|
|
Go to page [Previous] 1~2~3~4~5~6~7 [Next] | ||||||||||
dmkraig Inner circle 1949 Posts |
Quote:
On 2011-10-03 01:21, Sean Giles wrote: So I guess you think that that finding truth and honesty is not interesting to mentalists. Fascinating. In fact, it is by doing nothing that we each let the pseudo-skeptics seem to be the voice of true skepticism. It is by doing nothing that we let politicians who differ from our positions--whatever yours may be--run rampant. Yes, that we're "just entertainers" is a good reason to ignore what's going on in the world of science. It's a valid reason, too. Of course, there's another word for such "reasons." Excuses. |
|||||||||
Sean Giles Inner circle Cambridge/ UK 3517 Posts |
Quote:
On 2011-10-03 11:44, dmkraig wrote: If you can't talk about a subject without childish snide remarks then count me out further discussion with you. |
|||||||||
Dr Spektor Eternal Order Carcanis 10781 Posts |
Heh, my upcoming stage show is actually an examination of reality - or at least, trying to perceive it and communicate about it. "Lens of Illusion" - dedicated to Borges, Philip K Dick, Hassidic tractates, Einstein and others... cuz this is really the essence of the mystery arts - playing with imagination and perception to understand the human condition IMHO
"They are lean and athirst!!!!"
|
|||||||||
Garrette Special user 926 Posts |
I will begin by asking you, the reader, to excuse a few things:
1) Excuse the length of this post. This topic invariably wanders into tangential points. Some points are relevant, some are not, but nearly all are interesting. 2) Excuse me if I do not rejoin the thread for a while. Work and other matters are exacting a heavy toll lately, and I do not know when I will have time to compose a considered post nor when I will have the time to read all the comments that would inform such a post. 3) Excuse me if I take a position that seems to waffle at times. As in most things, my position is not entirely static. More importantly, I am not the best communicator, so I may intend one meaning while mistakenly communicating another. 4) Excuse any passion that slips in. I love the topic and have discussed and debated it often. While I try very hard to make my actual points logical and clear, I am a highly flawed human who cannot always prevent emotion stepping in. 5) Excuse any apparent insult. I rarely intend them, on boards or in real life. Of course, sometimes I do intend them, but I do not foresee that happening here. Unless I phrase something bluntly like "You're an idiotic !@#$%^&," then I truly am only attacking what I understand your position to be or what I understand your reasons for holding that position to be. 6) Excuse that I will not engage in discussion about frauds or charlatans. Both sides of the debate agree that such people exist. Most on both sides agree that it would be better if frauds and charlatans did not exist or did not practice. Disagreement comes in mainly in discussions about what should be done to stop them. That’s not a path that I think would be productive in this thread. There are probably other things I need to be excused for. If you can accept that I really am not attempting to denigrate any person here, I will accept the same of you. I will state up front what many of you already know: I am a regular on the JREF forum (my activity there of late has been as rare as my activity here, perhaps more rare). I do not think that psychics exist or that those things commonly considered paranormal exist. I used to, but not anymore. (I’m leaving aside any precise definitions of “psychic” and “paranormal” for now. I think general usage is sufficient unless we progress into discussion of specific claims.) I do not consider, and have never considered, the fact of my nonbelief to make me superior or smarter than any who do believe. Goodness knows I have met dozens or hundreds of believers who are far, far smarter than I am. I simply have not been convinced by any evidence put forward in support of those beliefs. Some of the peopleI disagree with are people for whom I have tremendous respect, and I do not by any means consider myself better than are involved in this discussion and disagree with me. On this board, Bob Cassidy is the foremost example. A vastly intelligent man with extensive and wide-ranging life experience; his viewpoints are not to be dismissed lightly. (Then again, they are not to be accepted blindly, but I don’t think he has ever asked anyone to do that.) IAIN, who started this thread, falls into that category. Some of his positions frustrate me to no end because I cannot fathom how he arrived at them, but IAIN is a very smart fellow and a generous man, so I remind myself that regardless if I can fathom his reasons or not, he does have them. So I try (but I don't always succeed) to pull the emotion of my posts. [An aside: If I do let emotion get into my posts, or toss a small epithet your way, it is most likely because I respect you. In real life, I have had my most raucous, profanity-laden, insult-generating arguments with my peers I respect the most. We each knew the other could take it, and we each knew that we really weren't trying to win with the joking insults; they were the trappings to make it fun.] All of that long build up has served merely to get me to my relatively short point: What is the specific claim, and what is the specific evidence in support of it? My rather sweeping statement of disbelief in psychics and the paranormal really has no value. Likewise, the statement that psychics and the paranormal exist really has no value, either. Similarly with religion, to which at least one poster has on this thread likened science. Ask me if I believe in God and I will ask you which one and how you define it. I find the discussion of specifics to be not only the most entertaining aspect of this topic (usually, sometimes I feel just like having a rousing argument over a beer, with nothing serious intended or taken). I also think it is the one most likely to produce common ground because it does not rest on the destruction or support of a belief system, merely the evidence (or lack of evidence) for