Another locked topic because you didnt have an answer! [Archive]

Kristophe

05-January-2006, 06:21 PM

So once again a topic gets locked just because science hasn't got an answer.

Science has an answer. The answer was "no".

The 'Do scientists see ghosts' topic that I started has just been locked because apparently it was 'going off topic' because religion had entered the debate. Well considering that mediumship is the belief of Spiritualists that is a religion, how is it going off topic?

I blame myself. I was going somewhere with my line of questioning, but got distracted by lunch. I had a powerful need to eat sometime this month, and I went with it.

"Real" mediums don't get paid.
Why not?
Chuch said so.
People don't always listen to their church.
Normally they do.
What's normal?... Ooo, pizza!

What I was getting at was when you were pushed for evidence and explanation, you turned to "it just is" and "because they said so". Those aren't answers.

I am also getting very tired of being asked for 'scientific evidence' and then being told 'maybe he was wrong' when I post it.

If you can be told "Maybe he was wrong", then you didn't post evidence. You posted either someone's interpretation of evidence unseen, or stories. Stories aren't evidence, and stories about "scientists" aren't scientific evidence.

There seems to be a familiar theme going through this forum, if you cannot successfully explain the topic then the best course of action is to lock it so that the poster will go away. :wall:

You're looking to get another one locked already.

I'm keen to point out that it's not our job to explain the phenomenon. That burden rests solely on you. If you come to a skeptics forum, you should expect to be talking to skeptics. People here aren't going to believe what you say because you think they aught. You haven't even shown that the phenomenon exists, let alone offered an explanation.

I also like the double standards shown here where senior members have the ability to throw out any hypothesis in a bid to quash the debunker, without evidence, and yet if a person like myself did the same thing we would be told that we didnt have evidence to back up our claim and shouted down and shouted down by countless members.

If someone doesn't carry the burden of proof, they have a smaller obligation to present specific data. This is especially true if they're defending well established theories with well documented evidence. On top of that, if someone has a history of making well substantiated claims, and demonstrating knowledge in a given field, then they eventually gain the trust of the community.

You have not earned that trust.

Moonrock

05-January-2006, 07:18 PM

The problem is that you ask for scientific evidence, so what would be the best way of doing that? Ahh, wouldnt it be where you actually point towards a 3 year study carried out by a World renowned scientist who has written countless articles and books on what he found?

The evidence written by that person is there for you to see, all you have to do is Google his name and youll find all the scientific evidence youll ever need.

To say that the scientist was probably mistaken in what he saw reflects once again the very narrowminded views of most of the posters that I have encountered on these forums.

The only perrson your fooling is yourself. :naughty:

JohnW

05-January-2006, 07:29 PM

Kristophe

05-January-2006, 08:40 PM

The problem is that you ask for scientific evidence, so what would be the best way of doing that?

Oh, I don't know. Perhaps you could point to something with a little more weight than something published in Two Worlds: A Monthly Magazine for Spiritualists (or at the very least, point to it in a way that doesn't get the post deleted for copyright infringement). Something in the realm of Nature or even Science. You know, something that would have some credibility to the scientifically minded.

150 year old articles in the Quarterly Journal of Science are a start, though it would be nice if they had reports of actual evidence, instead of confessions that no evidence was ever presented.

The reviewer says that in my paper of July, 1870, my conclusion was "based on evidence which I admitted to be scientifically incomplete." Now, in that paper I gave no experimental evidence whatever. After testifying emphatically as to the genuineness of two of the phenomena, I gave an outline of certain tests which in my opinion ought to be applied, and, in a foot-note, I said that my preliminary tests in this direction had been satisfactory. Is this admitting that I had not employed such tests? Is it fair to say that my results were "based on evidence which I admitted to be scientifically incomplete"? (http://www.survivalafterdeath.org/books/crookes/researches/force.htm)

Ahh, wouldnt it be where you actually point towards a 3 year study carried out by a World renowned scientist who has written countless articles and books on what he found?

Which world reknown scientist? The one whose name we don't know? Or the one who admits that they've not presented any evidence?

The evidence written by that person is there for you to see, all you have to do is Google his name and youll find all the scientific evidence youll ever need.

Is there a reason you can't be specific about who "that person" is?

To say that the scientist was probably mistaken in what he saw reflects once again the very narrowminded views of most of the posters that I have encountered on these forums.

Mind's open. It's just not going to hit the floor anytime soon.

I've aready said it once, but there are only two reasons why someone would question "the scientist's" interpretation of the evidence: They have interpreted the evidence differently, or no evidence has been presented.

The only perrson your fooling is yourself. :naughty:
There's only one person here making any claims.

HenrikOlsen

05-January-2006, 09:02 PM

HenrikOlsen

05-January-2006, 09:08 PM

Jim

05-January-2006, 09:45 PM

The evidence written by that person is there for you to see, all you have to do is Google his name and youll find all the scientific evidence youll ever need.

Since it's you making the claims and using "that person's" "evidence" to support it, it seems logical that it is your responsibility to provide a link - at least one - to the information you are presenting. Making a claim and "supporting" it by telling us, "The information is out there, just go find it" doesn't make for a very strong case.

Dragon Star

05-January-2006, 09:58 PM

So once again a topic gets locked just because science hasn't got an answer.

The 'Do scientists see ghosts' topic that I started has just been locked because apparently it was 'going off topic' because religion had entered the debate. Well considering that mediumship is the belief of Spiritualists that is a religion, how is it going off topic?

I am also getting very tired of being asked for 'scientific evidence' and then being told 'maybe he was wrong' when I post it.

There seems to be a familiar theme going through this forum, if you cannot successfully explain the topic then the best course of action is to lock it so that the poster will go away. :wall:

I also like the double standards shown here where senior members have the ability to throw out any hypothesis in a bid to quash the debunker, without evidence, and yet if a person like myself did the same thing we would be told that we didnt have evidence to back up our claim and shouted down and shouted down by countless members.

*Plays the worlds smallest Violin*...:boohoo:

pghnative

05-January-2006, 10:12 PM

Just curious, but why don't you use your powers to predict lottery numbers? Or maybe you could contact the ghost of Jimmy Hoffa --- <snip>
Or maybe contact Amelia Earhardt -- you'd be pretty famous if you could definitively find her plane. If that doesn't work, there's always D.B. Cooper --- find out if he survived the parachute landing, and where the money is.

You see, what I don't understand is why spiritualists don't use their powers for something useful. They're always "revealing" that person A's father was named Pete, that he always loved his wife and that he's sorry. They never reveal the murderer's name, or where a robber hid the money, or whether anyone was shooting from the grassy knoll.You misunderstand the ability of mediumship. A medium CANNOT ask for specific people to make contact. It’s the spirit who decides to contact the medium, not the other way around. And the gift of mediumship is given as a gift, it is not there to make money – money has no meaning to the spirit world so why should they give lottery numbers?

So if there are spritualists out there who really can talk to ghosts, but there are fake spiritualists out there who are out to scam people for money, how do you propose that we tell the difference between the two? How are we supposed to know which spiritualists are real and which are fakes.

See, in the realm of science, there are honest scientists who try to discover new truths. There are also dishonest scientists who publish fake data in order to obtain fame and grant money. The neat thing is that by trying to reproduce the scientists results, one can tell the difference between the honest ones and the fakes. (Sometimes it takes a while, but eventually the fakes are revealed.)

Again, how are we supposed to know the real spiritualists from the fake ones? How are we supposed to know if you are a real spiritualist or a fake one?

Van Rijn

05-January-2006, 10:26 PM

Well, I didn't see any scientific evidence (data, preferably peer-reviewed, maybe with some measure of statistical significance). I did see some anecdotes. Maybe I missed it: if you did post any scientific evidence, could you let me know where? Thanks.

Heh. I was all ready to make an almost identical comment. Moonrock, on the old thread I discussed the requirements for real evidence and made some book recommendations that I'm quite sure you ignored. Given the many ways people can fool themselves and others, especially those that want to believe, and the many methods that hidden communication can occur consciously or unconsciously, any scientific evidence would need to be carefully collected by people that know how to properly conduct the experiment. You haven't shown such evidence or given any hint that you understand the process.

pghnative

05-January-2006, 10:32 PM

Looks like Moonrock has left for the time being. It'll be interesting to see if he/she comes back for an honest discussion.

HenrikOlsen

05-January-2006, 10:32 PM

I think it would be polite to step back a bit and give moonrock a chance to answer, he may be in a timezone that prevents more responses immediately.

Moonrock

06-January-2006, 12:54 AM

If any of you had bothered to read the topic that this thread refers to 'Do scientists see ghosts?', you could have easily spotted the link to the scientist I was talking about and seen his credentials.

Anyhow, seeming that I usually have to hold your hand to even get the simplest of my theories across, heres what Sir William Crookes did and heres the link again to his studies into the ghost phenomenon.

Sir William Crookes
http://www.survivalafterdeath.org/books/crookes/researches/force.htm

Highly distinguished physicist and chemist. Discovered the element thallium. Elected fellow of the Royal Society in 1863, Royal Gold Medal 1875, Davy Medal 1888, Sir Joseph Copley Medal 1904, knighted in 1897 and the Order of Merit in 1910. Invented the radiometer, developed the Crookes tube, invented the cathode-ray tube, pioneered research into radiation effects, contributed to photography, wireless telegraphy, electricity and spectroscopy. President at different times of the Royal Society, the Chemical Society, the Institution of Electrical Engineers, the Society of Chemical Industry, the Society for Psychical Research (from 1896-1899) and the British Association. Founder of the Chemical News, editor of Quarterly Journal of Science.

So if there are spritualists out there who really can talk to ghosts, but there are fake spiritualists out there who are out to scam people for money, how do you propose that we tell the difference between the two? How are we supposed to know which spiritualists are real and which are fakes.

See, in the realm of science, there are honest scientists who try to discover new truths. There are also dishonest scientists who publish fake data in order to obtain fame and grant money. The neat thing is that by trying to reproduce the scientists results, one can tell the difference between the honest ones and the fakes. (Sometimes it takes a while, but eventually the fakes are revealed.)

Again, how are we supposed to know the real spiritualists from the fake ones? How are we supposed to know if you are a real spiritualist or a fake one?

How do you tell which is the best brand of coffee at your local supermarket? Dont you try each brand to see which is the best? Or perhaps you go for one that is recommended by a friend?

Take my advice, go to your local spiritualist church, they wont charge you for a reading and you will be surprised at the readings. They may even pick you out - or that too scary a thought?

I have been thinking of how to explain the ability to see ghosts or experience paranormal things that you guys would think is odd. The best comparison I can think of is that a medium or anyone who has the ability to see other dimensions is rather like a deep sea diver. They can swim out into deep water and dive under the surface to see the wonderfully colourful fish and brilliant corals. Eventually they swim back to the beach where they meet a person who cant swim. They start describing the fish and corals, but the person who cannot swim doesnt believe them. How can that be, its only water!

Incidentally, many great scientists believed in ghosts and the afterlife. Edison, Newton and Einstein all believed that when we die that we carry on. Heres a nice little article about science and ghosts. http://www.zerotime.com/ghosts/science.htm

Nicolas

06-January-2006, 01:00 AM

Moonrock

06-January-2006, 01:12 AM

Actually the thread isnt deleted at all

http://www.bautforum.com/showpost.php?p=644599&postcount=209

Nicolas

06-January-2006, 01:14 AM

just a second

Moonrock

06-January-2006, 01:16 AM

Instead of blaming us for not reading your topic, you should have read the board rules. The only link you ever posted to Sir William Crookes was removed because of you violating the copyright rules. For those among us who only possess mainstream senses it was impossible to find the link in the thread. Now please let go of my hand.

The link Ive just posted above IS a link to a thread I wrote with a link to Sir William Crookes and the same story that I tried to post here last week which was removed for copyright reasons - Why not try clicking on a link once in a while before rushing to your keyboard?

Nicolas

06-January-2006, 01:19 AM

Moonrock

06-January-2006, 01:32 AM

Indeed that link still is there. But the only time you used the name "William Crookes" was removed from the thread because you violated copyright rules, hence no trace of that name was in the thread, only in the linked page. Which makes us wondering who you're talking about a legit (word?) question.

I did not suggest the whole thread was deleted, only that your link to Sir William Crooks was removed. In fact, it seems that you posted the link in the post you've shown which still is there, but the only time you used his name indeed was removed becuase of the copyright issue. I was wrong in saying that the link was removed, but the name was removed.

Is there a reason why you type "a well qualified scientist" and other descriptions so often instead of using the man's name?

Hmmm, seems to me that your just getting petty now. You wouldnt make a very good detective would you? You know the thread was 'Do scientists see ghosts', and that I said 'The problem is that you ask for scientific evidence, so what would be the best way of doing that? Ahh, wouldnt it be where you actually point towards a 3 year study carried out by a World renowned scientist who has written countless articles and books on what he found?'

So all you had to do was look at my posts in that thread and look for a link? Is it really that hard?

Anyway, youve got the guys name now and 2 articles to digest about him.

Im off to bed - night night

Musashi

06-January-2006, 01:34 AM

Hello pot, meet mr. kettle.

Nicolas

06-January-2006, 01:36 AM

If you keep referring to "a world renowned scientist" it is unclear to me which one you're talking about (there are so many scientists), even if you have linked to people before, we're not sure you're talking about the same person. And judging by the reactions of others here, I'm not the only one who thought it was unclear.

You can blame it on us not reading your topic, or on the fact that the name is currently found NOWHERE in the thread, or in this thread before this issue was brought up.

But indeed, we've got the name now.

