Re: you have no argument




"Dick" <remdickhm@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:9jv76310cipd7p2btqak19iom8p4e3ck2k@xxxxxxxxxx
snip

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.

Did you miss the point that cold reading is just as "accurate" as the person
receiving the "reading" wants it to be?



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.

Cold reading doesn't have to be done in the presence of the person being
"read". Also, physicians are just as capable of falling for cold reading
as anyone else.




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.

I'm not suggesting fraud as much as pointing out that anecdotal claims
aren't science.




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.

But those are the rules agreed on by those who practice science. If you
want to play, you got to follow the rules.


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.

So sue me. The point is that science operates by using specific rules and
proceedures. If you don't like that restriction, don't pretend to be
scientific...



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.

It's a valid complaint, and one that people have made against string theory.
That doesn't excuse the lack of testablity of psi claims, however.


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?

It's always a test. If SETI were making untestable claims, then it would
not be 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
this claim?
The Princeton studies, although not repeatable, still showed trends
matching the desired influence.

Reference, please.

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.

Excuses, excuses... If it's not testable, it's not science.




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?

of "successful efforts".

The Catholic church has carefully
documented cases of sainthood and miracles I believe.

What they have documented is cases of spontaneous remission, for the most
part. Medical science doesn't understand how that happens, but it's
premature to claim such are miracles, or psychic events.

I have heard or
read of police using clairvoyants.

Yes, and nearly all cases, these "clairvoyants" use some variation of the
"cold read". Their "successes" are only "remarkable" when one ignores the
misses, and remembers only the "hits".

I knew a lady that had a NDE, it
changed her attitude toward dying from fear to comfort.

I once knew a person who shot himself in the head, (he survived) and changed
his attitude, and personality. Anecdotal "evidence" isn't very convincing.

I drove a car
over a 75 foot embankment, landing upside down and walked away.

Presumably you were wearing your seat belts. This is a testament to the
safety systems engineered into modern cars more than any supernatural
influence. I am a paramedic, and I've seen hundreds of auto crashes. Some
of them, there was fairly little damage to the car, but the person died.
Others had catastrophic damage to the car, and the occupant walked away
without a scratch.

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.

Yep, and for this one incident, thousands of other people were not so lucky.
People die from falling off steps. Some people get necrotizing fascitis
from a paper cut. One instance of people walking away from an accident is
not impressive.

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.

I'm not "attacking" them as much as pointing out that they aren't evidence
of paranormal activity. Coincidences happen, and odd, even seemingly
miraculous events do occur due to normal means.


The NDE
lady was told by her mother's spirit she had to return to raise her
children. What if our lives have purpose?

I think our lives do have purpose, but that's not evidence for any
supernatural claim. My own sister had a dream about my mother shortly
after she passed away, does that prove life after death, or just that we see
things in our dreams? I have no way of telling, so it's not science.


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?

Again, you show why it's philosophy, not science. Science is not
everything, and doesn't explain ever event that humans have experienced.
But it does have a record of success in increasing our understanding of the
world.





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.

Yes.

If there is more to life than matter, it is not easily manipulated.

Science, however is limitied to studying the natural world.

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.

Alas, it's not something that science is capable of doing.






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.

It would, however tend to answer the question of if there are
extraterrestrial civilizations sending messages.

Even
I would not conclude there was no life other than on earth even if
SETI never found signs of life.

SETI isn't capable of determining if there is not life other than Earth, it
can only show if there is life using radio waves like humans do.





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.

None of this separates Cayce from other "psychics".



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?

Did you read the links presented? People apply general statements to
their own specifics just as easily when the "reader" isn't in the room. If
I were to write that "You've had some disappointments in your life", I don't
have to meet you, to likely score a "hit".


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

That's what the "mark" decides for him or herself. "Hits" are remembered,
and "misses" are forgotten, or rationalized.



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?

The same thing as is "read" when the person is present. Cold read isn't
reading any particular feature of the individual, but making enough vauge
referenences to apply to anyone. Plus the "reader" might make a few more
specific statements hoping for a "hit", knowing that any misses will be
ignored.


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.

The fact remains that when there are a large number of "players" there is
more chance that the event will occur to someone. I may have a
1:10,000,000 chance of something happening in my lifetime, but when there
are 7 billion "players" there are going to be a number of "wnners".



We are stuck trying to understand life's purpose or not, by trying to
study the physical events.

Who is the "we" in this ?

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.

The point is that if you are wishing to understand software, don't study the
hardware. Likewise if you are looking for spiritual beliefs, don't look to
science to provide you answers.





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.

Fine, but science is a useful tool, even if it doesn't give you what you are
asking for.

DJT


.