's fine. Has this belief been verified by scientific analyses? If you believe you have a more-than-average ability, would you be willing to have this tested?

Quote:

(3) Should the events that we can significantly influence be considered?
Absolutely. But had I been told specifically that the prediction concerned Lady Di, I might have found myself frantically attempting to warn her. Mediumnic predictions do not work in this way.

I wasn't speaking specifically to that event. I should have been more specific: in the events that you can be significantly influential in (i.e. in your wife's pregnancy), does it make sense to count these as events that you could have predicted? (Would it not make more sense to discount these, because you had a potential part in allowing them to come to pass?)

Quote:

(4) Does your medium often make predictions, on a regular basis, that come to pass?
I have had no contact with her or any other medium from the center I took part in for 5 years now, but the answer to your question throughout the 12 years I had contact with her would have to be "yes".

See response for (1) above.

Quote:

(5) Is your claim that, because you are related to these royals, that they are able to communicate with your medium?
No, that is not what I am saying. The relevance of this is of a different nature. It is my own association to them in the past that was relevant, which was why I mentioned being a believer in reincarnation.

Sounds fine. Then from what I can tell, your belief in reincarnation has no bearing on the prediction of Princess Dianna's death? If so, then we can leave it out of the discussion altogether.

Quite unrelated, but it may be of interest to you, is that I was going to post a reply earlier, speaking to question (3) above. I was going to compare it to knowing that you had a dentist appointment, and predicting that you were going to be in the dentist's office at the time of the appointment. Based on the fact that you left earlier to pick your wife up from the dentist,

• Should I be convinced that I am somehow clairvoyant?
• If so, explain why I should reject the fact that it was a mere coincidence (the null hypothesis)?
• What of the thousands of other things that I could have predicted (and didn't)?
• What of the thousands of things other people did today, or thought of, that aligned with your life?
• What is the probability of every single thing or thought not overlapping in any of our lives today?

[RSLancastr]

Originally Posted by Charles Boden

Hello all,

I am aware that I will probably be torn to shreds here,

Welcome to the forum! I hope you will find that you will not be "torn to shreds" here, but instead that statements lacking support will not be accepted as fact.

Quote:

Firstly, I must say that I too was skeptical of anything paranormal for a number of years until I had my own personal evidences that "there are more mysteries between heaven and earth than supposes our vain philosophy", which I am quite willing to share here just as long as the term "skeptical" might not be used as synonimous of biased, pre-judgemental or pre-conceptual, but as analytical and scientifically based in order to analyse not only a contrary point of view but a rational analysis of phenomenae beyond any current scientific knowledge, which naturally cannot be used as a premise for immediately discarding it. Science, as we know, does not as yet hold all the answers to all the mysteries.

As has been mentioned, you are not describing "personal evidences" but rhather personal experiences, which do not fly here as "evidence." Not so much because people lie about their personal experiences as much as because they seldom remember - or at least, describe - them accurately. I have found that when someone says "A psychic once told me X - how do you explain that?" it is foolish to attempt to explain it, as chances are, it did not happen. I usually ask for a recording (audio or video) of the reading, or, at least, a transcript of it. When these are available, it seems to invariably show that "X" never really was first said by the Psychic, but was either said by the sitter and then parroted by the psychic, or was never said by anyone and the sitter read "X" into some vague generality said by the psychic.

An example of this was a woman who recently wrote to me saying that a psychic had somehow known that she was planning a move to another town, when, the woman said, she had only just decided to move, and had told nobody about her decision.

A transcript of the reading showed that the psychic had simply said that the tarot cards "indicated a journey" and the woman, knowing about her planned move, read that into the vague "journey" statement. So perhaps you can understand why your described experience regarding your then-unborn child is less than convincing to a group of skeptics.

Also, statements of the "I used to be a skeptic too, until one day..." tend to be followed by unverfifiable personal experiences. You will find many stories from skeptics here about various paranormal phenomena, which start off with "I used to believe in this nonsense too, until one day..."

By itself, the fact that a person once believed X but now does not believe X says nothing about the validity of X. what follows "until one day..." usually speaks volumes about their reasoning abilities.

Quote:

we now know as a fact that the human consciousness, or our intent in observing the reality around us, collapses quantum waves into particles.

It has been my experience that most statements beginning with "we now know as a fact that" almost always end with something not known as a fact at all, as was the case here. I will let others far better schooled in quantum physics than I address your apparent misunderstanding of the subject.

[Jack by the hedge]

Originally Posted by Charles Boden

I have the "Stuart" as one of my middle names coming from my mother's side of the family, and more recently I found that I am descended from a Scottish clan known as the Stewarts of Appin, who are descended from, among others, an illegitimate daughter of Queen Mary Stuart's grandfather, King James IV, also an ancestor of the current Royal Family.