Sir William Crookes, who's article is to be found at

http://www.survivalafterdeath.org/bo...ches/force.htm

That's cleared up then.
********
Hello, Musashi :)

HenrikOlsen

06-January-2006, 03:01 AM

How do you tell which is the best brand of coffee at your local supermarket? Dont you try each brand to see which is the best? Or perhaps you go for one that is recommended by a friend?
I tried a few made from beans from different places, then tried the brands using the beans I preferred, then picked the best of those.
I didn't rely on the stories my friends told me.

pghnative

06-January-2006, 03:16 AM

Again, how are we supposed to know the real spiritualists from the fake ones? How are we supposed to know if you are a real spiritualist or a fake one?How do you tell which is the best brand of coffee at your local supermarket? Dont you try each brand to see which is the best? Or perhaps you go for one that is recommended by a friend?Ironically (coincidentally?) I do not like coffee. Take my advice, go to your local spiritualist church, they wont charge you for a reading and you will be surprised at the readings. They may even pick you out - or that too scary a thought?Hmm. If science ever lets me down, perhaps I will. But then again, the benefits that you've quoted so far have been:
1) ability to name someone's grandmother's surname
2) ability to name her size (4 feet)
3) ability to describe the hotel (with two towers) and decor of a friend's recent vacation
4) you can have your next holiday predicted
5) you can describe previous customers of an old pub
6) you can predict what flowers someone has laid on their mother's grave
7) you can find your way through mazes quickly

That seems to be it from your personal experience.

As it turns out, I already know my grandmother's surname, her size, I already know the decor of the last hotel I visited and the flowers I laid on a relative's grave a few months back. So I don't really see the need for me to visit a medium. I'm glad you enjoy your lifestyle, but it does not have any apparant benefits for me.

Kristophe

06-January-2006, 04:02 AM

Let me post this quote again. It's linked above in my last post (which seems to have been conveniently ignored, as I did specifically look at, and look up, the scientist mentioned -- guess it's too hard to criticise someone who does what you ask), and is from one of William Crookes' papers published in the Quarterly Journal of Science.

The reviewer says that in my paper of July, 1870, my conclusion was "based on evidence which I admitted to be scientifically incomplete." Now, in that paper I gave no experimental evidence whatever. After testifying emphatically as to the genuineness of two of the phenomena, I gave an outline of certain tests which in my opinion ought to be applied, and, in a foot-note, I said that my preliminary tests in this direction had been satisfactory. Is this admitting that I had not employed such tests? Is it fair to say that my results were "based on evidence which I admitted to be scientifically incomplete"?

In fact, I can't find any papers, hosted on the the clearly impartial /sarcasm site that is linked to or otherwise, published by Crookes that does present actual data. As far as I can tell, even the peer reviewed, published articles about this are anticdotes. Mere ghost stories, the whole lot.

I have found, though, a lot of talk about how Crookes "proved" that there is life after death, and how people live in "the invisible universe". Funny that none of those pages linked back to any evidence.

LurchGS

06-January-2006, 04:21 AM

Nicholas - can you get that link to work? I get page not found for it, and several of the other links ON the page reporting page not found

Moonrock -

1 100 year old study with results incisistently reproduced constitutes pretty thin evidence in my book. (especially when you consider that his contemporary rationalist Sir Doyle firmly believed in ghosts and fairies, to the extent that he completely believed the fairies in the garden hoax) (this site recaps what I've read: http://www.siracd.com/life_spirit.shtml)

I've been present when modern prestidigitators have plied their trade, and I can say without doubt that many of the things I've seen LOOK like they defy explanation - and I knew how it was done. It's certainly easy to see how others could be taken in.

Sammy

06-January-2006, 04:59 AM

Several things to remember:

1. A "world-renowned scientist" may be totallaly incompetent outside his/her professional specialy.

2. Being interested in electronics, I have read articles on Dr. Crookes's work, and see nothing suggesting that he was knowlegable in experimental design in psychological research or in the analysis/interpretation of data from such research.

3. Even "world-renowned scientists" sometimes become mentally disturbed, or unconsiously biased in interpreting data/experimental results (read ther story of "N-Rays" sometime).

4. Findings by "world-renowned scientists" don't carry much weight when their findings can not be reproduced or verified by other scientists (ask Drs. Pons and Fleischman about that little problem).

paulie jay

06-January-2006, 05:03 AM

I am also getting very tired of being asked for 'scientific evidence' and then being told 'maybe he was wrong' when I post it.
Actually, Moonrock, the ONLY thing I asked you for was the name of a real police case that was solved by a medium. You stated that mediums had sovled cases for police, and I was merely asking for the name of one of the cases so that I could check it.

In another thread, in response to an assertion made by you, I asked for the name of a spritualist church in Sydney, Australia that I could go to so that I could see these ghosts for myself. Not a "reading", but the appearance of actual ghosts.

Still waiting. The longer I have to wait, the smaller your credibility becomes.

Maksutov

06-January-2006, 05:58 AM

[edit]Still waiting. The longer I have to wait, the smaller your credibility becomes.You mean, based on the verified, objective evidence M's supplied, this kind of smaller: 0, -1, -10, -100, ...?

Meanwhile the ads initiated by this topic are funny in their own right.

http://img458.imageshack.us/img458/3787/psychicalads1rb.jpg

Also, given the composition of the Title of this thread, it's surprising Wolverine and the militant apostrophists (http://www.apostrophe.fsnet.co.uk/)
haven't swooped down and savaged the OP.

Enzp

06-January-2006, 07:09 AM

Get with it, we no longer call them that. People in the know now refer to them as MAs. Or should that be MA's?

Van Rijn

06-January-2006, 08:00 AM

I've been present when modern prestidigitators have plied their trade, and I can say without doubt that many of the things I've seen LOOK like they defy explanation - and I knew how it was done. It's certainly easy to see how others could be taken in.

And there are a number of cases where scientists have been fooled by "psychics" that turned out to be con-men. Uri Geller's tricks are a good example. For any research in this area, you need somebody that knows what to look for and how to set up an experiment to prevent conscious or unconscious trickery. J. Random Scientist can be fooled just like anyone else. Some even want to be fooled.

Anyway, I had read the Crookes rant earlier. I didn't see anything worth commenting on.

Lianachan

06-January-2006, 08:08 AM

Well, according to this biography (http://www.chem.ox.ac.uk/icl/heyes/LanthAct/Biogs/Crookes.html) William Crookes does indeed seem to be a respected scientist. Here's a little snippet from near the end:
His excursions into psychical research have been strongly criticized, and they certainly led him into some very curious situations, but they show that he thought all phenomena worthy of investigation, and refused to be bound by tradition and convention.
It sounds like he was very much a scientist of his time - a time when there was a huge swell of interest in spiritualism, and countless charlatans exploiting this interest for financial gain.

Van Rijn

06-January-2006, 08:44 AM

His excursions into psychical research have been strongly criticized, and they certainly led him into some very curious situations, but they show that he thought all phenomena worthy of investigation, and refused to be bound by tradition and convention.

And that's a commendable attitude - as long as one is objective in their research and realizes how easy it is to be fooled unless one is very careful and has experts in the field available for advice.

Nicolas

06-January-2006, 09:40 AM

Nicholas - can you get that link to work? I get page not found for it, and several of the other links ON the page reporting page not found

Yes the link worked for me every time I clicked it (IE6). I have no clue what could be the problem, as the site seemed pop-up free and not containing special JAVA things or something like that.

Maksutov

06-January-2006, 09:42 AM

Get with it, we no longer call them that. People in the know now refer to them as MAs. Or should that be MA's?It's all right, MA, I'm only bleeding apostrophe''''s...

SolusLupus

06-January-2006, 09:44 AM

Question, Moonrock: Why is it when a scientist says, "I've investigated into paranormal activities, and have decided that 99.9% of them are hoaxes..." You disregard that.

But when a scientist says, "Hey, there might be something to paranormal research..." you take it as "proof" that it's true? If one, why not the other?

That's why anecdotes are not considered data.

Dave Mitsky

06-January-2006, 10:14 AM

Number 29 at http://www.watchingyou.com/woowoo.html may be appropriate here.

Dave Mitsky

Maksutov

06-January-2006, 10:25 AM

Number 29 at http://www.watchingyou.com/woowoo.html may be appropriate here.

Dave MitskyGood call, Dave. Right on target.

Reminds me, somewhat obliquely, of all those folks who love to quote Albert Einstein regarding all topics except relativity.

gwiz

06-January-2006, 10:41 AM

So if there are spritualists out there who really can talk to ghosts, but there are fake spiritualists out there who are out to scam people for money, how do you propose that we tell the difference between the two? How are we supposed to know which spiritualists are real and which are fakes.

See, in the realm of science, there are honest scientists who try to discover new truths. There are also dishonest scientists who publish fake data in order to obtain fame and grant money. The neat thing is that by trying to reproduce the scientists results, one can tell the difference between the honest ones and the fakes. (Sometimes it takes a while, but eventually the fakes are revealed.)

Again, how are we supposed to know the real spiritualists from the fake ones? How are we supposed to know if you are a real spiritualist or a fake one?
To my mind, the real spiritualists are the ones who have successfully got a million dollars (http://www.randi.org/research/index.html) out of James Randi. To date, they number zero.

Edit to fix link.

Maksutov

06-January-2006, 11:30 AM

Meanwhile another individual with a personal line to the infinite has weighed in on yet another matter of international import. (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060105/ap_on_re_us/robertson_sharon;_ylt=Aj7o79BFgHhfLm3KPmBgA.us0NUE ;_ylu=X3oDMTA3ODdxdHBhBHNlYwM5NjQ-)

When is this guy going to get the professional help he so sorely needs?

:doh:

Moonrock

06-January-2006, 12:11 PM

Please dont go off topic.

Hmm. If science ever lets me down, perhaps I will. But then again, the benefits that you've quoted so far have been:
1) ability to name someone's grandmother's surname
2) ability to name her size (4 feet)
3) ability to describe the hotel (with two towers) and decor of a friend's recent vacation
4) you can have your next holiday predicted
5) you can describe previous customers of an old pub
6) you can predict what flowers someone has laid on their mother's grave
7) you can find your way through mazes quickly

That seems to be it from your personal experience.

As it turns out, I already know my grandmother's surname, her size, I already know the decor of the last hotel I visited and the flowers I laid on a relative's grave a few months back. So I don't really see the need for me to visit a medium. I'm glad you enjoy your lifestyle, but it does not have any apparant benefits for me.

Yes, of course you know the details, the medium is telling you details of that person that obviously is personal to yourself as a way of confirming that the person she’s contacted is your grandmother. The details that you point out above are good examples of information that simply could not be gathered through ‘cold reading’.

Maybe you don’t wish to visit a medium, that’s your choice.

I have found, though, a lot of talk about how Crookes "proved" that there is life after death, and how people live in "the invisible universe". Funny that none of those pages linked back to any evidence.

I’m sure you could find some of his work on the internet if you cared to do a search. I’m sure that if you were also very willing to prove me wrong that you could actually get hold of his books and read them. But, as always, I guess you’d rather just state that because you cant find any of his papers that its probably all hoaxed or incorrect.

And regarding the quote, he says that in a certain paper that he wrote, he believes that further experiments would prove the phenomenon.

Several things to remember:

1. A "world-renowned scientist" may be totallaly incompetent outside his/her professional specialy.

So why are so many trying to give answers on a subject that they know nothing about?

4. Findings by "world-renowned scientists" don't carry much weight when their findings can not be reproduced or verified by other scientists (ask Drs. Pons and Fleischman about that little problem).

Most of Mr Crooke’s experiments were in the presence of scientists. Also, considering that no scientists were on the Moon to verify man landing there, why all of a sudden do your beliefs change 360 to believe that they landed? And it cannot be reproduced until 2020! So are you suggesting that none of us should believe that man stepped on the Moon as the experiment was not carried out in the correct scientific manner to meet your scrutiny?

Actually, Moonrock, the ONLY thing I asked you for was the name of a real police case that was solved by a medium. You stated that mediums had sovled cases for police, and I was merely asking for the name of one of the cases so that I could check it.

In another thread, in response to an assertion made by you, I asked for the name of a spritualist church in Sydney, Australia that I could go to so that I could see these ghosts for myself. Not a "reading", but the appearance of actual ghosts.

Still waiting. The longer I have to wait, the smaller your credibility becomes.

I have linked to a police case where a medium found a body before the Police did (who refused to search the lake where the body was found).

Your nearest spiritualist church would be
Drummoyne Gladesville Spiritualist Centre
Contact: Rev. Kristine Swindler
10 Cometrowe Street, Drummoyne Community
Tel: (02) 9774 4862
Fax: (02) 9792 7291

However, just going to a spiritualist church does not guarantee that you’ll see a ghost. It’s a bit like you saying that you want to go down to the sea and spot dolphins. They don’t just appear. Also, you could go to the church and maybe 5 people in the room would see ghosts and the others not. Mental phenomena is demonstrated through the mind of a medium and can be by clairvoyance (the medium sees the spirit); Clairaudience (the medium hears the spirit) or Clairsentience (the medium senses the presence and the thoughts of the spirit). Mental phenomena is the type most often demonstrated in public.

Well, according to this biography (http://www.chem.ox.ac.uk/icl/heyes/LanthAct/Biogs/Crookes.html) William Crookes does indeed seem to be a respected scientist. Here's a little snippet from near the end:

It sounds like he was very much a scientist of his time - a time when there was a huge swell of interest in spiritualism, and countless charlatans exploiting this interest for financial gain.

And that’s the problem with science. If you discover something controversial then it’s probably wrong or your mad. Just check out my signature for a good example.

Question, Moonrock: Why is it when a scientist says, "I've investigated into paranormal activities, and have decided that 99.9% of them are hoaxes..." You disregard that.

But when a scientist says, "Hey, there might be something to paranormal research..." you take it as "proof" that it's true? If one, why not the other?

That's why anecdotes are not considered data.

The simple answer to that is that Ive experienced it myself. Science also disregards the UFO phenomenon, even though many thousands of people see them every year and UFO paintings appear in caves dating back 10,000 years or more. Just because science refuse to acknowledge something does not mean it doesn’t exist.

Good call, Dave. Right on target.

