Michael Shermer seems to be a good advocate for skepticism, without much of the heat and flash of people like James Randi.
[QUOTE=Valteron]
I hate to be a gloomy Gus, but perhaps superstition and religion are immune to logic and reason. (“Our lasers don’t affect them Captain, there seems to be some sort of force field around them.”)
The JRF $1,000,000 challenge had its predecessor in a fund set up by none other than Harry Houdini. The following quote is from this article.
"Prior to his untimely death in 1926, Houdini made a secret pact with Bess, his wife of thirty-two years. They made a ten word code which only each of them knew. Each would try their best to communicate with the other once they passed over. The correct code would act as proof that it was really them coming through from the other side. For ten (10) years Mrs. Houdini offered a $10,000 reward for anyone, psychic or layman, who could communicate with Harry. She visited psychics from around the world in an attempt to communicate with him. Not a single psychic could produce the secret code, although almost all of them claimed to have communicated with Houdini himself on the other side. In her last seance in 1936, she tried one final time to reach Harry. After this final failure, Bess made this little speech, “I do not think that Harry will come back to me, or anyone. I think the dead don’t speak. I now regretfully turn out the light. This is the end, Harry, good night!” She then blew out the candle that she had lit after his death and that had been buring for him for ten years. In 1937, Mrs. Houdini, sent out a final letter to the media, the general public and to those psychics who participated saying, “Since the failure of the ten year test, it is my opinion that all concerned have struck a mighty worldwide blow at superstition.”
Poor Madame Houdini! If only it were so! Over 80 years later, John Edward and others have raked in untold fortunes “speaking” to the dead, and people like Mitt Romney, who believe that Jesus appeared in America and that the Book of Mormon records real events in pre-Columbian America are treated like reasonable persons whose religious viewpoints must be respected (I did not say their RIGHT to their religious viewpoint. That is absolute and untouchable. I said the viewpoint itself.)
Forty years after the human race became so technologically advanced that it can land on the Moon, millions of people refuse to believe it happened and yet we make psychics like Edwards rich with the fruits of our credulity.
When it comes to the ignorance and superstition of humanity, I have become a pessimist.
[/QUOTE]
Your story about Houdini shows only a lack of knowledge of the spiritual world. Some cross over and never communicate, others do communicate, because one person didn’t receive a code proves nothing. Ignorance and superstition lie on the side of the skeptic, not the spiritual person.
Here’s one that did communicate.
[QUOTE=Bayard]
I do not know if this is the case. My observations suggest that it is so, but I don’t know if, in fact, more people are consulting psychics now than before. In any event, it is irrelevant. Just because a lot of people are doing it, doesn’t mean it’s not stupid.
I am an athiest and “skeptic”. In the past decade: I spent 3.5 years working in disaster relief for the American Red Cross; I was a volunteer firefighter for 3 years; I volunteered at an inner-city social services agency for a year; I volunteered at a mental health agency for over a year; I have made a career out of working in healthcare because I like helping people. I do not belittle anyone, and in fact I’ve made a pretty fair effort not to belittle you in this thread, even though others have. If you want to debate whether some performer can speak to the dead, fine. But saying that “spiritual” people have a more positive impact on society is really annoying.
Skepticism is not an emotion, an opinion, or a kneejerk negation. Skepticism is simply the principle that people making claims need to be able to prove them. If someone claims that there is a God, or that a performer can speak to the dead, or that a drug can cure an illness, a skeptic holds them all the the same standard – “prove it”. I want skeptics reviewing medical journals and running the FDA and designing bridges. When GM says their new car is safe, I want a skeptic to say, “prove it”. When my doctor says that a drug will help my asthma, I am comforted that the drug has been put through the skeptical ringer before I buy it and put it in my body. You don’t know what skeptics are good for? My guess is that you and I are both skeptics. I am merely skeptical about more topics than you are.
[/QUOTE]
Good, I am glad you like to help others, and refrain from calling others names because they don’t believe like you do. I wish there were more skeptics like you.
