So, from what I’ve seen so far, the argument in FAVOR of the idea that these people can magically talk to ghosts is two-fold:
1 - There are LOTS of these people…what are the odds that ALL of them are either lying or deluded?
and
2 - I really really really REALLY WANT it to be true.
I would love to see someone attempt to publish a scientific paper with these as their main points.
I wanted an intelligent discussion from intelligent people about the possible source and intentions (if applicable) of channelled material that has been transmitted now for what appears to be a long time across various parts of the globe. However most are taking the totally irrational view that they are all faking it, despite all that has been said before, and that’s a bit frustrating as I was expecting/hoping to find rational people here and get some insights.
Applying Sagan’s Baloney Detection Kit to your idea that “all are faking it” you’ll find that it fails a lot of the tests:
1. Wherever possible there must be independent confirmation of the “facts.”
There do not seem to be hard facts, so there is no independent confirmation of them either.
2. Encourage substantive debate on the evidence by knowledgeable proponents of all points of view.
You are not doing this.
3. Arguments from authority carry little weight — “authorities” have made mistakes in the past.
Not applicable I think.
4. Spin more than one hypothesis.
You are not doing this that I can see. They are all faking, and that’s the end of the discussion.
5. Try not to get overly attached to a hypothesis just because it’s yours.
Not applicable.
6. Quantify. If whatever it is you’re explaining has some measure, some numerical quantity attached to it, you’ll be much better able to discriminate among competing hypotheses.
Not applicable - you can’t prove a medium is not faking so you can’t measure the number of those that are not faking as opposed to faking
7. If there’s a chain of argument, every link in the chain must work (including the premise) — not just most of them.
Again I don’t think this is applicable.
8. Occam’s Razor. This convenient rule-of-thumb urges us when faced with two hypotheses that explain the data equally well to choose the simpler.
Which is simpler in this case? I think that not faking is a lot simpler as for all mediums to fake for years and deceive lots of people for long periods of time requires great acting skills and is not an easy process. Its much much simpler for the mediums involved to be just basically receiving information and then just passing it along.
9. Always ask whether the hypothesis can be, at least in principle, falsified. Propositions that are untestable, unfalsifiable are not worth much.
You win this one I think.
(bolding mine)Why do you keep saying this? Show us that this is true. Point out the posts that say this.
Once more with feeling, please provide supported evidence of actual channelled material from sources other than live breathing human beings.
In absence of such evidence, the irrational position is not the skeptical one.
There are some more from RationalWiki:
I’ve skipped some I though were not relevant or have been covered above.
Appeal to ignorance: If something is not known to be false, it must be true.
We’d need to switch this around to be applicable: If something is not known to be true, it must be false. Again the mediums can’t be proven to be genuine so this is applicable.
Observational selection: Looking at only positive evidence while ignoring the negative.
You only see the fakers and ignoring the accounts given of serious mediums.
Please provide an example of a “serious medium” and by what criteria we establish and verify that a medium is serious?
And as I have asked for several times, give us your best one. Give us a non-fake medium to look at, one that spews forth real info that can be verified but couldn’t have been known by the medium beforehand, one that gives us new info we didn’t have before. Don’t be telling us we are ignoring the serious mediums when you keep hiding them from us.
Post 2 (njtt) : “I do not think you will find anyone an this site who will tell you anything other than that their agenda is to part you from as much of your money as they can.”
Post 4 (Princhester) : “I can’t agree with you that it’s coming from somewhere else. The people producing the material are the charlatans who spout it.”
Post 27 (Inner Stickler) : “No, but the answer’s just about as simple, they’re lying, crazy or deluded.”
Post 29 (SmegHead) : “Oh, brother. Look, let’s put it this way: if ANY of these people were genuine…”
etc. etc. I’ve no time to go though the rest
I’m not sure what you are asking for here. I cannot prove channeling is genuine and have said repeatedly that I think a lot of the material being transmitted is bogus. I’m asking questions, hoping for a discussion, and getting some, not trying to prove anything. I think that assuming that all channeling is fake however is baloney. That doesn’t mean I can prove to you that it is not.
