Re: you have no argument

On Sun, 3 Jun 2007 16:46:17 -0400, "Dana Tweedy"
<reddfrogg@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:


"Dick" <remdickhm@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:mud563tn69jovc7oijshftala8u187a4uj@xxxxxxxxxx
sniipping


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
Read'.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_reading
http://skepdic.com/coldread.html

Interesting the Wiki article did not cite any statistics of cold
reading accuracy.

It included Cayce as using cold reading. Many of his readings were
done without the physical presence of the patient. The validations
were made by licensed physicians of the patient's choosing.


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.

Yeah, people don't volunteer to die on schedules nor offer repeat
sessions. Nothing but fraud.



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.
By definition. He who makes the rules wins the game.

How
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
false starts.

Yes, but each one of those false starts were found to be false by
application of the scientific method.

You are quick to judge things you have not read.


Psi is dealing with human experience which is not directly testable.

Which means it's not science.

How did String Theory ever become part of science. No one can test
the extra dimensions.

How long does SETI have to "test" before it is declared not scientific
or is it always science so long as it continues to test?


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
this claim?
The Princeton studies, although not repeatable, still showed trends
matching the desired influence. I certainly hope the material world
is more consistent than the mental world. In trying to further our
understanding about our existence, we must allow for the added
complexities when trying to learn about ourselves.

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?

Of what? Aberrant events? The Catholic church has carefully
documented cases of sainthood and miracles I believe. I have heard or
read of police using clairvoyants. I knew a lady that had a NDE, it
changed her attitude toward dying from fear to comfort. I drove a car
over a 75 foot embankment, landing upside down and walked away. Big
deal? I had 2 passengers that also walked away. One landed under the
trunk, a boulder kept the weight off. The second landed between the
windshield and the embankment. Life experiences do not lend
themselves to scientific rigors, but I think we would be foolish to
attack such events as unreal without trying to understand. The NDE
lady was told by her mother's spirit she had to return to raise her
children. What if our lives have purpose?

How would one approach such a study? My current philosophy believes
that we are part of what I call, the "All" and it is through our
individual lives the All experiences life. How can I test this
hypothesis?

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


Science demands repeatability and "significant" statistical patterns.
If there is more to life than matter, it is not easily manipulated. I
don't trust religious institutions to do more than further their
dogmas. That does not mean there are not members which might well
have spiritual contact. The problem is separating the wheat from the
chaff.



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.

I doubt "no result" is a success as seen by the SETI supporters. Even
I would not conclude there was no life other than on earth even if
SETI never found signs of life.



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".
Oh, but he was vastly different. I don't think you have read about
his "readings." They were recorded. The records are maintained. His
diagnosis and treatments were never used by Cayce, the subject was
always advised to take the statement to their own physician. The
archives contain letters from those personal physicians. Often Cayce
never met the patient.


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.

How can you cold read subjects that are not present?

What is the success rate of this "cold read"?


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.
That is not indicated by the Wiki report. Pray tell, what would be
read if the person was not present?




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
happening.

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.
Large numbers are practical in studies of the material world. Our
lives get lived but once.

We are stuck trying to understand life's purpose or not, by trying to
study the physical events. This like trying to understand what I am
searching for with Google by studying the computer hardware. The
hardware is accessible and I can input the same search request over
and over, but none of this information will tell you why I am
conducting the search, let alone, what I will do with the information.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_large_numbers

DJT

I don't know what to wish for more: a finding of nothing or one of a
spiritual component to life. I don't even know why I care! "What
will be, will be." But, I do care, everything I experience whether by
reading or direct life, is grist for the mill.

.