Skepticism can be an opinion, or a healthy thing to do. But on this site it tends to be an emotion of hate, distrust, and fear. I don’t think you are more skeptical than I because I subscribe to no belief system, including skepticism, or science. There is no need to pass judgement on most things that come into your life, no need at all. I would like for you to know that it really doesn’t matter who, skeptic, salesman, friend or whatever, tells you something is safe, doesn’t make it so. That is where faith and trust play a big part in life.
Threads like this make me wish my browser had a button to electrocute people over the internet.
[QUOTE=ForumBot]
Threads like this make me wish my browser had a button to electrocute people over the internet.
[/QUOTE]
And posts like this?
Keep this stuff for the Pit and out of GD.
[ /Moderating ]
[QUOTE=lekatt]
There is no religion that teaches war. But there are people that teach war.
[/QUOTE]
Islam certainly teaches war in the Koran. Here are a few selections for your information. The numbers of the quotations are Surahs and verses. A Surah is like a Chapter in the Bible:
Surah 2: Verse 216: *Warfare is ordained for you, though it is hateful unto you; but it may happen that ye hate a thing which is good for you, and it may happen that ye love a thing which is bad for you. Allah knoweth, ye know not. *
Indeed, Allah promises a vast reward to those who fight in religious wars:
4:74 *Let those fight in the way of Allah who sell the life of this world for the other. Whoso fighteth in the way of Allah, be he slain or be he victorious, on him We shall bestow a vast reward. *
[QUOTE=Mangetout]
I don’t actually think the project has been that big of a success - despite having mostly good intentions - it is inherently too easy for the psychics to just make up new excuses (bias, fraud, etc).
[/QUOTE]
Well, I think the 12 year experiment has been a complete success. The fact that nobody has won the prize – that is, nobody has proposed and passed a straightforward and mutually agreeable procedure that would demonstrate their psychic claims, pretty much proves that the pros are either fraudulent or delusional. As for quiet amateurs or swamis in strange lands, I would think that the reward would pull them out of the woodwork.
Fifteen or so years ago, I made some allowance for the possibility that perhaps some culturally embedded priests or whatever might have some --powers-- that I hadn’t thought of. No longer.
There is the logical possibility that some anonymous psychics are already making a killing on the financial markets and have no need for the extra million, media attention, consulting work or correspondence with gullible believers. Human nature being what it is though, I would expect those with such powers to want to show them off in some way.
Indeed, there is more than one:
[QUOTE=lekatt]
Your story about Houdini shows only a lack of knowledge of the spiritual world. Some cross over and never communicate, others do communicate, because one person didn’t receive a code proves nothing. Ignorance and superstition lie on the side of the skeptic, not the spiritual person.
[/QUOTE]
How convenient! When no alleged medium or psychic can prove they have reached someone over 10 years and numerous attempts, even for a considerable reward, and in spite of the PROVEN fact that Houdini and his wife REALLLY wanted to communicate after his death, when nobody can crack the code, you have the excuse that sometimes the dead don’t communicate. :rolleyes:
Lekatt, are you familiar with the concept of *falsifiability * in science? I recommend you look it up.
[QUOTE=lekatt]
Here’s one that did communicate.
Long out of print; The Other Side, by Bishop Pike; is a very illuminating book. Pike’s young son commits suicide and Pike is devastated by the event. He spends the rest of his life looking for a way to communicate with his dead son. In the process he loses most everything that he worked for and once thought important. For years he seeks out anyone that claims to be able to contact the deceased. Going from medium to medium, psychic to psychic he finally finds one that satisfies the strict criteria and secret personal information he required to believe the contact real. He finally communicated with his son. The last four or five pages of this book contain the message he received. His son told him he was very sorry he chose to end his life, and realizes that it was a big mistake. On death, his problems didn’t disappear and he was still working them out with the help of guides and counselors. He knew he would come back to the physical, at some point in the future, to finish what he had begun. I found the book open and honest.
[/QUOTE]
What a nice story of Bishop Pike. Of course, if you would like to see how people do “cold readings”, and get the subject to supply them information without realizing it, I suggest you look at this article entitled “Demytifying John Edward”. . If I had a dollar for every time I have heard someone say that a psychic “couldn’t possibly have known those things” I would be rich.
