PDA

View Full Version : What is "paranormal"?


Pages : 1 [2]

devilsknew
10-24-2004, 11:48 PM
As for F. David Peat, he lost me when he lamented: "It is unfortunate that our leading physicists of today are less open minded!"

Hah! Well, that's ironic and loosely synchronistic or perhaps intentional on your part (But only you would know truthfully whether you have just had a paranormal experience as they are sometimes characterized by subjectivity.), as your instant dismissal and close mindedness is exactly his point!

In context: [QUOTE=F. David Peat]The idea of synchronicity evolved after a long period of gestation, a time in which Jung appears to have been concerned not only with structure and dynamics of the unconscious but also with the nature of time and causality. Indeed, for a psychologist, Jung had many contacts with the leading physicists of the day, not only the well publicized collaboration with Wolfgang Pauli but also discussions and exchanges with Einstein, Heisenberg, Pascual Jordan and Markus Fierz. (It is unfortunate that our leading physicists of today are less open minded!)[QUOTE]

SnakeSpirit
10-25-2004, 01:34 AM
Heck, if PSI is real, one would expect a psychic of sufficient power would have stepped forward by now and said "I have special abilities, and I don't care how many doubters and skeptics are in the room with me. I'll show them!" As long as psychics use a conveniently untestable claim ("Doubt is disrupting my abilities") to explain away their failures, I don't see how their abilities could ever be proven.
Expressed or implied doubt is widely recognized as a form of suggestion.

If PSI is real it will manifest the way it will manifest, and probably not adhere to your faily-tale expectations, since it hasn't so far.

You're post is so hypocritical! If you don't believe in PSI, how can you assume how it will manifest? (Not that that stops you!) But we've been through that before, and your response is obscurantism and running away.

And you have already demonstrated that you see only what you want to see and dismiss or ridicule anything that doesn't adhere to your narrow world-view.

If PSI is real, it will show up how it shows up, and believe me, it will not be asking for permission of "The Amazing Randi" or Bryan Ekers to do so.

You act like an educated person, but you make too many leaps of logic and too many assumptions ("If PSI was real, it would do thus and such...") that a truly educated person would avoid.

Are you just a poser?

SnakeSpirit
10-25-2004, 01:40 AM
As for F. David Peat, he lost me when he lamented: "It is unfortunate that our leading physicists of today are less open minded!"
Guess the shoe fit! At least in the second category.

Bryan Ekers
10-25-2004, 01:56 AM
Hah! Well, that's ironic and loosely synchronistic or perhaps intentional on your part (But only you would know truthfully whether you have just had a paranormal experience as they are sometimes characterized by subjectivity.), as your instant dismissal and close mindedness is exactly his point!

It's a lifetime of conditioning, I'm afraid. When I hear someone demand that scientists be more "open minded", I get suspicious immediately, as pleas for open-mindedness when it comes to PSI are, upon examination, actually requests for a lower standard of evidence. If PSI could generate a measurable, repeatable effect, you wouldn't need to tell phsycists to be open-minded; they'd already be analyzing the heck out of it and trying to replicate it on their own.

Of Peat's four examples of "synchronicity", three involve dreams and one is about a cartoonish slapstick coincidence. If that's the best he can offer, then I find him unconvincing, Jung-invoking notwithstanding.

Bryan Ekers
10-25-2004, 02:06 AM
Expressed or implied doubt is widely recognized as a form of suggestion.

Define "implied", please. Is the mere presense of Randi even if he says nothing enough "implied" doubt to throw a psychic off his game?

If PSI is real it will manifest the way it will manifest, and probably not adhere to your faily-tale expectations, since it hasn't so far. ... If you don't believe in PSI, how can you assume how it will manifest?

As far as I know, PSI hasn't manifested, period, so all bets are off.

But we've been through that before, and your response is obscurantism and running away.