Reminds me, somewhat obliquely, of all those folks who love to quote Albert Einstein regarding all topics except relativity.

I could give you another good quote. Stanton Friedman – UFO investigator and Nuclear Physicist ‘Don’t bother me with the facts, my minds already made up.’

To my mind, the real spiritualists are the ones who have successfully got a mliilion dollars out of James Randi. To date, they number zero.

That’s because Randi refuses to acknowledge those people who passes his test. There is plenty of evidence for this on the internet by people who have easily passed his test. He’s just a glorified magician anyway. Mr. Randi did an experiment here in the UK to debunk mediumship. He claimed that anyone could easily do it. However, it turned out that he had people follows certain members of the TV audience for over a month to gain information about their lives. Do you seriously think that the medium that appears every week at your local spiritualist church does the same?

Maksutov

06-January-2006, 12:30 PM

Originally Posted by Maksutov
Good call, Dave. Right on target.

Reminds me, somewhat obliquely, of all those folks who love to quote Albert Einstein regarding all topics except relativity. I could give you another good quote. Stanton Friedman – UFO investigator and Nuclear Physicist ‘Don’t bother me with the facts, my minds already made up.’Quoting Stanton Friedman at us to make a point? Talk about shooting blanks.

BTW, not unexpectedly, your "Friedman quote" isn't, and was taken out of context. It was actually a description by Friedman of the position of Kent Jeffrey. (http://www.roswellfiles.com/storytellers/FriedmanResponse.htm) But, in your particular version of reality, maybe it "felt right" and therefore was attributable to Friedman. That kind of "reasoning" doesn't stand a ghost of a chance in the real world, especially the scientific one.

Regarding "Please dont[sic] go off topic.", it would be good if you finally got on topic. The subject was originally "Do Scientists See Ghosts?" So far you haven't provided one iota of on-topic evidence to substantiate your claims. That's one reason why your old thread got locked, and this one probably will be eventually.

gwiz

06-January-2006, 12:35 PM

That’s because Randi refuses to acknowledge those people who passes his test. There is plenty of evidence for this on the internet by people who have easily passed his test. He’s just a glorified magician anyway. Mr. Randi did an experiment here in the UK to debunk mediumship. He claimed that anyone could easily do it. However, it turned out that he had people follows certain members of the TV audience for over a month to gain information about their lives. Do you seriously think that the medium that appears every week at your local spiritualist church does the same?
I wouldn't know for sure, but I it wouldn't take a spiritualist to guess my opinion.

People may claim to have passed Randi's test, but Randi isn't the person who decides if they have, it's the independant adjudicators previously agreed with the claimant. To date, no-one has passed.

R.A.F.

06-January-2006, 12:44 PM

That’s because Randi refuses to acknowledge those people who passes his test.

Come again??? Your evidence for this is what??

There is plenty of evidence for this on the internet by people who have easily passed his test.

For the life of me, I can't understand why you would keep "talking yourself into corners". You must know that we are going to ask you for evidence to confirm your statements, don't you? And if you think we will accept the "word" of disgruntled applicants for the million, don't even bother going there.

He’s just a glorified magician anyway.

Meaning what exactly??

mid

06-January-2006, 01:20 PM

Presumably that someone whose day job consists of inventing ever more cunning methods of misdirection for audience viewing isn't very qualified to spot if others are doing the same...

Moose

06-January-2006, 01:29 PM

I could give you another good quote. Stanton Friedman – UFO investigator and Nuclear Physicist ‘Don’t bother me with the facts, my minds already made up.’

Ah. Stan Friedman. Nice guy (I've met him), but I've not only seen his evidence, my friend and I bought (autographed) copies of it. (Heck, it was like five bucks. I was perfectly willing to take one for the team.) It amounts to thirty or so photocopies with horizontal black lines.

Not only were we unable to read his evidence, he obviously hadn't read it either.

Ah well. I still remember the time he'd misidentified poachers spotlighting deer as a landed UFO on some paranormal investigations show.

That’s because Randi refuses to acknowledge those people who passes his test. There is plenty of evidence for this on the internet by people who have easily passed his test.

Time to name names, Moonrock.

I've been on the fringes of JREF for a good four years now. I've suggested experimental designs a number of times. My design was used as the framework of the official GSIC audiophile chip experiments.

I am most emphatically not a member of JREF (and I again most emphatically won't be until they publically disclaim the "brights movement"). So I have no compunction whatsoever about exposing foul play on the part of JREF, or on the part of any given claimant.

James Randi's hands are clean. Perhaps not squeaky clean, but clean enough that I can say with confidence that no claimant has ever come close to passing a fair, mutually negociated test.

Remember, both parties must agree fully to the test design before it takes place, and the claimant is permitted to test his/her ability without restriction to ensure conditions are satisfactory before the test begins. The claimant signs a statement both before and after the test (but before the results are unsealed), that the test was satisfactory.

So. You get me some names of people who've passed the challenge, and I'll go look up their files and see what really happened, and what communications were sent between the two.

He’s just a glorified magician anyway.

Who better to spot how people trick themselves and others, than someone who made a very successful career out of doing the same?

As Penn Jilette put it, though: "[There is] One important difference: we tell you we're lying."

HenrikOlsen

06-January-2006, 01:44 PM

That’s because Randi refuses to acknowledge those people who passes his test. There is plenty of evidence for this on the internet by people who have easily passed his test.
Links please.

He’s just a glorified magician anyway.
Stage Magician
And he is therefore more qualified that a scientist when it comes to spotting how people are tricked, including how the testees trick themselves into believing they passed the test even when they didn't.
Heck, an stagemagic appreciator like me would be better at spotting fakes than many scientists, they come from a culture where people don't try to distort results and therefore don't expect dishonesty.

Do you seriously think that the medium that appears every week at your local spiritualist church does the same?
You're there every week, responding to what happens. They don't have to.

Jim

06-January-2006, 01:52 PM

If any of you had bothered to read the topic that this thread refers to 'Do scientists see ghosts?', you could have easily spotted the link to the scientist I was talking about and seen his credentials.

Frankly, the topic didn't interest me. And, you were the one who mentioned telling people to Google for themselves; you never mentioned that you had included a ("a", as in "only one"?) link.

Anyhow, seeming that I usually have to hold your hand to even get the simplest of my theories across...

Ah, Moonrock, you have much to learn in how to get people to pay attention to what you say. Sarcasm and ridicule don't work. Providing factual information and lots of links to supporting evidence do.

BTW, aren't you taking this thread very far off topic?

pghnative

06-January-2006, 01:55 PM

Hmm. If science ever lets me down, perhaps I will. But then again, the benefits that you've quoted so far have been:
1) ability to name someone's grandmother's surname
2) ability to name her size (4 feet)
3) ability to describe the hotel (with two towers) and decor of a friend's recent vacation
4) you can have your next holiday predicted
5) you can describe previous customers of an old pub
6) you can predict what flowers someone has laid on their mother's grave
7) you can find your way through mazes quickly

That seems to be it from your personal experience.

Yes, of course you know the details, the medium is telling you details of that person that obviously is personal to yourself as a way of confirming that the person she’s contacted is your grandmother. The details that you point out above are good examples of information that simply could not be gathered through ‘cold reading’.

You've missed my point. In your posts so far, the seven details above are the only information you supplied to the "end user" (for lack of a better term). If a medium is going to contact my grandmother, but only tell me details that I already know, then it seems rather useless, doesn't it?

In fact, based on what you've presented so far, it appears that being a medium has more to do with letting the world know that you personally are very special, and less to do with actually helping "end users". After all, you're not bothering to tell them substantial details that they didn't already know.

Celestial Mechanic

06-January-2006, 01:55 PM

[Snip!]I have linked to a police case where a medium found a body before the Police did (who refused to search the lake where the body was found).

Your nearest spiritualist church would be
Drummoyne Gladesville Spiritualist Centre
Contact: Rev. Kristine Swindler
10 Cometrowe Street, Drummoyne Community
Tel: (02) 9774 4862
Fax: (02) 9792 7291
(Emphasis mine)

Stuff like this just can't be made up! :lol:

SolusLupus

06-January-2006, 02:01 PM

(Emphasis mine)

Stuff like this just can't be made up! :lol:

Okay, that was a good catch. :lol:

desertmonk

06-January-2006, 02:17 PM

Ok Mr. Moonrock, I understand where you are coming from, at least I can really try. I personally have never lost someone close to me. Do you think a skeptic has ever had their father die? Can you see where they might really, really, really want to be able to talk to him one more time, or envision a future where they can be reunited with him for eternity? Can you understand how Insulting it is to act like skeptics are simply being difficult, or are refusing to open their minds? There is not a person alive who does not desperately want an afterlife to exist. If there is real evidence supporting ghosts and an afterlife why would there be a conspiracy to suppress this information? In all fields of science, old ideas are supplanted all the time by new ideas supported with better, more accurate evidence. Science is not afraid to have old notions replaced; indeed all scientists strive to develop new ideas and fill in our gaps in knowledge.
All this implies that ghosts could be real, but undetected by science. That could be possible and that would be fine. We do not have a problem with the concept of unknown realities yet to be discovered; indeed, that is what science is all about. Renown and fame would follow the person who could show scientifically that ghosts exist. I assume a nobel prize would be awarded. That person would be famous like Einstein. The incentive to prove ghosts exists is high. So another question for you is why does mainstream science accept constant changes and revisions to all fields in science, but reject any notion of paranormal or supernatural ideas? Could it be that science does not reject anything, no matter how counter-intuitive, if there is good (repeatable and reliable) evidence in it's favor?

Kristophe

06-January-2006, 03:17 PM

I’m sure you could find some of his work on the internet if you cared to do a search.

Thanks for conveniently ignoring the part where I said that I did do a search. Regardless, it's no one's job but your own to find and present the evidence. Telling us it's "out there if you want it" is handwaving, at best.

I’m sure that if you were also very willing to prove me wrong that you could actually get hold of his books and read them.

You're suggesting we prove that ghosts don't exist. I suggest you google falsification. There's a... famous philosopher with a number of articles on the subject.

However, I'm sure if you were actually willing to present evidence, or learn what the difference between evidence and story, then that wouldn't be an issue. You could just present some data. Again, you're not going to convince anybody here with anything less.

But, as always, I guess you’d rather just state that because you cant find any of his papers that its probably all hoaxed or incorrect.

I found a couple of his papers. I found none where he presented any data. There's evidence that these papers exist; there's no evidence contained within these papers that ghosts exists, or that there are people in "the invisible universe".

And regarding the quote, he says that in a certain paper that he wrote, he believes that further experiments would prove the phenomenon.

Were these experiments performed? Or is this man the Michael Behe of the 19th century?

JohnW

06-January-2006, 04:41 PM

So, Moonrock, your rigorous, peer-reviewed, hard data consists of an investigation done in 1870 (1870!) which, by the author's own admission, was "scientifically incomplete" and "based on no experimental evidence whatsoever". And that's all you've got?

I think we're done here.

Moonrock

06-January-2006, 05:19 PM

BTW, not unexpectedly, your "Friedman quote" isn't, and was taken out of context. It was actually a description by Friedman of the position of Kent Jeffrey. But, in your particular version of reality, maybe it "felt right" and therefore was attributable to Friedman. That kind of "reasoning" doesn't stand a ghost of a chance in the real world, especially the scientific one.

I have countless hours of documentaries which feature Mr Friedman and I have seen the man present a lecture personally. Friedman likes to use this quote a lot. The link you posted is written by Friedman, it is not a quote from anyone else but him.

By Stanton T. Friedman

Kent Jeffrey's anti-Roswell conclusions (MUFON Journal, June, 1997) are based on the same kind of false reasoning that led to his pro-Roswell views: Don't bother me with the facts, my mind's made up; be enthusiastic and ready to put ones money where ones mouth is, but don't have the facts in hand first; don't bother finding out how security works; believe what one wants to believe. Do one's research by proclamation rather than investigation. Select from the data available to back up your conclusions, and ignore the facts that don't.

Originally Posted by Moonrock
That’s because Randi refuses to acknowledge those people who passes his test.

Come again??? Your evidence for this is what??

Read this http://www.survivalafterdeath.org/articles/keen/randi.htm and http://www.alternativescience.com/james-randi.htm

You've missed my point. In your posts so far, the seven details above are the only information you supplied to the "end user" (for lack of a better term). If a medium is going to contact my grandmother, but only tell me details that I already know, then it seems rather useless, doesn't it?

In fact, based on what you've presented so far, it appears that being a medium has more to do with letting the world know that you personally are very special, and less to do with actually helping "end users". After all, you're not bothering to tell them substantial details that they didn't already know.

But if a medium tells you information that you didn’t know about your grandmother then you would accuse them of being incorrect because you are unaware of that information. However, I have seen many cases where information has only been confirmed as being correct after the person told the message has gone and asked another family member after the reading.

The whole point of spiritualism is to ‘confirm that there is an afterlife’. Giving you information about a deceased relative that only you or another close family member would know confirms that. However, for people who haven’t been reading the other thread, I can tell you of a reading given to me where the medium told me that I would be going on holiday in November (2 years ago). I run my own business and hadn’t been on holiday for 6 years beforehand. At the time I couldn’t take her reading because as far as I was concerned I wouldn’t be going on holiday and especially not in November. Zoom forward around 6 weeks and a friend rings me up asking if I would be interested in going on a lads holiday in November.

There’s a clear example of mediumship that you cannot deny could not have been guessed or attained by cold reading. But I’m sure that you wont even bother commenting on this, like all the other ‘evidence’ I have clearly posted that seems to be ignored by the members here because you do not have an adequate answer to explain it.

Just before Christmas my brother was at a spiritualist meeting where the medium could even name the make of aftershave that a couples deceased son would always wear. Now then, how do you explain that?

why does mainstream science accept constant changes and revisions to all fields in science, but reject any notion of paranormal or supernatural ideas? Could it be that science does not reject anything, no matter how counter-intuitive, if there is good (repeatable and reliable) evidence in it's favor?

