[QUOTE=KGS]
You are far too daft to realize this, but even though you said, “There has never been a scrap of evidence, ever, to support such magic hoodoo,” you just linked to a story which explains everything. Yes, there is a fire-breathing dragon. You have probably noticed it, many times. And you’ve chosen to deny that it exists. Why? Because you need to not believe in the dragon. Your disbelief is vital to your self-identity.
[/QUOTE]
We have now officially entered the Twilight Zone.
[QUOTE=KGS]
Ah, now that is pure prejudice. You’ve already made up your mind that psychic ability does not exist, and yet you claim the willingness to accept “proof”. How can you ever accept “proof”, if you’ve already made up your mind?
[/QUOTE]
Why is it that closedminded fluffbrains always assume that everyone else is closedminded? I never assume that everyone else is a short Swede with a penchant for cold chicken.
Anywho, I thought I recognised the three letter combination this morons has chosen for a moniker, so I did a quick search. As it turns out, this person who has never taken the stance that psychic powers actually exist, has also attempted (and miserably failed) to predict the future through dreams. I think this post is the most telling, but there are plenty more.
[QUOTE=Priceguy]
As it turns out, this person who has never taken the stance that psychic powers actually exist, has also attempted (and miserably failed) to predict the future through dreams. I think this post is the most telling, but there are plenty more.
[/QUOTE]
Fuck me. I knew that would come out eventually.
Well, might as well make some popcorn…this is gonna get real interesting.
[QUOTE=Airman Doors, USAF]
We have now officially entered the Twilight Zone.
[/QUOTE]
I’m just sorry that I couldn’t possibly ever do enough drugs to have that stuff make any sense. I feel left out of some Crazy Club or something.
Holy fruitloops, batman.
[QUOTE=Airman Doors, USAF]
You can’t be prejudiced against something that doesn’t exist.
[/QUOTE]
Careful, Airman, with a statement like that you could attract the burden of proof. I know what you are trying to say, but some things are not provable, or disprovable.
A person who is deaf from birth will argue to his death that there is no evidence of music. A hearing person will argue otherwise. What evidence will convince the deaf person?
I think, with respect, that a more accurate description of your stance is, “there is no evidence, and therefore I suspend judgement”. Would you agree?
[QUOTE=Mellivora capensis]
Careful, Airman, with a statement like that you could attract the burden of proof. I know what you are trying to say, but some things are not provable, or disprovable.
[/quote]
Those are semantic noise. And the Null Hypothesis holds sway until it’s falsified.
[QUOTE=Mellivora capensis]
A person who is deaf from birth will argue to his death that there is no evidence of music. A hearing person will argue otherwise. What evidence will convince the deaf person?
[/quote]
Hopefully, being shown evidence of sound waves.
[QUOTE=Mellivora capensis]
I think, with respect, that a more accurate description of your stance is, “there is no evidence, and therefore I suspend judgement”. Would you agree?
[/QUOTE]
Seems like he was saying that he didn’t believe it existed.
We don’t have to suspend judgement just because someone claims something.
[QUOTE=FinnAgain]
Those are semantic noise. And the Null Hypothesis holds sway until it’s falsified.
Hopefully, being shown evidence of sound waves.
Seems like he was saying that he didn’t believe it existed.
We don’t have to suspend judgement just because someone claims something.
[/QUOTE]
I hear you, FinnAgain,…errrr…okay, ‘hear’ is probably not a good term here, but to the deaf person it would just be lines on a piece of paper, surely? Is that evidence enough?
And I agree, we don’t have to suspend judgement, I just think that it is the safer, more neutral response to a claim, and one that prevents hours and hours of fruitless to-ing and fro-ing. A ‘weak-atheism/agnostic’ response, if you will.
[QUOTE=Airman Doors, USAF]
What prejudice? All that is required is proof of psychic abilities that goes above the level of luck or coincidence. When someone has the audacity to make a claim like that they are responsible for substantiating it.
I find it telling that out of 6 billion people currently living and all the rest that have come before not a single one of them has ever been able to substantiate such a claim in a manner that would be acceptable to even the least skeptical scientist.
You can’t be prejudiced against something that doesn’t exist.
[/QUOTE]
I feel the same about “god”. Billions of people live/have lived and not a single one has ever been able to substaniate such a claim in a manner that would be acceptable to even the least sceptical scientist.
I don’t believe in past/passed life crap, in any of it’s dodgy forms.
[QUOTE=Mellivora capensis]
I hear you, FinnAgain,…errrr…okay, ‘hear’ is probably not a good term here, but to the deaf person it would just be lines on a piece of paper, surely? Is that evidence enough?
[/quote]
Well, it depends. One could, for instance, show how sound waves can affect the dispersion of gasseous matter. Or put the deaf person in front of powerful speakers so he could feel the force of the sound, or have experts testify, or some such. The point you are making is, of course, valid. Sometimes we do not have access to direct evidence, but even in these cases we can think up possible experiments that could validate it.
And, we’ve done the same for Psi, they just never bear fruit.
[QUOTE=Mellivora capensis]
And I agree, we don’t have to suspend judgement, I just think that it is the safer, more neutral response to a claim, and one that prevents hours and hours of fruitless to-ing and fro-ing. A ‘weak-atheism/agnostic’ response, if you will.