I hate running (I have bad ankles), and my "bad faith" accusation stands because you're still dismissing my earlier explanatory posts without addressing a single point contained within them. I simply believe that you will keep calling me evasive because you have no other response, nor an interest in forming one.

If PSI is real, it will show up how it shows up, and believe me, it will not be asking for permission of "The Amazing Randi" or Bryan Ekers to do so.

I'm not demanding PSI ask permission. I want PSI to manifest. I'd love to see PSI manifest. I just don't like con-artists.

You act like an educated person, but you make too many leaps of logic and too many assumptions ("If PSI was real, it would do thus and such...") that a truly educated person would avoid.

Well, a TRULY educated person might've given up trying to respond to you by now, but fortunately, I'm dogged. My stance isn't quite "If PSI was real, it would do thus and such...", but rather "If PSI could do what proponents claim, it should be also able to do thus and such..."

Are you just a poser?

*flexes my rippling muscles, then sighs at less-than-impressive image in mirror*

Nope.

SnakeSpirit
10-25-2004, 02:21 AM
My stance isn't quite "If PSI was real, it would do thus and such...", but rather "If PSI could do what proponents claim, it should be also able to do thus and such..."
Then what you say can't be trusted?

What a surprise. It's what I've been pointing out for the last several pages.

So then, on to your *new* *improved* position....

which proponents? All of them? One of them? A select few?

Who does the selecting?

Since you keep avoiding questions, and now changing parameters, your posts seem to indicate that you evidently don't want to look bad. You can't seem to admit to mistake, even to yourself (or maybe you do realize it, but are afraid to let anyone else know.

A poser changes what e does in order to look good, to fit in. They have no internal integrity, they simply seek acceptance of their current peer group.

Bryan Ekers
10-25-2004, 02:39 AM
Then what you say can't be trusted?

If you don't want to trust what I say, that's your right.

Since you keep avoiding questions
And if you don't want to adress what I've said, that's your right, too.

You can't seem to admit to mistake, even to yourself (or maybe you do realize it, but are afraid to let anyone else know.

You can't even say for sure that what I've said is is a mistake, becuase we're debating aspects of something not known for certain to exist. We may as well be debating the finer points of law on the planet Nemulon Four. I can just re-iterate what I've already said, and it's up to you to accept it or not:

Claiming that spectator doubt ruins PSI performance is a convenient excuse to cover fakery. The mechanism by which spectator doubt might ruin real PSI performance (if such a thing exists) is unclear. Even in the presence of doubt, people manage to perform remarkable non-PSI tasks. I can see no reason why a sufficiently focussed psychic, if his powers are real, should not be able to perform in the presense of watchful spectators who are seeking fraud. If the psychic knows there is no fraud, how could the mere presence of doubt be so shattering to the confidence that PSI abilties completely fade?

A poser changes what e does in order to look good, to fit in. They have no internal integrity, they simply seek acceptance of their current peer group.

By that definition I am like unto the Pet Rock and quite non-posable.

SnakeSpirit
10-25-2004, 02:48 AM
Even in the presence of doubt, people manage to perform remarkable non-PSI tasks.
And also, often, in the presence of doubt people fail to perform even unremarkable non-psi tasks which they have successfully performed before.

I can see no reason why a sufficiently focussed psychic, if his powers are real, should not be able to perform in the presense of watchful spectators who are seeking fraud.
That's because none are so blind as those who will not see.
You only see what you want to see.

If the psychic knows there is no fraud, how could the mere presence of doubt be so shattering to the confidence that PSI abilties completely fade?
That is so stupid as to not deserve an answer.

Bryan Ekers
10-25-2004, 03:13 AM
I'm tempted to start singing "Bad faith, bad faith, what you gonna do? What you gonna do when they come for you?"

In any case, I'll try to resist the urge to repeat it again. Even though it's correct, the repetition alone might make me start to sound like... well... you.