Not ALL of the scientific community reject the existence of ghosts. What about parapsychologists?. So, in your view many thousands of people are either mistaken or mad?

However, I'm sure if you were actually willing to present evidence, or learn what the difference between evidence and story, then that wouldn't be an issue. You could just present some data. Again, you're not going to convince anybody here with anything less.

At this point I’m going to ask this board what it considers as ‘evidence’? I have given you plenty of evidence, some which you can read on the internet and also personal experiences. I’ve also extended the invitation for anyone here who doubts spiritualism to come with me to church and Ill show you the evidence. I’m not dodging any questions here. If you want the evidence first hand then you’ll have to get off your backside and go and witness it for yourself as its obvious that you don’t believe any of the reports I’ve posted, no matter what source they come from. You keep saying ‘ ahh but that’s anecdotal’ well, go and see for yourself.

Take a look at this website by Michael Roll. You may find the article ‘Scientific proof of life after death’ and the other articles on his site to be interesting http://www.cfpf.org.uk/articles/background/scientificproof/scientificproof1.html

HenrikOlsen

06-January-2006, 05:29 PM

Kent Jeffrey's anti-Roswell conclusions (MUFON Journal, June, 1997) are based on the same kind of false reasoning that led to his pro-Roswell views: Don't bother me with the facts, my mind's made up; be enthusiastic and ready to put ones money where ones mouth is,
Note the ":", it's not a ";".
Friedman is saying what Jeffrey's views are, not what his own are.

HenrikOlsen

06-January-2006, 06:01 PM

Read this http://www.survivalafterdeath.org/articles/keen/randi.htm and http://www.alternativescience.com/james-randi.htm

The first link is to a third party commentator with an obvious agenda.
Apart from the general Randi bashing, it refers to only one specific case which is described without clear references. Note that drawing conclusions from a correspondence happening between Randi and Schwartz without this being published is not evidence but anecdote. I have to treat that article as hearsay until I can read the actual article by Dr. Schwartz, as well as Randi's comments.

The second link is again an opinion piece with no specific cases except for the link which refers to a person claiming to have lived on water alone for half a year. One fundamental problem with this claim, apart from it's redefinition of physics and chemistry, is that a test for it would be equivalent to wrongful imprisonment and torture, and would make the testers liable to criminal charges in most civilised countries.

Kristophe

06-January-2006, 06:03 PM

At this point I’m going to ask this board what it considers as ‘evidence’?

You know, things like measuremenst, data, numbers. Preferably with accompanying critical analasys that avoids the use of proper pronouns and exclaimation marks.

I have given you plenty of evidence, some which you can read on the internet and also personal experiences.

You've given us only personal experiences. Time and time again you've been told that they don't constitute evidence. No scientist will have it; even the one you've managed to dig up said that he didn't have any.

I’ve also extended the invitation for anyone here who doubts spiritualism to come with me to church and Ill show you the evidence.

I have a better idea. Come with us to a lab and show us the evidence.

I’m not dodging any questions here. If you want the evidence first hand then you’ll have to get off your backside and go and witness it for yourself as its obvious that you don’t believe any of the reports I’ve posted, no matter what source they come from.

Post some reports from Nautre. I'll be less critical of things posted there than on survivalafterdeath.org. And I haven't missed the irony in someone who can't be bothered to post evidence to defend their claims telling me to go look for that evidence myself. I sure as hell am not going to defend your views for you. If you're not up to the task, keep them to yourself.

You keep saying ‘ ahh but that’s anecdotal’ well, go and see for yourself.

My anticdotal account isn't any more acceptable than yours. I'm not swayed with knowing a dead woman's shoe size. I need numbers. Lots of them. Preferably with units attached. Anything less is unacceptable.

Moonrock

06-January-2006, 06:41 PM

I have to treat that article as hearsay until I can read the actual article by Dr. Schwartz, as well as Randi's comments.

Read this then http://www.dailygrail.com/node/1311

You know, things like measuremenst, data, numbers. Preferably with accompanying critical analasys that avoids the use of proper pronouns and exclaimation marks.

There are many examples on shows such as the UK’s Most Haunted where Ghost activity has sent EMF meters haywire. I have experienced this during my own ghost hunts which involves a team of 3 people. These reading have been taken outdoors, in fields where no electrical current would cause of the sudden jump on the needle. We have also had sudden drops of temperature to -12 on laser thermometers. Again, if you or anyone else wish to accompany us then please feel free to ask.

You've given us only personal experiences. Time and time again you've been told that they don't constitute evidence. No scientist will have it; even the one you've managed to dig up said that he didn't have any.

Now your misquoting. Sir William Crookes has vast amounts of evidence. You refer to one paper where he didnt use experiments, even though his paper said that further experimentation would prove his findings. Stop twisting the facts please. Material cut from the dress of the apparition vapourised, but this was witnessed by scientists who were sat in the room. Also scientists held up a gas lamp to the ghost and saw her body ‘melt’. If some phenomenon is seen and documented, but not captured on film by scientists does that mean that the phenomenon doesn’t exist?

worzel

06-January-2006, 07:02 PM

There are many examples on shows such as the UK’s Most Haunted where Ghost activity has sent EMF meters haywire.
Just curious, what do you think of Sixth Sense with Colin Fry?

aurora

06-January-2006, 07:07 PM

Read this then http://www.dailygrail.com/node/1311

I have a problem with the first paragraph. It says that

Gary E. Schwartz, Ph.D. is a Professor of Psychology, Surgery, Medicine, Neurology, and Psychiatry at the University of Arizona, as well as the Director of the Center for Frontier Medicine in Biofield Science and Director of the Human Energy Systems Laboratory.

Yet the University of Arizona web site lists Gary E R Schwartz as a professor of clinical psychology who teaches 3 courses. It says he does not have a personal web page, and it does not mention any of the other things stated in the quote. In other words, if it is true that he is a professor of surgery, medicine, neurology and psychiatry, then he is not those things at University of Arizona.

Here is the web page I am referring to:

http://psychology.arizona.edu/people/each_detail.php?option=1&detail=29&mtitle=Core%20Faculty

So, is this an error?

I didn't bother to go beyond the first paragraph since it seemed to be in error.

Also, I wonder if you could link or provide references to the articles that Gary Schwartz has written? You were asked to do that multiple times by others. The web site you linked to has some quotes mined from elsewhere, but I didn't see the actual published articles.

Kristophe

06-January-2006, 07:14 PM

There are many examples on shows such as the UK’s Most Haunted where Ghost activity has sent EMF meters haywire.

Can you point to some published results from these... tv shows? You know, like geographic location, actual recorded numbers, precisely defined language ("haywire" isn't a technical term with an agreed upon meaning), discussion of other things that could cause this result, and evidence which eliminates these other options? Preferably from people who didn't have their answer before they started searching, or a motivation to lable it ghosts (like, I don't know, a TV show called "UK's Most Haunted").

I have experienced this during my own ghost hunts which involves a team of 3 people. These reading have been taken outdoors, in fields where no electrical current would cause of the sudden jump on the needle. We have also had sudden drops of temperature to -12 on laser thermometers.

I'm starting to wonder if you know what an anticdote is.

Again, if you or anyone else wish to accompany us then please feel free to ask.

I'd be happy to, but you have to come to me.

Now your misquoting. Sir William Crookes has vast amounts of evidence.

Then why can't I find any of it? Why don't you point it out to me, instead of telling me to go look for it myself? As I've said, it's your job to present the evidence, not claim that it's there and then say "go look for it". I've told you that I have, and you continue to claim I have not.

You refer to one paper where he didnt use experiments,

Actually, I refer to a paper wherein he presented no evidence wherein he discuss another paper of his which he admits contained no evidence. I think I killed two papers with one link.

even though his paper said that further experimentation would prove his findings.

Further experimentation which has yeilded no published evidence, as far as I can find. You seem to know where it is, though. Please do yourself a favour and show me the way.

Stop twisting the facts please.

Start presenting the facts, please.

Material cut from the dress of the apparition vapourised, but this was witnessed by scientists who were sat in the room. Also scientists held up a gas lamp to the ghost and saw her body ‘melt’. If some phenomenon is seen and documented, but not captured on film by scientists does that mean that the phenomenon doesn’t exist?

I see no reason to believe that the phenomenon existed unless I can see something more than "I saw it! Honest I did! And I'm a SCIENTIST!" I don't give a flying fig what a scientist believes; it's what they can demonstrate that counts. I told you already, I'm looking for measurements, data points, charts and graphs. Things that can be shown, and shown repeatedly. If you don't have that, you don't have anything.

Peptron

06-January-2006, 07:36 PM

But scientists do see ghosts! We see them all the time at my job! Ghosts are really important because we have to keep backups of the drives, and also because it's way faster to install a system on multiple stations using a ghost than going on each computer and doing it manually.

Those ghosts can be magnetically detected too! But you must be careful not to get a magnet too close of the drive that has a ghost or you could ruin it.

Too bad many people don't believe in ghosts. They don't know all the time they can save. Install a system, ghost it, and unghost on all the other computers.

pghnative

06-January-2006, 07:38 PM

You've missed my point. In your posts so far, the seven details above are the only information you supplied to the "end user" (for lack of a better term). If a medium is going to contact my grandmother, but only tell me details that I already know, then it seems rather useless, doesn't it?

In fact, based on what you've presented so far, it appears that being a medium has more to do with letting the world know that you personally are very special, and less to do with actually helping "end users". After all, you're not bothering to tell them substantial details that they didn't already know.

But if a medium tells you information that you didn’t know about your grandmother then you would accuse them of being incorrect because you are unaware of that information. A ludicrous assertion. You don't even know me. How do you know what I would do?

Remind me again: which one of us is the close-minded one?

However, I have seen many cases where information has only been confirmed as being correct after the person told the message has gone and asked another family member after the reading. If you say so. But until now you haven't mentioned that. And even now you give no specifics. This is quite tiresome.

The whole point of spiritualism is to ‘confirm that there is an afterlife’.
Hmm...or perhaps the whole point of spiritualism is to proselytize. That would explain the content of your posts, particularly the urgings to visit a specific church.

Just before Christmas my brother was at a spiritualist meeting where the medium could even name the make of aftershave that a couples deceased son would always wear. Now then, how do you explain that?If I ever forget the make of aftershave from a deceased relative, I'll be sure to look up my local spiritualist.

Again, I am interested in things that are useful. If speaking to mediums appeared useful, then I would try it. But I don't see anything useful here.

Note that it is the reproducibility of science that makes it useful and appealing to me. You've already conceded that the medium cannot control the interaction; therefore one cannot go into a seance in order to find out a specific piece of information.

Presuming that you are not lying and presuming that you are not incorrect, I still see no usefulness to this.

HenrikOlsen

06-January-2006, 07:39 PM

Read this then http://www.dailygrail.com/node/1311
Thank you, that does clear up part of it, though it seems to indicate quite a lot of personal antagonism between Dr. Schwartz and Randi.
It looks like this antagonism has prevented either from figuring out what actually happened in the confusion about Dr. Krippner's participation, though that participation looks periferal to the actual study.
Now I just need the actual study in order to evaluate whether it was wrongly rejected. Note that I have not ruled out that it was, but I haven't seen enough to convinced me either way.

Incidentally, I'm not really surprised by the reactions of some people, after being in the hands of Randi, especially scientist who tend to have a high opinion of their abilities as observers.
It's a rare person who do not react defensively when told "You have been fooled, and the person who fooled you is yourself".

Jim

06-January-2006, 09:17 PM

The problem with "cold readings" is that they can be faked (Penn and Teller have done this) or not so cold (ever see "Leap of Faith"?). That's why you need a controlled experiment, not on a stage or at the medium's "office." As part of the experiment, you need to provide false answers and see what the medium does with them.

Harry Houdini wanted very much to believe in an afterlife. He spent the latter half of his life consulting mediums and exposing them as frauds. Before he died, he set up an experiment, a way in which he would contact his wife after he died.

He never did.

(BTW, it is not necessary to believe in ghosts to believe in an afterlife.)

Van Rijn

06-January-2006, 09:26 PM

Here's a little bit more from Randi on Schwartz (scroll down about halfway or search on his name):

http://www.randi.org/jr/05-18-2001.html

Incidentally, I'm not really surprised by the reactions of some people, after being in the hands of Randi, especially scientist who tend to have a high opinion of their abilities as observers.
It's a rare person who do not react defensively when told "You have been fooled, and the person who fooled you is yourself".

Yes, and years ago when I read some of the letters and comments by too proud scientists I was shocked by the attitude of some scientists who were shown how badly they had been taken in. (Some tried every way they could to avoid admitting it.) This is exactly why you need an expert in the field to advise on proper testing procedure.

Gillianren

06-January-2006, 09:56 PM

You know, Houdini, like Randi, was quite good at exposing the frauds (and oh, there were a lot of them) because they used a lot of the same tricks he did! A scientist of whatever stripe (what kind of scientist would investigate this, anyway) may not know how to, as Dorothy L. Sayers put it, be locked in a cupboard with your hands full of flour and escape to go flitting about the room banging on a tambourine, but a magician almost certainly would.

On a more personal note, my father died in 1983. I was six. There are many, many things I'd like to say to my father and have my father say to me. This means that, if there were anything I considered real evidence of ghosts communicating with the living, I'd be right there, hoping to talk to my dad. But, like Mrs. Houdini, I haven't heard a thing.

paulie jay

06-January-2006, 10:50 PM

However, just going to a spiritualist church does not guarantee that you’ll see a ghost. It’s a bit like you saying that you want to go down to the sea and spot dolphins. They don’t just appear. Also, you could go to the church and maybe 5 people in the room would see ghosts and the others not. Mental phenomena is demonstrated through the mind of a medium and can be by clairvoyance (the medium sees the spirit); Clairaudience (the medium hears the spirit) or Clairsentience (the medium senses the presence and the thoughts of the spirit). Mental phenomena is the type most often demonstrated in public.

bold mine

Oh come on - either the ghosts are there or they aren't! Basically what you're saying is that I could visit the church in Drummoyne (thankyou for the address deatils, by the way) every day for the next 20 years, not see a ghost, and I still won't be able to say that ghosts don't exist because just they didn't choose to appear for me personally! It's a much too convenient get-out-of-jail-free card.

