Oh my. Seems like just yesterday it was FriendofGod and his appeals to reason. Now we are speaking with the dead through stuffed animals and seeing irrefutable proof of ghosts “ON THE INTERNET!”
I suppose these fellers might be more harmless than the fundies.
Being relatively new here, can any of my seniors tell me if this ebb and flow is cyclical?
Who will we hear from next?
In the interests of brevity, I won’t quote all of Hedra’s discussion of her contacts with her children. However, I did find them quite interesting. With respect to the contact with your son and his hair color, were there other things that you noted about this contact that did not come true - eye color, build, etc. If you wrote these things down, it would, of course, be slightly more dependable evidence then your memory. (No slight intended. Hell, I never trust my own memory.) Also, without becoming unduly personal, do you believe that you will have three sons?
Zebra said:
I agree that it is bad logic. Nonetheless, I find the thought that my father could contact me but has chosen not to to be extremely disconcerting. Therefore, I find that I cannot believe in contact for two reasons - one rational (there’s absolutely no evidence and a world of reasons for people to prove it) and one irrational (I can’t easily accept that my father would not be contacting me).
Needs2know said:
Why does it seem that this argument is brought up every time someone wants to rail against science? For example, I can’t quote the number of times it’s been brought up in evolution threads. We all know science isn’t infallible. However, there must be some evidence that it is wrong before we disbelieve the current state of knowledge. Otherwise, why not believe that we can fly around the room if we just say the magic word?
Hoopster: Thanks for the advice. I am sure my wife will appreciate it. :rolleyes:
Zebra said:
Speaking for myself, it doesn’t bother me that someone else believes in ghosts, the Tooth Fairy, or the IPU. (Although we all know the IPU is real and that she is merely waiting to smite the unbelievers.) However, this board is dedicted to stamping out ignorance, and some people may just be stamping more vigorously than others.
I’m also wondering what you meant about Edwards and Randi.
P.S. My wife told me the show mentioned in my OP was on the Sci-Fi channel. I also looked at the Edwards website proved to me that my OP was in error. Sci-Fi channel, not Fox. My bad.
Oh, and at the risk of getting slightly off topic, only 3 posts so far, Jingo, and I think I’m in love. You are setting yourself an admirable standard, my friend.
I have no problem at all believing in all the following:
gravity (mysterious invisible force - can be tested)
China (far-off country - can be visited*)
aliens (universe contains vast number of stars - some stars have planets - life has been physically detected on one planet)
I also have been told a lot of stuff (UFOs, psychics, levitation, endless chain letters, perpetual motion, Loch Ness monster) for which there is no physical proof. I don’t believe any of this - until some proof comes along.
Sceptics don’t say ‘I won’t believe in something today.’ They just want some proof. If you prove it, I’ll believe it!
*The point is not that you haven’t the money to go there, (you would have if you proved ghosts exist!) but that people offer to take you and show you physical evidence of China. (I think the Great Wall qualifies)
“I also looked at the Edwards website ** and it **proved to me that my OP was in error.”
And I previewed the stupid thing. Argh.
Note that this topic is also being discussed in MPSIMS.
Glee:
I think that putting Aliens in the same category as China and gravity is a bit of a stretch. There is testable evidence for both China (been there, done that) and Gravity.
Aliens, on the other hand, are simply very probable to exist given what we currently know about the universe. However, I think that it is a bad idea to guarantee the existence of extraterrestrial life simply based on extrapolation.
Other than that, I’m in complete agreement.
I didn’t see his eyes. So no data there. My best friend DID see his eyes in her dreams of him, and said they were dark blue, which they are. However, she saw him as a curly redhead. (I wrote about that in e-mails to other people, too - trust the tech writer to document every damn thing!) (oh, and I don’t mind the comment on memory - I can remember REMEMBERING things differently than I currently remember them, if that makes sense… I can recall TWO of the same situation/event, one a snapshot of a moment when I remembered it, the other what I remember now. No idea which is closer to ‘accurate,’ either!)
As for my son, he was stocky, the hair color is exactly as I described (can’t say the exact color IS the same, but the description of ‘dark blonde or light brown with strong red highlights, not ashy’ is accurate). The only thing that is not exact from MY vision was his hair texture - his is ever-so-slightly wavy (just enough to make it poof up a bit when it gets long), and the hair I saw was straight. But build (solid/stocky) was right, too. He has also NEVER had that haircut - YIKES (beatles bowl!).