And also, often, in the presence of doubt people fail to perform even unremarkable non-psi tasks which they have successfully performed before.

And also, often, in the presence of doubt people succeed in performing unremarkable tasks which they have successfully performed before. Geller has bent so many spoons that he's had about five thousand of them welded onto a 1976 Cadillac (http://www.uri-geller.com/articles/car/geller-effect.htm). Doesn't this suggest that for Geller, spoon-bending is pretty damn unremarkable? So why can't he do this oft-performed stunt in the presense of Randi, or even the relatively affable Johnny Carson?

If the psychic knows there is no fraud, how could the mere presence of doubt be so shattering to the confidence that PSI abilties completely fade? That is so stupid as to not deserve an answer.

Well, the correct answer is that the psychic should suffer no loss of confidence at all, if he believes his abilities are real. Heck, if someone tells me I can't do something, or just sits there implying I can't do something, and I know in fact I can do something, I not only do it, I make a point of doing it extra-casually and nonchalantly. "Doubt me, will you? HAHAHAHA-haaaaaaaa....! LOO-zer!"

Early Out
10-25-2004, 03:44 AM
I can tell the difference between believing in the possibility of something that is unproven...You still haven't even tried, despite repeated requests, to explain how you go about deciding which unproven things you're willing to consider possible, and which you're not. It's quite obvious from your posts that there are some things you believe in, and some you don't. Since there's no empirical evidence for any of them, you must be categorizing them in some other way. How do you make the distinction between psi and the Tooth Fairy? Why is one any more or less believable than the other? Why don't you dedicate yourself to an examination of what's making children's teeth disappear from under their pillows? Sure, we know that their parents are usually doing it, but isn't it possible that it's the Tooth Fairy who's responsible for at least a few of the cases? Are you going to do some research into this? Why not?

This is where the SnakeSpirits and Aeschines of the world puzzle me. Sure, it's possible that psi exists. It's possible that people have been abducted by aliens. But it's equally possible that there are aliens from Venus living in my middle desk drawer. There's no evidence for any of them. This puts all of these things into the same category - too improbable to warrant more than the briefest consideration.

Yet the "believers" avidly pursue one or two of these wildly improbable things, but ignore the others. How do they decide which phantom to chase?

If you're "open to every possibility," how do you get out of bed in the morning? After all, the bedroom floor might have been replaced overnight by a bottomless pit of molten lava. Is this possible? No? How narrow-minded of you to dismiss this possibility out of hand! You need to be more "skeptical" (using SnakeSpirit's own, rather odd, definition of the word). Better make sure before putting your feet down. Is it possible that, even though you're seeing the floor, and not molten lava, that it really is molten lava, but you're being prevented from seeing it by some unknown force? Now what do you do?

Uncritical acceptance of all possibilities, no matter how improbable, is intellectually crippling - if carried to its logical conclusion, it's physically crippling, as well.

SnakeSpirit
10-25-2004, 06:10 AM
And also, often, in the presence of doubt people succeed in performing unremarkable tasks which they have successfully performed before. Geller has bent so many spoons that he's had about five thousand of them welded onto a 1976 Cadillac (http://www.uri-geller.com/articles/car/geller-effect.htm). Doesn't this suggest that for Geller, spoon-bending is pretty damn unremarkable? So why can't he do this oft-performed stunt in the presense of Randi, or even the relatively affable Johnny Carson?
I don't follow Geller. All I know about him is what people have posted here and what I've read in the Targ & Puthoff report. I've always been skeptical about him. What's necessary in his case is more rigerous, well-controlled testing, with better controls. Failing a test in front of Randi or on TV only means he failed a test. Whoop-te-do.

Well, the correct answer is that the psychic should suffer no loss of confidence at all, if he believes his abilities are real.
What, psychics aren't human? Any human is subject to doubt, at any time. Any human can lose confidence in themselves. Happens all the time. Famous, accomplished athletes have a disturbing experience and go off their game, or get psyched out by their opponant

With every post you show more and more how ignorant and assumptive you are.