I have linked to a police case where a medium found a body before the Police did (who refused to search the lake where the body was found).
Can you not just give me the name of the case, and the location/precinct of the police department dealing with the case?

R.A.F.

06-January-2006, 11:18 PM

Sigma_Orionis

06-January-2006, 11:30 PM

Kristophe

07-January-2006, 12:59 AM

Moonrock, when we ask you for evidence, and you link to a page that is obviously biased in favor of the idea that ghosts are real, do you really expect people here, on a science board, to blindly accept it?

Hey now, that's not entirely fair. He also told us to watch a TV show that is obviously biased in favour of the ideas that ghosts are real. You shouldn't twist the facts like that.

Obviousman

07-January-2006, 02:04 AM

I find it interesting to compare Moonrock's beliefs in certain matters.

On one hand (IIRC) Moonrock does not believe we ever went to the Moon - despite the huge amounts of scientific and photographic evidence to the contrary.

On the other hand, Moonrock scolds us because we will not accept anecdotes and flimsy data as being 'proof' of the existance of ghosts.

I think there is a word for that, but I can't remember it.

Cl1mh4224rd

07-January-2006, 03:21 AM

Mediums may be emotionally convincing, but that's a far, far cry from being scientifically convincing. Their inclusion here seems to be nothing more than an appeal to emotion.

If they do have the powers they claim to have, then those powers, and the entities they claim to be communicating with, manifest themselves in a way that can be measured convincingly in this physical world. That hasn't been done...

Moonrock... You keep pointing out that Crookes claims that further experiments would prove his assertions, but you've failed to point us to these "further experiments". Have they even been done? If not, then merely saying "more work will prove me right" does not prove him right...

Maksutov

07-January-2006, 10:40 AM

Moonrock

07-January-2006, 11:37 AM

Just curious, what do you think of Sixth Sense with Colin Fry?

I dont watch it that much to be honest. What Ive seen though seems to be good evidence.

Moonrock

07-January-2006, 11:41 AM

I have a problem with the first paragraph. It says that

Yet the University of Arizona web site lists Gary E R Schwartz as a professor of clinical psychology who teaches 3 courses. It says he does not have a personal web page, and it does not mention any of the other things stated in the quote. In other words, if it is true that he is a professor of surgery, medicine, neurology and psychiatry, then he is not those things at University of Arizona.

Here is the web page I am referring to:

http://psychology.arizona.edu/people/each_detail.php?option=1&detail=29&mtitle=Core%20Faculty

So, is this an error?

I didn't bother to go beyond the first paragraph since it seemed to be in error.

Also, I wonder if you could link or provide references to the articles that Gary Schwartz has written? You were asked to do that multiple times by others. The web site you linked to has some quotes mined from elsewhere, but I didn't see the actual published articles.

http://www.openmindsciences.com

Moonrock

07-January-2006, 12:26 PM

Can you point to some published results from these... tv shows? You know, like geographic location, actual recorded numbers, precisely defined language ("haywire" isn't a technical term with an agreed upon meaning), discussion of other things that could cause this result, and evidence which eliminates these other options? Preferably from people who didn't have their answer before they started searching, or a motivation to lable it ghosts (like, I don't know, a TV show called "UK's Most Haunted").

Im sure if you got hold of the book that accompanies the show that the data would be featured. Many parapsychologists and sceptics are part of the show to give an alternative view. In fact its the parapsychologists who conduct the EMF experiments. You can see the EMF readings as they happen - its all on camera.

I'm starting to wonder if you know what an anticdote is.

A short story.

Then why can't I find any of it? Why don't you point it out to me, instead of telling me to go look for it myself? As I've said, it's your job to present the evidence, not claim that it's there and then say "go look for it". I've told you that I have, and you continue to claim I have not.

Again, if you cared to research the links I have posted you would come across his research. http://www.survivalafterdeath.org/books/crookes/researches/contents.htm

I see no reason to believe that the phenomenon existed unless I can see something more than "I saw it! Honest I did! And I'm a SCIENTIST!" I don't give a flying fig what a scientist believes; it's what they can demonstrate that counts. I told you already, I'm looking for measurements, data points, charts and graphs. Things that can be shown, and shown repeatedly. If you don't have that, you don't have anything.

See link above.

worzel

07-January-2006, 12:39 PM

I dont watch it that much to be honest. What Ive seen though seems to be good evidence.
Good evidence? Your definition of evidence seems to be anything that supports your beleifs, however tenuous.

When I saw Sixth Sense I thought Colin Fry was too good to be doing the normal cold reading tricks, even with heavy editing. I figured someone that good could get a respectable job as an honest illusionist like, say, Derren Brown. So I googled around to find out what his trick was. No luck, but I came across a forum of his devotees and started to "chat".

In his defence, one of his victims told me about the time she was lucky enough to get a reading, and the conversation she had several weeks prior to the show where one of his researchers asked her who she was hoping to contact. When I pointed out the blindingly obvious a couple of others retorted that they didn't get a call, (oh, but they didn't get lucky with a reading either). Oh yeah, Colin won't debate with non-believers.

People who are prepared to be amazed that you can come up with some details about their deceased love one two weeks after having your researcher ask who they wish to contact are obviously not being particularly critical in their thinking. I guess their desire to contact their lost ones is so great it short circuits their BS detector.

The fact that English television is prepared to let this guy make money off of these people's false hopes disgusts me. I find it irritating that Most Haunted and other such nonsense are given air time, but at least they are just feeding off of people's gullibility, not their grief.

paulie jay

07-January-2006, 01:16 PM

Ok Moonrock, as a heads up, I'm in the process of contacting a spiritualist church in Sydney. The one in Gladesville doesn't have an email contact, so I'll save them for the phone at a later time. My first effort was to the Enmore Spiritualist Church (which is only just down the road from me as it turns out). I thought I'd start out with an introductory email, but unfortunately my email bounced back. Not the best start.

So I decided to contact the Newcastle Spiritualist Church. Newcastle is actually quite a distance from me, but they do have a spiffing website. I notice, however, on this webpage that they like to charge $20 a pop for spiritualist readings.
http://users.hunterlink.net.au/~mbbjsj/readings-healings.htm
Do you think that I should ask them if they consider themselves to be "real" mediums? Or would that get me off on the wrong foot?

Well, well, wouldn't you know - the email to Newcastle bounced back while I was composing this post! What is it with these spiritualist guys - have they got something against me? All I want to do is see a ghost for crying out loud! Alright then, who's next on the list...?

Maksutov

07-January-2006, 01:28 PM

Ok Moonrock,[edit] All I want to do is see a ghost for crying out loud! Alright then, who's next on the list...?Obviously their email servers have psychic powers and can determine that your mail is from a skeptic, thus triggering an automatic "bounce". You need to have a true believer send them an email, and then forward you the response.

Either that or authorize a $20 EFT from your bank account to theirs as part of your email. :shifty:

paulie jay

07-January-2006, 01:31 PM

:lol: Well I'm gonna keep trying to free-load for the moment!

Moonrock

07-January-2006, 01:33 PM

A ludicrous assertion. You don't even know me. How do you know what I would do?

Remind me again: which one of us is the close-minded one?

So when a medium gives you information that you do not recognise your saying that you would automatically accept it?

Originally Posted by Moonrock
However, I have seen many cases where information has only been confirmed as being correct after the person told the message has gone and asked another family member after the reading.

If you say so. But until now you haven't mentioned that. And even now you give no specifics. This is quite tiresome.

If you cared to read the other thread you would see that I have given examples of this, such as my brother giving a woman a reading and getting the image of a white gladioli flower. The lady at the time didn’t know the significance of the flower. The following week the woman’s sister travelled from up country to visit her mothers grave. By the time she reached our county it was late, she popped into a garden centre to get some flowers for the grave but the centre was shut. On the way out she noticed a white gladioli growing near the entrance and picked it and put it on the grave. That is evidence of precognition.

Note that it is the reproducibility of science that makes it useful and appealing to me. You've already conceded that the medium cannot control the interaction; therefore one cannot go into a seance in order to find out a specific piece of information.

Just because a phenomenon cannot be accurately predicted when and where it will happen does not discount that phenomenon. What about lightning? Mediums cannot give you specific answers to your questions, however the evidence that they do give can be researched and verified.

I wont bother commenting on your other comments because they are petty

The problem with "cold readings" is that they can be faked (Penn and Teller have done this) or not so cold (ever see "Leap of Faith"?). That's why you need a controlled experiment, not on a stage or at the medium's "office." As part of the experiment, you need to provide false answers and see what the medium does with them.

Harry Houdini wanted very much to believe in an afterlife. He spent the latter half of his life consulting mediums and exposing them as frauds. Before he died, he set up an experiment, a way in which he would contact his wife after he died.

He never did.

(BTW, it is not necessary to believe in ghosts to believe in an afterlife.)

This idea of giving false answers proves nothing. So your going to lie to a medium to see if they are genuine? Let me tell you that the medium is like a receiver, they do not personally know if the information is correct, they are relaying the message from the spirit world. You could say that the message is wrong and the medium wouldn’t know.

Harry Houdini refused to have the séance headed by a medium so that explains why he has never come through. It’s a bit like trying to run a science lab with a bunch of monkeys.

Yes, and years ago when I read some of the letters and comments by too proud scientists I was shocked by the attitude of some scientists who were shown how badly they had been taken in. (Some tried every way they could to avoid admitting it.) This is exactly why you need an expert in the field to advise on proper testing procedure.

So what in your view makes Randi an ‘expert in the field’?

You know, Houdini, like Randi, was quite good at exposing the frauds (and oh, there were a lot of them) because they used a lot of the same tricks he did! A scientist of whatever stripe (what kind of scientist would investigate this, anyway) may not know how to, as Dorothy L. Sayers put it, be locked in a cupboard with your hands full of flour and escape to go flitting about the room banging on a tambourine, but a magician almost certainly would.

On a more personal note, my father died in 1983. I was six. There are many, many things I'd like to say to my father and have my father say to me. This means that, if there were anything I considered real evidence of ghosts communicating with the living, I'd be right there, hoping to talk to my dad. But, like Mrs. Houdini, I haven't heard a thing.

The parlour tricks adopted in the last two centuries should not be confused with mediumship today.

Many people go to spiritualist church in the hope of a certain person coming through. Many times it’s the least expected relative who makes contact.

Oh come on - either the ghosts are there or they aren't! Basically what you're saying is that I could visit the church in Drummoyne (thankyou for the address deatils, by the way) every day for the next 20 years, not see a ghost, and I still won't be able to say that ghosts don't exist because just they didn't choose to appear for me personally! It's a much too convenient get-out-of-jail-free card.

Unless you are sensitive it is very unlikely that you will see a ghost at a spiritualist meeting. My brother sees them during services, but I never have. Physical Mediums have the ability to see ghosts as they come in (like my brother), most mediums however get impressions of people or get images that lead them to interpret the message for the person in the audience. The white gladioli message to my brother for instance is a good example.

You may not see a ghost, but I wouldn’t mind betting that you would get a message that you could link to a dead relative. A good example too is that I have seen many times where mediums travel to our local church from many miles away, visiting for the first time, and they can easily pick out the people in the audience who are visiting the church for the first time.

Can you not just give me the name of the case, and the location/precinct of the police department dealing with the case?

Although there are many articles on the web about this case, none of them give specific details of the case files. However, this article from another case is interesting as it has police testimonies http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0505/30/ng.01.html

Please do a search on Nancy Orlen Weber, a psychic who has solved many murder cases.

Moonrock

07-January-2006, 01:37 PM

Worzel, As I said, I dont really watch Colin Fry, the last time would have been around 2 years ago I guess. I also keep saying that you shouldnt group a normal medium with those who appear on TV who are obviously doing it as a profession.

Paulie Jay, I would suggest just going along. Why bother contacting them when you can just walk through the door? I admire you though for actually going out to find what happens at a normal spiritualist church meeting. Dont pay for any reading!!!!

Its nothing to be scared of, in fact its pretty much like a normal church service. An invited medium will take the service, give an opening prayer, you sing some nice songs and then he/she will give a few readings for around an hour or so. Then its probably tea and biscuits time. :dance:

Many of you here are asking for evidence. If science wants to prove that this phenomenon doesnt exist why doesnt it set up an experiment at a spiritualist church? Why don't scientists carry out research over lets say a 6 months period at spiritualist services and release its findings? Why? Because as long as its not properly researched by scientists it will not be recognised as being real.

If science wanted to study a Gorilla it would go to a jungle, so why not study spiritualism in a mediums natural surroundings of a spiritualist church?

paulie jay

07-January-2006, 02:43 PM

Paulie Jay, I would suggest just going along. Why bother contacting them when you can just walk through the door? I admire you though for actually going out to find what happens at a normal spiritualist church meeting. Dont pay for any reading!!!!