one particular claim. If I, as a non-believer, convince you that the evidence in support of Charlie The Street Corner Levitator is seriously lacking, a believer can agree without abandoning the belief that some Levitator somewhere is real. Conversely, if a believer convinces me that James Randi is a snake-oil-dealing profiteer, I can agree with you without having to suddenly embrace All Claims Paranormal. Of course, at some point, if we’re serious, we would have to get into standards of evidence and whether lack of an explanation justifies a conclusion of paranormality, but that’s down the road a bit. I’m rambling. I’ve had to stop composing this post several times for real world issues, so I’ll end it here without covering all the points I had hoped. Perhaps I’ll find time to get back to them if anyone is interested. For now, I’ll repeat my point: What is the specific claim, and what is the specific evidence in support of it? Cheers and good discussions to all. |
|||||||||
dmkraig Inner circle 1949 Posts |
Quote:
On 2011-10-03 13:32, Sean Giles wrote: Ah. When someone stands up to pseudo-skeptics you take your ball and go home. Okay. |
|||||||||
mastermindreader 1949 - 2017 Seattle, WA 12586 Posts |
Garrette-
I sure hope no one blindly accepts anything I say! If only everyone, regardless of viewpoint, was as reasonable as you. But just so my position is understood - I am an agnostic in just about every area of life, religion and philosophy. I think that my good friend, the late Marcello Truzzi, exemplified the spirit of true skepticism. And, like him, I believe that psi is a subject worthy of investigation, regardless of where that investigation may take us. At the moment, as I said in an earlier post, I believe that the evidence (meta-analysis of the results of psi experiments done over the last century, the Ganzfeld research and the curious sheep/goat anomaly, inter alia), provides compelling evidence that thoroughly justifies further research. Good thoughts, Bob |
|||||||||
RSD Special user Toronto, Ontario 534 Posts |
CHEAP PLUG ALERT!:I am going to be back on that same show hypnotizing one of the shows's personalities Wednesday morning at 9a EST. Give it a listen!
|
|||||||||
RileyG Special user Las Vegas 840 Posts |
Quote:
On 2011-10-04 00:23, mastermindreader wrote: So true my Brother.... From the one Randi and others in the 90's loved to hate... |
|||||||||
Garrette Special user 926 Posts |
Quote: Why you lousy no good....... how DARE you......grumble grumble grumble...
On 2011-10-04 00:23, mastermindreader wrote: Sorry. The Sooper Sekrit Society of Skeptics makes me take Curmudgeon pills; I can't help it. I think I already understood that about you, Bob, though it is my impression that you also lean to the believer side of that gray area which is agnosticism. Regarding the sheep/goat effect, it's been a few years since I've delved deeply into it that, and I don't have anything easily to hand, but I recall that when I did review the literature that the claim of its existence was lacking. (To be honest, I read only a little of the actual literature; mostly I read reviews/summaries of the literature by science writers and such). It's a fascinating topic and one that would be fun to discuss. Regarding whether or not the paranormal deserves to be investigated, my position is more middle ground. Actually, I think most people's are more middle ground, including both camps on this thread, but the emotion tends to push each side to express themselves more starkly than they intend. I have no issue with research into the paranormal. I do, however, think that such research is incumbent upon those who are interested in it to perform. I haven't seen it specifically on this thread, but I have frequently seen paranormal supporters bemoan the fact that a specific scientist or a specific group has not conducted such-and-such research. I have little regard for that position. No one is stopping anyone from conducting such research. Gary Schwartz got an entire lab at the University of Arizona for such research. He has squandered that advantage with woefully inept studies riddled with holes that would earn an undergraduate a failing grade. And lest anyone think I'm blowing smoke about being interested, I am at the tail end of my membership with the Society for Psychical Research. I am debating whether to extend that membership. I joined for two reasons: (1) Gain access to the historical record regarding the most famous investigations in the haydays of spiritualism, and (2) See what research is currently out there and read the primary material. What I have found is disappointingly flawed, though dressed in the language of science and cloaked with a veneer of academic respectability. I am looking now at the July 2011 issue of "Paranormal Review." It contains a short article entitled "Precognition and the Daryl Bem Furore" (sic). It dismisses the criticisms of Bem's experiments by ignoring their substance. Likewise the April 2011 issues of the "Journal of the Society for Psychical Research" opens with an article called "Possible Thermodynamic Limits to Anomalous Cognition: Entropy Gradients." It is a prime example of circular reasoning, special pleading, and what appears obviously to me to be willful obfuscation. It is all written to appear very academic, and it includes the requisite number crunching, but it is a hollow piece of writing. (To be up front, I am by no means a mathematician or statistician beyond being a well-read layman, so I cannot fairly critique most of the number crunching). My frustration is that people who submit such articles submit such articles. The design and conduct of proper experiments to determine the veracity of a specific claim is not--relatively speaking--all that difficult. The people with the interest to conduct such experiments apparently exist. Why, then, do they spend their time on such things as Entropy Gradients instead? Ah, well. Off to work. No idea when I can post again. Cheers. |
|||||||||
Garrette Special user 926 Posts |
Quote: I strongly advise against the cheap plugs. Sometimes they get stuck or even break off. Pay a few bucks extra and enjoy it.
