Calling All Remote Viewers - Page 2

Lucianarchy · 24th August 2003, 09:20 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by traveller

Again they are not set in stone and are subject to change even if some want to use wishful thinking to believe that they will absolutely stay around forever.

But you must save all us stupid irrational people who need someone else like you and CSICOP to think for us since you are the king of rational thinking.

I doubt whether if he agrees with you or not that Randi himself would not even dare to publicly say anything like that. As always your welcome to your materialistic fantasy land of how things should be but your views don't shape reality. Some people just can't see past what they personally see as rational but that is strictly opinion. Since you admitt to believeing it's impossible then you are admitting to being a closed-minded skeptic.

There's the rub. Some people call themselves "skeptic", when they are in fact ,'True Unbelievers'.

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos · 24th August 2003, 11:02 AM

This kind of conversation will never get anywhere. Better to debate some actual claim or paper than to argue semantics until our heads explode. Gee, who is more close-minded, a "skeptic" or a "debunker." Gee, who is more credulous, a "believer" or a "woo woo."

The problem is, we can never collect all the information we need to really understand what happened with some psi experiment. So instead we just call each other names. Funny, that.

~~ Paul

bPer · 24th August 2003, 11:33 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Pyrrho
True, but this side doesn't take ignorance and make it an argument for the existence of impossibilities.

The laws of physics are what they are. They preclude the existence of paranormal abilities. I need only point to the second law of thermodynamics as evidence for this.

[...]

Biased? Sure. I'll say it again, and I'll keep saying it: paranormal abilities are impossible. To say that they are possible is indulgence in ignorance. I would prefer that such beliefs be kept in their rightful place in fantasy land and not be given serious consideration, because, as Harlan Ellison once said, "It keeps people stupid."

Pyrrho,sorry but I have to call you on this. You have crossed the boundary from skepticism into dogmatism here.

You have made a negative assertion here by saying that paranormal abilities are impossible. That shifts the burden of proof to you. Proving your assertion is something you cannot do, because you lack the tools to do so. By definition, paranormal abilities lie outside the realm of scientific understanding, yet you are trying to use scientific understanding (e.g. the 2nd law of thermodynamics) to support your assertion. That's clearly invalid.

The truth is, all scientific understanding is provisional, even the fundamentals that have been around for centuries. Should some undeniable evidence appear that cannot be explained by existing scientific theories, the theories will have to be modified or discarded in favour of new theories that better fit the entire body of evidence.

You and I can agree that the probability that our fundamental laws of science are going to be overturned by the activities of the paranormal crowd is infinitesimally small, but I am not willing to take the next step that you have taken to assert that that probability is zero. Please rethink your stance on this.

On another note, I am very annoyed at you for posting what you did. It is pretty clear that traveller came here looking to confirm his/her pre-conceived, false notion that skeptics are close-minded and dogmatic. You stepped right into his/her trap. You been here long enough; you should have known better. It's hard enough, fighting the uphill battle against ignorance and irrational thought, without being blind-sided by the someone from your own side. Please be more careful in the future.

Now, to traveller: just as the KKK claims to be Christian, to the great dismay of the vast majority of Christendom, so skeptics like me feel dismay when people like Pyrrho behave as they do. I assure you that these people are misguided, and urge you to look further to see the true nature of skeptics.

Also, don’t take my admonition of Pyrrho as tacit support for your obvious belief in remote viewing. The burden of proof is on you and the rest of the remote viewing advocates to prove that remote viewing exists. You have a daunting task ahead of you; the body of scientific evidence that supports the existing scientific theories is massive, and notwithstanding the possibility that the theories are inadequate, it is overwhelmingly likely that you are wasting your time on a fantasy.

βPer

!Xx+-Rational-+xX! · 24th August 2003, 11:54 AM

Quote:

On another note, I am very annoyed at you for posting what you did. It is pretty clear that traveller came here looking to confirm his/her pre-conceived, false notion that skeptics are close-minded and dogmatic.

I'm not trying to generalize that all skeptics are like that I only have a problem with the ones who make statements like that which shows their beliefs that they view this sort of thing as impossible. Those types are the ones a have a problem with.

Quote:

You stepped right into his/her trap.

True but I wasn't expecting that much of an outright rejection of the paranormal from a so called skeptic.

Quote:

Now, to traveller: just as the KKK claims to be Christian, to the great dismay of the vast majority of Christendom, so skeptics like me feel dismay when people like Pyrrho behave as they do. I assure you that these people are misguided, and urge you to look further to see the true nature of skeptics.

I agree with that and I don't view all skeptics as being closed-mined or ignorant it wouldn't be right to label them all like that. Both believers and skeptics have thier fanatics and it wouldn't be fair to judge a whole group based on what a few of them think.

Quote:

Also, don’t take my admonition of Pyrrho as tacit support for your obvious belief in remote viewing. The burden of proof is on you and the rest of the remote viewing advocates to prove that remote viewing exists. You have a daunting task ahead of you; the body of scientific evidence that supports the existing scientific theories is massive, and notwithstanding the possibility that the theories are inadequate, it is overwhelmingly likely that you are wasting your time on a fantasy.

I can't say for certain that remote viewing is real at this point even though in my opinion it seems like a good possibility but I might in the future have to try it out for my self. I understand that the burden of proof is on remote viewers so hopefully if it is real it will be tested much more and the truth will eventually come out.

bPer · 24th August 2003, 02:58 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by traveller
I'm not trying to generalize that all skeptics are like that I only have a problem with the ones who make statements like that which shows their beliefs that they view this sort of thing as impossible. Those types are the ones a have a problem with.

Well, as you've seen, a ... er ... I have a problem with them too. I'm relieved to hear that you don't paint all skeptics with the same brush, although I must ask you to forgive me if I remain skeptical of your intentions here.

Quote:

Originally posted by traveller
... I don't view all skeptics as being closed-mined or ignorant it wouldn't be right to label them all like that. Both believers and skeptics have their fanatics and it wouldn't be fair to judge a whole group based on what a few of them think.

Indeed! But too often, skeptical arguments are dismissed by 'believers' (your term) out of hand, simply because they are made by skeptics. That's what I'm reacting to here. I'm reading from this quote that you see that too, and I hope you will treat a skeptical response as a positive thing - a different point of view that is worthy of consideration and analysis.

Quote:

Originally posted by traveller
I can't say for certain that remote viewing is real at this point even though in my opinion it seems like a good possibility but I might in the future have to try it out for my self. I understand that the burden of proof is on remote viewers so hopefully if it is real it will be tested much more and the truth will eventually come out.

Good possibility!? Wow. We’re pretty far apart on that, I’m afraid, unless ‘good possibility’ means a whole different thing to you than me. I’d rate it as ‘highly unlikely’ (putting it mildly), given the evidence I’ve seen so far. It’s good, though, that you have left open the possibility that it is not a real phenomenon.

I’m actually curious about why you think that there is a ‘good possibility’ that RV exists. Perhaps you’d consider posting your reasons/evidence? (probably best in a separate thread) You seem like someone who is open to alternative views, and you’ll certainly get them if you post here. Treat it as an opportunity to examine your reasons and evidence. You never know - it may strengthen your beliefs in RV, or it may show you where your beliefs aren’t warranted. From our side, it never hurts to have an actual ‘believer’ to dialogue with, if only to help dispel any unwarranted stereotypes.

βPer

Pyrrho · 24th August 2003, 06:09 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by bPer
Pyrrho,sorry but I have to call you on this. You have crossed the boundary from skepticism into dogmatism here.

You have made a negative assertion here by saying that paranormal abilities are impossible. That shifts the burden of proof to you. Proving your assertion is something you cannot do, because you lack the tools to do so. By definition, paranormal abilities lie outside the realm of scientific understanding, yet you are trying to use scientific understanding (e.g. the 2nd law of thermodynamics) to support your assertion. That's clearly invalid.

The truth is, all scientific understanding is provisional, even the fundamentals that have been around for centuries. Should some undeniable evidence appear that cannot be explained by existing scientific theories, the theories will have to be modified or discarded in favour of new theories that better fit the entire body of evidence.

You and I can agree that the probability that our fundamental laws of science are going to be overturned by the activities of the paranormal crowd is infinitesimally small, but I am not willing to take the next step that you have taken to assert that that probability is zero. Please rethink your stance on this.

I can either tell the truth and state my opinion, which is that paranormal abilities are impossible, or I can lie, and say that they might be. Believers often use the argument that the paranormal lies outside of science, yet also claim that science is about to be overturned. Can't have it both ways. I can either accept the limitations implied by the laws of physics, or I can decieve myself and pretend that the limitations don't apply to certain people. My opinion is that the limitations apply to everyone, and that paranormal abilities do not exist. Nobody has to share my opinion.

Quote:

On another note, I am very annoyed at you for posting what you did. It is pretty clear that traveller came here looking to confirm his/her pre-conceived, false notion that skeptics are close-minded and dogmatic. You stepped right into his/her trap. You been here long enough; you should have known better. It's hard enough, fighting the uphill battle against ignorance and irrational thought, without being blind-sided by the someone from your own side. Please be more careful in the future.

I knew full well what I was posting and how it might be received. I'm no longer going to play the game of "well, I'll leave this door open just a little bit to prove I'm open-minded". Sorry, but I'm not. I challenge the contention that science and skepticism is dogmatic. I'm tired of that accusation; it's been used as an excuse for far too long. The fundamental question is not whether science and skepticism is dogmatic: it is whether or not there is, as you put it, undeniable evidence that paranormal abilities exist.
There is no such evidence. I am convinced that paranormal abilities do not and cannot exist, and I cannot honestly say otherwise.

