Re: you have no argument
- From: "Dana Tweedy" <reddfrogg@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 3 Jun 2007 16:46:17 -0400
"Dick" <remdickhm@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
By insisting that only your category of events be allowed to determine
"fact" you are confining the argument.
Sorry, but that's what science does. It confines the argument to ideas
that can actually be tested.
Scientist love to use the adjective "beautiful" as a judgment on their
theories. Predicting events would be more rational/scientific. Truth
is we measure value by various standards. Art and music are rated y
"beauty," but often by dollars or public attendance. Nothing requires
a search for an "Intelligent agent" to judged by scientific standards.
Humans have a variety of hard to explain experiences that are not
reproducible on demand. How many proven clairvoyant successes does it
take to test that it happens?
Well, so far no "clairvoyant" has managed any successes under controlled
conditions that aren't consistent with chance. Many "successes" claimed
by clairvoyants are simply educated guesses, or coincidence. People tend
to remember the 'hits' and ignore the much more common 'misses'.
If just one time you could find a lost
child, would that be convincing?
If it happened just one time, the most likely explaination is coincidence.
If you make enough guesses, some of them will likely be close enough for the
human mind to ascribe a "success". Read up on the technique of the 'Cold
There are NDE where the patient
described items not within their vision even if they were not sedated.
There are substantiated reincarnation stories. Random number
generators have been mentally manipulated.
None of these claims have been independently verified.
Usually something about the test methodology is said to be not up to
scientific standards, so the whole test is said to not be tested.
Actually, it means the test is invalid.
many scientific studies or formulas are perfect and yet they are used
to help with future tests or associated formulas. I am just finishing
a biography of Gell-mann. The author uses Gell-mann as a scaffolding
to review the history of the search for sub atomic theories. Lots of
Yes, but each one of those false starts were found to be false by
application of the scientific method.
Psi is dealing with human experience which is not directly testable.
Which means it's not science.
When asking a subject to "imagine" all of the random numbers to be
"even" the subject may not even be adept at what ever is happening.
Or nothing is actually happening.
Certainly the subject has no button to press to start his manipulator.
Some subjects turn out to be able to make statistically significant
modifications to the, no longer random output.
Where is the data on the clinical trials? Do you have a reference for
Do we ignore the
successful effort as an aberrant event?
That is assuming there are any successful efforts to be ignored. Do you
have any actual examples?
Do we insist that it be
merged into the whole data base diluting its clear success?
Again, indivdual "successes" are more likely to be coincidence. Unless
there is a pattern
Scientist generally support the SETI effort. What success has it had?
that depends on what you mean by success. Sometimes no result is a success
of it's own.
Personally, I keep wondering why Edgar Cayce is never accepted as
relevant even by Psi researchers.
Because he was no different than any other "psychic".
His early medical readings were
recorded and the information given to the patient's physician. The
Cayce library is full of such "readings" and validation letters
written by the patient and physician.
Again, an example of the 'cold read', and how people apply general
statements to their own specifics.
Where did this illiterate man
get his medical ability? His readings were even made where the
patient was not present.
Cold reads don't have to have a recipient at hand.
I have trouble with Cayce's later efforts with prophecies. I suspect
this was an "abuse" of his gift, but just focus on the readings that
made his fame and attracted nay sayers and something unique was
For the record I have had no Psi experiences. I have had a number of
"coincidences" which were extreme. The coincidences do make me
sympathetic to "destiny" fables. I am especially attracted to
biographical stories where the person's life history seems to lead
from childhood to adult occupation. My life has been quite scattered
with lots of false starts.
As is the case with most people. People generally aren't familiar with the
"law of large numbers" which explains that coincidences happen much more
commonly than you'd think.
- Re: you have no argument
- From: Dick
- Re: you have no argument
- Prev by Date: Re: NY Times reviews AiG's "museum"
- Next by Date: I am bored
- Previous by thread: Re: you have no argument
- Next by thread: Re: you have no argument