The typical psychic/spiritualist does something like this:
Psychic: I see betrayal by someone you trust. (Betrayal, almost by definition, woulod be by someone you trust, of course, but I digress.)
Victim: (Who has noticed something about the way her husband and her sister look at each other): You mean like a member of my family, my sister or my husband?
Psychic: Yes, yes, someone like that (Notice they have not said “Yes, your sister and your husband”)
Six months later, the affair between the sister and the husband comes out. The victim SWEARS up and down there is no way the psychic even KNOWS her husband and sister, and we have another believer in the supernatural.
May I ask what kind of control or record there was of what was said by this psychic who was allegedly “successful” in reaching the dead son?
Is there a videotape or transcript we can analyze to see to what extent this bereaved man who greatly WANTED to reach his dead son might have been duped by a medium who is very good at getting people to tell him things without realizing it?
Do we have a visual record of Bishop Pike’s body language as the psychic tried one reasonable guess after another and then noted the Bishop’s facial and body reactions?
How “secret” was the informarion about his dead son, really? Are there ways in which one could have researched facts about the son beforehand? Could a person knowing a lot about the son have come close to the “secret” information, enough to get Pike to supply the rest?
One interesting fact about the Houdini case is that it was an absolutely objective criterion. A ten-word code. The psychic said it or he/she did not say it. And NOBODY said it.
Was Bishop Pike’s “secret” information that he used as a criterion equally objective?
Might the medium have lucked out and said something that Bishop Pike, anxious to reach his son, interpreted as knowledge of secret information?
The final comments that the son is sorry he committed suicide etc. are pure bullshit and prove nothing. What else would you expect the medium to say?
By the way, did the dead son mention how much these “guides and counsellors” on the “other side” cost, or do they have medicare “over there”? 
[QUOTE=lekatt]
Skepticism can be an opinion…
[/quote]
It is not an opinion. “I like cabbage” is an opinion. “Prove your claims” is not.
It is not a belief system either. Science is a method of gathering information. Skepticism is the insistence that claims be proven, usually through scientific methods.
Agreed. That is why the scientific method is so valuable.
No, this is where science and accountability play a big part in life.
Take the example of GM again. They build a car, say the “BayardMobile”, and announce, “This is the safest car ever! You can carry your family around with confidence!” I would not automatically believe them. But, if peer-reviewed scientists, whose jobs are on the line if they screw up, conduct tests such as smashing BayardMobiles over and over again and measuring the effect, and if they then announce, “In fact the BayardMobile is that safe”, I’d say, “Wow, that is awesome!” I would guess that you would expect the same level of assurance before you bought a BayardMobile, rather than relying on GM’s claims. We “trust” the scientists in that we know they are using solid methods, and we know that their results are reviewed by their peers, and we know that they are held accountable for their actions. We require proof. This is skepticism
So, should we not be at least as skepitcal when a psychic announces, “My methods can locate a missing girl and help identify the killer”? Should not the same requirements of proof be levied against the person making such a claim, which could result in someone’s conviction, incarceration, and possibly death? If GM refused to make the BayardMobile available for testing, we would look at that as an indication that they feared the car could not pass the test. Similarly, when psychics refuse to submit to tests, we look at them the same way. We want them to prove they can do what they say. This is not “ignorance and superstition”; this is protecting oneself against frauds.
[QUOTE=Valteron]
How convenient! When no alleged medium or psychic can prove they have reached someone over 10 years and numerous attempts, even for a considerable reward, and in spite of the PROVEN fact that Houdini and his wife REALLLY wanted to communicate after his death, when nobody can crack the code, you have the excuse that sometimes the dead don’t communicate. :rolleyes:
Lekatt, are you familiar with the concept of *falsifiability * in science? I recommend you look it up.
