Short on evidence still I see.
Oh, well… I’ll just be on my way then until you get ready to debate.
Theist here. Very skeptical about “paranormal” type claims. Not closed to any and all empirical evidence. Believing in G-d does not indicate the willingness to believe everything on faith. Skeptic is the flip side of gullible. I would be proud to call myself a skeptic were it not for that little deity belief of mine.
No. There is currently no proof that any of those things exist.
I “was” a Baptist for most of my life and yes, I did believe in evolution, later as the evidence became irrefutable. I may have been encouraged to believe a certain way, but was allowed to think as I pleased.
You know Aeschines, these arguments of yours are almost identical to the ones you used in another thread that comes to mind. In both threads, you have failed to provide one shred of empirical evidence. You continue to miss the fact that in GD, you make a claim and then you prove it with fact or even at least show why it’s extremely likely to be true. Don’t you get tired of continuously failing to prove your points?
Oh, so the fact that there is no hard evidence has nothing to do with it, then? Oh, wait, you claim to be able to link to a controlled study of remote viewing. Yet you have refrained from doing so. Thus I must conclude that either:
You do not, in fact, have a link to any sort of controlled study.
or
The study you have a link to does not provide favorable results.
So which is it? If I’m wrong, all it would take to make me eat my words is a simple link. However, you seem to be more concerned with bashing “Skeptos” than with engaging in an actual debate.
OK, let me step in here for a second and try this. You started a thread in Great Debates not to debate the reality or not of remote viewing. But merely to suggest that skeptics can no longer sit comfortably by while the popular culture ignores paranormal phenomena. That is, that skeptics should become worried that paranormals are being given more and more attention in more and more mainstream forums. Did I get that right?
If so, then I agree with you. The fact that John Edwards had a second show proves this thesis easily enough. However, you may need to provide some sort of evidence, in the case of your Japanese show, that the phenomena was intended as more than entertainment. It is possible that more and more people are falling for the paranormal sillyness. But it is equally possible that entertainment tastes are becoming sophisticated enough that demonstrations of paranormal activity can be aired without requiring belief. That is, as some have suggested, the demonstration could have been mere entertainment.
I thought the analogy to Jerry Springer was pretty apt to this possibility. No one seriously (I most sincerely hope) thinks of Jerry as a sincere guidance councilor. It is possible that the show you mentioned and John Edwards are enjoyed by people in the same way.
It is extraordinary and we have proof:
http://en2.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mechanics
Very general information, and not better than random.
As per the last cite, you are the one who doesn’t know what is talking about.
Newton was the product of a different era, anyhow, today his mathematics would pass luster even if dated, but not his Alquemy.
And by the 20th century, the most famous goofer was Edison, a non-believer.
The results of experiments and the debunking of great TV frauds like James Hydrick shows that we need experiments that will show us otherwise, experiments others can reproduce; that step is what allows the amazing technology of today, to work reliably; so far, your side can not do this basic next step.
Once again no better than random in controlled experiments, I rather go for a picture phone that will work 90% of the time.
As I do remember all the good it could be there (like finding Spalding Gray) it is irresponsible, and bordering on criminal negligence, that you guys can not figure ways to allow your phenomena to be tested independently. Either that, or they are afraid of ending like James Hydrick.
Or Ed Gruberman. 
This is just the pantywaist response that I expected:
“Skeptics” all agree because all their positions (A is untrue, B is untrue) just happen to be correct!
O, brilliant.
You’re missing the point, people. People just as committed to the scientific method and “correct” ways of thinking choose not to self-identify as skeptics precisely because they have come to different conclusions about the same set of positions.
But if anyone should happen to disagree with any element of that set, he’s labeled a credulous fool and mocked without mercy.
Nice social approach. I can just imagine you people sitting in a circle, muching on Cheetos, and feeling superior to the 99.99% of people out there who care fuck all about whether they’re worthy of the “skeptic” label.
If the case of James Hydrick doesn’t make you reflect about the quality of evidence entertainment shows swallow, your conclusions are to be suspected, we need those psychics to give us something to begin, to make phenomena they are proposing, as almost automatic as other technologies, the field of entertainment is the worst place to look for new discoveries.
If they have a foolproof way to replicate their phenomenon, it is irresponsible and inhumane that they do not seek a more scientific approach to find what, by this time, should the obvious new discoveries.
Aeschines, you are making an incorrect assumption that skeptics don’t want to believe in the “paranormal” or “supernatural.” I am a scientist, and I would be fascinated and delighted if I could find evidence for aliens visiting the earth, or talking with the dead, or this “remote viewing.” There’s nothing more exciting for a scientist than a chance to shatter our current understanding of the universe. Some scientists spend their entire careers trying to find experimental or observational results that disprove Relativity or QM.