Pyrrho · 24th August 2003, 06:14 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
heh, rrriiiggghhhht. You really don't live up to your namesake. The laws of physics preclude some things, but surely they don't preclude the existence of paranormal abilities, as you wish/hope/believe is the case.

By all accounts, my namesake had no use for smug intellectuals who pretended to have complete understanding of things. His opinion was that nothing in this world could be known with complete certainty, but I do not think he would have extrapolated uncertainty into belief that anything was possible.

Pyrrho · 24th August 2003, 06:17 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
There's the rub. Some people call themselves "skeptic", when they are in fact ,'True Unbelievers'.

Fine with me. I truly do not believe, thus I am skeptical of all claims that require belief. I cannot honestly pretend otherwise.

bPer · 24th August 2003, 08:03 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Pyrrho
I can either tell the truth and state my opinion, which is that paranormal abilities are impossible, or I can lie, and say that they might be. […] My opinion is that the limitations apply to everyone, and that paranormal abilities do not exist. Nobody has to share my opinion.

Oh now it’s just your opinion. It would have been nice if you’d stated up front that you were expressing an unsupportable opinion, and not a scientific assertion. Especially when addressing a believer who’s looking for dogmatic skeptics.

Quote:

Originally posted by Pyrrho
Believers often use the argument that the paranormal lies outside of science

I’ve got news for you, Pyrrho. It’s not just believers. That’s the definition of ‘paranormal’ for everybody!. Sheesh!

Quote:

Originally posted by Pyrrho
Believers often use the argument that the paranormal lies outside of science, yet also claim that science is about to be overturned. Can't have it both ways.

Well, of course science won’t be ‘overturned’ by evidence of the paranormal. In fact, if some paranormal phenomenon is scientifically proven, it will cease to be paranormal, and will become part of the body of scientific knowledge! A few scientific theories may be modified or discarded for improved ones in the process, but science won’t disappear. That’s merely absurd, wishful thinking on the part of some of the more ignorant believers we face.

Quote:

Originally posted by Pyrrho
I can either accept the limitations implied by the laws of physics, or I can decieve myself and pretend that the limitations don't apply to certain people.

Nobody’s asking you to deceive yourself. The limitations of the laws of physics apply to everyone, but you have to understand that the laws of physics are our current best guess at the underlying phenomena and mechanisms. If we have it wrong, there will be phenomena that are inexplicable by the current set of physical laws. The believers rest their hope in that possibility, and you and I cannot deny them that hope without abandoning the principle of falsifiability. I am not willing to do that, for that destroys one of the foundations of the scientific method. You evidently don’t care about that, and thus you are nothing but a dogmatic believer (of science). It’s time you admit that.

Quote:

Originally posted by Pyrrho
I knew full well what I was posting and how it might be received. I'm no longer going to play the game of "well, I'll leave this door open just a little bit to prove I'm open-minded". Sorry, but I'm not. I challenge the contention that science and skepticism is dogmatic. I'm tired of that accusation; it's been used as an excuse for far too long.

I challenge the contention too, but I don’t do it by girding myself in the mantles of science and skepticism and then throwing dogma at the believers! Talk about shooting yourself in the foot!

Quote:

Originally posted by Pyrrho
The fundamental question is not whether science and skepticism is dogmatic: it is whether or not there is, as you put it, undeniable evidence that paranormal abilities exist.

“As I put it”! If that’s some kind of veiled question of my beliefs, let me assure you that I don’t ever expect any evidence of paranormal phenomena to ever appear. But I’m willing to be proven wrong. Are you?

Quote:

Originally posted by Pyrrho
I am convinced that paranormal abilities do not and cannot exist, and I cannot honestly say otherwise.

Fine. Nobody’s forcing you to say anything. But when a paranormal believer comes here bent on finding dogmatic skeptics to use as scapegoats for their failing pseudoscience, do us all a favour and keep your unscientific, dogmatic opinions to yourself.

βPer

bPer · 24th August 2003, 08:26 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Pyrrho
I am skeptical of all claims that require belief.

Really? Let's examine this, shall we?

Quote:

Originally posted by Pyrrho
paranormal abilities are impossible

Prove it.

If you can't, and yet you continue to assert that claim, then you are relying on blind faith. Are you skeptical of your own beliefs?

βPer

T'ai Chi · 24th August 2003, 10:25 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Pyrrho
The laws of physics are what they are. They preclude the existence of paranormal abilities. I need only point to the second law of thermodynamics as evidence for this.

Your claim rivals the unscientificness of the hardcore Creationists who say that the second law of thermodynmaics prevents evolution from occuring.

Lucianarchy · 25th August 2003, 01:41 AM

B'per,

What do you find wrong with the SAIC evidence reviewed by Hyman?

What do you find wrong with the PEAR PRP replications which Hyman called for in his conclusion of the SAIC review?

Pyrrho · 25th August 2003, 03:54 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by bPer

Oh now it’s just your opinion. It would have been nice if you’d stated up front that you were expressing an unsupportable opinion, and not a scientific assertion. Especially when addressing a believer who’s looking for dogmatic skeptics.

I thought it was a given that most everything on this board is opinion.

Quote:

I’ve got news for you, Pyrrho. It’s not just believers. That’s the definition of ‘paranormal’ for everybody!. Sheesh!

Yes, it is.

Quote:

Well, of course science won’t be ‘overturned’ by evidence of the paranormal. In fact, if some paranormal phenomenon is scientifically proven, it will cease to be paranormal, and will become part of the body of scientific knowledge! A few scientific theories may be modified or discarded for improved ones in the process, but science won’t disappear. That’s merely absurd, wishful thinking on the part of some of the more ignorant believers we face.

Agreed.

Quote:

Nobody’s asking you to deceive yourself. The limitations of the laws of physics apply to everyone, but you have to understand that the laws of physics are our current best guess at the underlying phenomena and mechanisms. If we have it wrong, there will be phenomena that are inexplicable by the current set of physical laws. The believers rest their hope in that possibility, and you and I cannot deny them that hope without abandoning the principle of falsifiability. I am not willing to do that, for that destroys one of the foundations of the scientific method. You evidently don’t care about that, and thus you are nothing but a dogmatic believer (of science). It’s time you admit that.

Yes, but some of these purported abilities contradict even the best understood physical laws. I'm not willing to ignore how the world works in order to accomodate the idea that something might exist that condradicts how the world works.

Quote:

I challenge the contention too, but I don’t do it by girding myself in the mantles of science and skepticism and then throwing dogma at the believers! Talk about shooting yourself in the foot!

“As I put it”! If that’s some kind of veiled question of my beliefs, let me assure you that I don’t ever expect any evidence of paranormal phenomena to ever appear. But I’m willing to be proven wrong. Are you?

It was not a veiled reference, was not intended as insult or sarcasm, it was merely giving you credit for the statement, which I found to be useful.

If ever I'm proven wrong on this, I'll freely admit it.

Quote:

Fine. Nobody’s forcing you to say anything. But when a paranormal believer comes here bent on finding dogmatic skeptics to use as scapegoats for their failing pseudoscience, do us all a favour and keep your unscientific, dogmatic opinions to yourself.

βPer

You can count on it. I've had enough of these so-called discussions.

bPer · 25th August 2003, 06:44 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
B'per,

What do you find wrong with the SAIC evidence reviewed by Hyman?

What do you find wrong with the PEAR PRP replications which Hyman called for in his conclusion of the SAIC review?

Lucianarchy,

It's bPer, or βPer if you can manage the lower-case beta.

I'm not prepared at this time to debate these topics with you. Sorry. My only reason for posting was to try to address the issue of 'dogmatic skeptics'.

βPer

Lucianarchy · 25th August 2003, 06:54 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by bPer

Lucianarchy,

It's bPer, or βPer if you can manage the lower-case beta.

I'm not prepared at this time to debate these topics with you. Sorry. My only reason for posting was to try to address the issue of 'dogmatic skeptics'.

βPer

OK, it's just that you made the following claim;

Quote:

[...]let me assure you that I don’t ever expect any evidence of paranormal phenomena to ever appear. But I’m willing to be proven wrong.

I provided the evidence and in light of your claim I just assumed that you'd therefore be "willing" to back up your claim, or modify it. You may not regard it as proof, but it is evidence, highly credible and compelling evidence.

alfaniner · 25th August 2003, 07:30 AM

So, have any psychics found this girl yet? No? Thought so. And they won't.

Any results in this case will be brought about by the police, and those who deal in the real world.

bPer · 25th August 2003, 07:41 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Pyrrho
Yes, but some of these purported [paranormal] abilities contradict even the best understood physical laws. I'm not willing to ignore how the world works in order to accomodate the idea that something might exist that condradicts how the world works.

Well, I’ve tried twice now to explain to you why you don’t need to deny the current state of scientific understanding, and yet can acknowledge that the paranormal might someday be proven, so I give up.

Quote:

Originally posted by Pyrrho
It was not a veiled reference, was not intended as insult or sarcasm, it was merely giving you credit for the statement, which I found to be useful.

In that case, I apologize for taking your comment in the wrong way. It was ambiguous, and such statements are often used to undermine the positions of opponents, and I felt I had to address that possibility. Oh, and I’m glad you found the expression useful.

Quote:

Originally posted by Pyrrho
I've had enough of these so-called discussions.

Oh dear. Looks like I’ve made an error in judgment here. I did not intend to try to shut down discussion. Let me explain.