Oh, I've got every intention of going to a meeting (and a full report will be forth coming)- I just wanted to ask them a few questions first. Proving fiendishly difficult to engage though :)

paulie jay

07-January-2006, 02:46 PM

Although there are many articles on the web about this case, none of them give specific details of the case files. However, this article from another case is interesting as it has police testimonies http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0505/30/ng.01.html

Please do a search on Nancy Orlen Weber, a psychic who has solved many murder cases.
Well, the reason why I wanted a specific case name and details of the local police force involved was that I was going to contact them myself to verify the story.

pghnative

07-January-2006, 03:01 PM

A ludicrous assertion. You don't even know me. How do you know what I would do?So when a medium gives you information that you do not recognise your saying that you would automatically accept it?I would neither automatically accept it nor automatically reject it. I would investigate further to confirm or disprove the information.
However, I have seen many cases where information has only been confirmed as being correct after the person told the message has gone and asked another family member after the reading.If you say so. But until now you haven't mentioned that. And even now you give no specifics.If you cared to read the other thread you would see that I have given examples of this, such as my brother giving a woman a reading and getting the image of a white gladioli flower. I still find that "reading" to be quite useless. Besides, how are we to know that your brother didn't give the woman 27 different "images", and only the white gladioli proved relevant?
Note that it is the reproducibility of science that makes it useful and appealing to me. You've already conceded that the medium cannot control the interaction; therefore one cannot go into a seance in order to find out a specific piece of information.
Just because a phenomenon cannot be accurately predicted when and where it will happen does not discount that phenomenon. What about lightning? Where did I discount the phenomena? I said it was useless.

And science can predict when and where lighting will happen. Perhaps not with incredible preciseness (my oak tree vs the neighbors flag pole) but they happen during severe rainstorms and tend to hit tall objects. That's predictive enough for me to react appropriately.

Moonrock

07-January-2006, 03:03 PM

OK thats fair enough. The body was found in Lake Como, I believe around September time (at least thats when the articles are dated). The Psychic is called Maria Rosa Busi and the victim was Chiara Bariffi.

aurora

07-January-2006, 09:14 PM

http://www.openmindsciences.com

Is that an advert for his book? I could look in the library for it. I am unlikely to buy it.

Has he ever had any papers on this topic published in scientific journals?

Van Rijn

07-January-2006, 09:25 PM

So what in your view makes Randi an ‘expert in the field’?

What makes him an expert in cold reading and other methods people can use to trick others into thinking they can do things they really can't? The type of expertise needed to design experiments so that those being tested can't use similar techniques, to keep the researchers from being fooled? Gosh, I have no idea. :think:

beskeptical

07-January-2006, 09:25 PM

Is that an advert for his book? I could look in the library for it. I am unlikely to buy it.

Has he ever had any papers on this topic published in scientific journals?I found this (http://www.survivalafterdeath.org/researchers/schwartz.htm) page that at least said the guy has credentials. Other than that, I just started looking.

beskeptical

07-January-2006, 10:02 PM

I've been watching those psychic detective cases on TV and I keep wondering what part of the details they're leaving out or if the cases are as compelling as they appear. I've lost interest in most of the other 'strange happenings' stories because they have all turned out to be completely distorted versions of the real events. And the anecdotal, "I saw a ghost" stuff is outright boring. But I'm waiting on the psychic detective events. I'm skeptical but I want to know more.

Shermer says with the billions of events that can occur some are likely to be correct by coincidence. I'll buy that to a point. But I wonder when someone gets it right multiple times, how many events or details can occur and still be by chance? The key here is are we really getting the facts and how many times have these psychics been wrong?

Van Rijn

07-January-2006, 10:14 PM

paulie jay

07-January-2006, 10:36 PM

Well, the Hervey Bay spiritualists have bounced back my email too...

paulie jay

07-January-2006, 10:59 PM

Ok then Moonrock,

I Googled "Chiara Bariffi" and "lake" and was presented with a substantial list of links in Italian. Once I filtered it down to English entries only I was left with 26 results. 11 of these were actually the same news story (virtually word for word) on different sites, 2 were references in blogs, 1 was a reference on a message board and 1 was a news story with original wording. The remaining 9 were either double-ups or had no real reference to the case at all.

In none of the results was I able to get anything more than the most basic details of the case. All that I could learn was that the lake is called Lake Como. I don't know that I have any hope of finding out the contact details of the local police there - and I don't speak Italian anyway...

Onto the churches -
I've finally got contact! A nice man from the Maroochydore Spiritualist Church informs me that Spritualism has nothing to do with what you see or do not see. So I suppose I won't be seeing and ghosts there.

LurchGS

08-January-2006, 03:13 AM

And science can predict when and where lighting will happen. Perhaps not with incredible preciseness (my oak tree vs the neighbors flag pole) but they happen during severe rainstorms and tend to hit tall objects. That's predictive enough for me to react appropriately.

I wouldn't think accuracy would be needed in the prediction of lightning.. there is ample evidence for *everybody* to see

accuracy on the part of a medium is essential. I don't want a message I "could link to a dead relative". I want a message that DID come from a dead relative. It's the same standards of communication that every competent military in the world uses.

Feeding a medium false info is a perfectly valid exercise. It's a legitimate means of forcing invalid info into a cold read. If some medium were to mention my 'Grandmother Sarah', I'd be out of the building faster than you can pluck a whisker. If I gave information A (Grandmother Sarah) and the medium told me the message was from my "father's mother Gertrude", I'd be a bit more inclined to listen, as it indicates that at least the person has done some research. If the medium sticks with the bogus information, the medium is bogus as well

aurora

08-January-2006, 03:35 AM

I found this (http://www.survivalafterdeath.org/researchers/schwartz.htm) page that at least said the guy has credentials. Other than that, I just started looking.

Gee, a web site called life after death treats his work favorably. I'm not surprised.

It does say he has published 400 papers, although it does not say what the papers were about.

Based on what I've seen so far, I'd say we have a PHD who teaches 3 classes in psych, and got bamboozled by mediums, and decided to make a buck by writing a book about it, and then got real upset when some people critized his work. :neutral:

HenrikOlsen

08-January-2006, 04:28 AM

worzel

08-January-2006, 02:37 PM

Worzel, As I said, I dont really watch Colin Fry, the last time would have been around 2 years ago I guess. I also keep saying that you shouldnt group a normal medium with those who appear on TV who are obviously doing it as a profession.
You quoted television programmes as evidence and got quite upset that nobody accepted them as such. I was simply showing you that the only program like this that I have bothered to look into was easily identified as total bunk. A television program that you said seemed to be good evidence.

If you thought that it was good evidence until I demonstrated it was bunk, then why should anyone accept any of your reams of anecdotes or references to other tv programmes as evidence? Or is it up to the skeptics, as usual, to demonstrate that every paranormal claim is in fact bunk, only to have you say "ah, but what about this one"?

No, it is up to you to provide evidence for your claim. So far you have provided nothing worth considering. Has it ever occurred to you that if you (or anyone else for that matter) are unable to provide any evidence for a someting, then just maybe that something doesn't exist and you're'll just kidding yourselves?

Many of you here are asking for evidence. If science wants to prove that this phenomenon doesnt exist why doesnt it set up an experiment at a spiritualist church? Why don't scientists carry out research over lets say a 6 months period at spiritualist services and release its findings? Why? Because as long as its not properly researched by scientists it will not be recognised as being real.Why don't spiritualists set up experiments to prove that there is something to it. Repeatable experiments that we could all then perform to see for ourselves? Not only is it not the responsibility of skeptics to prove the non-existence of events for which there is no evidence, it is impossible. Why don't you prove that there aren't invisible pink elephants living on the moon that only I can communicate with?

If science wanted to study a Gorilla it would go to a jungle, so why not study spiritualism in a mediums natural surroundings of a spiritualist church?But when someone goes to medium and tests them by feeding them false info you think it's unfair. What would you suggest as a fair test that we can perform in a spiritualist church that will convince us that there is something to this talking to the dead?

Moonrock

08-January-2006, 05:13 PM

]I still find that "reading" to be quite useless. Besides, how are we to know that your brother didn't give the woman 27 different "images", and only the white gladioli proved relevant?

He didn’t.

Where did I discount the phenomena? I said it was useless.

If you believed it you wouldn’t keep coming up with daft questions.

And science can predict when and where lighting will happen. Perhaps not with incredible preciseness (my oak tree vs the neighbors flag pole) but they happen during severe rainstorms and tend to hit tall objects. That's predictive enough for me to react appropriately.

Your example proves nothing. I could have told you that lightning strikes tall objects, you don’t have to be a scientist to predict that. Scientists cannot accurately predict the time and area that a lightning storm will hit – your talking through your hat.

Is that an advert for his book? I could look in the library for it. I am unlikely to buy it.

Has he ever had any papers on this topic published in scientific journals?

Try clicking the links on the left of the page, it gives the details that people have asked for here.

Originally Posted by Moonrock
So what in your view makes Randi an ‘expert in the field’?

What makes him an expert in cold reading and other methods people can use to trick others into thinking they can do things they really can't? The type of expertise needed to design experiments so that those being tested can't use similar techniques, to keep the researchers from being fooled? Gosh, I have no idea.

But what makes him qualified to know a genuine medium?

I wouldn't think accuracy would be needed in the prediction of lightning.. there is ample evidence for *everybody* to see

accuracy on the part of a medium is essential. I don't want a message I "could link to a dead relative". I want a message that DID come from a dead relative. It's the same standards of communication that every competent military in the world uses.

Feeding a medium false info is a perfectly valid exercise. It's a legitimate means of forcing invalid info into a cold read. If some medium were to mention my 'Grandmother Sarah', I'd be out of the building faster than you can pluck a whisker. If I gave information A (Grandmother Sarah) and the medium told me the message was from my "father's mother Gertrude", I'd be a bit more inclined to listen, as it indicates that at least the person has done some research. If the medium sticks with the bogus information, the medium is bogus as well

You all seem to be ignorant of how a medium works. On most occasions a medium will not give you a name at all. They will give you some information which you could identify that person by. Ill give you an example. My dad died of cancer in 1999. A medium gave me a reading saying ‘I have a fatherly figure in a wheelchair with two large dogs and he is accompanied by an older lady who seems very prime and proper, her hair looks like it has just been set.

That reading was spot on. In the last couple of months of his life my dad was in a wheelchair, we had two large collie dogs. His mother had her hair set every week. Another example? My grandfather came through talking about fishing. He used to take us on holiday fishing every year when we were young. Those are all examples that you can identify with without even hearing a name. Another example is how a medium told me exactly why our family business closed down, a fact that not even my close friends know about.

I’m starting to get annoyed at the people here who are guessing what a spiritualist meeting is like. Its nothing like any of you have described at all.

You quoted television programmes as evidence and got quite upset that nobody accepted them as such. I was simply showing you that the only program like this that I have bothered to look into was easily identified as total bunk. A television program that you said seemed to be good evidence.

If you thought that it was good evidence until I demonstrated it was bunk, then why should anyone accept any of your reams of anecdotes or references to other tv programmes as evidence? Or is it up to the skeptics, as usual, to demonstrate that every paranormal claim is in fact bunk, only to have you say "ah, but what about this one"?

No, it is up to you to provide evidence for your claim. So far you have provided nothing worth considering. Has it ever occurred to you that if you (or anyone else for that matter) are unable to provide any evidence for a someting, then just maybe that something doesn't exist and you're'll just kidding yourselves?

Can you link to this total bunk belief? If you don’t want to accept my personal experiences, then that’s fine. I don’t believe in the Apollo project either, so we have common ground there I guess. And before any smart Alec comes back with ‘there’s plenty of evidence for Apollo’, I will quip that there’s even more evidence for the existence of ghosts.

Why don't spiritualists set up experiments to prove that there is something to it. Repeatable experiments that we could all then perform to see for ourselves? Not only is it not the responsibility of skeptics to prove the non-existence of events for which there is no evidence, it is impossible. Why don't you prove that there aren't invisible pink elephants living on the moon that only I can communicate with?

Ill give you the same answer as Apollo believers give for NASA not having to go and prove they went to the Moon – why should they? You’re the non-believer who has the problem so you go prove it.

But when someone goes to medium and tests them by feeding them false info you think it's unfair. What would you suggest as a fair test that we can perform in a spiritualist church that will convince us that there is something to this talking to the dead?

Yes I do. Would you go and lie to a doctor to see how good he is too? If a medium could give a scientist an accurate reading without asking any questions then surely that is evidence enough?

The reason why science doesnt want to get off its bum and start investigating this phenomenon seriously is because once its proved to be true science would have to throw its books out of the window. The same happened with Einsteins theory.

aurora

08-January-2006, 05:22 PM

Try clicking the links on the left of the page, it gives the details that people have asked for here.

No, it doesn't. I'm calling bunk on you right here.

I went through every link on the left side of that page.

There were NO references to papers published in scientific journals on this topic. If there are any, I once again ask you to provide them. If you are unable to provide them, please admit that you are not rather than pointing to something else and claiming that it answers the request.

Someone else (Van Rijn) has already posted a critique of the methods that were used, it appears to me that the reason that you are unable to come up with any peer reviewed scientific journal articles is because the methods used were not sound and repeatable.

aurora

08-January-2006, 05:31 PM

Yes I do. Would you go and lie to a doctor to see how good he is too? If a medium could give a scientist an accurate reading without asking any questions then surely that is evidence enough?

The reason why science doesnt want to get off its bum and start investigating this phenomenon seriously is because once its proved to be true science would have to throw its books out of the window. The same happened with Einsteins theory.

Absolutely, medicine is tested with double blind random tests. Most Mediums refuse to take such tests because they would be exposed as frauds.

There's another problem with all of the examples you have given, the information provided by the medium is so general that it applies to many or most people.

Astrology has been tested with a very simple technique that would work in this case is to have the medium prepare multiple readings (with astrology, one common method is to prepare 12 such documents) and then have the people in the audience each attempt to pick the one that applies specifically to them.

Statistical tests can be conducted to verify that the results are statistically significant.

See the examples on this page:

http://www.astrosociety.org/education/astro/act3/astrology.html

These sorts of things can be done and have been done in middle school classrooms. Why can't a Phd at U of A get it right?

Another technique that I think is pertinent to this topic is one mentioned by Sagan when discussing UFO claims. He made the point that if aliens were really contacting certain people, then why did they never tell them anything useful? Why not provide us with some technology or scientific discovery?

Same thing here, if the mediums were really talking to the dead, why would they, as you say, only focus on expressing feelings of love? Simple, because love is a common emotion, and everyone experiences it, so the medium is safe in expressing it to the client on behalf of the dearly departed. If the medium were really able to present useful information repeatedly, then that medium would be able to conduct and participate in proper experiments that would validate the claims.

