I didnt mean “can”, I meant “must”, sorry for the misspeak.
Under the scientific epistemology, it is possible to test for results that will, over the long run, point to the functionality of the objective world.
The extent to which one successfully does so is determined by how objective a scientist one is and how well the experiment is set up. Certainly scientists are not objective many many times, but it does not follow that that is always the case.
There may be ethical impediments to some experiments (such as participants not being aware of being monitored/participating), but these aside, I cannot think of an objective experiment it is not possible, in theory, to carry out.
I can. An experiment that would convince the likes of Don Willard and Lekatt that psychics are BS. No matter what you do, no matter how you set it up, any failures will be explained away by them on some basis or another. Either that the experiment was a fraud or biased or if all else fails (and it often does) on the basis that psychic powers clearly don’t work under such conditions, (but of course that doesn’t mean they don’t under uncontrolled conditions).
It’s the classic pink unicorn argument. There is no way to objectively test for the non-existence of a sufficiently elusively defined thing.
The determination of who is a “real” psychic and who is not.
I noticed that Lekatt avoided this question completely. If there is a way to determine who is and who is not a “real” psychic then, it would seem, there is a way to determine that psychic abilities exist.
Everyone seems to be in agreement that psychic readings involve interpretting vague messages.
Believers think that the messages come from some source unseen by normal folk. Doubters think that messages come, (unintentionally?), from normal folk.
I’d like to hear from believers.
What criteria do you use to determine wether or not someone claiming to have paranormal abilities really has them?
PS
I’m filling out the SF 180 Request Pertaining to Military Records form to check on McMoneagle. My curiosity is piqued.
I haven’t been able to find any references that provide a list of Legion of Merit recipients in totality. If someone else can please share. thanx
Lekatt did not avoid the question, he answered it, now the answer may not have met the approval of the skeptics, but why should they expect it to.
Love
Leroy
[b[Lekatt**,
Please pardon me. Somehow in the 500+ posts I waded through before I posted to this thread I must have missed it. If you would be so kind, please repost it.
True, Princhester, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, except, IMO, in the objective world. If there is a complete lack of evidence of something, there is evidence it does not exist in a way that is observable. Observable meaning can transfer information. i.e. if there is even one bit of information transferred from the “other side”, this instantly becomes a scientific, objective phenomenon.
But when you have people saying things like “There are things that science cannot explain”, its pretty obvious they disbelieve this paradigm.
I believe “psychics” are being deceived by supernatural beings. Just as people who believe in “aliens” are being deceived. One very prominent alien believer is Dr. Greer who claims to have had telepathic communication with these alleged aliens. In both cases these people are playing with fire, the occult.
Lekatt is in the habit of saying that he has provided answers, cites etc that he patently has not. We are still waiting on his link to Randi’s site (as requested by a mod) to support his slanders of Randi’s methods etc. He claims to have provided one. As someone who has been in this thread from the beginning and has read every single post, I can tell you that this is an outright lie. I have stated that before. No doubt he would make me eat crow if he could.
SimonX if you are waiting on responsive answers from Lekatt to hard questions, you are going to be a long time waiting. And don’t take any notice of his claims to have already answered them. It has never happened.
I am still waiting on answers to several other questions that Lekatt no doubt hopes I have forgotten about.
Randi’s site link, you have to go down a piece to find the writing about the Larry King. There is mail showing disappointment at Randi’s performance as I said.
The other things you ask are also in this thread.
Don’t bother to apoligize for calling me names. You will only do it again.
Love
Leroy
I wonder if we could get a cite about where you say no psychic has ever shown psychic ability in a controlled test. I have a couple of links to prove you wrong waiting.
This thread has been going for days, or maybe weeks, now. If you have some links, I suggest you post them now. Otherwise you are going to have a few of these guys frothing at the mouth.
Wrong again. The letter writer clearly agrees with Randi that Altea is a fraud. He expresses disappointment only in that Randi was too easy on the obviously fake psychic
From The Link
**
Note that Steve Zinski uses psychic, and reading in quotes. I use the same technique in posts throughout this thread. It indicates that the writer does not consider the person in question to be psychic. Zinski also refers to the " ‘ask a relative’ trick". [sub]Note To Mods-I wasn’t sure if the quote was too long. But as Randi is a brother in our fight against ignorance, I felt he and his organization would not object to posting the relevant material to disprove a false claim[/sub]
**
Then post a link, or repost them. I’ve read this whole thread from the very beginning and I haven’t seen them.
Then post them instead of just telling us they exist.
Lekatt, the request was that you stop misrepresenting the Randi Challenge, and that if you had something to say about it, you provide a supporting link to Randi’s site.
You said you had. I said you were lying and that you had not.
You have now provided a link to a page on Randi’s site at which he discusses his appearance on Larry King’s show. You mention that Randi says that he had received mail expressing disappointment at Randi’s performance on the show. There is no mention on the page you have linked of anything to do with the Randi Challenge.
[ul]1/ Do I take it from your provision of this link only now that you accept that your previous post (in which you said you had already provided such a link) was a complete lie? That would seem to be the only available conclusion.
2/ Do you actually think that the link you have provided is anything other than a complete non sequitur given that it in no way refers to the Randi Challenge?[/ul]
Oh, are they? Well, we all believe you. It’s not as if anything you have said in this thread has been proven to be a lie. But just to save me some time, how about you find, in this thread, your response to my request that you provide proof that DocCathode is a fake, given your oft-stated position that those calling others fakes bear the onus of proof? Shouldn’t be any bother for you, should it?
Sure you do. In 13 pages and 500 posts, it’s a shame that you didn’t come up with these links a bit earlier, I must say.
What are you talking about? First off, that email was in support of Randi, pointing out a few additional problems with the psychic’s reading that Randi hadn’t mentioned on the show.
Second, Czarcasm was asked for a link to his site supporting your accusations about the Randi Challenge, which the link does not address at all.
When I originally posted this link there was a story on it concerning Randi’s methods, but I see it is gone now.
The top link shows how much researchers value Randi’s methods.
I called for a copy of Randi’s methods so it could be tested by a third party, but I doubt I will ever see it.
It is amazing to me how the skeptics can read down material and call it up. I am outnumbered at least 50 to one here.
I don’t think there is really any search for truth happening. Just people trying to prove their already formed opinions.
Just a bunch of guys fighting ignorance and I am it.