Good for you. I have an old school friend who is also descended from the Stewarts of Appin, as are a very large number of other people. Our school, coincidentally, was founded by King James VI (he of the bible) also an ancestor etc etc.

History is interesting, but it doesn't give you magical powers.

[vszero]

Originally Posted by Jack by the hedge

C'mon. You just posted a video of a guy who claims he's channeling hokey philosophy from space aliens.

I don't want to research integral evolution. I just asked you what it means.

and i just told you that you need a volume of prerequisite bass knowledge to even try to undo the limiting locks you have welded (as in there is no key) on to your current rigid bland views and statements to try to wrap your head around it (based on my experience with you, you have way too made up of a mind to try and bridge the disparity between what you think is impossible, and what i am attempting to impress on higher vibrating potential students that are more on the fence...)

[Loss Leader]

Originally Posted by Charles Boden

You have repeated this umpteen times, but this argument does not explain away the hits, particularly the two I have mentioned.

The hits have been explained away by numerous posters since the very beginning of the thread. I'll repeat them for you, seeing as you claim not to have seen them: Random Chance

Of the thousands upon thousands of predictions any person hears (and, since you were in some sort of spiritualist group, the greatly increased number you heard), some of them Will Come True.

Your mistake is thinking that low probability events cannot happen. In fact, low probability events happen all the time. They are guaranteed to happen. The Detroit Tigers will win the World Series. The fact that they haven't won in 26 years (and have only won 4 times in 116 years) doesn't change anything at all.

You also may want to look into something else that has been explained to you multiple times: Confirmation Bias.

It appears that you have been interested in the paranormal for decades. Your interest in these areas predates the "hits" that you are recording. Thus, you must at least concede that you may be biased in the way that you are recording data.

It's really no great fault to admit bias. Scientists are happy to admit they are biased in ways they are not even aware of and work hard to remove themselves from their own experiments on the off chance that they might subconsciously affect the results.

Quote:

How can you justify that I should have been correctly told that my wife was pregnant when my youngest son was then just three months old and that this information should have been correct?

I remember that my wife was less than 1 month pregnant when she came to my office for a visit. The moment she left, my bookkeeper stated, "That woman is with child." So, hooray. I justify it by saying that a young, married couple is constantly being accused of hiding a pregnancy in the early stages.

My sister, at a Thanksgiving dinner, was being hectored so incessantly by my aunt that she poured herself a glass of wine and drank it to prove that she wasn't "trying" and certainly wasn't pregnant. She still beats herself up because, unbeknownst to my sister at the time, she was.

Also, your wife got pregnant when your son was three months old? Good for her, taking one for the team. I tried to hold my wife's hand when my son was three months old and she punched me in the head.

Quote:

What I seem to find here is an all too strong urgency to discard rather than seriously analyse, just like children who would rather close their eyes so that they might not see what they do not wish to.

Actually, as you should know as a parent, children are far more likely to imagine things that are not there than pretend real things don't exist.

See what I did there? I ruined your metaphor.

But, seriously, there's no reason to discard your data, because your data is insufficient. You've provided two hits over some unknown period of time out of some unknown number of guesses. One of them is a very weak hit. The other, about pregnancy, has not been given much context.

We don't have enough information to analyze your data in any way. If you know someone who you thinks generates hits at a rate greater than chance, perhaps you can convince him or her to participate in a proper study. We can control variables, remove confirmation bias, provide only for definite hits and misses, and generate some real data. That would be ideal. And several posters have already explained that.

Quote:

I have perhaps put more on your plates than you can handle for a day, so let's take a break and get back to this conversation tomorrow, shall we?

Trust me when I tell you: When I'm the one explaining quantum waveform collapse, the usual JREF posters are not playing their starting bench.

[Apology]

Originally Posted by vszero

and i just told you that you need a volume of prerequisite bass knowledge to even try to undo the limiting locks you have welded (as in there is no key) on to your current rigid bland views and statements to try to wrap your head around it (based on my experience with you, you have way too made up of a mind to try and bridge the disparity between what you think is impossible, and what i am attempting to impress on higher vibrating potential students that are more on the fence...)

What is bass knowledge, and how does it compare with treble knowledge? Why are the potential students vibrating, when it's well-known that students who are paying attention sit still and don't vibrate or fidget? Why do you think that the JREF forums are a good source of potential students for your ideas? Why do you think that insulting JREF posters makes you look like a good potential teacher for anyone who's interested in learning from a multi-dimensional being? Why does the channeler need a multi-dimensional being to tell them what to think when it would be so much easier for the channeler to simply say what they think without multi-dimensional interference? Please cite your evidence that there are multiple dimensions in order to differentiate between "multi-dimensional beings" and "multiple personalities." Your opportunity to teach begins here, get cracking!

[Sledge]

If you weld something and it doesn't have a key, "lock" really isn't the right word for it.