You’re one of the posters who I have always enjoyed reading. We all form our opinions of each other here, and when you posted the message I objected to, it truly was a blind-side, because my impression of you was quite different from what you wrote. I went back over the previous posts, and noticed that you said that you had once been a believer, but had discarded those beliefs in favour of science. I read that (rightly or wrongly) as meaning that you had abandoned the beliefs but not the practice of belief. I thought, with the best of intentions, that I might be able to nudge you one step further away from your past. It looks like that effort has failed, probably because of my ham-fisted, aggressive style. This aggressiveness is not my normal style. I tried it in your case because my impression was that you use and respond well to such a style. I guess that was a mis-calculation. I apologize.

The real bummer is that now, due to my ineptitude, I have likely lost one, and perhaps more allies in the fight against ignorance and irrational thought.

bPer

Starrman · 25th August 2003, 07:59 AM

Quote:

Your claim rivals the unscientificness of the hardcore Creationists who say that the second law of thermodynmaics prevents evolution from occuring.

No - the creationists are wrong in their understanding and application of the second law. Pyrrho is not.

bPer · 25th August 2003, 09:08 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
OK, it's just that you made the following claim;

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[...]let me assure you that I don’t ever expect any evidence of paranormal phenomena to ever appear. But I’m willing to be proven wrong.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I provided the evidence and in light of your claim I just assumed that you'd therefore be "willing" to back up your claim, or modify it. You may not regard it as proof, but it is evidence, highly credible and compelling evidence.

Oh, I see what you meant. Yes, that was careless phrasing on my part. Thank you for bringing that to my attention. Of course, I acknowledge that evidence of paranormal phenomena has been produced. Anecdotal evidence, for example, is nonetheless evidence, although not at all convincing or compelling. And using the word 'proven' was laziness on my part. I was merely trying to do two things: (1) assure any readers on the skeptical side of the fence that I was one of them (since I’m a relative newbie here and people may not know that about me) and (2) restate the point that I am willing to see well-established scientific theories modified or replaced in the face of proof of the existence of paranormal phenomena. Better?

As for your reports, they are part of the continuum of debate on the issue. I frankly have had very little interest in remote viewing, and have not been following it to the level where I can debate with you at a worthy level. If in the future I am motivated to investigate RV further, I will of course evaluate your evidence and join in the debate. In the event that I don‘t become motivated to actively join in the debate, I will await the day when scientific studies have been published in reputable scientific journals, fully debated and critiqued, and a scientific consensus has been formed that RV is a real phenomenon. Until that day, my position will be that RV is an unproven conjecture.

bPer

Lucianarchy · 25th August 2003, 09:21 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by bPer

Oh, I see what you meant. Yes, that was careless phrasing on my part. Thank you for bringing that to my attention. Of course, I acknowledge that evidence of paranormal phenomena has been produced. Anecdotal evidence, for example, is nonetheless evidence, although not at all convincing or compelling. And using the word 'proven' was laziness on my part. I was merely trying to do two things: (1) assure any readers on the skeptical side of the fence that I was one of them (since I’m a relative newbie here and people may not know that about me) and (2) restate the point that I am willing to see well-established scientific theories modified or replaced in the face of proof of the existence of paranormal phenomena. Better?

As for your reports, they are part of the continuum of debate on the issue. I frankly have had very little interest in remote viewing, and have not been following it to the level where I can debate with you at a worthy level. If in the future I am motivated to investigate RV further, I will of course evaluate your evidence and join in the debate. In the event that I don‘t become motivated to actively join in the debate, I will await the day when scientific studies have been published in reputable scientific journals, fully debated and critiqued, and a scientific consensus has been formed that RV is a real phenomenon. Until that day, my position will be that RV is an unproven conjecture.

bPer

OK, I got you now.

I'd take issue with your last bit though. Please by all means get up to speed with SAIC / Hyman and the PEAR PRP replications which he called for. But you may not be aware that SAIC was peer reviewed by Hyman and Utts under part of the AIR contract with the CIA. You can go and look this stuff up on the 'net, it's no secret anymore. The PEAR PRP paper can be found in the JSE (Journal of Scientific Exploration), a peer reviewed scientific journal. I could give you some links if you want, but it's best if you do your own research first.

Anyway, thanks for your comments and best wishes to you.

Prester John · 25th August 2003, 10:20 AM

So does Santa Claus exist? Prove he doesn't.

Old i know but you can't prove a negative, we all know that here.

However it is reasonable to assume that some things are so unlikely (eg santa claus is real) , the chances of them exisiting are vanishingly small, that they are effectivly impossible . Thus we would say that santa claus does not exist and is impossible.
It comes down to personal judgement and experience where we place the barrier between impossible and possible.

Still no news on the girl from the RVer's?

bPer · 25th August 2003, 11:29 AM

Prester John,

I don't know if you were addressing my posts or not. Seems likely. In the future, perhaps you could make it clear?

Quote:

Originally posted by Prester John
So does Santa Claus exist? Prove he doesn't. Old i know but you can't prove a negative, we all know that here.

Ok, time to stretch these neophyte logician's wings. Hope I don't crash.

As I understand it, if I make the statement “Santa Claus exists”, the burden of proof on that claim is with me, and I cannot demand that an opponent prove that he does not exist. That’s the context of the well-known axiom “you can’t prove a negative”. All an opponent need do is demonstrate that the proof I provide is erroneous to counter my claim.

If I make a negative claim like “Santa Claus does not exist”, the burden of proof remains with me to prove the claim, despite the negative. The opponent still simply waits for the proof and reacts accordingly. Or, of course, the opponent can produce Santa Claus and directly disprove the claim.

To illustrate this with an easier example, I can prove that “I do not have a million dollars in my bank account“, simply by showing you an up-to-date bank statement. I’ve proven a negative.

In Pyrrho’s case, I challenged his claim that “paranormal abilities are impossible”, because he was indeed making a claim that he could not prove.

On a side note, I think your example is interesting. If you worked back and found the first fictional reference to Santa Claus, could you claim that he is just a work of fiction and thus does not exist? Would that be sufficient proof? Just asking.

Quote:

Originally posted by Prester John
However it is reasonable to assume that some things are so unlikely (eg santa claus is real) , the chances of them exisiting are vanishingly small, that they are effectivly impossible . Thus we would say that santa claus does not exist and is impossible.

Wrong. “Vanishingly-small chance” does not equal “impossible”.

Sure, in practical terms, you can regard the two distinct things as the same, for purely practical purposes. But when circumstances demand rigour (as this one does) you cannot equate the two. To do so will result in logical errors. As well, in this circumstance, you open up skeptics to the fair accusation of dogmatism, because you are asserting that the laws of physics are immutable.

bPer

Starrman · 25th August 2003, 12:16 PM

You can prove a specific negative, like your million dollars in your bank account example. It is universal negatives that cannot be proven. Santa Claus may exist somewhere in the Universe, but unless you can look at all points within it at the same time, you can never say with 100% certainty that he does not exist.

bPer · 25th August 2003, 12:54 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Starrman
You can prove a specific negative, like your million dollars in your bank account example. It is universal negatives that cannot be proven. Santa Claus may exist somewhere in the Universe, but unless you can look at all points within it at the same time, you can never say with 100% certainty that he does not exist.

Ah, yes, the universal negative. Forgot that. Thanks! I was trying to do this without reference, to see if I had absorbed what I read a while ago. Looks like I dragged a wing, at least.

Please correct me if I'm wrong. If I try to claim "Santa Claus does not exist", the burden of proof still remains on me, the claimant, even though it's essentially a fool's errand, right?

bPer

Darat · 28th August 2003, 02:56 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Darat

Hmm... strange isn't it that people who can prove that they can "remote view" don't step forward to help with this case?

Undoubtable it will either be ignored or some attempt to divert attention away from a specific will be employed.

To the people who have said they can "remote view", to the people who claim they have proved it right here on this forum - please for the sake of this girl and her loved ones locate her!

I take it no RVer has found this girl yet?

Starrman · 28th August 2003, 05:46 AM

Quote:

Please correct me if I'm wrong. If I try to claim "Santa Claus does not exist", the burden of proof still remains on me, the claimant, even though it's essentially a fool's errand, right?

I think I know where your going. I think when someone says 'there is no such thing as Santa' they are not really stating a universal. They are saying that he doesn't exist as we know him in popular culture (sorry if I ruined it for anyone). Obviously you can't prove that Santa doesn't exist anywhere in the entire galaxy. But the laws of physics do prohibit him from existing on Earth.

The difference here is, no one is out there making the positive claim - that Santa does exist here on Earth. There are many, however, claiming that remote viewing is a true ability.

UnrepentantSinner · 28th August 2003, 07:09 AM

Hmmm, let's see, this thread, like so many asking for demonstrations of superpowers has been almost successfully diverted into the nature of skepticism. But I still see a few trying to cling to the original question...

RVers... you've had time... what are your impressions? What information is the matrix giving you? What can you possibly have gleaned from this case instead of bitching and whining about the nature of skepticism? Do you have anything... anything substantive at all?

From the looks of things... Lucianarchy's Clock is getting ready to tick another day.

Ladewig · 28th August 2003, 08:56 AM

Quote:

Nobody’s asking you to deceive yourself. The limitations of the laws of physics apply to everyone, but you have to understand that the laws of physics are our current best guess at the underlying phenomena and mechanisms. If we have it wrong, there will be phenomena that are inexplicable by the current set of physical laws. The believers rest their hope in that possibility, and you and I cannot deny them that hope without abandoning the principle of falsifiability. I am not willing to do that, for that destroys one of the foundations of the scientific method. You evidently don’t care about that, and thus you are nothing but a dogmatic believer (of science). It’s time you admit that.

Let's talk about how science works. Every year, physicist are adding to our body of knowledge. These additions do not cause us to throw out the fundamental ideas in the field of phsyics. Imagine a college text on physics. The first chapter might describe basic laws of motion, another chapter near the beginning might describe the laws of thermodynamics. When revolutionary ideas are added in this field, they ususally take the form of adding a new chapter at the end of the textbook. Einstein's theories about what happens when bodies move at speeds near c did not cause the first chapter to be re-written; instead they appeared in a latter chapter as a special case that did not violate the basic laws.