SnakeSpirit
10-25-2004, 07:07 AM
Uncritical acceptance of all possibilities, no matter how improbable, is intellectually crippling - if carried to its logical conclusion, it's physically crippling, as well.
Which is why I don't engage in it. I question everything. I assume nothing.

Years ago, I had a dream, a very wierd dream in which I went to my girlfriend's house.

She invited me in, kissed me, then said, "Come into the living room, there's somone I want you to meet."

We went into the living room and an Inian man sat here in his boxer shorts, reading a newspaper. She said, "Ed, this is Robbie, a friend of my brothers." He moved the newspaper to hold it in his lfet hand, half rose and extended his hand to shake mine. We shook hands, exchanged pleasantries, and we left the living room.

My gilfriend then asked if I was hungry, to which I replied affirmatively, and she said, "Come on, I'll make you a ham sandwich." as we headed toward the kitchen.

I've been writing down all my dreams for a very long time, and when I woke I wrote it down and thought no more about it.

Three days later I went to my girlfriend's house and the entire scene unfolded exactly as I had dreamed it. Everything. From Robbie in his boxers, reading the newspaper in the living room down to the ham sandwich. Exactly. It was on the way into the kitchen that I recalled the dream (which had ended at that spot).

When I went back home I checked the dream, just to be sure it was exact.

How could I doubt, or explain away that this had occurred? I had the dated written record. I had the witness of my girlfriend. Something unusual happened. I didn't then and I don't now jump to conclusions about what it is, but I cannot deny that it is any more than I can deny the floor under my feet.

And that's how I decide, out. In this case I toss it into the "real, but unknown origin" bin, to be researched as time allows.

Was it just an amazing coincidence? Not at that level of detail, and not when it occurred several other times, and each time had the three-day gap between dream and occurrance.

Some people have deja vu. Likely they don't write down their dreams, either. Few people do. Maybe the same thing is happening to them as well.

I don't know what it was, but I know it's 'real.'

I know this probably doesn't fit into your experience of reality, so, in order to maintain your sanity you have to either call me a liar, or say I'm mistaken somehow, tell me how memory plays tricks on us, invoke Occam and his handy little razor, call me names, like "woo-woo." Anything, desperately, to maintain your narrow world view.

"There are more things in Heaven and Earth, Horatio, then are dreamt of in our philosophies."

So I allow for possibilities.

I've had a few encounters with the unknown that have stood the test of investigation and time. Our science has been unable to provide more than speculation. I don't jump to the conclusion that I'm psychic, or that I can tell the future; all I know is that it happened.

I don't think I'm psychic. Or at least I don't believe I'm more psychic than anyone else. I can't re-create this experience on demand; it hasn't happened extremely often. I've investigated it as much as I can, shared it with researchers (we agreed, testing it would be prohibatively expensive), put up with real woo-woo explanations from some folks I can only assume are either deluded or... well, something. I've even had several unsatisfying several-hour-long conversations with accomplished theoretical physicists about the nature of time and the possibilities of perception -- it went way over my head.

I can already imagine the responses I'm going to get here. Everything from a know-it-all, "It's simple you imagined it." to a dumb, "It didn't happen." and everything in between. Then some folks who will try to poke holes in it, believing if they invalidate one point ("ah, but did you eat the sandwich?") that the whole thing falls apart.

Most PSI is like that. It happens, it's gone, you can't recreate it. That's the PSI I accept the possibility of, not the nonsense that Bryan comes up with.

That's the PSI I allow for, he PSI I research, the PSI I believe we will some day be able to explain, the PSI I keep my mind open to.

Ekers can go play with his spoon theory and deny the effectiveness of doubt as a way of disproving PSI. More and more he shows his ignorance, and his arrogance.

