|
|
|
|||
| Go to page [Previous] 1~2~3 | ||||||||||
Jeff J. Special user Connecticut 787 Posts 
|
Quote:
On 2012-06-09 16:30, mastermindreader wrote: Actually, remote viewing began out of fear that the Soviets might have been onto something, so of course the U.s. didn't want to get beaten to the punch. It wasn't defunded because it wasn't paractical for "military purposes". It just wasn't practical for any purposes. I'd love to see one example where it actually helped with anything for any reason (other than a vague crude drawing of someplace near a "body of water" that was able to "fit in to something that was later found by conventional means. Water seems to be a favorite for psychics and remote viewers since 80% of land is either water or near a body of water. Pretty safe bet. |
|||||||||
|
panlives Inner circle 2087 Posts
|
Quote:
On 2012-06-12 12:12, mastermindreader wrote: Another great post. I do not summarily believe or disbelieve in what used to called, "ESP." It is not invalidated simply because we cannot as yet produce it for examination. ESP evades habeas corpus. The double blind studies by Rupert Sheldrake and his team do, however, offer some intriguing data.
"Is there any point to which you would wish to draw my attention?"
"To the curious incident of the dog in the night-time." "The dog did nothing in the night-time." "That was the curious incident," remarked Sherlock Holmes. |
|||||||||
mastermindreader 1949 - 2017 Seattle, WA 12586 Posts
|
Quote:
I agree that by the standards of any other area of science that remote viewing is proven, but begs the question: do we need higher standards of evidence when we study the paranormal? I think we do. (...) if I said that a UFO had just landed, you'd probably want a lot more evidence. Because remote viewing is such an outlandish claim that will revolutionize [sic] the world, we need overwhelming evidence before we draw any conclusions. Right now we don't have that evidence. It wasn't that long ago that skeptics were saying that remote viewing simply did not exist. Currently they have conceded it has been proven by normal standards of science and now are demanding "overwhelming evidence." The research continues. Who knows where it will lead? |
|||||||||
|
Pakar Ilusi Inner circle 5777 Posts
|
What am I wearing?
"Dreams aren't a matter of Chance but a matter of Choice." -DC-
|
|||||||||
S2000magician Inner circle Yorba Linda, CA 3465 Posts
|
Quote:
On 2012-06-13 12:08, Pakar Ilusi wrote: A look of mild skepticism. |
|||||||||
|
Pakar Ilusi Inner circle 5777 Posts
|
Quote:
On 2012-06-13 12:14, S2000magician wrote: Nope. 
"Dreams aren't a matter of Chance but a matter of Choice." -DC-
|
|||||||||
critter Inner circle Spokane, WA 2653 Posts
|
Quote:
On 2012-06-13 12:08, Pakar Ilusi wrote: A silky black negligee and a feather boa.
"The fool is one who doesn't know what you have just found out."
~Will Rogers |
|||||||||
|
Pakar Ilusi Inner circle 5777 Posts
|
Quote:
On 2012-06-13 13:50, critter wrote:  Sorry to disappoint you bro, but... No.
"Dreams aren't a matter of Chance but a matter of Choice." -DC-
|
|||||||||
|
panlives Inner circle 2087 Posts
|
"Against all the opposition in the world, I make this statement — that once I knew a magician. I was a witness of a performance that may some day be considered understandable, but that, in these primitive times, so transcends what is said to be the known that it is what I mean by magic."
- Charles Fort, speaking of a dog's homing skills, in Ch. 27 of his book, "Wild Talents." (1932)
"Is there any point to which you would wish to draw my attention?"
"To the curious incident of the dog in the night-time." "The dog did nothing in the night-time." "That was the curious incident," remarked Sherlock Holmes. |
|||||||||
|
critter Inner circle Spokane, WA 2653 Posts
|
Quote:
On 2012-06-13 13:53, Pakar Ilusi wrote: I was just extrapolating because every time I ask someone on the 900 numbers what they're wearing that's the answer... Uh... I mean... Pizza!
"The fool is one who doesn't know what you have just found out."
~Will Rogers |
|||||||||
|
Jonathan Townsend Eternal Order Ossining, NY 27300 Posts
|
Edited by JT to parse the quote into statments
Quote:
On 2012-06-13 16:41, panlives wrote: Provokative as oratory but painlfully sad as argument First statement is demonstrably false - as there is no opposition to his making a statement or even taking whaterver experience he wishes to report as valid for him From there things get worse for any claims of cogency - as deletions, lost performatives and begged questions blur the prose into poetry. What's with the assertions which move relevance into the reader's imagined unavailable resources (what someone elase saw or felt) or the reader's imagined inaccessable measures?
...to all the coins I've dropped here
|
|||||||||
|
mastermindreader 1949 - 2017 Seattle, WA 12586 Posts
|
Jonathan-
Have you ever read Charles Fort? You realize he was making a poetic reference to the homing skills of a dog? Perfectly natural for the dog. Perfectly magical to a romantic minded human observer. Quote:
From there things get worse for any claims of cogency - as deletions, lost performatives and begged questions blur the prose into poetry. "Lost performatives and begged questions blur the prose into poetry." And you're complaining about claims of cogency? |
|||||||||
|
Jonathan Townsend Eternal Order Ossining, NY 27300 Posts
|
Bob,
That's shorthand to describe the things which are not in his sentences. Of course I like his writing. We're on the same side about most of this. I simply don't play with smoke and mirrors here where it's the other side of the proscenium arch (or mirror) and we're all about how to elicit feelings and perception in others - our audiences. :) J 100 proof cogency flavored with pepermint.
...to all the coins I've dropped here
|
|||||||||
|
Jonathan Townsend Eternal Order Ossining, NY 27300 Posts
|
Quote:
On 2012-06-12 10:55, panlives wrote: Obtained copies of a couple (dogs and watched) and will review in detail - only did a quick skim so far. You might enjoy a course in experimental research. Confidence limits etc. You can but really sould not 'math' meaning and significance into data after the fact, escpecially when the exprerimental designs are flawed... so very flawed.. they may as well be tests of belief and interpretation. 
...to all the coins I've dropped here
|
|||||||||
gdw Inner circle 4884 Posts
|
Quote:
On 2012-06-12 12:12, mastermindreader wrote: I understand your meaning, it's just not the meaning of the word. One can have a position/belief and still remain agnostic.
"You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one."
I won't forget you Robert. |
|||||||||
|
mastermindreader 1949 - 2017 Seattle, WA 12586 Posts
|
It's not MY meaning. It's the meaning Truzzi intended in reference to the state of mind that a true skeptic would have relative to the evaluation of paranormal claims. (As opposed to the a priori rejection characteristic of a pseudo-skeptic or experimenter bias that could influence the evaluation of data by a believer.)
He was not using the word in the same sense as in religious agnosticism. (Where it often has different meanings and connotations- strong agnosticism, weak agnosticism, etc.) |
|||||||||
| The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Not very magical, still... » » One Influential Scientist's Quixotic Mission to Prove ESP Exists (0 Likes) | ||||||||||
| Go to page [Previous] 1~2~3 | ||||||||||
Posted: Jun 12, 2012 11:03 pm 
| [ Top of Page ] |
|
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2024 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved. This page was created in 0.04 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 < 
|