Again you’d have to read the books I mentioned earlier, or better yet go back and read Steken’s posts. And by “serious” I meant a person of integrity not out to deceive anybody but the contrary.
My command of the English language (my native language btw.) is not great alas, so forgive me this please people. To my defense I’m good on the piano.
Protip: statements like this make it really hard to then satisfactorily persuade people to your premise that channeling is legitimate.
I know I have posted glib comments earlier but I say this with all due respect…
You have been provided with intelligent and well thought out arguments. You have the discussion you’ve been looking for. Just because it’s not gone in the direction you wished it would go does not mean the arguments presented are irrational.
The problem is not that you can’t prove it’s real. The problem is that you can’t provide a single case where any information offered cannot be explained through other, more mundane means. You are looking for hypothesis for a phenomenon when no one has been able to demonstrate that such a phenomenon exists.
We know there are fake channelers. Everyone that has been investigated has been shown to be either outright faking, deluded, or simply wrong. Given that as a starting point it’s premature to delve too deeply into what would be the source of these hypothetical supernatural powers until you show that some supernatural powers exist. You’ve also said that there’s no way to scientifically distinguish between someone making up (or being deluded about) false information and a supernatural power feeding them false information. If that’s the case, there’s really no benefit from pursuing this further.
You might have a more interesting discussion if you asked what criteria you could use to distinguish between someone faking or being deluded compared to someone actually receiving information from elsewhere. Is that a discussion that interests you?
Your examples do not show posters saying that all of them are faking it.
No one has asked you to prove that channeling is genuine-just for your single best example of what you consider to be a genuine medium.
Why don’t you try responding to what we are actually posting here?
There have been some discussions yes, but absolutely nothing concrete that I can see in one direction or another, likeable by me or otherwise.
There’s been a mention of the ideometer effect but again not conclusive by any means, a lot of discussion of whether channels are all faking or not which hopefully people will at least consider now that possibly some of them are genuinely passing on information.
Nothing conclusive up to know though about what the source could be or the agenda of the source if any or if applicable.
No information on whether or not the subconscious could produce this sort of material, or why it would. Little information on Jung’s collective unconscious (one post did say that this could not be verified by science in any way, but that’s just one input, again not discussed really to any depth), and little further discussion beyond the “they are all mad / delusional / faking” sort.
Stymied by the fact that, despite much handwaving on your part, you refuse to provide a current example of one that you think isn’t for us to take a look at.
Again, why would anyone consider this without verifiable evidence? Of which you presented none.
The medium is the message (source). Agendas/motives vary.
OP, there IS no strong evidence to lead one to conclude that psychic phenomena exist.
Given that starting point, the most likely explanation for a person sincerely believing that they do exist is that the person WANTS to believe it; also, that the desire to believe it incentivizes the person to accept as evidence observations, anecdotes and unproven assertions.
If you wish to dispute the assertion in my first sentence, please present some strong evidence to lead one to conclude that psychic phenomena exist. It would be extra-helpful if you would explain why you consider it to be strong evidence.
I should also mention that pointing to the existence of people who claim to be practitioners of psychic phenomena is NOT going to be accepted as strong evidence for the existence of psychic phenomena.
For the third time: You can read “Seth Speaks”, “The Seth Material” by Jane Roberts (the medium) or watch the few videos of the actual channelling of Seth that’s available and listen to all accounts of the people that attended the sessions live and also of all people that knew Jane Roberts. Also you can read “The Unobstructed Universe” or listen to the radio show mentioned earlier.
I don’t have a current example that I am myself certain about. But why does it have to be current? The “Tuning In - Spirit Channelers In America” video is interesting if you want something current but it not overly convincing. It’s all I know off the top of my head that is current that is worth a look.
Are you kidding? Do you have any idea how much free porn is out there? It’s literally impossible to get through it all!
Give us an actual reason to prioritize your stuff.
If you want to assert that Jane Roberts is a legitimate medium then you should probably have a list of at least 5 reasons that lend credibility to her claim.
If you’re going to simply point at a number of other sources and say, they make the case or wave your hands and say, why not true, well that is usually because there isn’t anything to dig for.