What a nice story of Bishop Pike. Of course, if you would like to see how people do “cold readings”, and get the subject to supply them information without realizing it, I suggest you look at this article entitled “Demytifying John Edward”. . If I had a dollar for every time I have heard someone say that a psychic “couldn’t possibly have known those things” I would be rich.
The typical psychic/spiritualist does something like this:
Psychic: I see betrayal by someone you trust. (Betrayal, almost by definition, woulod be by someone you trust, of course, but I digress.)
Victim: (Who has noticed something about the way her husband and her sister look at each other): You mean like a member of my family, my sister or my husband?
Psychic: Yes, yes, someone like that (Notice they have not said “Yes, your sister and your husband”)
Six months later, the affair between the sister and the husband comes out. The victim SWEARS up and down there is no way the psychic even KNOWS her husband and sister, and we have another believer in the supernatural.
May I ask what kind of control or record there was of what was said by this psychic who was allegedly “successful” in reaching the dead son?
Is there a videotape or transcript we can analyze to see to what extent this bereaved man who greatly WANTED to reach his dead son might have been duped by a medium who is very good at getting people to tell him things without realizing it?
Do we have a visual record of Bishop Pike’s body language as the psychic tried one reasonable guess after another and then noted the Bishop’s facial and body reactions?
How “secret” was the informarion about his dead son, really? Are there ways in which one could have researched facts about the son beforehand? Could a person knowing a lot about the son have come close to the “secret” information, enough to get Pike to supply the rest?
One interesting fact about the Houdini case is that it was an absolutely objective criterion. A ten-word code. The psychic said it or he/she did not say it. And NOBODY said it.
Was Bishop Pike’s “secret” information that he used as a criterion equally objective?
Might the medium have lucked out and said something that Bishop Pike, anxious to reach his son, interpreted as knowledge of secret information?
The final comments that the son is sorry he committed suicide etc. are pure bullshit and prove nothing. What else would you expect the medium to say?
By the way, did the dead son mention how much these “guides and counsellors” on the “other side” cost, or do they have medicare “over there”?
[/QUOTE]
If you really want to know, you can purchase the book at Amazon.com for less than $2.00. Then you will know as much about it as I do.
You have no idea what the typical psychic does, because there are no typical psychics.
[QUOTE=lekatt]
A church or religion do not take any actions, it is people who take the actions. Some good people and some not so good. There is no religion that teaches war. But there are people that teach war.
[/QUOTE]
That’s pretty much the same as saying there’s not really any such thing as religion, just people instead.
[QUOTE=Bayard]
It is not an opinion. “I like cabbage” is an opinion. “Prove your claims” is not.
It is not a belief system either. Science is a method of gathering information. Skepticism is the insistence that claims be proven, usually through scientific methods.
Agreed. That is why the scientific method is so valuable.
No, this is where science and accountability play a big part in life.
Take the example of GM again. They build a car, say the “BayardMobile”, and announce, “This is the safest car ever! You can carry your family around with confidence!” I would not automatically believe them. But, if peer-reviewed scientists, whose jobs are on the line if they screw up, conduct tests such as smashing BayardMobiles over and over again and measuring the effect, and if they then announce, “In fact the BayardMobile is that safe”, I’d say, “Wow, that is awesome!” I would guess that you would expect the same level of assurance before you bought a BayardMobile, rather than relying on GM’s claims. We “trust” the scientists in that we know they are using solid methods, and we know that their results are reviewed by their peers, and we know that they are held accountable for their actions. We require proof. This is skepticism
So, should we not be at least as skepitcal when a psychic announces, “My methods can locate a missing girl and help identify the killer”? Should not the same requirements of proof be levied against the person making such a claim, which could result in someone’s conviction, incarceration, and possibly death? If GM refused to make the BayardMobile available for testing, we would look at that as an indication that they feared the car could not pass the test. Similarly, when psychics refuse to submit to tests, we look at them the same way. We want them to prove they can do what they say. This is not “ignorance and superstition”; this is protecting oneself against frauds.
[/QUOTE]
You see, nothing in this world is guaranteed to be what it claims to be.