There's an old, old saying:
"The man who thinks he knows everything is really the one who knows nothing, for in assuming he knows all the answers, he cuts himself off from learning, growth, and ultimately life." Those are my detractors.

And what about you, out? Do you reject the possibility of PSI with a religious fervor simply because you haven't experienced it, and it can't be easily placed under a microscope? Or do you allow that there maybe are some things that you do not know yet.

Think carefully.

SnakeSpirit

SentientMeat
10-25-2004, 07:28 AM
May I ask what exactly you wrote down, Snake? I have had experiences myself which have conformed closely to past dreams, but I came to realise that I was projecting specific real-life details into the dream-memories, which were actually far more vague than the supposed real-life situation which followed them. Meeting an Indian friend of your partner called Robbie might well crop up in a dream if you had a priori learned that an Indian guy called Robbie was somehow part of your partner's life. The specific details like the ham sandwich, boxer shorts and newspaper might not have been written down but instead projected by you in precisely the same manner as in that research on false memories (http://faculty.washington.edu/eloftus/Articles/sciam.htm) I alluded to in another thread.

We all entertain possibilities, Snake. I am asking you to entertain the possibility that what you dreamed did not happen in real life: that there were only passing similarities and that your mind has "filled in the blanks" a posteriori.

Early Out
10-25-2004, 07:31 AM
I question everything. I assume nothing.I still have to wonder how you get out of bed in the morning. I'm glad to see that you freely admit to what you're doing, in any event.And what about you, out? Do you reject the possibility of PSI with a religious fervor simply because you haven't experienced it, and it can't be easily placed under a microscope? Or do you allow that there maybe are some things that you do not know yet.As I've said before, I don't reject the possibility. But until someone demonstrates, under controlled conditions, that there's anything even remotely unusual happening, I assign it to the "too improbable to warrant consideration" category. Along with the Tooth Fairy, for the same reason. Do you accept that the Tooth Fairy might be real? If not, why not? Are you going to spend some time researching the question?Think carefully.I always do.

I can't really comment on your ham sandwich story, because all we really have is an unverifiable anecdote. And that's precisely the problem with all of the "seekers" who want to spend time and money pursuing psi, remote viewing, ghosts, alien abductions, etc., etc. All we ever get are unverifiable anecdotes. The accumulated non-evidence leads inexorably to the "bunk" conclusion.

SnakeSpirit
10-25-2004, 09:00 AM
Do you accept that the Tooth Fairy might be real? If not, why not?
For years I've been the tooth fairy.

You are free to believe what you wish out, but don't try to shove it down my throat! I'm not trying to do that to you.

Truce?

SnakeSpirit
10-25-2004, 09:05 AM
May I ask what exactly you wrote down, Snake? I have had experiences myself which have conformed closely to past dreams, but I came to realise that I was projecting specific real-life details into the dream-memories, which were actually far more vague than the supposed real-life situation which followed them. Meeting an Indian friend of your partner called Robbie might well crop up in a dream if you had a priori learned that an Indian guy called Robbie was somehow part of your partner's life. The specific details like the ham sandwich, boxer shorts and newspaper might not have been written down but instead projected by you in precisely the same manner as in that research on false memories (http://faculty.washington.edu/eloftus/Articles/sciam.htm) I alluded to in another thread.

We all entertain possibilities, Snake. I am asking you to entertain the possibility that what you dreamed did not happen in real life: that there were only passing similarities and that your mind has "filled in the blanks" a posteriori.
That was one of my first considerations. It didn't hold. I had never heard of Robbie; didn't know he existed. The details match was exact. First dreamed, then written down in detail, then experienced, then checked back.

But sure, meat you just go explain it away, like anything else that doesn't fit.

Early Out
10-25-2004, 09:24 AM
For years I've been the tooth fairy.

You are free to believe what you wish out, but don't try to shove it down my throat! I'm not trying to do that to you.

