Brits report psychic powers.
- Thread starter Blackleaf
- Start date
No, I suppose not, except that it's contrary to everything we do understand about how nature works, every properly documented and researched claim has proven to have prosaic explanations consistent with that, and nobody's ever turned up any good evidence to support the reality of any psychic phenomena in over a century of serious investigation. In the absence of any evidence to support such claims, I see no reason to believe.
It's true that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, but it's not a reason to believe anything either. The burden of proof's on the people making the claims. They haven't done so, and the only reasonable conclusion is that they can't, because the phenomena aren't real. That conclusion is eminently falsifiable, it needs only a single proven case, and there's a million U.S. dollars held in trust by the James Randi Educational Foundation, waiting for the person who can do it. Lots of people have tried (mostly dowsers), nobody's ever got past the preliminaries, and famous high profile psychics like Sylvia Browne, John Edward, and James van Praaghe, continue to weasel out of trying. They know perfectly well they can't do it.
Well, you've got to admit that we are at the kindergarten stage of understanding nature Dexter, and science little better!
[quote=Dexter Sinister;787966] The burden of proof's on the people making the claims. They haven't done so, and the only reasonable conclusion is that they can't, because the phenomena aren't real[/quote]
Aren't you just as biased by those that claim that the phenomena are real then, by stating that the only reasonable conclusion is to believe that it isn't real? I mean, it's hardly being open minded is it? What you're actually saying is 'You're wrong, because you can't prove any of it!' 'But, since there is no definitive proof, I'm right, even though I can't prove I'm right!'
I'm sure you know, as well as most folk that there is a great deal of controversy over whether the test is fair and ethically scientific! Most skeptics trot out James Randi without the slightest clue as to what the test actually entails.. .
I don't know how true it is that 'lots of people have tried!' I was under the impression that in fact no-one had tried! Do you have er.. proof of this?
It's all on the site at www.randi.org : details of the challenge, information about past applicants, terms and conditions, proof the funds are available, FAQs, whatever you want to know. There's even an application for those care to try it. The controversy about it is engendered entirely by believers who know perfectly well they can't demonstrate a thing, they just don't like being challenged so plainly so they try to discredit the challenge with innuendo and slander. The tests are structured--and this is unmistakably clear in the protocols--so that both the people doing the testing and the people being tested agree the test is fair and reasonable. Sylvia Browne agreed on Larry King Live on 3 Sept. 2001 to a definitive test of her claimed abilities, there's a video clip on the site of her making the commitment , and she has so far weaseled and squirmed and ducked away from it, because she knows she can't produce results. She's also been caught out in major errors recently, like the West Virginia mining disaster a year ago, and telling the parents of a missing child that the boy was dead, only to have him turn up alive and well shortly afterwards. She doesn't do very well on her annual predictions for the year ahead either. No psychic does, none of them can do what they claim, every single one of them is a fake. Most of them probably don't know they're fakes, it's not a deliberate fraud, they're just self-deluded, but any thorough analysis of their activities demonstrates they cannot really do what they claim at any level better than random guessing.
And no, I am not biased, except in favour of logic, reason, and evidence, which I should point out are the only reliable methods we've ever found for testing the truth content of ideas. I am merely stating that if psychic and paranormal phenomena are real, show me the evidence. Prove the case, and if you can't, I'm not going to believe you. You can't just make the claims then argue that because I can't definitively prove you're wrong, there must (or even might) be some truth to them, that's completely illogical, but it's essentially your position so far. A position unsupported by evidence is propositionally vacuous. I could claim there are invisible orange monkeys in my basement, and there's no evidence you can produce that'll prove me wrong, but would you believe my claim without any evidence? If you do, that's carrying open-mindedness to the extreme of having your brains fall out.
And no, I am not biased, except in favour of logic, reason, and evidence, which I should point out are the only reliable methods we've ever found for testing the truth content of ideas. I am merely stating that if psychic and paranormal phenomena are real, show me the evidence. Prove the case, and if you can't, I'm not going to believe you. You can't just make the claims then argue that because I can't definitively prove you're wrong, there must (or even might) be some truth to them, that's completely illogical, but it's essentially your position so far. A position unsupported by evidence is propositionally vacuous. I could claim there are invisible orange monkeys in my basement, and there's no evidence you can produce that'll prove me wrong, but would you believe my claim without any evidence? If you do, that's carrying open-mindedness to the extreme of having your brains fall out.