If you have a Master’s in science you should know this. You should also know that none of the evidence you provided come anywhere close to being convincing anyone.
Now you’re just staing your own belief re RV, not a fact.
The fact that relativity and quantum mechanics don’t match is well known. The fact that you don’t know it casts doubt on your whole approach to this argument. Here’s your cite + a quote from the source.
http://www.mtnmath.com/whatrh/node75.html
There is no theory that combines quantum mechanics and general relativity. In quantum mechanics the greater the accuracy of a measurement of location the more uncertainty there is a in the measurement of energy. The uncertainty principle applies not just to particles but also to empty space. Over very short intervals phantom or virtual particles can appear. The shorter the time the more massive the particles can be. At very short intervals virtual particles will be massive enough to form black holes. One cannot extrapolate simultaneously both quantum mechanics and general relativity to minute distances. The theories explode or diverge.
I readily recognize that quantum mechanics is true. Whether it’s extraordinary or not is, again, just a matter of opinion.
Oh dear. The phrase is “pass muster.” And it’s spelled “alchemy.” A different era, huh? Many scientists today believe in God. Here is an article by a magician who knows that psi is real:
http://66.221.71.68/content/research/cox.htm
First, I’m not on a “side,” but since you adhere to one side so much yourself, I can understand why you should assume so. Two, many hardcore experiments have veriried psi. Oh, here’s a link to website full of them:
http://www.boundary.org/experiments.htm
We’re talking about an aspect of the human mind, not a machine created for a specific purpose.
I’m not one of “you guys,” and it is not “my phenomenon.” Your rhetoric is getting more and more frazzled. BTW, I have no idea who either Gray or Hydrick are.
How rich. First, it’s an observation, not an assumption.
Second, “skeptics” as a group take pride in not believing in what “credulous fools” believe, and form their social identity thereby.
I certainly don’t put all these phenomena in one box, and I think anyone who does is already revealing his or her agenda. I believe psi has been proved, I believe ghosts have been proved, and I believe the afterlife has been proved–all three beyond a reasonable doubt. I’ll argue for these three things and not necessarily for any others.
I’m certainly not out to disprove relativity or QM–they require mutual integration in some areas, but they are basically good. The funny thing is that the three phenomena I say I believe in would hardly “shatter” our current understanding of the universe, as most people already “understand” that they are true.
I also know a lot about human psychology, which goes a long way toward explaining the Skepto approach.
You didn’t provide any proof when you “argued” your “ghost belief”. No one received anything that proved them beyond a resonable doubt. I am relieved to know that there is now proof of an “afterlife”, though. Maybe you can start another thread and prove that to us, also.:rolleyes:
:rolleyes:
Specially because I already linked to the thread that had this:
http://www.totse.com/en/fringe/dreams_auras_astral_projection/psi.html
BTW, Hydrick became famous earlier, when one of the most popular shows on TV, “That’s Incredible!” claimed him to be the real deal!
And you know NOTHING about the scientific approach, which goes even farther towards explaining YOUR approach.
As for Spalding Gray, a simple Google search would be enough for you :dubious:, that is a perfect case for RV, but the track record of RV researches is the pits. If you had look at other posts in this thread, you would already have found about the lack of effectiveness of RV.
BTW Aeschines from that link on Hydrick:
The proponents of paranormal phenomena can indeed fool scientists.
Not knowing about the Hydrick affair? For one that supposedly knows lots about the truth about psychic phenomena, not knowing about him, is like a physicist that doesn’t know about how Einstein got QM wrong!
Nothing, eh? My, how confident you seem.
Lame rejoinder. Please work on that. Cheers.
If he was a fraud and a cheat, then I’m glad he got caught.
Actually, I don’t know “lots” about pyschic phenomena. Can you find me claiming that in any thread?
I have my belief set and my command of logic and the English language. The latter two are enough to beat most people here to a rhetorical pulp.
Fine. It’s an incorrect observation.
And proponents of paranormal phenomena, as a group, take pride in not believing in what “the scientific community” believe, and form their social identity thereby.
Both statements are equally true (and qually false). Doesn’t get you anywhere in this discussion.
No, people do not “understand” they are true. People have fantasies about them being true. Unless you want to insist that “intuition” is a valid proof.
I agree with samclem, you have not demonstrated any familiarity with the scientific approach.
Actually, I have acknowledged before that I have problems with English, but I know enough to beat you into conceding what an ignorant you are in this matter. Hydrick is a good lesson, learn from it grasshopper.
“If he was a fraud”? Excuse me: what did you said about logic? So much to learn, so much to learn…