Truce?Not until you answer that very simple question. Do you believe that there really is a Tooth Fairy out there (one who is NOT simply the parent of the child)? Do you not think that there's a possibility of this? You've said you don't rule out any possibilities. How about this one? After all, we have the testimony of millions upon millions of children who can tell you that they left a tooth under the pillow, and in the morning, there was cash there in its place.

What's being shoved down your throat, in this instance, are your own words. How do they taste?

SentientMeat
10-25-2004, 09:26 AM
But sure, meat you just go explain it away, like anything else that doesn't fit.I am seeking information on which to base my determination of the most likely explanation. Would it be possible for you to transcribe here, verbatim, what you wrote immediately after the dream? (Of course, only you could know if you were telling the truth in this respect.)

Bryan Ekers
10-25-2004, 01:13 PM
What, psychics aren't human? Any human is subject to doubt, at any time. Any human can lose confidence in themselves. Happens all the time. Famous, accomplished athletes have a disturbing experience and go off their game, or get psyched out by their opponant

I think the problem here is that apparantly to psychics, it does happen all the time. I don't know of a single case where the psychic could perform adequately in the prescence of a watchful skeptic. If professional athletes had records like this, all games would end in zero-zero ties. From this, the only safe conclusions are:

PSI is bullshit.
PSI is like some ultra-delicate hothouse orchid that withers under the slightest breeze or ray of errant sunshine, and can only be observed from a distance by people who hold their breath, lest they cause it to slip away from looking at it too hard and making it shy.

When I say PSI shouldn't be affected, it's with the understanding that even though doubt exists, athletes prevail quite often and there is no reason why a psychic, assuming his claimed abilities are real, can't do the same.

SnakeSpirit
10-25-2004, 04:46 PM
Not until you answer that very simple question. Do you believe that there really is a Tooth Fairy out there (one who is NOT simply the parent of the child)? Do you not think that there's a possibility of this? You've said you don't rule out any possibilities. How about this one? After all, we have the testimony of millions upon millions of children who can tell you that they left a tooth under the pillow, and in the morning, there was cash there in its place.

What's being shoved down your throat, in this instance, are your own words. How do they taste?
No. I have rigerously investigated the case of the tooth fairy and have found that it is an admitted fraud perpetrated by parents on innocent children. In those cases where the subject (child) has insisted on the truthfulness, careful questioning of the parents reveals the fraud. In cases where parents (or their substitutes) are unavailable, no tooth is removed, and no coins are left.

Individual cases have been found where money has been left under the pillow and the tooth has not been retrieved.

But that's OK, you can keep believing. It doesn't hurt anyone for you to have your beliefs.

SnakeSpirit
10-25-2004, 05:02 PM
I am seeking information on which to base my determination of the most likely explanation. Would it be possible for you to transcribe here, verbatim, what you wrote immediately after the dream? (Of course, only you could know if you were telling the truth in this respect.)
Oh it's very possible.
If I believed in your veracity, I wouldn't hesitate. Even though I don't recall you deliberately trashing me recently (in fact, in the pit you seemed quite restrained), I think you can understand my hesitance, as I think we have had nasty run-in's before. You're certainly not on my "buddy" list. And I hope you can appreciate the amount of work this would involve for me.
I'd have to go digging through my storage area to find that yearbook dated 1971, (or was it 1970? or '72?) and flip through the 365 pages (each) till I found the right one.
And what's the payback? What do I get out of it?
I transcribe it and you bring it into question anyway? (as you indicate above?)

In any case, I'm not going to do it here, in the pit.

How serious are you? And what are your motives?

SnakeSpirit
10-25-2004, 05:05 PM
I think the problem here is that apparantly to psychics, it does happen all the time.
You're not referring to psychics, but to those who are pretending to be psychics.

And yes, there is a difference.