[Ladewig]

Originally Posted by vszero

Science barely explains what is happening (constantly amending or throwing itself on the trashheap),

Indeed. Science considers new evidence and then changes its perspective to match the new evidence. I stand beside you vszero and soundly mock science for being open-minded enough to make corrections to our body of knowledge.

Quote:

and doesn't even consider how, why, and where else...

Except when it is considering how diseases are transmitted, how disease are cured, how vitamins and minerals help bodies, how genetics work, how people learn, etc., etc.

I mean what did science ever do except lengthen life expectancy, drastically reduce polio infections, provide materials research that lead to bullet-proof vests, reduce auto emissions, increase cancer survival rates, provide people in the path of a hurricane 24-72 hours notice, bring endangered species back from the brink of extinction, allow knowledge to spread around the world at the speed of light, give coastal residents warnings about tidal waves, increase farm yields, preserve 1000-year-old artwork, record the images and spoken words of human rights leaders, and a bunch of other stuff.

That list pales in comparison to what psychics have given the world.

[majamin]

Originally Posted by vszero

If you wish to research integral evolution, by all means... otherwise, I can not do your homework, and that is some serious study to wrap your scientific (and counter intuitive) mind around.

And if you concede that science is not the appropriate tool for "that job", then most of what I enjoy can not be measured by your tools, and so they are short on design.

I can however take your tool and add onto, without taking away from the absolute truth, while sweeping away the intellectual and dogmatic debris that is slowing you down.

Cheers

May I just ask how you intend to contribute to any kind of understanding or discourse here? I would appreciate your relevant thoughts on the opening post now, please. If not, create a thread with these thoughts, and I (we) will take you up on it there.

[SezMe]

Originally Posted by Charles Boden

How can you justify that I should have been correctly told that my wife was pregnant when my youngest son was then just three months old and that this information should have been correct?

You keep flogging the timing as something important. It is not. For example, I am exactly 53 weeks younger than my older sister. Having a kid does not always eliminate enjoyment of the horizontal bolero, as you evidently know. And predicting that a young, married, demonstrably pregnancy-capable woman might be heavy with child is not a big stretch at all.

[SezMe]

Originally Posted by majamin

May I just ask how you intend to contribute to any kind of understanding or discourse here? I would appreciate your relevant thoughts on the opening post now, please. If not, create a thread with these thoughts, and I (we) will take you up on it there.

I agree completely. I'd suggest we simply ignore vszero in this thread unless he/she has a pertinent, cogent post to make. There's already enough here without his/her delusional distractions.

[SezMe]

Originally Posted by Olowkow

Surely, someone who was skeptical of the paranormal for "a number of years" had studied and understood the technique of "cold reading", and would not pay good money to visit a medium to find out the fate of Diana and the status of his wife with whom birth control was not an option.

This bothered me too. We have subsequently learned that he attended "courses" with psychics for 12 years, and hasn't been back for 5 years. And yet he has young kids. The "number of years" bit doesn't sit right with me. I'd like a better definition of the timeline of the events he includes in this thread.

[SezMe]

Originally Posted by Charles Boden

The problem I find here is an immediate tendency to attack before taking the issue into an unbiased consideration. Not good science, surely.

Questioning, challenging and doubting are not attacks. In fact, they're integral to good science.

Originally Posted by Charles Boden

I saw a video once taken of a guitarrist of a band here in Brazil saying he had had a dream in which he "saw" himself inside a plain on fire. That night when he was returning from a show he and all the other members of his band were killed in a plain crash.

Plane. And that's not an attack; just helping you with the language.

[SezMe]

Originally Posted by Charles Boden

In the case of Lady Di's death, what was said to me by a "medium" on the previous Saturday (not in a "paid consultation") was that "a member of the Royal Family would die that week". At first I thought it would probably be the Queen Mother, given her age at the time, but upon running through the channels of Cable TV on the following Saturday I crossed CNN at the moment in which they were broadcasting the news of the accident.

That's interesting. She died on Sunday. Maybe CNN is psychic.

Originally Posted by Charles Boden

Even before the official confirmation of her death, I knew what had been said to me had to refer to her.

No, you didn't know. You surmised. You guessed. You assumed. You interjected.

I'm having a lot of trouble taking your claim to previous skeptical credentials seriously.

[Lothian]

Originally Posted by Charles Boden

Wrong. The closest connection I have to any "Royal Family", genealogically speaking, is to James IV.

Charles

Maybe but the connection from Diana to James IV is no stronger than the connection from many other royal families. If you are talking about James descendent's why are you ignoring the other links and claiming it must have been someone who was divorced from a member of the British royal family?

[SezMe]

Originally Posted by Lothian

Maybe but the connection from Diana to James IV is no stronger than the connection from many other royal families. If you are talking about James descendent's why are you ignoring the other links and claiming it must have been someone who was divorced from a member of the British royal family?

Indeed. If fact, maybe some other royal family member in some other part of the world did, in fact, die within the specified time period. Did you ever look into that, Charles?