So, I think my vision was clear. I have another question though… despite my friend’s vision not being as accurate, why did she dream of him on the eve of me getting a positive pregnancy test result? (and why was the dream enough to wake her, and why was it so upsetting that she had to call me at WORK - which she never did before - and pester me with questions about ‘did I have anything important to tell her…’). And more importantly, why did she dream later in my pregnancy that he was hungry and that he told her to tell me to eat more protein (that being three weeks before my blood pressure started to rise, and my midwives discovered that I wasn’t eating enough PROTEIN. - and eating enough protein stabilized the bp…). Those weren’t MY contacts - heck, why was he calling on a friend of mine I hardly talked to, who lived hours away? Why not pass on that kind of IMPORTANT health-related data to me directly? Heck if I know why, but I just have to trust that he had his reasons. I’d have detailed all this in my former post, but it was WAY too long as it was, and it isn’t MY direct experience (the dreams were someone else’s).
As for whether I believe I will have three sons… that is an issue of my personal theology, not proof of contact-with-souls. I do not beleive I am guaranteed three sons, only that three sons said they would be mine when I grew up. Those are the ‘facts’ - whether I have three sons or not is yet to be determined as fact. I take ‘fore-knowledge’ in the ‘intent’ meaning, not a guarantee. Something could go wrong… heck, after two miscarriages, something already has - UNLESS someone was line-jumping and got kicked out by the boys? Do I feel like I’ll have three sons? Absolutely. But I will not be offended if one of them decides he’d rather be a girl, or finds that there is someone else he’d rather have as a mom. I don’t beleive in fate, so I have a hard time thinking I am FATED to have three sons. Scientifically speaking, I have a hypothesis. I guess we’ll see how the ‘tests’ come out, huh?
Actually, my approach seems to jive with others in the same boat. I know someone who is collecting anecdotes about pre-birth contacts, and it seems that such contacts are an ‘agreement’ more than a ‘contract’ - either party can back out. Women who have been contacted pre-conception have declined the invitation to parenthood (a friend of mine did this - the boy pestered her for years before she said he’d have to find another mommy because she wasn’t cut out for being a single parent - he didn’t seem to mind, just stopped bothering her…). Others have aborted or miscarried, and have been given a shrug in reply, and have been told that someone else could be the mommy, that’s okay. And others have been contacted by a child, then had a completely DIFFERENT child, been contacted by that first child again, have another DIFFERENT child… etc. So, I expect I will have three sons, but I would not presume to guarantee it. Hypothesis, again, yet to be borne out by proof (sorry for the pun).
Back to the OP and discussion - I have to say that I’d like to see proof to the contrary (not absense of proof) before people go using science to say ghosts/spirits “do not” exist. When you can prove that it IS imagination, then I will agree with you. Right now all we have is ‘we can’t measure or test it’ - yep, but we also cannot measure or test any OTHER thing that would give rise to the same results/experiences. We can’t measure chemical quantities of odors that dogs can identify in double-blind trials, but that doesn’t mean the dog is off its rocker, either. But for proof that they DO NOT EXIST, I want PROOF that they do not exist, not statements that their existance cannot be proven therefore they do not exist. THAT is where I have the problem with the current set of sceptics.
With the case in the OP, we can prove that someone who does NOT beleive that he/she is contacting spirits gets similar results to someone who professes that they CAN do it. When a spirit contacts YOU, can you prove that it IS some other phenomenon at work? When you can, THEN come back and tell me we’ve got proof that they DO NOT exist. Until then I stick with my, “can’t currently be proven, but could be possible”. I like to keep my mind open, but not completely without borders.
Zebra: I urge you to read up on cold reading. Many things that you “think” are impossible without reading minds/talking to the dead, simply aren’t.
Here are a few to get you started:
http://www.reall.org/newsletter/v03/n06/cold-truth-about-psychics.html
http://www.reall.org/newsletter/v07/n09/you-dont-have-to-cheat.html
http://www.reall.org/newsletter/v06/n01/confessions-of-a-tarot-card-reader.html
http://www.reall.org/newsletter/v05/n02/esp-fact-sheet.html
Here’s one about fortune-telling swindles, a subject related to some that have also come up in this thread:
If you are a Bible-believing person, there is a documented account of a medium bringing up a spirit from the dead in 1 Samuel 28. It has a heading in most Bibles as ‘Saul and the witch of Endor’.
She brings up Samuel’s spirit, and he is ticked off because they are bothering him. As said in a previous post, the dead are probably busy.
I am not saying that it happens now, or that the people that advertise on television can do it, or anything like that. Just that this is one written record of such an event.
And if you are not a “Bible-believing person” this example is about as convincing as the movie “Ghost.”
Oh, I must disagree. The Bible is much better written. And it doesn’t have a sappy soundtrack.
Well, duh, porcupine. That’s why I said “If you are…”. If you aren’t, just move along to the next post.
JDeMobray,
yes, you’re quite right about the different standards of proof.