[/quote]
Yes and no, Mellivora. As I’ve often argued, one can maintain an agnostic outlook and still cleave to the Null Hypothesis. One can, if you will, decide that something is highly unlikely and that they don’t have any reason to believe in it but that definitive proof one way or the other is not possible.
Some things, however, are sacred cows for us. Others are not. Most people would not, for example, suspend judgement if you told them that you believed in Pixies, but they were part of honest belief in some Celtic regions.
So perhaps it is wrong to state that there isn’t even the possibility of “spooky action at a distance”. But to disbelieve in it until there is any evidence for it seems a valid call, to me, at least.
And hey, look at that, we’re actually having a discussion rather than drug induced ramblings. We have soooo ruined this thread. 
[QUOTE=KGS]
Still…
Psychic = Psychotic. Heh. Some would claim so, I guess.
[/QUOTE]
I make no claim that psychic = psychotic. However, a person who lashes out with false accusations against another poster, accusing them of hostility when they have displayed none, and calling someone who has been unswaveringly polite an “asshole” is displaying antisocial behavior that resembles psychosis. When the accuser can take the time to post drivel in another thread but is “too busy” to go back and see that his own accusations are baseless, then I would say the accuser is behaving like a twit.
[QUOTE=FinnAgain]
Well, it depends. One could, for instance, show how sound waves can affect the dispersion of gasseous matter. Or put the deaf person in front of powerful speakers so he could feel the force of the sound, or have experts testify, or some such. The point you are making is, of course, valid. Sometimes we do not have access to direct evidence, but even in these cases we can think up possible experiments that could validate it.
[/QUOTE]
If nothing else, it would be quite simple to prove to a deaf person that other people can access information in a manner undetectable to the deaf person, which is a close analogy to what you should be able to do with psychic powers.
[QUOTE=Priceguy]
If nothing else, it would be quite simple to prove to a deaf person that other people can access information in a manner undetectable to the deaf person, which is a close analogy to what you should be able to do with psychic powers.
[/QUOTE]
Agreed, and well done!
Even if I’m a “psychic blank”, I should be able to give a phrase to one telepath and have them transmit it to a second one. That would, at least, show that something testable, verifiable, and refutable was going on.
[QUOTE=FinnAgain]
So perhaps it is wrong to state that there isn’t even the possibility of “spooky action at a distance”. But to disbelieve in it until there is any evidence for it seems a valid call, to me, at least.
And hey, look at that, we’re actually having a discussion rather than drug induced ramblings. We have soooo ruined this thread.
[/QUOTE]
(my underlining) I absolutely agree, and if I may compare it to what Airman said (not picking on you Airman), I think my point boils down to the subtle yet important difference between saying I “disbelieve”, and it “doesn’t exist”. If you disbelieve and merely leave it that, you don’t attract the onus of proof. If you say it doesn’t exist, a smart lawyer will be all over you like a bad rash.
I guess where I’m coming from is less from a statistically based Null Hypothesis platform, and more from a legal one. Although IANAL, my job is very “legalese”, and I’ve learned to avoid at all costs the temptation to take a fixed position, positive or negative, without evidence.
[QUOTE=FinnAgain]
Agreed, and well done!
Even if I’m a “psychic blank”, I should be able to give a phrase to one telepath and have them transmit it to a second one. That would, at least, show that something testable, verifiable, and refutable was going on.
[/QUOTE]
Good point. There is literature that suggests that this has indeed been done, and from as far away as the Apollo 14 module in space. As it turns out, I’m busy reading “The Field” by Lynne McTaggart, which describes Edgar Mitchell’s unofficial yet supposedly substantially verifiable experiments with telepathy. Whilst in space, he would concentrate on random so-called Zener symbols, jot them down, and on returning to earth he compared them to 6 colleagues on earth who had participated in the experiment. Allegedly the results were “significant, with a one in 3000 probability that this was due to chance.”
Is this conclusive evidence of telepathic abilities? Who knows, but it sure is interesting.
There’s a lot of “supposedly” and “allegedly” in there.
[QUOTE=Priceguy]
There’s a lot of “supposedly” and “allegedly” in there.
[/QUOTE]
I tend to choose my words very carefully in such matters. I can only go on what is printed in the book, so I cannot verify the accuracy of the experiments, or even to them having taken place at all.
For all I know, there wasn’t even an Apollo 14, and it was all filmed in a studio somewhere…I kid, I kid.
[QUOTE=Priceguy]
Anywho, I thought I recognised the three letter combination this morons has chosen for a moniker, so I did a quick search. As it turns out, this person who has never taken the stance that psychic powers actually exist, has also attempted (and miserably failed) to predict the future through dreams. I think this post is the most telling, but there are plenty more.
[/QUOTE]
What so nutty about that? I predicted my own future just last night.
In the future, I will be a member of the Fantastic Four (The human Torch. Thanks for asking) and together we will roll a tractor down a hill to hit a woman who buys lots of lottery tickets.
[QUOTE=KGS]
I’m too busy with real life to go back read the whole stupid thread, so I’ll just take your word for it.
[/QUOTE]
Right. Just like you were too busy to support your claims that ianzin was evasive, hostile, and in denial. Whether you like it or not your words are there and anyone who cares to can see for themselves how utterly without merit your claims are, and how utterly devoid of character, class, and integrity you are.
It’s good to see my new, favorite poster is at it again. The senseless comments, baseless character assasinations, and absurdity continues!