R.A.F.

08-January-2006, 05:50 PM

I’m starting to get annoyed at the people here who are guessing what a spiritualist meeting is like.

Funny, I'm way past annoyed at your continuing to post anecdotes as if they were evidence.

And before any smart Alec comes back with ‘there’s plenty of evidence for Apollo’, I will quip that there’s even more evidence for the existence of ghosts.

...and you would be wrong...

Ill give you the same answer as Apollo believers give for NASA not having to go and prove they went to the Moon – why should they? You’re the non-believer who has the problem so you go prove it.

it is unreasonable to "equate" one with the other. There is a MOUNTAIN of evidence demonstrative of the fact that the Apollo missions happened...ie. the rock samples returned. That is solid physical evidence.

Your evidence for ghosts "boils down" to...well, nothing but stories.

Science is not in the "business" of proving negatives, ie. the non-existance of ghosts, therefore it is up to you to demonstrate that existance...and I don't care how many stories you care to post...STORIES ARE NOT EVIDENCE. (Pardon my shouting, but you don't seem to be "getting it").

HenrikOlsen

08-January-2006, 06:07 PM

If you cared to read the other thread you would see that I have given examples of this, such as my brother giving a woman a reading and getting the image of a white gladioli flower. The lady at the time didn’t know the significance of the flower. The following week the woman’s sister travelled from up country to visit her mothers grave. By the time she reached our county it was late, she popped into a garden centre to get some flowers for the grave but the centre was shut. On the way out she noticed a white gladioli growing near the entrance and picked it and put it on the grave. That is evidence of precognition.
Did the woman talk to her sister before visiting their mothers grave?
If so, that would explain why she noticed the gladioli, making it a selffulfilling prophesy.
Even if they didn't talk before, there's still the problem of looking back and seeing patterns in the past. Had it been a white rose you would probably still have seen it as evidence of precognition, just as you would if the shop had been open and she had bought a gladoli there.

When there's talk about precognition, I'm always reminded of The Quincunx of Time by James Blish which starts with a scene where a journalist has receive a letter from someone claiming to be able to predict the future and contacts the head of an intelligence agency.
She's told that it's probably a scam of the "send different predictions covering all possible outcomes to different people, the one who gets the correct prediction is the willing to pay for more info" type, and that they are normally recognizible by the odd series of yes/no predictions.

She then reads the prediction:
At 03.16.10, on Year Day, 2090, the Hess-type interstellar liner Brindisi will be attacked in the neigbourhood of the Three Ghosts system by four heavily armed vessels flying the lights of Hammersmith II. The position of the liner at that time will be at coded coordinates 88-A-theta-88-gimel-8, code and-per-se-and. It will -
This is an example of a testable prediction which would once and for all prove that prediction is possible. A white flower isn't.

R.A.F.

08-January-2006, 06:08 PM

There's another problem with all of the examples you have given, the information provided by the medium is so general that it applies to many or most people.

For instance...

My grandfather came through talking about fishing. He used to take us on holiday fishing every year when we were young.

I imagine the percentage of people who had not gone fishing with their grandfathers to be very small.

Talk about "useless" information...

Moose

08-January-2006, 07:39 PM

There was a case kicked around on JREF last month, where this lady was shilling that her child was clearly psychic. Dishonest or deluded, I couldn't say, but her basis for claiming her child was psychic was that he could supposedly predict what food or toy she'd come back from the store with.

Let me restate that: the child would claim her mother would come back with some goodie or toy just before the child's mother went shopping, in her hearing, and lo, a few hours later the mother would come back with that very thing. :eh:

Amazing. :rolleyes:

beskeptical

08-January-2006, 08:17 PM

Here's an interesting article on Schwartz:

http://www.theness.com/articles.asp?id=25

A short bit:

"A fundamental flaw with the experiments comes from an apparent misunderstanding of the various ways cold readings work."

This was the fellow Moonrock earlier mentioned because of an argument with Randi. Here is one of Randi's comments on the subject:

http://www.randi.org/jr/03-23-2001.html

It is clear that his experiments were not well controlled. The types of mistakes he made were typical of those who don't have the expertise in the required area - that is, how people can fool themselves and others.
I have to agree because the first thing I noticed was that the Dr noted one might answer differently when scoring a 'real' reading vs a placebo reading but then he failed to blind his scorers. They heard the reading regardless of who spoke to them and answered yes and no questions.

If you didn't believe the yes and no answers tainted the readings, you should at least note the persons who got the readings had to have known which readings were 'real' and which were not. That not only biases the scoring, the Dr himself said it could bias the scoring.

beskeptical

08-January-2006, 08:22 PM

Gee, a web site called life after death treats his work favorably. I'm not surprised.

It does say he has published 400 papers, although it does not say what the papers were about.

Based on what I've seen so far, I'd say we have a PHD who teaches 3 classes in psych, and got bamboozled by mediums, and decided to make a buck by writing a book about it, and then got real upset when some people critized his work. :neutral:I'm talking about the fact he has a degree and a position at a university, not about his published work. I did not make any further comment than that. I just want that to be clear.

worzel

08-January-2006, 08:25 PM

Can you link to this total bunk belief?
Can't find it I'm afraid, sorry. But I did find this Did Colin Fry cheat at physical mediumship? (http://www.spiritualists.org/psychics/delete_psychiccolinfry.htm) on spiritualists.org. In short, he's been accused of cheating by many people, but Craig Hamilton-Parker's wife spoke to him on the phone and "he sounded peasant [sic] enough", and Craig feels that "Colin Fry's demonstrations of mediumship on Living TV appear to be genuine enough. Presumably he has no access to the researcher's notes and findings.". Oh well that settles it then :rolleyes: I'll do some more googling to see if I can find out about these accusations.

If you don’t want to accept my personal experiences, then that’s fine. I don’t believe in the Apollo project either, so we have common ground there I guess. And before any smart Alec comes back with ‘there’s plenty of evidence for Apollo’, I will quip that there’s even more evidence for the existence of ghosts.Well then how come you have failed to provide any?

Ill give you the same answer as Apollo believers give for NASA not having to go and prove they went to the Moon – why should they? You’re the non-believer who has the problem so you go prove it.If NASA were claiming they went to the moon but you had to go to a genuine NASA church headed by a genuine NASA medium (which they reserve the right to redefine to suite any damming evidence) and not tell any lies in order to be able to see the evidence, and even then you might not be able to see it, then they might be comparible. The problem for people like you is that facts remain true even when you stop believing in them.

Yes I do. Would you go and lie to a doctor to see how good he is too? If a medium could give a scientist an accurate reading without asking any questions then surely that is evidence enough?If I read up on the symptons for lung cancer, went to my doctor (if I had one that is) and reported these symptons, then I would expect him to suspect that I might have lung cancer (along with any other differential diagnoses for those symptons) and either perform or arrange tests that would (hopefully) show that this suspicion is false. Equally, if a medium were genuine then I would expect false information to elicit something other than contact with my fictitious dead relative.

The reason why science doesnt want to get off its bum and start investigating this phenomenon seriously is because once its proved to be true science would have to throw its books out of the window. The same happened with Einsteins theory.No, the reason why many good scientists don't try to get funding to research paranormal activity is because they suspect there is nothing there to discover and would rather use their talents on something more useful. The reason why it is hard to get funding to research paranormal activity is because there has never been any demonstration that there is any paranormal phenomenon in need of investigation.

beskeptical

08-January-2006, 08:29 PM

So what in your view makes Randi an ‘expert in the field’?Being a professional stage magician, he's an expert at fooling people and at how people fool themselves. This also means that he's far better at recognising when people are being fooled and are fooling themselves than the average person.Randi also has a well established reputation in the field of debunking that is recognized by many who have the credentials to do so.

I am a specialist in infectious disease. My credentials are in family practice and occupational health. But 15 years working with infectious disease has given me the skills and the reputation to consider myself an expert. The fact my practice is very successful and that physicians, among other professionals, call me for consultation means something.

HenrikOlsen

08-January-2006, 09:30 PM

You swapped the people quoted there, moonrock was the one asking what Randi's an expert in, I was the one who answered fooling people.

Moonrock

09-January-2006, 12:08 AM

Your evidence for ghosts "boils down" to...well, nothing but stories.

Wrong. There’s plenty of evidence on film from all over the world showing ghosts. There are thousands of ghost groups who go out all the time filming, documenting, recording, picking up readings on EMF meters and laser thermometers with mountains of evidence for the phenomenon. If science wishes to ignore all the data then that’s sciences fault. And, when we say ‘science’ is there a governing body or is every scientist or science lab individual?

No, it doesn't. I'm calling bunk on you right here.

I went through every link on the left side of that page.

There were NO references to papers published in scientific journals on this topic. If there are any, I once again ask you to provide them. If you are unable to provide them, please admit that you are not rather than pointing to something else and claiming that it answers the request.

Someone else (Van Rijn) has already posted a critique of the methods that were used, it appears to me that the reason that you are unable to come up with any peer reviewed scientific journal articles is because the methods used were not sound and repeatable.

Heres the guys Email address. Write to him and ask. veritas@email.arizona.edu

There's another problem with all of the examples you have given, the information provided by the medium is so general that it applies to many or most people.

Really? What about when a medium names a specific aftershave brand. Did you go fishing with your grandfather too? Is your father in a wheelchair. You talk crap.

Another technique that I think is pertinent to this topic is one mentioned by Sagan when discussing UFO claims. He made the point that if aliens were really contacting certain people, then why did they never tell them anything useful? Why not provide us with some technology or scientific discovery?

Hmmm now that’s very interesting and wrong at the same time because Sagan believed in UFOs. http://www.ufodata.co.uk/pdf/Carl%20Sagan%20UFOs.pdf

Same thing here, if the mediums were really talking to the dead, why would they, as you say, only focus on expressing feelings of love? Simple, because love is a common emotion, and everyone experiences it, so the medium is safe in expressing it to the client on behalf of the dearly departed. If the medium were really able to present useful information repeatedly, then that medium would be able to conduct and participate in proper experiments that would validate the claims.

Wrong again. When I saw Derek Acorah he told a friend that they had just had a new kitchen fitted.

Quote:
And before any smart Alec comes back with ‘there’s plenty of evidence for Apollo’, I will quip that there’s even more evidence for the existence of ghosts.

...and you would be wrong...

Nope. Ghosts have been seen for centuries and documented. Apollo lasted for how long? Ghosts are seen every single day by thousands of people around the world. What news has been released about Apollo lately?

it is unreasonable to "equate" one with the other. There is a MOUNTAIN of evidence demonstrative of the fact that the Apollo missions happened...ie. the rock samples returned. That is solid physical evidence.

There is also physical evidence of ghost activity too. Poltergeist activity and apports.

Your evidence for ghosts "boils down" to...well, nothing but stories.

Science is not in the "business" of proving negatives, ie. the non-existance of ghosts, therefore it is up to you to demonstrate that existance...and I don't care how many stories you care to post...STORIES ARE NOT EVIDENCE. (Pardon my shouting, but you don't seem to be "getting it").

I’ve linked to scientific research by Sir William Crookes into the phenomenon and you don’t accept it. Your refusal to accept the facts is your problem and your problem alone.

Did the woman talk to her sister before visiting their mothers grave? If so, that would explain why she noticed the gladioli, making it a selffulfilling prophesy. Even if they didn't talk before, there's still the problem of looking back and seeing patterns in the past. Had it been a white rose you would probably still have seen it as evidence of precognition, just as you would if the shop had been open and she had bought a gladoli there.

No she didn’t talk to her sister beforehand. What really are the chances of predicting such an unusual flower in the first place and of it being white? You work out the odds of picking the exact flower and colour and get back to me with some sensible reasoning to the answer. When was the last time you saw a white gladioli on a grave?

Can't find it I'm afraid, sorry. But I did find this Did Colin Fry cheat at physical mediumship? on spiritualists.org. In short, he's been accused of cheating by many people, but Craig Hamilton-Parker's wife spoke to him on the phone and "he sounded peasant [sic] enough", and Craig feels that "Colin Fry's demonstrations of mediumship on Living TV appear to be genuine enough. Presumably he has no access to the researcher's notes and findings.". Oh well that settles it then I'll do some more googling to see if I can find out about these accusations.

You shouldn’t start accusing people of things just on hearsay.

If I read up on the symptons for lung cancer, went to my doctor (if I had one that is) and reported these symptons, then I would expect him to suspect that I might have lung cancer (along with any other differential diagnoses for those symptons) and either perform or arrange tests that would (hopefully) show that this suspicion is false. Equally, if a medium were genuine then I would expect false information to elicit something other than contact with my fictitious dead relative.

Why do you think that a medium could know if your lying? A medium picks up messages, is drawn by their spirit guide to give the message to a certain person or a certain area in the audience. They cannot mind read. Think of a medium as a radio. You cant ask it questions but it can give you information.

Boy, the beliefs of what a medium should and shouldn’t be able to do, according to this board is laughable. And you call yourselves scientists? Although I doubt that even a handful of you are scientists anyway.

No, the reason why many good scientists don't try to get funding to research paranormal activity is because they suspect there is nothing there to discover and would rather use their talents on something more useful. The reason why it is hard to get funding to research paranormal activity is because there has never been any demonstration that there is any paranormal phenomenon in need of investigation.

And narrowminded views like yours are the reason why such research isn’t carried out.

I notice that none of you have commented on Nancy Orlen Weber. http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0505/30/ng.01.html

R.A.F.

09-January-2006, 12:27 AM

SolusLupus

09-January-2006, 12:29 AM

Okay. Things are starting to get a bit too heated. RAF, please calm down. Moonrock, please don't use insults such as "you talk crap" in your posts.

R.A.F.

09-January-2006, 12:34 AM

I deleted the last line as it was improper...I apologize...