You believe the “scientific method” is the way to find truth. That is why the scientific method is a belief system. Belief systems are created by humans and have all the faults and frailties that are akin to being human. No “system” is any more accurate than the person who created it. All belief systems have contradictions and flaws just as we humans do. But you have put your faith and trust in science, just as others put their faith and trust in God, or some religion.
I know this is not transparent to you now, but as you grow older and get more real life experiences that contradict your beliefs maybe you too will be able to ascertain and discern the patterns of belief, which will enable you to make life decisions on your own without having to consult belief systems.
[QUOTE=lekatt]
I know this is not transparent to you now, but as you grow older and get more real life experiences that contradict your beliefs maybe you too will be able to ascertain and discern the patterns of belief, which will enable you to make life decisions on your own without having to consult belief systems.
[/QUOTE]
In other words, at a certain age one begins to believe things unsystematically? I.e., with no underlying rationale whatsoever? That hardly seems like something to look forward to.
You are correct, though: that is often one of the unfortunate side effects of aging. Progress is being made in treating Alzheimer’s, though. (Using science, of all things!)
[QUOTE=Vinyl Turnip]
In other words, at a certain age one begins to believe things unsystematically? I.e., with no underlying rationale whatsoever? That hardly seems like something to look forward to.
You are correct, though: that is often one of the unfortunate side effects of aging. Progress is being made in treating Alzheimer’s, though. (Using science, of all things!)
[/QUOTE]
Piffle. Alzheimer’s is just a different way of perceiving the world. Who are you to judge whether it is right or wrong?
[QUOTE=lekatt]
You believe the “scientific method” is the way to find truth.
[/quote]
Nope. Science is a method for finding fact. Philosophy and literature are concerned with truth. “Truth” is what comes out of facts.
I’m trying to figure out a polite way to untangle this statement, but I admit defeat. I do hope that I never reach the point at which I stop consulting facts before making a decision.
[QUOTE=lekatt]
You believe the “scientific method” is the way to find truth. That is why the scientific method is a belief system.
[/quote]
Requiring evidence to substantiate claims is not a “belief system”. It is a means of overcoming dependence on such systems. Attacking scientific knowledge as a form of “belief” is a common tactic among proponents of woo and religion (for instance, among creationists) but that does not make it so.
“Real life experiences”, a.k.a. testimonials, are part of the belief system that excludes evidence-based knowledge. Depending on them will lead you astray.
[QUOTE=lekatt]
I know this is not transparent to you now, but as you grow older and get more real life experiences that contradict your beliefs maybe you too will be able to ascertain and discern the patterns of belief, which will enable you to make life decisions on your own without having to consult belief systems.
[/QUOTE]
Are you seriously saying this is what happened to you?
[QUOTE=lekatt]
Skepticism can be an opinion, or a healthy thing to do. But on this site it tends to be an emotion of hate, distrust, and fear.
[/QUOTE]
Spiritualism is born out of fear of the unknown, seeking to fill in the gaps between the observable and the hidden. Those who depend on spiritualism cannot bear to live in a a universe where events seemingly happen without explanation, so they fill in the blanks with fantasy, then demand that all respect their faith in the unprovable.
Science embraces the unknown, and when there is no explanation for phenomena, science is not afraid to say, “I don’t know”. Science uses this recognition that there are things we can not yet explain as a motivation to discover evidence to support new theories and ultimately expand human knowledge.
Spiritualism has no such motivation to improve itself; it is a stagnant, dead end that can never grow beyond it own limitations. Those who cling to it do so out of the fear of trusting their own ability to reason and understand from observable evidence. I pity those who have abandoned the power of reason to take solace in mythology; they are no better than a drunk who feels happier when he drinks.
[QUOTE=lekatt]
You are confused because you don’t understand spirituality
[/QUOTE]
So he isn’t a true Scotsman at all, eh?
Actually, you’re confused because you accepted outrageous claims of psychic power based on no proof at all. And on top of that, you’ve re-labeled gullibility as “Spirituality” and are actually touting it as a virtue.
You seem to be handwaving a lot in this thread. If you can’t find any proof, it might be because there isn’t any.