Early Out
10-25-2004, 05:55 PM
No. I have rigerously [sic] investigated the case of the tooth fairy and have found that it is an admitted fraud perpetrated by parents on innocent children.Now we're getting somewhere. So you've totally dismissed the possibility that in at least a few cases, out of millions, it might actually be something miraculous taking place. You've closed your mind to this, right? So how much "rigorous investigation" of psi will be required before we're allowed to conclude that it's all either a fraud or simple confusion? Are several decades' worth of controlled experiments that have produced no reproducable or statistically significant results enough? How long do we have to go on studying?But that's OK, you can keep believing. It doesn't hurt anyone for you to have your beliefs.This is the kind of schtick that makes other posters get very, very tired of you. It's intellectually dishonest, it's not clever, and it's not persuasive. You know full well that I'm not advocating belief in the Tooth Fairy. I'm trying to illustrate how your approach to "paranormal" activity can't rule out the truth of the Tooth Fairy. I believe this reveals why your approach is absurd, because it leads to absurd results. Stop pulling this childish stunt. It's played.

Early Out
10-25-2004, 06:00 PM
You're not referring to psychics, but to those who are pretending to be psychics.

And yes, there is a difference.No, there isn't. There has never been any evidence produced under controlled conditions that anyone has any psychic powers.

There are two categories of psychic: outright frauds, and those who point at the occasional coincidence (and the laws of probability tell us that sometimes, remarkable coincidences will occur), and say, "See, I'm psychic!" The phrase "real psychic" is an oxymoron.

SnakeSpirit
10-25-2004, 06:11 PM
Beam me up, Scotty. No sign of intelligent life here.

Early Out
10-25-2004, 06:14 PM
Unable to support his contradictory positions, and unable to support his bald assertions, SnakeSpirit runs away.

Bryan Ekers
10-25-2004, 07:07 PM
In any case, I'm not going to do it here, in the pit. ... Beam me up, Scotty. No sign of intelligent life here.

I know your reality is flexible, Snake, but this isn't the Pit (at least, not yet), so I daresay that last bit, unoriginal and hackneyed though it was, constitutes a violation of the GD "no insult" rule.

Musicat
10-25-2004, 10:32 PM
I have rigerously investigated the case of the tooth fairy and have found that it is an admitted fraud perpetrated by parents on innocent children. In those cases where the subject (child) has insisted on the truthfulness, careful questioning of the parents reveals the fraud. In cases where parents (or their substitutes) are unavailable, no tooth is removed, and no coins are left.Ah, but that's just the cases you know about. Certainly you haven't been able to investigate ALL cases world-wide. Couldn't there be just one case where there is a genuine tooth fairy? We all know that some tooth fairies cheat, but they can't ALL cheat, can they? Just because you have investigated some and found them to be frauds doesn't mean they ALL are, does it? And it only takes one real fairy (no jokes, now) to prove there is a paranormal reason for the tooth fairy myth, right?

To make a point, all the following quotes are from Snakespirit, verbatim, from posts in this thread. Except: items in curly braces {} represent words changed from the original paranormal term to "the tooth fairy":
Maybe we've been asking the wrong question. Perhaps instead of "does {the tooth fairy} exist?" we should be asking, "Why doesn't everyone experience it?Plus, we still do not know enough about {the tooth fairy} or its mechanisms to say that it violates that so-called law of physics... Some people lump all paranormal phenomenon together: is {the tooth fairy}, remote viewing, psychometric detection, astral projection and the like all caused by the same principle? The only thing that's consistant is that it all operates in some unknown manner.Some brave souls must, as long as anecdotal evidence continues to remain unexplained, swim against the tide and do research, however they can, to determine what if anything, is causing this phenomenon. To do otherwise is irresponsible. To ridicule those who do research is ignorant bigotry. However, to refine their research techniques (without rejecting their attempts at research) is good science.Almost every principle we have come to accept as "science" began somewhere as anecdotal evidence. It was thereafter, usually through lots of trial and error and subsequent rigerous research, that the principles became accepted.
Some anecdotal evidence is more easily explained than others. Anything can be "explained away" by pointing to a similar situation which proved false. But that proves nothing.How can you claim that doubt, a form of suggestion, could not affect {tooth fairy} performance?There's a truckload of published results out there which show results that consistantly perform significantly beyond chance. It's not enough to get all science jumping on the {tooth fairy} bandwagon, but enough to warrant continued research. Granted, I don't know of any reliable research which positively demonstrates any of the proposed theories of {the tooth fairy}, but that's putting the cart before the horse; we have evidence that things happen which are unexplainable in our current scientific model. Many of the claims can be attributed to understandable factors. Many can not. If you don't want to sort them out, no problem, no one is asking you to. There are already plenty of folk working on it. Let them be. If they come up with something, subject it to rigerous scrutiny, if you wish. I will.And I guess you just did. Q.E.D. :D

