PROOF!

Lucianarchy · 23rd August 2003, 09:24 AM

Given that the SAIC replications which Hyman (CSICOP) called for, (after being unable to find any suitable candidate for error or flaw in the SAIC experiments) were recently censored here by Claus Larsen, and given that I have previously asked Billy Hoyt for what he, personally, would accept as 'proof' beyond all reasonable doubt - which he found that he could not define, and preferred to have others make such decisions for him;

what do fellow skeptics think would be specific, personal proof for them?

Pyrrho · 23rd August 2003, 09:37 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
Given that the SAIC replications which Hyman (CSICOP) called for, (after being unable to find any suitable candidate for error or flaw in the SAIC experiments) were recently censored here by Claus Larsen, and given that I have previously asked Billy Hoyt for what he, personally, would accept as 'proof' beyond all reasonable doubt - which he found that he could not define, and preferred to have others make such decisions for him;

what do fellow skeptics think would be specific, personal proof for them?

Claus Larsen doesn't have the ability to censor anything here. Your cut-and-paste posting of a very long copyrighted article was truncated because the rules here don't permit such reposting. You are perfectly welcome to post parts of such articles for discussion, with a link to the full article. This has been explained to you more than once or twice before.

For me, specific, personal proof would be repeated, carefully examined, thoroughly criticized, scientifically validated evidence, tested not only in psi-biased institutions but in completely transparent, publicly accessible venues with skeptics of all stripes involved in devising the protocols, with everyone free to examine all the protocols and all the data. Anecdotal evidence does not count; self-indulgent books "for the layman" would not count; philosophical wanderings about how paranormal phenomena must exist do not count; untestable hypotheses would not count. I would accept such evidence only after years and years of testing, only after a true body of scientific study had been built and the basic tenets of that science had been verified as per the above.

Absent that, the Second Coming of Christ would do.

jj · 23rd August 2003, 11:53 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
Given that the SAIC replications which Hyman (CSICOP) called for, (after being unable to find any suitable candidate for error or flaw in the SAIC experiments) were recently censored here by Claus Larsen, and given that I have previously asked Billy Hoyt for what he, personally, would accept as 'proof' beyond all reasonable doubt - which he found that he could not define, and preferred to have others make such decisions for him;

what do fellow skeptics think would be specific, personal proof for them?

You know the laws and board rules about copyright violations, so it really does take a lot of nerve on your part to complain that you were "censored".

You also know that Claus isn't a moderator, so you, absolutely and factually, know that he couldn't have "censored" you in any case. Why, then, did you make this claim, a claim that is obviously and absolutely false from the start?

I think your "proof" comes out of a flask of Stroh Inlander sometimes, Lucian.

Soapy Sam · 23rd August 2003, 03:00 PM

Lucianarchy-

Please. Assume I'm simple. In fifty words or less,
proof OF WHAT?

23rd August 2003, 09:24 AM	#1
Lucianarchy Banned Join Date: Oct 2001 Posts: 2,158	PROOF! Given that the SAIC replications which Hyman (CSICOP) called for, (after being unable to find any suitable candidate for error or flaw in the SAIC experiments) were recently censored here by Claus Larsen, and given that I have previously asked Billy Hoyt for what he, personally, would accept as 'proof' beyond all reasonable doubt - which he found that he could not define, and preferred to have others make such decisions for him; what do fellow skeptics think would be specific, personal proof for them?
Lucianarchy Banned Join Date: Oct 2001 Posts: 2,158

23rd August 2003, 09:37 AM	#2
Pyrrho Man in Black Join Date: Jul 2001 Posts: 3,678	Re: PROOF! Quote: Originally posted by Lucianarchy Given that the SAIC replications which Hyman (CSICOP) called for, (after being unable to find any suitable candidate for error or flaw in the SAIC experiments) were recently censored here by Claus Larsen, and given that I have previously asked Billy Hoyt for what he, personally, would accept as 'proof' beyond all reasonable doubt - which he found that he could not define, and preferred to have others make such decisions for him; what do fellow skeptics think would be specific, personal proof for them? Claus Larsen doesn't have the ability to censor anything here. Your cut-and-paste posting of a very long copyrighted article was truncated because the rules here don't permit such reposting. You are perfectly welcome to post parts of such articles for discussion, with a link to the full article. This has been explained to you more than once or twice before. For me, specific, personal proof would be repeated, carefully examined, thoroughly criticized, scientifically validated evidence, tested not only in psi-biased institutions but in completely transparent, publicly accessible venues with skeptics of all stripes involved in devising the protocols, with everyone free to examine all the protocols and all the data. Anecdotal evidence does not count; self-indulgent books "for the layman" would not count; philosophical wanderings about how paranormal phenomena must exist do not count; untestable hypotheses would not count. I would accept such evidence only after years and years of testing, only after a true body of scientific study had been built and the basic tenets of that science had been verified as per the above. Absent that, the Second Coming of Christ would do.
Pyrrho Man in Black Join Date: Jul 2001 Posts: 3,678

23rd August 2003, 11:53 AM	#3
jj grumpy old skeptic Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Deep in the rain Posts: 18,711	Re: PROOF! Quote: Originally posted by Lucianarchy Given that the SAIC replications which Hyman (CSICOP) called for, (after being unable to find any suitable candidate for error or flaw in the SAIC experiments) were recently censored here by Claus Larsen, and given that I have previously asked Billy Hoyt for what he, personally, would accept as 'proof' beyond all reasonable doubt - which he found that he could not define, and preferred to have others make such decisions for him; what do fellow skeptics think would be specific, personal proof for them? You know the laws and board rules about copyright violations, so it really does take a lot of nerve on your part to complain that you were "censored". You also know that Claus isn't a moderator, so you, absolutely and factually, know that he couldn't have "censored" you in any case. Why, then, did you make this claim, a claim that is obviously and absolutely false from the start? I think your "proof" comes out of a flask of Stroh Inlander sometimes, Lucian.
	__________________ The Power to Quit

23rd August 2003, 03:00 PM	#4
Soapy Sam NLH Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 25,905	Lucianarchy- Please. Assume I'm simple. In fifty words or less, proof OF WHAT?
Soapy Sam NLH Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 25,905