Psychic phenomenon such as remote viewing, however would have us rewrite every chapter. All forces observed in the universe decrease in power over distance. That applies to forces on an atomic scale as well as a galactic scale. RV would have us discard that rule. For RV to be true, physics would have to develop entirely new theories for

the most basic description of light
how energy can be detected and measured by machines
how energy can be detected and measured by humans
conservation of energy (laws of thermodynamics)

So, could RVers be right and scientists be wrong. It is possible - provided you define possible as anything that has even the slightest, most negligible, most remote, most unimaginable chance of occurring.

__________
Oh, I almost forgot: has any RVer has found this girl yet?

bPer · 28th August 2003, 10:43 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Ladewig
So, could RVers be right and scientists be wrong. It is possible - provided you define possible as anything that has even the slightest, most negligible, most remote, most unimaginable chance of occurring.

Right! I'm glad we agree.

Let me take one more stab at this. Look at this from a strategic perspective. Our opponents are looking for any way to discredit us, because frankly the science is stacked against them. If you ignore the principle of falsifiability and state unequivocally that paranormal abilities are impossible, then you leave yourself open to valid criticism. To me, it's a no-brainer to simply acknowledge the rigourous truth, that even our fundamental laws of science are provisional, so that that criticism isn't available to our opponents, forcing them to argue the science!

Look, as UnrepentantSinner pointed out, this thread has gotten derailed, and I regret my part in doing that. Perhaps this is an issue that should be taken to a new thread. I'd be happy to contribute (such as I can) there.

bPer

T'ai Chi · 28th August 2003, 06:07 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Starrman

No - the creationists are wrong in their understanding and application of the second law. Pyrrho is not.

So.... do you actually care to explain why Pyrrho is not wrong?

Ladewig · 28th August 2003, 08:12 PM

Quote:

Right! I'm glad we agree.

I know I am going to look like a whackjob here for disagreeing with a position I posted less than 24 hours ago, but here goes.

Quote:

To me, it's a no-brainer to simply acknowledge the rigourous truth, that even our fundamental laws of science are provisional, so that that criticism isn't available to our opponents, forcing them to argue the science!

To me, the possibility that RV is being practiced by people is about the same as the probability that there is an undiscovered continent in the Atlantic Ocean, i.e. zero percent. No, the fundamental laws of science are not that provisional. Some of the more complex theories might be provisional, but the most basic laws have been studied for quite some time.

billydkid · 29th August 2003, 05:38 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Ladewig

I know I am going to look like a whackjob here for disagreeing with a position I posted less than 24 hours ago, but here goes.

To me, the possibility that RV is being practiced by people is about the same as the probability that there is an undiscovered continent in the Atlantic Ocean, i.e. zero percent. No, the fundamental laws of science are not that provisional. Some of the more complex theories might be provisional, but the most basic laws have been studied for quite some time.

Phew, you scared me for a minute. I was almost ready to jump all over you.

bPer · 29th August 2003, 06:18 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Ladewig
No, the fundamental laws of science are not that provisional. Some of the more complex theories might be provisional, but the most basic laws have been studied for quite some time.

Then you are nothing but a dogmatic believer of science, and in that regard, no better than the RVers. My above criticisms and admonition of Pyrrho apply equally to you and any others who share your erroneous opinion. I recommend you all go back and do some remedial reading on the principles of the scientific method.

bPer

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos · 29th August 2003, 06:45 AM

Aw geez, bPer, you caught us. All right, even the most fundamental laws of science are still provisional.

Does it really matter if I think the second law of thermo is 95%, 99%, 99.99999%, or 100% sure? Just get on with providing the evidence for RV or whatever. These conversations are always diverted with a debate about precisely how close-minded skeptics are, because the believers have nothing else to talk about. It's proof by assertion of close-mindedness. Snore.

~~ Paul

Darat · 29th August 2003, 07:00 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Aw geez, bPer, you caught us. All right, even the most fundamental laws of science are still provisional.

Does it really matter if I think the second law of thermo is 95%, 99%, 99.99999%, or 100% sure? Just get on with providing the evidence for RV or whatever. These conversations are always diverted with a debate about precisely how close-minded skeptics are, because the believers have nothing else to talk about. It's proof by assertion of close-mindedness. Snore.

~~ Paul

Couldn't agree more, strange that I can make precise accurate predictions yet the many people who say they have superpowers and post here can't?

I did say:

Quote:

(Spelling error corrected)

Hmm... strange isn't it that people who can prove that they can "remote view" don't step forward to help with this case?

Undoubtedly it will either be ignored or some attempt to divert attention away from a specific will be employed.

To the people who have said they can "remote view", to the people who claim they have proved it right here on this forum - please for the sake of this girl and her loved ones locate her!

To date not one RV has found this girl (news sites checked 15:00 29/8/03).

To date not one of the people who post here that claim they can RV has posted anything that shows they can find the girl.

If RV works then PLEASE JUST FIND THE GIRL, then you can berate me and the rest of the "closed minded" people here, then you can pour scorn on the paucity of our beliefs, on how we are cynical, how we are scared by the amazing possibilities of the universe – but until the girl is found by a RVer just shut-up!

If RV works then the people who practice it must be among the most callous and inhumane people on this planet to allow such torture to continue.

RVers – FIND THE GIRL!

bPer · 29th August 2003, 07:03 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Aw geez, bPer, you caught us. All right, even the most fundamental laws of science are still provisional.

Hurray! I had a feeling that I could count on you to understand this. Thanks.

Quote:

Originally posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Just get on with providing the evidence for RV or whatever.

Well, if you're asking me for this evidence, you won't get it; I'm on your side on this issue. And again I apologize for taking this thread off the tracks.

bPer

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos · 29th August 2003, 09:08 AM

No problem, bPer.

~~ Paul

Darat · 30th August 2003, 09:50 AM

I was about to add a rather flippant comment into this thread about still no sign of the girl and asking the RVers who post here to again find her.

When searching to see if anymore news had been posted I came across this site:

http://crime.about.com/library/blfil...en.htm#everett

and then this one

http://missingkids.com/missingkids/s...eCountry=en_US

I can’t say how angry I am at the moment, knowing there are these liars these inhumane fools who strut around here claiming the ability to RV, claiming it has been proven, claiming it can find people.

LOOK AT THESE SITES, LOOK AT THESE KIDS AND STOP LYING!

billydkid · 30th August 2003, 02:17 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Darat
I was about to add a rather flippant comment into this thread about still no sign of the girl and asking the RVers who post here to again find her.

When searching to see if anymore news had been posted I came across this site:

http://crime.about.com/library/blfil...en.htm#everett

and then this one

http://missingkids.com/missingkids/s...eCountry=en_US

I can’t say how angry I am at the moment, knowing there are these liars these inhumane fools who strut around here claiming the ability to RV, claiming it has been proven, claiming it can find people.

LOOK AT THESE SITES, LOOK AT THESE KIDS AND STOP LYING!

The ones that really make me angry are the ones who actually make these claims in an attempt to gain personal notoriety and profit at the expense of those who are suffering the loss of a loved one. As far as the nitwits who come in here and claim they have paranormal ability, well, I guess they are not hurting anyone, but is certainly a pathetic attempt to gain admiration and attention.

billydkid · 30th August 2003, 02:24 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by bPer

Then you are nothing but a dogmatic believer of science, and in that regard, no better than the RVers. My above criticisms and admonition of Pyrrho apply equally to you and any others who share your erroneous opinion. I recommend you all go back and do some remedial reading on the principles of the scientific method.

bPer

So let me get this straight - someone who accepts the law of the conservation of energy as factually true is "no better" than someone who claims that certain individuals are capable of "remote viewing"?

24th August 2003, 09:20 AM	#41
Lucianarchy Banned Join Date: Oct 2001 Posts: 2,158	Quote: Originally posted by traveller Again they are not set in stone and are subject to change even if some want to use wishful thinking to believe that they will absolutely stay around forever. But you must save all us stupid irrational people who need someone else like you and CSICOP to think for us since you are the king of rational thinking. I doubt whether if he agrees with you or not that Randi himself would not even dare to publicly say anything like that. As always your welcome to your materialistic fantasy land of how things should be but your views don't shape reality. Some people just can't see past what they personally see as rational but that is strictly opinion. Since you admitt to believeing it's impossible then you are admitting to being a closed-minded skeptic. There's the rub. Some people call themselves "skeptic", when they are in fact ,'True Unbelievers'.
Lucianarchy Banned Join Date: Oct 2001 Posts: 2,158

24th August 2003, 11:02 AM	#42
Paul C. Anagnostopoulos Nap, interrupted. Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: a little toolshed Posts: 18,592	This kind of conversation will never get anywhere. Better to debate some actual claim or paper than to argue semantics until our heads explode. Gee, who is more close-minded, a "skeptic" or a "debunker." Gee, who is more credulous, a "believer" or a "woo woo." The problem is, we can never collect all the information we need to really understand what happened with some psi experiment. So instead we just call each other names. Funny, that. ~~ Paul
	__________________ Millions long for immortality who do not know what to do with themselves on a rainy Sunday afternoon. ---Susan Ertz RIP Mr. Skinny