On 2011-10-04 01:30, RSD wrote: |
|||||||||
Garrette Special user 926 Posts |
To add to my post two before this one: I forgot to mention Ganzfeld which Bob referenced. It is interesting, but it is also flawed, and when one digs into the writings, even the authors admit, in their formal publications, that it does not demonstrate anything paranormal. I'm not trying to quash further research; if someone wants to do that, then fine, but I don't think using Ganzfeld as justification holds much water.
|
|||||||||
mastermindreader 1949 - 2017 Seattle, WA 12586 Posts |
A major problem I have with some skeptics is that many of them assume, before the fact, that experimental evidence in favor of psi must always be flawed in some way. That was the mind-set demonstrated in the sTarbaby affair (which, while it involved planetary alignments rather than psi per se, nonetheless illustrates my point).
Good thoughts, Bob |
|||||||||
kambiz Inner circle Perth, down by the cool of the pool 1129 Posts |
P.s there is only one God.....(no matter what name you wish to call Him)
Kam
If I speak forth, many a mind will shatter,
And if I write, many a pen will break. .....and when I consider my own self, lo, I find it coarser than clay! |
|||||||||
Garrette Special user 926 Posts |
Quote: If you consider this part of a discussion of the paranormal, I will be glad to discuss it with you. But first I would ask that you define God, please.
On 2011-10-04 08:10, kambiz wrote: |
|||||||||
Garrette Special user 926 Posts |
Quote: No doubt, and I have to admit that I tend to do that, too. In my defense, and I suppose at least partly in defense of other skeptics, I do base that assumption on years and years of looking closely into such claims and finding that they have always come up short (the ones I've looked at). Further, though I make that assumption when I hear of it, I set the assumption aside when I begin to look at the claim analytically.
On 2011-10-04 06:33, mastermindreader wrote: I would also add that the problem is symmetrical. I have run into very many believers (I'm not trying to use that term derisively; if there is another you can suggest, I'm all ears) who assume that all such claims are true until positively proven false. |
|||||||||
kambiz Inner circle Perth, down by the cool of the pool 1129 Posts |
Quote:
On 2011-10-04 10:19, Garrette wrote: God is an Infinite, and my finite mind can never adequately define an Infinite, so I cannot define Him for you, sorry. The best that I can do is offer you the Symbols of His existence for your study, the most recent in existence being The Bab and Baha'u'llah. No serious skeptic against the validity of religion as a potent force in the search for the Absolute Truth in the matters pertaining to the visible and invisible universe can be considered a genuine investigator of the truth without having studied the Writings and the lives of these two unique, never before seen on the face of this planet, Individuals. (in my humble opinion) Can you define paranormal? ...and what about a definition of "normal"? Kam
If I speak forth, many a mind will shatter,
And if I write, many a pen will break. .....and when I consider my own self, lo, I find it coarser than clay! |
|||||||||
Garrette Special user 926 Posts |
Kambiz,
I am familiar with the Bahai' faith (though hardly an expert on it). I have read some of the translated writings of both The Bab and Bahaullah. (I've got a fair bit of wide-ranging life experience, too, if I do say so myself). What I have read is not evidentiary, merely extolling. Can you point me to something specific that you consider evidence for the existence of God? Further, since you cannot define God, how do you support your claim that there is only One? The Norse defined Odin fairly clearly. Is that the same as your God? In answer to your question: No, I cannot define paranormal in any fashion that has distinct merit in regard to furthering this discussion. That is why I said before that such statements (from both skeptics and believers) are without value. It is also why I asked the question about the specific claim and the specific evidence for it. I'm afraid that "God exists and he is undefinable and there is only one" is not really a specific claim. |
|||||||||
kambiz Inner circle Perth, down by the cool of the pool 1129 Posts |
Garrette, PM'd you with what I consider evidence.
Kam
If I speak forth, many a mind will shatter,
And if I write, many a pen will break. .....and when I consider my own self, lo, I find it coarser than clay! |
|||||||||
Garrette Special user 926 Posts |
Got it. As I said in my reply, the two links are lengthy, so I may not be able to look at them in depth for a while, but I will when I get the chance.
|
|||||||||
mastermindreader 1949 - 2017 Seattle, WA 12586 Posts |
Quote:
Garrett wrote: No doubt, but that is because they are naive and/or gullible. Your surely not suggesting a symmetry there as well? Good thoughts, Bob |
|||||||||
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Penny for your thoughts » » James Randi Educational Foundation (0 Likes) | ||||||||||
Go to page [Previous] 1~2~3~4~5~6~7 [Next] |
[ Top of Page ] |
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2024 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved. This page was created in 0.08 seconds requiring 5 database queries. |
The views and comments expressed on The Magic Café are not necessarily those of The Magic Café, Steve Brooks, or Steve Brooks Magic. > Privacy Statement < |