My intended point was that I’m both open-minded and also a sceptic. I chose the verb ‘believe’, because I like the mathematical case for alien life, even though it may be far away and long ago (whoops, sounds like a movie 
).
Hedra,
you posted ‘But for proof that they DO NOT EXIST, I want PROOF that they do not exist, not statements that their existence cannot be proven therefore they do not exist. THAT is where I have the problem with the current set of sceptics.’
I have two problems with this.
How do you prove something does not exist?
Let’s say I believe in dragons (= flying, fire-breathing monsters). Go on, prove to me they DON’T exist.
No one says ‘their existence cannot be proven, therefore they don’t exist’.
Sceptics say ‘there is no physical evidence (for say ghosts), so there is no proof they exist.’
As I posted above, I genuinely think ‘aliens’ exist. It’s based on a mathematical chain of logic, built up from the evidence of life here on Earth.
I’m still a sceptic - but I have imagination!
Well…
I may be incorrect. When John Edwards show first started airing the SCI-FI channel (and believe me when I say the irony of the program bein that channel is not lost on me) I thought that James Randi had tested John Edwards. Perhaps I do not recall correctly. (IDNRC?)
I read provided links on cold reading and something I must ask again is ** have you seen the show?**
I know what cold reading and leading questions are like. I know how broad statements like “You like to get your way.” don’t mean anything. I have watched the show many times and John Edwards does not opperate this way. First he asks the audience to only answere with a yes or no. They do frequently break this rule and provide clues. Sometimes they tell him no and he keeps on insiting on the information he is ‘receiving’. He will frequently describe the persons home. “There are four steps leading up to your porch and then more steps inside the front door.” He is usually dead on in these descriptions. I guess 80% of the population has four steps leading up to their porch.
I have visited tarrot readers on palm readers as a lark. Most of them are BS. One was very interesting. She started out in a very vague mode. “You like to get your own way” (yeah who dosent’) Then she moved to you don’t get angry easily but when you do it’s like an atomic bomb." Now this may be cold reading but at that time in my life I would never get even a little angry at all the little things but every few months throw a fit and I would take a sledge hammer to something to let out all my pent frustrations. I’ll give that one over to cold readings. Maybe I was real patient in line or something. “You are the type of person who could start at the bottom of a company and end up owning the business.” Flattery to be sure but…I had actually done this in RL. “You will soon move.” Sounds like typical hand reading BS but… I had already made a decision to sell my business and move to another state. “But you will strengthen a family tie.” One of my brothers had already moved to the state and city I was planning to move to however I no longer speak to that a**hole so she was only half right. Also she told me I was divorced but that I would marry again and that marriage would work out." Maybe that was statistically a good probablity for guys in my age group. (White male 29 yrs old) but I was infact divorced and I have married again and this marriage is so much different from the first that I believe that it will last forever. Through out this reading I did not speak at all. I realise that my facial expressions or changes in my posture ( I tried to remain very still) may have indicated that she was hot or cold but she only made these statements and nothing else. After each statement she just moved on to another topic. I was impressed. I have walked into a tarrot reader with my wedding band in my pocket and that reader will tell me that although I am alone now I will meet someone soon. (I just laugh)
back to the op.
Now I would like someone to explain the details that John Edwards gives on the show. (be specific) Explain how he cold reads that person “A” has a dead brother whos name begins with the letter R and he was murdered with a knife? This is the sort of thing John Edwards does on his site. This seems to me to be either dead people “talking” to John Edwards. (he does not describe it as that) Or John Edwards is reading peoples minds. Or these people while in the green room discuss their various deceased loved ones and John Edwards listens in on their pre-show converstions. I don’t know what the pre-show proceedures are for the show but that would be the only way around what he does but…
I have seen him embarrass people on the show. I remember one instance JE (John Edwards is getting old) told a female audience member something like "he keeps showing me images of big boobs and saying that’s your name. I don’t get that’ and the woman responded that calling her big boobs was a private and (judging by her reaction) very embarasing joke between her and the deceased.
Also some general responses.
There may be no evidence you will accept for things like ghosts or esp or clairvoyance but that does not mean there is no evidence. Just none that you will accept. I have noticed that very few hard core skeptics (Jame Randi is an exception) who look at this stuff on a regular basis. They seem (I am speaking generaly particularly of people I know in RL) dismiss any evidence, even evidence they have not seen, instantly. "All claims of UFOs, ghosts, ESP, etc., are BS and I will dismiss them all.
So again. Have you watched Crossing Over with John Edwards? Can you explain everything on his show? Don’t come back here and say ‘well he said the name started with a T and it turned out it started with a J so that was a miss so therefore he is a fraud and there is no such thing as talking to dead people.’ That would be rather sloppy science on your part.