24th August 2003, 11:33 AM	#43
bPer Critical Thinker Join Date: Mar 2003 Posts: 358	Quote: Originally posted by Pyrrho True, but this side doesn't take ignorance and make it an argument for the existence of impossibilities. The laws of physics are what they are. They preclude the existence of paranormal abilities. I need only point to the second law of thermodynamics as evidence for this. [...] Biased? Sure. I'll say it again, and I'll keep saying it: paranormal abilities are impossible. To say that they are possible is indulgence in ignorance. I would prefer that such beliefs be kept in their rightful place in fantasy land and not be given serious consideration, because, as Harlan Ellison once said, "It keeps people stupid." Pyrrho,sorry but I have to call you on this. You have crossed the boundary from skepticism into dogmatism here. You have made a negative assertion here by saying that paranormal abilities are impossible. That shifts the burden of proof to you. Proving your assertion is something you cannot do, because you lack the tools to do so. By definition, paranormal abilities lie outside the realm of scientific understanding, yet you are trying to use scientific understanding (e.g. the 2nd law of thermodynamics) to support your assertion. That's clearly invalid. The truth is, all scientific understanding is provisional, even the fundamentals that have been around for centuries. Should some undeniable evidence appear that cannot be explained by existing scientific theories, the theories will have to be modified or discarded in favour of new theories that better fit the entire body of evidence. You and I can agree that the probability that our fundamental laws of science are going to be overturned by the activities of the paranormal crowd is infinitesimally small, but I am not willing to take the next step that you have taken to assert that that probability is zero. Please rethink your stance on this. On another note, I am very annoyed at you for posting what you did. It is pretty clear that traveller came here looking to confirm his/her pre-conceived, false notion that skeptics are close-minded and dogmatic. You stepped right into his/her trap. You been here long enough; you should have known better. It's hard enough, fighting the uphill battle against ignorance and irrational thought, without being blind-sided by the someone from your own side. Please be more careful in the future. Now, to traveller: just as the KKK claims to be Christian, to the great dismay of the vast majority of Christendom, so skeptics like me feel dismay when people like Pyrrho behave as they do. I assure you that these people are misguided, and urge you to look further to see the true nature of skeptics. Also, don’t take my admonition of Pyrrho as tacit support for your obvious belief in remote viewing. The burden of proof is on you and the rest of the remote viewing advocates to prove that remote viewing exists. You have a daunting task ahead of you; the body of scientific evidence that supports the existing scientific theories is massive, and notwithstanding the possibility that the theories are inadequate, it is overwhelmingly likely that you are wasting your time on a fantasy. βPer
bPer Critical Thinker Join Date: Mar 2003 Posts: 358

24th August 2003, 02:58 PM	#45
bPer Critical Thinker Join Date: Mar 2003 Posts: 358	Quote: Originally posted by traveller I'm not trying to generalize that all skeptics are like that I only have a problem with the ones who make statements like that which shows their beliefs that they view this sort of thing as impossible. Those types are the ones a have a problem with. Well, as you've seen, a ... er ... I have a problem with them too. I'm relieved to hear that you don't paint all skeptics with the same brush, although I must ask you to forgive me if I remain skeptical of your intentions here. Quote: Originally posted by traveller ... I don't view all skeptics as being closed-mined or ignorant it wouldn't be right to label them all like that. Both believers and skeptics have their fanatics and it wouldn't be fair to judge a whole group based on what a few of them think. Indeed! But too often, skeptical arguments are dismissed by 'believers' (your term) out of hand, simply because they are made by skeptics. That's what I'm reacting to here. I'm reading from this quote that you see that too, and I hope you will treat a skeptical response as a positive thing - a different point of view that is worthy of consideration and analysis. Quote: Originally posted by traveller I can't say for certain that remote viewing is real at this point even though in my opinion it seems like a good possibility but I might in the future have to try it out for my self. I understand that the burden of proof is on remote viewers so hopefully if it is real it will be tested much more and the truth will eventually come out. Good possibility!? Wow. We’re pretty far apart on that, I’m afraid, unless ‘good possibility’ means a whole different thing to you than me. I’d rate it as ‘highly unlikely’ (putting it mildly), given the evidence I’ve seen so far. It’s good, though, that you have left open the possibility that it is not a real phenomenon. I’m actually curious about why you think that there is a ‘good possibility’ that RV exists. Perhaps you’d consider posting your reasons/evidence? (probably best in a separate thread) You seem like someone who is open to alternative views, and you’ll certainly get them if you post here. Treat it as an opportunity to examine your reasons and evidence. You never know - it may strengthen your beliefs in RV, or it may show you where your beliefs aren’t warranted. From our side, it never hurts to have an actual ‘believer’ to dialogue with, if only to help dispel any unwarranted stereotypes. βPer
bPer Critical Thinker Join Date: Mar 2003 Posts: 358

24th August 2003, 06:09 PM	#46
Pyrrho Man in Black Join Date: Jul 2001 Posts: 3,678	Quote: Originally posted by bPer Pyrrho,sorry but I have to call you on this. You have crossed the boundary from skepticism into dogmatism here. You have made a negative assertion here by saying that paranormal abilities are impossible. That shifts the burden of proof to you. Proving your assertion is something you cannot do, because you lack the tools to do so. By definition, paranormal abilities lie outside the realm of scientific understanding, yet you are trying to use scientific understanding (e.g. the 2nd law of thermodynamics) to support your assertion. That's clearly invalid. The truth is, all scientific understanding is provisional, even the fundamentals that have been around for centuries. Should some undeniable evidence appear that cannot be explained by existing scientific theories, the theories will have to be modified or discarded in favour of new theories that better fit the entire body of evidence. You and I can agree that the probability that our fundamental laws of science are going to be overturned by the activities of the paranormal crowd is infinitesimally small, but I am not willing to take the next step that you have taken to assert that that probability is zero. Please rethink your stance on this. I can either tell the truth and state my opinion, which is that paranormal abilities are impossible, or I can lie, and say that they might be. Believers often use the argument that the paranormal lies outside of science, yet also claim that science is about to be overturned. Can't have it both ways. I can either accept the limitations implied by the laws of physics, or I can decieve myself and pretend that the limitations don't apply to certain people. My opinion is that the limitations apply to everyone, and that paranormal abilities do not exist. Nobody has to share my opinion. Quote: On another note, I am very annoyed at you for posting what you did. It is pretty clear that traveller came here looking to confirm his/her pre-conceived, false notion that skeptics are close-minded and dogmatic. You stepped right into his/her trap. You been here long enough; you should have known better. It's hard enough, fighting the uphill battle against ignorance and irrational thought, without being blind-sided by the someone from your own side. Please be more careful in the future. I knew full well what I was posting and how it might be received. I'm no longer going to play the game of "well, I'll leave this door open just a little bit to prove I'm open-minded". Sorry, but I'm not. I challenge the contention that science and skepticism is dogmatic. I'm tired of that accusation; it's been used as an excuse for far too long. The fundamental question is not whether science and skepticism is dogmatic: it is whether or not there is, as you put it, undeniable evidence that paranormal abilities exist. There is no such evidence. I am convinced that paranormal abilities do not and cannot exist, and I cannot honestly say otherwise.
Pyrrho Man in Black Join Date: Jul 2001 Posts: 3,678

24th August 2003, 11:54 AM	#44
!Xx+-Rational-+xX! ! skeptiscientisuperioristism Join Date: Aug 2003 Posts: 876	Quote: On another note, I am very annoyed at you for posting what you did. It is pretty clear that traveller came here looking to confirm his/her pre-conceived, false notion that skeptics are close-minded and dogmatic. I'm not trying to generalize that all skeptics are like that I only have a problem with the ones who make statements like that which shows their beliefs that they view this sort of thing as impossible. Those types are the ones a have a problem with. Quote: You stepped right into his/her trap. True but I wasn't expecting that much of an outright rejection of the paranormal from a so called skeptic. Quote: Now, to traveller: just as the KKK claims to be Christian, to the great dismay of the vast majority of Christendom, so skeptics like me feel dismay when people like Pyrrho behave as they do. I assure you that these people are misguided, and urge you to look further to see the true nature of skeptics. I agree with that and I don't view all skeptics as being closed-mined or ignorant it wouldn't be right to label them all like that. Both believers and skeptics have thier fanatics and it wouldn't be fair to judge a whole group based on what a few of them think. Quote: Also, don’t take my admonition of Pyrrho as tacit support for your obvious belief in remote viewing. The burden of proof is on you and the rest of the remote viewing advocates to prove that remote viewing exists. You have a daunting task ahead of you; the body of scientific evidence that supports the existing scientific theories is massive, and notwithstanding the possibility that the theories are inadequate, it is overwhelmingly likely that you are wasting your time on a fantasy. I can't say for certain that remote viewing is real at this point even though in my opinion it seems like a good possibility but I might in the future have to try it out for my self. I understand that the burden of proof is on remote viewers so hopefully if it is real it will be tested much more and the truth will eventually come out.