Sylvia Browne is a joke but Ive seen and KNOW the real thing. I wont argue with anyone about it......I KNOW it to be true.
No you don't dear, you know what you want to believe is true. Not the same thing. You can't prove your claims, you have only anecdote, hearsay, and your personal interpretations of things that have happened to you. I do not deny those things have happened to you, but I do challenge your interpretations of them.
Like I said My Sweet Friend I know what I know and noone can take it away from me.
Just as You are sound in your beliefs so am I. Thats what makes people interesting.
Hardly an unbiased site though, is it?
First of all let me make one thing clear; I wouldn't believe Sylvia Browne if she flat out stated she was female, or that the sky was blue! I don't know a great deal of her; I had read of the mining disaster, and Sylvia's fast backpeddle on her initial statement... however, I have not heard of the missing child prediction. I certainly believe you on anything to do with Sylvia, but, do you have a link on it please?
uh?? I made no claims whatsoever of psychics and dowsers! I simply said that absence of evidence etc... where did that come from?
I agree! I would certainly not call you an out and out liar, but, on the other hand I wouldn't be entirely convinced either. I would however, keep an open mind as to your claim, until proven false! Now, Sylvia Browne, by her own statements has proven to be false on several occassions, and has lost any credibility that she may have earned in many people's eye's, not that she ever had any in mine; but, does that mean that she doesn't have some ability as a medium? I've never heard of the other medium you spoke of, but, what about John Edward? What's his score on the skeptics ratings? What about Edward Cayce, Nostrodamus? You see, the thing is, that despite the absence of evidence, people do keep making predictions that come true.
er... can you prove that there are/aren't invisible orange monkeys in your basement?
Self... we have a programme here called 'Sensing Murder' whereby psychics explore the case of murders that have occured in New Zealand. One can't fail to be impressed by some of these people!
Johns amazing. He's not all "hype" hes real and down to earth. Im quite the sceptic really but I trust him totally. Hell I didnt trust ME at first let alone somebody I had no ties to at all. There are cold readers that are very convincing but just are reading your expressions and pulling info out. Any Psych 101 student can do that kind of reading.
I've just been reading the link you posted selfactivated! Apparently John does a programme in Japan called 'FBI: Psychic Investigators.' Does he actually work for the FBI as an Investigator? I mean, aren't the FBI renowned for skepticism? Yet, if they use him, there must be something to it all... I've been searching for a link to a court case, of a crime that was committed and was only brought to court through the evidence of a psychic witness.. I'll keep trying.
Yes Maam......hes worked for germany, the alps , south carolina..........hes amazing. I go say hi everytime hes in town
I never did get a response for Edgar Casey and Nostradamus. It is easy to discredit things when you use scams and Cons to ptoove that. God knows science had they're share. Cold Fusion like one.
To be synical on the level of tricky Dex, you can't trust all the things posted on the net, for or against. Using it to prove your claim is iffy . Lets turn this around. Science base on theories with equations due to observations, after sometime of accept as true some other scientist comes along to change that theory. hmmmm What science has proven is that it to stands on shaky ground sometimes.
Theory of light particle being a wave at the sametime, nobody has seen a light particle if I recall. How do you prove it exist if you haven't seen it. As for dowsing I 've seen my uncle do it for the town to find water pipes, I think the way he does it can be explained scientifically.
Libra girl I love your arguements , I'm impressed.
To be synical on the level of tricky Dex, you can't trust all the things posted on the net, for or against. Using it to prove your claim is iffy . Lets turn this around. Science base on theories with equations due to observations, after sometime of accept as true some other scientist comes along to change that theory. hmmmm What science has proven is that it to stands on shaky ground sometimes.
Theory of light particle being a wave at the sametime, nobody has seen a light particle if I recall. How do you prove it exist if you haven't seen it. As for dowsing I 've seen my uncle do it for the town to find water pipes, I think the way he does it can be explained scientifically.
Libra girl I love your arguements , I'm impressed.
Thank you El Barto... however, I'm the first to admit that I'm not a good debater lol. I do think though that radical skeptics sometimes appear to be desperate in their denial, and it makes me wonder why they fear this unchartered area.
Even with some of my own experience I doubt my self for having very little tangible proof other than what I felt and what has happened. To be able to give the sceptics the winning lottery number would be to good for them. But sceptisism to a certain point is healthy.