Thank you
Actually, you said EXACTLY what I was trying to say, only more clearly. SOME people here are saying that there is no proof for ghosts THEREFORE THEY DO NOT EXIST. I am saying, hey there is no proof for them, therefore they are NOT PROVEN to exist. If you are going to say the absolutely DO NOT EXIST, then give me some PROOF. Of course, that isn’t possible, so I’ll settle for proof of something else going on to cause the same phenomena (like misfires in the brain, say).
A good sceptic is not a nay-sayer, they are just insiting you PROVE IT before you say it (scientifically) MUST BE SO. Ghosts can’t currently be proven to exist. I have absolutely no problem with that. What I have a problem with is people saying they DO NOT exist, when more accurately, they cannot be proven. “I don’t believe in them” - no problem, that is a statement of faith/belief, not science. But a good sceptic is sceptical of even their own ‘beliefs’ if those are not founded on some kind of FACT.
I know what my personal experiences are. I will not insist that they are anything but experiences. They could certainly have other explanations than I give them. But I do not have a different way to explain them right now. Because I am also a person of faith, even if non-typical, I ascribe that type of meaning to it. But that isn’t something I consider science, either.
I personally do not believe that they can.
The brain is dead. The will is controlled by the brain and maybe some other living tisue and it is all dead.Sorry all you believers nothing but the memories of the living.
Zebra said:
Apparently not. 
And, to answer your question: No, I have not seen it. I do not get the Sci-Fi channel. But from every description I have seen, he is no different than the thousands of “mediums” who preceded him. And they were all described by believers just the way you described this guy. “What he did was not possible to do with cold reading” and baloney like that. All it shows is how easy it is to fool people who think they can’t be fooled.
I’ve seen real cold reading done. If you were in the room, I suspect you’d have been damned sure the guy who was doing it was psychic. I know other people who were there were sure of it – even after the guy in question assured them he wasn’t.
But I doubt that anything I say will convince you.
Frankly, I’ve no idea whether the dead - or the unborn, for that matter- can contact that living. As others have said here, I have not seen any evidence, other than anecdotal, saying that they can, and I generally don’t believe anecdotal evidence. (I don’t generally have much faith in eyewitness testimony, either, but that’s another thread.)
In any case, it is very difficult, or even impossible, to prove a negative. I cannot prove that my dog cannot talk, for instance. I can testify that I have never heard him talk, that biologists have never found that canine lips, tongue and throat are capable of forming human speech, that in all the history of humans and dogs there has never been a verifiable instance of a dog that can talk, and that every supposed instance of dogs that can talk have been discovered to be hoaxes. But still, I cannot prove that THIS dog cannot talk.
So, it’s impossible to ‘prove’ that the dead cannot talk to the living. And to prove that aliens, fairies, dragons, and Atlantis don’t exist. Indeed, we might say that there is evidence that they do - crop circles, or a medium having unexpected amounts of information, or bizarre rings of toadstools in the grass (fairies). But we can also say that there are explanations for these phenomena that do not require the supposition of a supernatural being. Further, until we see evidence that CANNOT be otherwise explained, we do not need to speculate a supernatural source for the evidence.
Felice
Hedra,
We’re basically in agreement. No one can prove ghosts don’t exist.
But why should I think they exist?
Nobody has come up with any physical evidence.
Meanwhile some people make money out of writing books or giving psychic demonstrations about ghosts / the after-life. These people have an interest in keeping the rumours going.
Zebra:
Please see the James Randi Educational Foundation website as of today. Sorry to continuously refer to this source, but this week there is specific mention of JE and his…”powers.” For future reference there is also some information on another famous, though rather litigious, showman who apparently has resorted to doing things the easy way after all.
As for having seen the show, I’ll admit that I have not. Nor do I plan to. I must concur with DavidB’s viewpoint (see DavidB’s previous post). The source of frustration here is that those of us who are skeptical of such spirit-contacting acts have been familiar with them for some time. Like many skeptical thinkers, I became aware of fortune telling, mind reading, spirit-channeling frauds early in my skeptical investigations. The practitioners are often quite expert at their trade in flummery, but one quickly learns to identify the tricks of said trade. After a few years, friends, the tricks are easy to spot. Yet every few years a James Van Pragh or JE will come along and again wow the masses. When someone starts to wow the masses, I watch my wallet.
Shall we clear something up? Let’s do it slowly: One cannot, in an open system, prove a negative condition. I think that particular issue, once resolved, can save a good deal of further debate. I believe that acceptable proof, or lack thereof, will be the distillate issue of the debate from there on. On that subject, let me say that extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. And the burden of such proof must be borne, logically, by the claimant.
Thank you, and Goodnight