24th August 2003, 06:14 PM	#47
Pyrrho Man in Black Join Date: Jul 2001 Posts: 3,678	Quote: Originally posted by T'ai Chi heh, rrriiiggghhhht. You really don't live up to your namesake. The laws of physics preclude some things, but surely they don't preclude the existence of paranormal abilities, as you wish/hope/believe is the case. By all accounts, my namesake had no use for smug intellectuals who pretended to have complete understanding of things. His opinion was that nothing in this world could be known with complete certainty, but I do not think he would have extrapolated uncertainty into belief that anything was possible.
Pyrrho Man in Black Join Date: Jul 2001 Posts: 3,678

24th August 2003, 06:17 PM	#48
Pyrrho Man in Black Join Date: Jul 2001 Posts: 3,678	Quote: Originally posted by Lucianarchy There's the rub. Some people call themselves "skeptic", when they are in fact ,'True Unbelievers'. Fine with me. I truly do not believe, thus I am skeptical of all claims that require belief. I cannot honestly pretend otherwise.
Pyrrho Man in Black Join Date: Jul 2001 Posts: 3,678

24th August 2003, 08:03 PM	#49
bPer Critical Thinker Join Date: Mar 2003 Posts: 358	Quote: Originally posted by Pyrrho I can either tell the truth and state my opinion, which is that paranormal abilities are impossible, or I can lie, and say that they might be. […] My opinion is that the limitations apply to everyone, and that paranormal abilities do not exist. Nobody has to share my opinion. Oh now it’s just your opinion. It would have been nice if you’d stated up front that you were expressing an unsupportable opinion, and not a scientific assertion. Especially when addressing a believer who’s looking for dogmatic skeptics. Quote: Originally posted by Pyrrho Believers often use the argument that the paranormal lies outside of science I’ve got news for you, Pyrrho. It’s not just believers. That’s the definition of ‘paranormal’ for everybody!. Sheesh! Quote: Originally posted by Pyrrho Believers often use the argument that the paranormal lies outside of science, yet also claim that science is about to be overturned. Can't have it both ways. Well, of course science won’t be ‘overturned’ by evidence of the paranormal. In fact, if some paranormal phenomenon is scientifically proven, it will cease to be paranormal, and will become part of the body of scientific knowledge! A few scientific theories may be modified or discarded for improved ones in the process, but science won’t disappear. That’s merely absurd, wishful thinking on the part of some of the more ignorant believers we face. Quote: Originally posted by Pyrrho I can either accept the limitations implied by the laws of physics, or I can decieve myself and pretend that the limitations don't apply to certain people. Nobody’s asking you to deceive yourself. The limitations of the laws of physics apply to everyone, but you have to understand that the laws of physics are our current best guess at the underlying phenomena and mechanisms. If we have it wrong, there will be phenomena that are inexplicable by the current set of physical laws. The believers rest their hope in that possibility, and you and I cannot deny them that hope without abandoning the principle of falsifiability. I am not willing to do that, for that destroys one of the foundations of the scientific method. You evidently don’t care about that, and thus you are nothing but a dogmatic believer (of science). It’s time you admit that. Quote: Originally posted by Pyrrho I knew full well what I was posting and how it might be received. I'm no longer going to play the game of "well, I'll leave this door open just a little bit to prove I'm open-minded". Sorry, but I'm not. I challenge the contention that science and skepticism is dogmatic. I'm tired of that accusation; it's been used as an excuse for far too long. I challenge the contention too, but I don’t do it by girding myself in the mantles of science and skepticism and then throwing dogma at the believers! Talk about shooting yourself in the foot! Quote: Originally posted by Pyrrho The fundamental question is not whether science and skepticism is dogmatic: it is whether or not there is, as you put it, undeniable evidence that paranormal abilities exist. “As I put it”! If that’s some kind of veiled question of my beliefs, let me assure you that I don’t ever expect any evidence of paranormal phenomena to ever appear. But I’m willing to be proven wrong. Are you? Quote: Originally posted by Pyrrho I am convinced that paranormal abilities do not and cannot exist, and I cannot honestly say otherwise. Fine. Nobody’s forcing you to say anything. But when a paranormal believer comes here bent on finding dogmatic skeptics to use as scapegoats for their failing pseudoscience, do us all a favour and keep your unscientific, dogmatic opinions to yourself. βPer
bPer Critical Thinker Join Date: Mar 2003 Posts: 358

24th August 2003, 08:26 PM	#50
bPer Critical Thinker Join Date: Mar 2003 Posts: 358	Quote: Originally posted by Pyrrho I am skeptical of all claims that require belief. Really? Let's examine this, shall we? Quote: Originally posted by Pyrrho paranormal abilities are impossible Prove it. If you can't, and yet you continue to assert that claim, then you are relying on blind faith. Are you skeptical of your own beliefs? βPer
bPer Critical Thinker Join Date: Mar 2003 Posts: 358

24th August 2003, 10:25 PM	#51
T'ai Chi Penultimate Amazing Join Date: May 2003 Posts: 11,235	Quote: Originally posted by Pyrrho The laws of physics are what they are. They preclude the existence of paranormal abilities. I need only point to the second law of thermodynamics as evidence for this. Your claim rivals the unscientificness of the hardcore Creationists who say that the second law of thermodynmaics prevents evolution from occuring.
	__________________ http://www.statisticool.com

25th August 2003, 01:41 AM	#52
Lucianarchy Banned Join Date: Oct 2001 Posts: 2,158	B'per, What do you find wrong with the SAIC evidence reviewed by Hyman? What do you find wrong with the PEAR PRP replications which Hyman called for in his conclusion of the SAIC review?
Lucianarchy Banned Join Date: Oct 2001 Posts: 2,158

25th August 2003, 03:54 AM	#53
Pyrrho Man in Black Join Date: Jul 2001 Posts: 3,678	Quote: Originally posted by bPer Oh now it’s just your opinion. It would have been nice if you’d stated up front that you were expressing an unsupportable opinion, and not a scientific assertion. Especially when addressing a believer who’s looking for dogmatic skeptics. I thought it was a given that most everything on this board is opinion. Quote: I’ve got news for you, Pyrrho. It’s not just believers. That’s the definition** of ‘paranormal’ for everybody!. Sheesh!** Yes, it is. Quote: Well, of course science won’t be ‘overturned’ by evidence of the paranormal. In fact, if some paranormal phenomenon is scientifically proven, it will cease to be paranormal, and will become part of the body of scientific knowledge! A few scientific theories may be modified or discarded for improved ones in the process, but science won’t disappear. That’s merely absurd, wishful thinking on the part of some of the more ignorant believers we face. Agreed. Quote: Nobody’s asking you to deceive yourself. The limitations of the laws of physics apply to everyone, but you have to understand that the laws of physics are our current best guess at the underlying phenomena and mechanisms. If we have it wrong, there will be phenomena that are inexplicable by the current set of physical laws. The believers rest their hope in that possibility, and you and I cannot deny them that hope without abandoning the principle of falsifiability. I am not willing to do that, for that destroys one of the foundations of the scientific method. You evidently don’t care about that, and thus you are nothing but a dogmatic believer (of science). It’s time you admit that. Yes, but some of these purported abilities contradict even the best understood physical laws. I'm not willing to ignore how the world works in order to accomodate the idea that something might exist that condradicts how the world works. Quote: I challenge the contention too, but I don’t do it by girding myself in the mantles of science and skepticism and then throwing dogma at the believers! Talk about shooting yourself in the foot! “As I put it”! If that’s some kind of veiled question of my beliefs, let me assure you that I don’t ever expect any evidence of paranormal phenomena to ever appear. But I’m willing to be proven wrong. Are you? It was not a veiled reference, was not intended as insult or sarcasm, it was merely giving you credit for the statement, which I found to be useful. If ever I'm proven wrong on this, I'll freely admit it. Quote: Fine. Nobody’s forcing you to say anything. But when a paranormal believer comes here bent on finding dogmatic skeptics to use as scapegoats for their failing pseudoscience, do us all a favour and keep your unscientific, dogmatic opinions to yourself. βPer You can count on it. I've had enough of these so-called discussions.
Pyrrho Man in Black Join Date: Jul 2001 Posts: 3,678

25th August 2003, 06:44 AM	#54
bPer Critical Thinker Join Date: Mar 2003 Posts: 358	Quote: Originally posted by Lucianarchy B'per, What do you find wrong with the SAIC evidence reviewed by Hyman? What do you find wrong with the PEAR PRP replications which Hyman called for in his conclusion of the SAIC review? Lucianarchy, It's bPer, or βPer if you can manage the lower-case beta. I'm not prepared at this time to debate these topics with you. Sorry. My only reason for posting was to try to address the issue of 'dogmatic skeptics'. βPer
bPer Critical Thinker Join Date: Mar 2003 Posts: 358

25th August 2003, 06:54 AM	#55
Lucianarchy Banned Join Date: Oct 2001 Posts: 2,158	Quote: Originally posted by bPer Lucianarchy, It's bPer, or βPer if you can manage the lower-case beta. I'm not prepared at this time to debate these topics with you. Sorry. My only reason for posting was to try to address the issue of 'dogmatic skeptics'. βPer OK, it's just that you made the following claim; Quote: [...]let me assure you that I don’t ever expect any evidence of paranormal phenomena to ever appear. But I’m willing to be proven wrong. I provided the evidence and in light of your claim I just assumed that you'd therefore be "willing" to back up your claim, or modify it. You may not regard it as proof, but it is evidence, highly credible and compelling evidence.
Lucianarchy Banned Join Date: Oct 2001 Posts: 2,158

25th August 2003, 07:30 AM	#56
alfaniner Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Sorth Dakonsin Posts: 11,392	So, have any psychics found this girl yet? No? Thought so. And they won't. Any results in this case will be brought about by the police, and those who deal in the real world.