SentientMeat
10-26-2004, 03:45 AM
Oh it's very possible.
If I believed in your veracity, I wouldn't hesitate. Even though I don't recall you deliberately trashing me recently (in fact, in the pit you seemed quite restrained), I think you can understand my hesitance, as I think we have had nasty run-in's before. You're certainly not on my "buddy" list. If you were to look through very single correspondance we have had with one another, through the paranormal, firearm murder rates, philosophy, religion and politics, I assure you that you will find me as reasonable and respectful as I am now. If I was ever "nasty" I genuinely apologise.
And I hope you can appreciate the amount of work this would involve for me.
I'd have to go digging through my storage area to find that yearbook dated 1971, (or was it 1970? or '72?) and flip through the 365 pages (each) till I found the right one.
And what's the payback? What do I get out of it?
We get to find out whether you really wrote all those details down, or if there is a more convincing neuropsychological explanation. Without the relevant information, my guess is that as you left the kitchen you experienced deja vu (http://neuro.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/abstract/14/1/6). This occurs when the parahippocampal gyrus, which judges "familiarity", briefly treats the incoming sensory input as incredibly familiar (sometimes triggering epilepsy). To explain this malfunction, we think "Wow! I must have dreamed this exact thing!".

These experiences can be incredibly convincing, to the extent that we say to ourselves "if I'd written that dream down exactly, I could prove I could see the future!". But the absolutely essential point is that we didn't write it down (or, at least, whatever dream we correlate it with which we did write down is far more vague than the subsequent event). This is why I'd be very interested to see exactly what you did write down: I suspect the actual entry might surprise you as well.
How serious are you? And what are your motives?Very serious. To understand the entire universe and everything in it, including convincing personal experiences.

SnakeSpirit
10-26-2004, 04:25 PM
Very serious. To understand the entire universe and everything in it, including convincing personal experiences.
If you're really that serious, contact me via email. I'm hardly going to hang around where I'm being abused for sport.
I dropped back in here just for you Meat, so far you got the benefit of the doubt.

E-Sabbath
10-26-2004, 11:01 PM
Huh. 's over.

Early Out
10-26-2004, 11:19 PM
The death knell came here (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=5415452).

Bryan Ekers
10-26-2004, 11:46 PM
The death knell came here (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=5415452).

I'm slightly miffed the Pit thread dedicated to me got closed in the aftermath (I live for attention, you see). I was about to ask tdn what the deal was with the pianos, because no bell is ringing on that kitty.

Early Out
10-27-2004, 12:08 AM
I'm slightly miffed the Pit thread dedicated to me got closed in the aftermath (I live for attention, you see). I was about to ask tdn what the deal was with the pianos, because no bell is ringing on that kitty.It is, surprise of surprises, a Monty Python reference. Go here (http://www.ibras.dk/montypython/episode16.htm), and find "piano." To appreciate it fully, however, you need to be able to hear Graham Chapman's voice in your head, putting on a mock posh accent.