01101001

09-January-2006, 12:39 AM

Isn't it time this topic title became self-referential and, predictably, self-fulfilling?

Moonrock

09-January-2006, 12:42 AM

Look guys, Im sorry that Im getting frustrated, but its like hitting my head against a brick wall.

I have posted link after link for Sir William Crookes, it points to his papers and research. He was more than qualified to do this type of research.

http://www.survivalafterdeath.org/books/crookes/researches/investigation.htm

The above article shows his experiments with original drawings and data.

Please dont keep trying to fob me off with 'you have no evidence', because there it is.

Van Rijn

09-January-2006, 12:45 AM

Wrong. There’s plenty of evidence on film from all over the world showing ghosts.

And from here, regarding Apollo: (http://www.bautforum.com/showpost.php?p=648230&postcount=36)

Big deal. Watching ANYTHING on TV proves NOTHING.

Consistent, aren't we?

worzel

09-January-2006, 01:24 AM

Wrong. There’s plenty of evidence on film from all over the world showing ghosts. There are thousands of ghost groups who go out all the time filming, documenting, recording, picking up readings on EMF meters and laser thermometers with mountains of evidence for the phenomenon. If science wishes to ignore all the data then that’s sciences fault. And, when we say ‘science’ is there a governing body or is every scientist or science lab individual?Presumably some of these people filming ghosts are computer literate and would like skeptics like us to share in their wisdom. So surely there must be a few videos online of these ghosts. Links?

Nope. Ghosts have been seen for centuries and documented. Apollo lasted for how long? Ghosts are seen every single day by thousands of people around the world. What news has been released about Apollo lately?Thor has been around even longer. Do you therefore believe that Thor creates thunder with his hammer. What about cupid and his arrow?

There is also physical evidence of ghost activity too. Poltergeist activity and apports.So you say. We say not. With only stories and no evidence to back up your claims how can you even believe it, let alone expect us to?

I’ve linked to scientific research by Sir William Crookes into the phenomenon and you don’t accept it. Your refusal to accept the facts is your problem and your problem alone.But you failed to point to any evidence. Even Crookes himself said that he had no evidence.

You shouldn’t start accusing people of things just on hearsay.Are you suggesting that the forum of devotees was set up in waiting by skeptics to bait a skeptic like me and give me false information about how Colin Fry is duping his subject? I found it quite interesting that the very first hit when googling "'sixth sense' researchers 'colin fry'" was a spiritualist site that hinted at accusations of him using researchers exactly as I discovered myself by talking to his fans. He has also been caught cheating when some smart alec turned the lights on in the middle of a seance where a luminous trumpet was supposedly floating around in the dark - he was holding it :) link (http://www.network54.com/Forum/280394/), link (http://colinfry.bravepages.com/)

During the procedure Colin Fry was strapped to the chair as is the Spiritualist tradition. The straps would be checked by an independent person before and after the seance to prove that Colin Fry was in his seat throughout the proceedings. Week after week The Psychic News reported on these remarkable seances but then everything went badly wrong. Suddenly the lights were turned on.

In the middle of the room stood Colin Fry holding the trumpet that only moments earlier had been floating around the room.

Ok, he's not a true medium - I wonder if we'll ever find one though.

Why do you think that a medium could know if your lying? A medium picks up messages, is drawn by their spirit guide to give the message to a certain person or a certain area in the audience. They cannot mind read. Think of a medium as a radio. You cant ask it questions but it can give you information.I don't expect that a medium could know that I'm lying. But I would not expect a true medium to be able to assure me that I am in contact with a fictitious relative. You have to be pretty gullible to believe that it only works if you tell them enough truthfull info so they can cold read you.

Boy, the beliefs of what a medium should and shouldn’t be able to do, according to this board is laughable. And you call yourselves scientists?I call myself worzel. What's laughable is that you accept spiritualism with no evidence while maintaining that the moon landing was faked - talk about double standards.

Although I doubt that even a handful of you are scientists anyway.What has that got to do with you inability to provide any evidence for your claims?

And narrowminded views like yours are the reason why such research isn’t carried out.I was very open minded when I was younger. I believed in all sorts of things that I now think are bunk. The more I got in to each paranormal whatever, the more I realized that it was all just garbage. One common trait among every brand of bunk I've seen is constant reasoning as to why it can't be scientifically demonstrated to exist. That to me is now synonymous with "does not exist".

I notice that none of you have commented on Nancy Orlen Weber. http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0505/30/ng.01.html
No comment.

HenrikOlsen

09-January-2006, 02:55 AM

I notice that none of you have commented on Nancy Orlen Weber. http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0505/30/ng.01.html
I'm reading a transcript that gives me a strong impression that Nancy Grace is already a strong believer in psychic phenomena and picked participants that confirmed her beliefs without applying any kind of critical thinking to the process.
I'd actually already read it, as there'd been a link from Randi's weekly comments (http://www.randi.org/jr/061005smug.html)

Obviousman

09-January-2006, 04:00 AM

paulie jay

09-January-2006, 04:07 AM

Well while you guys have been fighting, I've been delving deeper into my Search-For-A-GhostTM.

I received an enthusiastic email from one of the Spiritualist Churches in Queensland, and although she did give me a lot of info about what happens at the church (readings etc) she hinted that some people who attend see "spirit energy" - but she did stop short of saying that ghosts appear.

The other response (from South Australia) I received was, again, very enthusiastic and civilised*, but his answer about seeing ghosts was much more direct. He said "The stories your friend has told you about manifesting , even though I can not dispute them, are very unlikely. Everyone would like to see physical proof and therefore if this was happening as your friend stated then the media and everyone else would be there." (I realise that I am posting the content of an email, but I have not identified the person or the actual church. If this still contravenes the Forum rules I will remove it immediately.)

My next step will be to make a visit or two to my local Spiritualist Church to observe procedings for myself. This would probably be the one at Enmore (it is the closest), though it will certainly have to wait a week or so. After that I will be able to post a full report of my impressions and "findings" - if any :)

*Don't bother to tell me that there should be a "z" in civilised, we use "s" down here ;)

Kristophe

09-January-2006, 04:18 AM

Some of us are curious.

And some of us aren't. This has come full circle. Somebody wake me when Moonrock has something fresher than a 7-11 hotdog.

Maksutov

09-January-2006, 04:37 AM

And some of us aren't. This has come full circle. Somebody wake me when Moonrock has something fresher than a 7-11 hotdog.At 10:45 PM.

Well while you guys have been fighting, I've been delving deeper into my Search-For-A-GhostTM.As Arte Johnson used to say, "Verrrry interrrestting..."

Given the more-than-slightly differing descriptions of "what ghosts on" http://img137.imageshack.us/img137/566/iconwink6tn.gif by the folks you've contacted, I can't help but wonder if our fledgling medium here is displaying the symptoms of "newbieitis", the tendency for someone who is new to an organization, etc., to be overenthusiastic, and project the organization's activities as being better than sliced bread and universally applicable.

I've seen this in astronomy, where a tyro with much disposable income goes out and buys the biggest scope possible, which later winds up gathering dust in a garage or basement. Ditto re newcomers to photography. And mountain climbing, where someone climbs their first 13,000 footer and then has to scale all the other 13,000 footers in the state in a year. All this occurring while the person talks about nothing but the new area of enthusiasm.

The same thing has been seen to happen in non-scientific/recreational areas, but I'll leave those details to everyone's personal experiences and memories.

HenrikOlsen

09-January-2006, 05:17 AM

I have a friend who tends towards Toad-like enthusiasm for the first months after he starts playing a new computer game, so I definitely recognise the type.

beskeptical

09-January-2006, 07:36 AM

Reading the transcript on Nancy Weber:

1. Past experiences (wrong diagnosis, etc): Any evidence from those other people for these events? So far all we have is her word that they happened.

2. Police reaction to her: Again, evidence that the Police did consider her to be reliable? It may well be so, but there is nothing from the officers themselves to verify this.

3. Reaction when Goble met Weber: She knew that the lady was seeing her for some reason - at this time I have no reason to think that Weber simply saw the lady (Goble) was distraught and did a type of 'cold reading'; in other words, she saw she was upset and said there was a tragedy in her family, etc.

4. Hammer in swamp: The transcript said it was not used in the murder. Who placed it there?

5. The killer confessed: He ended up confessing. Perhaps the return visit from the police after the polygraph, along with the now coroner's estimate time of death, made him believe he wouldn't be able to pull this off. Nothing Ms Weber did actually proved that he did it - he confessed. She was right, though.

6. The case with the missing children: This is interesting; I'd like to read more about it. Did she give them the address, or just the street name?

Then we move on to another person

7. Locating crash site: Very interesting. I'd like to know if she knew that the area hadn't been searched before she nominated it.

Another person

8. The Reiner case: Again, very interesting - but it doesn't say what evidence she was able to give that enabled the police to close the investigation. The transcript says "They had a suspect. They had all the things, all the elements, but they didn`t have enough to quite make the case." - so what was she able to do?

*********************

They are all very interesting, but you'd need to verify exactly what happened in a lot of areas.
Re Nancy Grace picking specific cases, well of course, so do the program producers of the psychic detective series. The fact they aren't random samples doesn't exactly apply if you are testing specific individuals. And I'm not sure having the psychics' failures compared to their successes is the way to test this phenomena either. Those are our accepted scientific means for testing this kind of thing and I am not rejecting that outright. But I would like to know a bit more about a couple of these specific cases.

For the record, I am sticking with Michael Shermer's contention that if you have a billion chances you are bound to get lucky sometimes, until proved otherwise lest anyone think there is a chink in my skeptic's protective tinfoil hat. But a couple of things in these and a few other cases do intrigue me. I'm still trying to reconcile what kind of information might be traveling in the space around us that one could possibly receive and interpret. But I'm not going to rule that out without evidence either just because we haven't found it yet. I do think if a human can read some info entering the brain via no known sense, we should be able to find and at least detect that information with instruments.

What I'm getting at is we can record brain waves and they are emitted from our brain activity. My objection is those waves do not contain information. Rather, the information is contained in the brain structure. But then someone noted that one's brainwaves are as unique as fingerprints. I didn't know that. If that is the case, then they do contain some kind of information.

I'm not saying we should accept this as evidence of anything except that we should keep an open mind before dismissing everything.

As to life after death, I'm waiting for the person who dies, floats above their body, is revived and is able to tell us they read the secret message out of sight unless you were floating above everyone in the room planted by a few researchers conducting such experiments. Until then I'm not buying anyone lives beyond death.

But getting back to the psychic detectives, there was one case where the psychic's information was presented in court. So as to did any of them solve the case, yes I think there are cases where they actually did present information that contributed. There was the lady in the LA area that found the murdered nurse in the canyon after a vision led her there. The cops actually figured it couldn't have been a vision and arrested her as an accomplice. It was proved, at least beyond reasonable doubt, that the person with the psychic vision was not involved and really did find the body via the vision leading her to go there. That was a very specific case.

There have been a couple of cases where people were found either dead or alive after some stranger had a vision of some kind saying to go look in a very specific place. Some of those events could certainly meet Shermer's explanation of if you do it a billion times some of the times will be correct by coincidence.

I'd like to see someone calculate how much accuracy needs to occur to be considered beyond coincidence. And I'd like to see that criteria developed and agreed upon ahead of time then used to weigh the psychic event evidence rather than attributing all the anecdotal events to coincidence.

For example, if Noreen Reiner did indeed, not only pick out the three involved in the murder out from 10 upside down photos, and assuming the photos all looked the same, but also correctly named the shooter, the accomplice and the planner who wasn't there, and, if she described the murder scene exactly as it was portrayed in the TV program from the woman being on the phone, having been called, hearing the commotion, knowing the shooter, seeing her husband killed, getting shot next and feeling ill, all without ever having been told anything other than a murder or two murders had taken place it starts to get pretty interesting.

But I have to assume she did know some of the stuff because the daughter that was on the phone with the murdered woman was the one who contacted Noreen. You'd have to assume the daughter could have given Noreen lots of that information. That's where I say I like to know the facts instead of the TV version because those versions tend not to be balanced accounts of events.

Most of the programs I've seen so far have been 30 minutes of stalling tactics because they really only have a few facts in the cases to actually present.

I continue to be intrigued but of course skeptical.

beskeptical

09-January-2006, 07:37 AM

Re the hammer in the swamp, it had blood on it. I thought it was connected to the murderer just not the victim. Perhaps that wasn't so?

beskeptical

09-January-2006, 07:40 AM

And the case where the psychic said to "go now", where exactly to go and the relatives did and ended up driving past the dead brother's stolen pick up, in that one the psychic did give the information that led to the crime being solved.

Wolverine

09-January-2006, 09:00 AM

Look guys, Im sorry that Im getting frustrated, but its like hitting my head against a brick wall.
I'm sorry to say, that brick wall consists largely of your misconceptions about the scientific method as well as fundamental principles of critical thought.

Members of this forum have been quite accomodating, taking great effort to point out the flaws present in your logic spanning a number of areas. They've politely addressed the fringe claims you've posited and shown why your approach to a variety of subject matter is incorrect.

You've now responded with ill-tempered comments such as:

If you believed it you wouldn’t keep coming up with daft questions.
...
You talk crap.
...
Boy, the beliefs of what a medium should and shouldn’t be able to do, according to this board is laughable. And you call yourselves scientists? Although I doubt that even a handful of you are scientists anyway.
...
And narrowminded views like yours are the reason why such research isn’t carried out.
You've consistently avoided providing direct answers to direct questions.
You've hurled numerous, unfounded insinuations at members of this message board as well as the moderators and administrators. (This thread title serves as a prime example.)
You've been apprised of our rules here repeatedly yet for whatever reason refused to abide by them, even after the issued warnings and a suspension of your account.

Your inability to civilly follow our forum guidelines leaves me with no recourse but to revoke your posting privileges. Your account is terminated.

Should anyone wish to continue discussion of subjects presented here, please begin a new thread.

Locked.