25th August 2003, 07:41 AM	#57
bPer Critical Thinker Join Date: Mar 2003 Posts: 358	Quote: Originally posted by Pyrrho Yes, but some of these purported [paranormal] abilities contradict even the best understood physical laws. I'm not willing to ignore how the world works in order to accomodate the idea that something might exist that condradicts how the world works. Well, I’ve tried twice now to explain to you why you don’t need to deny the current state of scientific understanding, and yet can acknowledge that the paranormal might someday be proven, so I give up. Quote: Originally posted by Pyrrho It was not a veiled reference, was not intended as insult or sarcasm, it was merely giving you credit for the statement, which I found to be useful. In that case, I apologize for taking your comment in the wrong way. It was ambiguous, and such statements are often used to undermine the positions of opponents, and I felt I had to address that possibility. Oh, and I’m glad you found the expression useful. Quote: Originally posted by Pyrrho I've had enough of these so-called discussions. Oh dear. Looks like I’ve made an error in judgment here. I did not intend to try to shut down discussion. Let me explain. You’re one of the posters who I have always enjoyed reading. We all form our opinions of each other here, and when you posted the message I objected to, it truly was a blind-side, because my impression of you was quite different from what you wrote. I went back over the previous posts, and noticed that you said that you had once been a believer, but had discarded those beliefs in favour of science. I read that (rightly or wrongly) as meaning that you had abandoned the beliefs but not the practice of belief. I thought, with the best of intentions, that I might be able to nudge you one step further away from your past. It looks like that effort has failed, probably because of my ham-fisted, aggressive style. This aggressiveness is not my normal style. I tried it in your case because my impression was that you use and respond well to such a style. I guess that was a mis-calculation. I apologize. The real bummer is that now, due to my ineptitude, I have likely lost one, and perhaps more allies in the fight against ignorance and irrational thought. bPer
bPer Critical Thinker Join Date: Mar 2003 Posts: 358

25th August 2003, 07:59 AM	#58
Starrman Graduate Poster Join Date: May 2003 Posts: 1,173	Quote: Your claim rivals the unscientificness of the hardcore Creationists who say that the second law of thermodynmaics prevents evolution from occuring. No - the creationists are wrong in their understanding and application of the second law. Pyrrho is not.
	__________________ --------------------------------------------- Prayer has no place in the public schools, just like facts have no place in organized religion. --Superintendent Chalmers

25th August 2003, 09:08 AM	#59
bPer Critical Thinker Join Date: Mar 2003 Posts: 358	Quote: Originally posted by Lucianarchy OK, it's just that you made the following claim; quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- [...]let me assure you that I don’t ever expect any evidence of paranormal phenomena to ever appear. But I’m willing to be proven wrong. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I provided the evidence and in light of your claim I just assumed that you'd therefore be "willing" to back up your claim, or modify it. You may not regard it as proof, but it is evidence, highly credible and compelling evidence. Oh, I see what you meant. Yes, that was careless phrasing on my part. Thank you for bringing that to my attention. Of course, I acknowledge that evidence of paranormal phenomena has been produced. Anecdotal evidence, for example, is nonetheless evidence, although not at all convincing or compelling. And using the word 'proven' was laziness on my part. I was merely trying to do two things: (1) assure any readers on the skeptical side of the fence that I was one of them (since I’m a relative newbie here and people may not know that about me) and (2) restate the point that I am willing to see well-established scientific theories modified or replaced in the face of proof of the existence of paranormal phenomena. Better? As for your reports, they are part of the continuum of debate on the issue. I frankly have had very little interest in remote viewing, and have not been following it to the level where I can debate with you at a worthy level. If in the future I am motivated to investigate RV further, I will of course evaluate your evidence and join in the debate. In the event that I don‘t become motivated to actively join in the debate, I will await the day when scientific studies have been published in reputable scientific journals, fully debated and critiqued, and a scientific consensus has been formed that RV is a real phenomenon. Until that day, my position will be that RV is an unproven conjecture. bPer
bPer Critical Thinker Join Date: Mar 2003 Posts: 358

25th August 2003, 09:21 AM	#60
Lucianarchy Banned Join Date: Oct 2001 Posts: 2,158	Quote: Originally posted by bPer Oh, I see what you meant. Yes, that was careless phrasing on my part. Thank you for bringing that to my attention. Of course, I acknowledge that evidence of paranormal phenomena has been produced. Anecdotal evidence, for example, is nonetheless evidence, although not at all convincing or compelling. And using the word 'proven' was laziness on my part. I was merely trying to do two things: (1) assure any readers on the skeptical side of the fence that I was one of them (since I’m a relative newbie here and people may not know that about me) and (2) restate the point that I am willing to see well-established scientific theories modified or replaced in the face of proof of the existence of paranormal phenomena. Better? As for your reports, they are part of the continuum of debate on the issue. I frankly have had very little interest in remote viewing, and have not been following it to the level where I can debate with you at a worthy level. If in the future I am motivated to investigate RV further, I will of course evaluate your evidence and join in the debate. In the event that I don‘t become motivated to actively join in the debate, I will await the day when scientific studies have been published in reputable scientific journals, fully debated and critiqued, and a scientific consensus has been formed that RV is a real phenomenon. Until that day, my position will be that RV is an unproven conjecture. bPer OK, I got you now. I'd take issue with your last bit though. Please by all means get up to speed with SAIC / Hyman and the PEAR PRP replications which he called for. But you may not be aware that SAIC was peer reviewed by Hyman and Utts under part of the AIR contract with the CIA. You can go and look this stuff up on the 'net, it's no secret anymore. The PEAR PRP paper can be found in the JSE (Journal of Scientific Exploration), a peer reviewed scientific journal. I could give you some links if you want, but it's best if you do your own research first. Anyway, thanks for your comments and best wishes to you.
Lucianarchy Banned Join Date: Oct 2001 Posts: 2,158

25th August 2003, 10:20 AM	#61
Prester John Anti-homeopathy Illuminati member Join Date: Aug 2003 Posts: 1,187	So does Santa Claus exist? Prove he doesn't. Old i know but you can't prove a negative, we all know that here. However it is reasonable to assume that some things are so unlikely (eg santa claus is real) , the chances of them exisiting are vanishingly small, that they are effectivly impossible . Thus we would say that santa claus does not exist and is impossible. It comes down to personal judgement and experience where we place the barrier between impossible and possible. Still no news on the girl from the RVer's?
	__________________ "...at the heart of science is an essential balance between two seemingly contradictory attitudes -- an openness to new ideas, no matter how bizarre or counterintuitive, and the most ruthlessly skeptical scrutiny of all ideas, old and new. This is how deep truths are winnowed from deep nonsense." Carl Sagan I am a Homeopath. Remedies available at reasonable prices.

25th August 2003, 11:29 AM	#62
bPer Critical Thinker Join Date: Mar 2003 Posts: 358	Prester John, I don't know if you were addressing my posts or not. Seems likely. In the future, perhaps you could make it clear? Quote: Originally posted by Prester John So does Santa Claus exist? Prove he doesn't. Old i know but you can't prove a negative, we all know that here. Ok, time to stretch these neophyte logician's wings. Hope I don't crash. As I understand it, if I make the statement “Santa Claus exists”, the burden of proof on that claim is with me, and I cannot demand that an opponent prove that he does not exist. That’s the context of the well-known axiom “you can’t prove a negative”. All an opponent need do is demonstrate that the proof I provide is erroneous to counter my claim. If I make a negative claim like “Santa Claus does not exist”, the burden of proof remains with me to prove the claim, despite the negative. The opponent still simply waits for the proof and reacts accordingly. Or, of course, the opponent can produce Santa Claus and directly disprove the claim. To illustrate this with an easier example, I can prove that “I do not have a million dollars in my bank account“, simply by showing you an up-to-date bank statement. I’ve proven a negative. In Pyrrho’s case, I challenged his claim that “paranormal abilities are impossible”, because he was indeed making a claim that he could not prove. On a side note, I think your example is interesting. If you worked back and found the first fictional reference to Santa Claus, could you claim that he is just a work of fiction and thus does not exist? Would that be sufficient proof? Just asking. Quote: Originally posted by Prester John However it is reasonable to assume that some things are so unlikely (eg santa claus is real) , the chances of them exisiting are vanishingly small, that they are effectivly impossible . Thus we would say that santa claus does not exist and is impossible. Wrong. “Vanishingly-small chance” does not equal “impossible”. Sure, in practical terms, you can regard the two distinct things as the same, for purely practical purposes. But when circumstances demand rigour (as this one does) you cannot equate the two. To do so will result in logical errors. As well, in this circumstance, you open up skeptics to the fair accusation of dogmatism, because you are asserting that the laws of physics are immutable. bPer
bPer Critical Thinker Join Date: Mar 2003 Posts: 358

25th August 2003, 12:16 PM	#63
Starrman Graduate Poster Join Date: May 2003 Posts: 1,173	You can prove a specific negative, like your million dollars in your bank account example. It is universal negatives that cannot be proven. Santa Claus may exist somewhere in the Universe, but unless you can look at all points within it at the same time, you can never say with 100% certainty that he does not exist.
	__________________ --------------------------------------------- Prayer has no place in the public schools, just like facts have no place in organized religion. --Superintendent Chalmers

25th August 2003, 12:54 PM	#64
bPer Critical Thinker Join Date: Mar 2003 Posts: 358	Quote: Originally posted by Starrman You can prove a specific negative, like your million dollars in your bank account example. It is universal negatives that cannot be proven. Santa Claus may exist somewhere in the Universe, but unless you can look at all points within it at the same time, you can never say with 100% certainty that he does not exist. Ah, yes, the universal negative. Forgot that. Thanks! I was trying to do this without reference, to see if I had absorbed what I read a while ago. Looks like I dragged a wing, at least. Please correct me if I'm wrong. If I try to claim "Santa Claus does not exist", the burden of proof still remains on me, the claimant, even though it's essentially a fool's errand, right? bPer
bPer Critical Thinker Join Date: Mar 2003 Posts: 358

28th August 2003, 02:56 AM	#65
Darat Lackey Administrator / JREF Forum Liaison Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: South East, UK Posts: 64,793	Re: Re: Calling All Remote Viewers Quote: Originally posted by Darat Hmm... strange isn't it that people who can prove that they can "remote view" don't step forward to help with this case? Undoubtable it will either be ignored or some attempt to divert attention away from a specific will be employed. To the people who have said they can "remote view", to the people who claim they have proved it right here on this forum - please for the sake of this girl and her loved ones locate her! I take it no RVer has found this girl yet?
	__________________ If it were all so simple! If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds, and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them. But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart? - Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn 1918-2008

28th August 2003, 05:46 AM	#66
Starrman Graduate Poster Join Date: May 2003 Posts: 1,173	Quote: Please correct me if I'm wrong. If I try to claim "Santa Claus does not exist", the burden of proof still remains on me, the claimant, even though it's essentially a fool's errand, right? I think I know where your going. I think when someone says 'there is no such thing as Santa' they are not really stating a universal. They are saying that he doesn't exist as we know him in popular culture (sorry if I ruined it for anyone). Obviously you can't prove that Santa doesn't exist anywhere in the entire galaxy. But the laws of physics do prohibit him from existing on Earth. The difference here is, no one is out there making the positive claim - that Santa does exist here on Earth. There are many, however, claiming that remote viewing is a true ability.
	__________________ --------------------------------------------- Prayer has no place in the public schools, just like facts have no place in organized religion. --Superintendent Chalmers

28th August 2003, 07:09 AM	#67
UnrepentantSinner A post by Alan Smithee Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: USAian is not a word Posts: 26,357	Hmmm, let's see, this thread, like so many asking for demonstrations of superpowers has been almost successfully diverted into the nature of skepticism. But I still see a few trying to cling to the original question... RVers... you've had time... what are your impressions? What information is the matrix giving you? What can you possibly have gleaned from this case instead of bitching and whining about the nature of skepticism? Do you have anything... anything substantive at all? From the looks of things... Lucianarchy's Clock is getting ready to tick another day.
	__________________ I am an American citizen who is part of American society and briefly served in the American armed forces. I use American dollars and pay taxes that support the American government. And yes, despite the editorial decison to change American politics to the nonsensical "USA politics" subforum, I follow and comment on American politics.

28th August 2003, 08:56 AM	#68
Ladewig Hipster alien Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: not measurable Posts: 16,826	Quote: Nobody’s asking you to deceive yourself. The limitations of the laws of physics apply to everyone, but you have to understand that the laws of physics are our current best guess at the underlying phenomena and mechanisms. If we have it wrong, there will be phenomena that are inexplicable by the current set of physical laws. The believers rest their hope in that possibility, and you and I cannot deny them that hope without abandoning the principle of falsifiability. I am not willing to do that, for that destroys one of the foundations of the scientific method. You evidently don’t care about that, and thus you are nothing but a dogmatic believer (of science). It’s time you admit that. Let's talk about how science works. Every year, physicist are adding to our body of knowledge. These additions do not cause us to throw out the fundamental ideas in the field of phsyics. Imagine a college text on physics. The first chapter might describe basic laws of motion, another chapter near the beginning might describe the laws of thermodynamics. When revolutionary ideas are added in this field, they ususally take the form of adding a new chapter at the end of the textbook. Einstein's theories about what happens when bodies move at speeds near c did not cause the first chapter to be re-written; instead they appeared in a latter chapter as a special case that did not violate the basic laws. Psychic phenomenon such as remote viewing, however would have us rewrite every chapter. All forces observed in the universe decrease in power over distance. That applies to forces on an atomic scale as well as a galactic scale. RV would have us discard that rule. For RV to be true, physics would have to develop entirely new theories for the most basic description of light how energy can be detected and measured by machines how energy can be detected and measured by humans conservation of energy (laws of thermodynamics) So, could RVers be right and scientists be wrong. It is possible - provided you define possible as anything that has even the slightest, most negligible, most remote, most unimaginable chance of occurring. __________ Oh, I almost forgot: has any RVer has found this girl yet?
	__________________ Is the JREF message board training wheels for people who hope to one day troll other message boards? It is not that hard to get us to believe you. We are not the major leagues or even the minor leagues. We are Pee-Wee baseball. If you love striking out 10-year-olds, then you'll love trolling our board.

28th August 2003, 10:43 AM	#69
bPer Critical Thinker Join Date: Mar 2003 Posts: 358	Quote: Originally posted by Ladewig So, could RVers be right and scientists be wrong. It is possible - provided you define possible as anything that has even the slightest, most negligible, most remote, most unimaginable chance of occurring. Right! I'm glad we agree. Let me take one more stab at this. Look at this from a strategic perspective. Our opponents are looking for any way to discredit us, because frankly the science is stacked against them. If you ignore the principle of falsifiability and state unequivocally that paranormal abilities are impossible, then you leave yourself open to valid criticism. To me, it's a no-brainer to simply acknowledge the rigourous truth, that even our fundamental laws of science are provisional, so that that criticism isn't available to our opponents, forcing them to argue the science! Look, as UnrepentantSinner pointed out, this thread has gotten derailed, and I regret my part in doing that. Perhaps this is an issue that should be taken to a new thread. I'd be happy to contribute (such as I can) there. bPer
bPer Critical Thinker Join Date: Mar 2003 Posts: 358

28th August 2003, 06:07 PM	#70
T'ai Chi Penultimate Amazing Join Date: May 2003 Posts: 11,235	Quote: Originally posted by Starrman No - the creationists are wrong in their understanding and application of the second law. Pyrrho is not. So.... do you actually care to explain why Pyrrho is not wrong?
	__________________ http://www.statisticool.com

28th August 2003, 08:12 PM	#71
Ladewig Hipster alien Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: not measurable Posts: 16,826	Quote: Right! I'm glad we agree. I know I am going to look like a whackjob here for disagreeing with a position I posted less than 24 hours ago, but here goes. Quote: To me, it's a no-brainer to simply acknowledge the rigourous truth, that even our fundamental laws of science are provisional, so that that criticism isn't available to our opponents, forcing them to argue the science! To me, the possibility that RV is being practiced by people is about the same as the probability that there is an undiscovered continent in the Atlantic Ocean, i.e. zero percent. No, the fundamental laws of science are not that provisional. Some of the more complex theories might be provisional, but the most basic laws have been studied for quite some time.
	__________________ Is the JREF message board training wheels for people who hope to one day troll other message boards? It is not that hard to get us to believe you. We are not the major leagues or even the minor leagues. We are Pee-Wee baseball. If you love striking out 10-year-olds, then you'll love trolling our board.

29th August 2003, 05:38 AM	#72
billydkid Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Blanchester, OH Posts: 4,930	phew!! Quote: Originally posted by Ladewig I know I am going to look like a whackjob here for disagreeing with a position I posted less than 24 hours ago, but here goes. To me, the possibility that RV is being practiced by people is about the same as the probability that there is an undiscovered continent in the Atlantic Ocean, i.e. zero percent. No, the fundamental laws of science are not that provisional. Some of the more complex theories might be provisional, but the most basic laws have been studied for quite some time. Phew, you scared me for a minute. I was almost ready to jump all over you.

29th August 2003, 06:18 AM	#73
bPer Critical Thinker Join Date: Mar 2003 Posts: 358	Quote: Originally posted by Ladewig No, the fundamental laws of science are not that provisional. Some of the more complex theories might be provisional, but the most basic laws have been studied for quite some time. Then you are nothing but a dogmatic believer of science, and in that regard, no better than the RVers. My above criticisms and admonition of Pyrrho apply equally to you and any others who share your erroneous opinion. I recommend you all go back and do some remedial reading on the principles of the scientific method. bPer
bPer Critical Thinker Join Date: Mar 2003 Posts: 358

29th August 2003, 06:45 AM	#74
Paul C. Anagnostopoulos Nap, interrupted. Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: a little toolshed Posts: 18,592	Aw geez, bPer, you caught us. All right, even the most fundamental laws of science are still provisional. Does it really matter if I think the second law of thermo is 95%, 99%, 99.99999%, or 100% sure? Just get on with providing the evidence for RV or whatever. These conversations are always diverted with a debate about precisely how close-minded skeptics are, because the believers have nothing else to talk about. It's proof by assertion of close-mindedness. Snore. ~~ Paul
	__________________ Millions long for immortality who do not know what to do with themselves on a rainy Sunday afternoon. ---Susan Ertz RIP Mr. Skinny

29th August 2003, 07:00 AM	#75
Darat Lackey Administrator / JREF Forum Liaison Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: South East, UK Posts: 64,793	Quote: Originally posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos Aw geez, bPer, you caught us. All right, even the most fundamental laws of science are still provisional. Does it really matter if I think the second law of thermo is 95%, 99%, 99.99999%, or 100% sure? Just get on with providing the evidence for RV or whatever. These conversations are always diverted with a debate about precisely how close-minded skeptics are, because the believers have nothing else to talk about. It's proof by assertion of close-mindedness. Snore. ~~ Paul Couldn't agree more, strange that I can make precise accurate predictions yet the many people who say they have superpowers and post here can't? I did say: Quote: (Spelling error corrected) Hmm... strange isn't it that people who can prove that they can "remote view" don't step forward to help with this case? Undoubtedly it will either be ignored or some attempt to divert attention away from a specific will be employed. To the people who have said they can "remote view", to the people who claim they have proved it right here on this forum - please for the sake of this girl and her loved ones locate her! To date not one RV has found this girl (news sites checked 15:00 29/8/03). To date not one of the people who post here that claim they can RV has posted anything that shows they can find the girl. If RV works then PLEASE JUST FIND THE GIRL, then you can berate me and the rest of the "closed minded" people here, then you can pour scorn on the paucity of our beliefs, on how we are cynical, how we are scared by the amazing possibilities of the universe – but until the girl is found by a RVer just shut-up! If RV works then the people who practice it must be among the most callous and inhumane people on this planet to allow such torture to continue. RVers – FIND THE GIRL!
	__________________ If it were all so simple! If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds, and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them. But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart? - Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn 1918-2008