|
|
Go to page [Previous] 1~2~3~4~5~6 [Next] | ||||||||||
Synesthesia Regular user 115 Posts |
Quote:
On 2013-10-28 20:15, mastermindreader wrote: Ah, you're right, I was being sloppy with my use of the word "supernatural" and also smashing two separate arguments together into one. There are those who do actually push a specifically "supernatural" explanation, by which I mean those who make the arguments that such phenomenon are somehow immune to solid empirical observation -- that an ability exists but by its very nature cannot be quantified or evidence of it cannot be recorded or observed in controlled conditions. Then (and I should have kept this entirely separate) there is the more common assertion that such phenomenon are merely unexplained, in which case I think Occam's Razor puts a long road of possibilities between us and the explanation that it's some sort of innate non-local and/or entropy-defying ability of human beings. Some people are careful to make only the statement that they are unexplained observations -- but it does seem to me that more people are eager to rush to the end of that road and willing to dodge lots of things along the way. There is a deep-rooted "idea" of psi in human culture -- much like there is a deep-rooted idea of hypnotism, and ghosts, and monsters, and magic, and God. (I realize hypnotism specifically is much younger than the other examples on that list...) Wherever there are such deep-rooted archetypal ideas, there is an interesting two-way street. On the one hand, the presence and prevalence of these ideas suggests there is something worth pondering and studying. On the other hand, these ideas are so powerful that they are capable of warping people's observations and conclusions. Hypnotism, essentially, exists because people believe it does. As a more extreme but analogous example, there is the only partially-understood Haitian Zombie phenomenon, which appears to be a case of straightforward slavery utilizing heavy drugs and a powerful cultural belief in zombies to make people believe they are truly dead and under magical control. Thus, wherever these powerful ideas exist, I am skeptical of the ways people study them -- so often it feels like working backwards from a conclusion, which is a mortal sin of rational investigation. But I certainly wouldn't say I'm opposed to more study -- I rarely am of anything, so long as even scant evidence exists. |
|||||||||
mastermindreader 1949 - 2017 Seattle, WA 12586 Posts |
Quote:
On 2013-10-29 06:12, R.S. wrote: Dean Radin has an interesting blog and has responded to many criticisms by skeptics. http://deanradin.blogspot.com/ |
|||||||||
mrkmarik Regular user New York 185 Posts |
SHOW ME list on this blog is awesome! thx for posting it
|
|||||||||
dmkraig Inner circle 1949 Posts |
Quote:
On 2013-10-28 17:54, R.S. wrote: Actually, it exactly follows your logic. You claim that the real bending of spoons has something to do with "wishing." I'm saying that wishing has nothing to do with phenomena, whether it's going to the moon or bending spoons. In fact, you have presented NO proof that anyone has ever claimed to bend spoons by "wishing" it. There may be someone who makes that claim, but so far, I've not seen it here. I'm not claiming anything. However I do say that the tired old quote that "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" is 100% false on several accounts. First, by not specifically stating what "extraordinary" means in either appearance in that quote, it is meaningless. It also allows the pseudo-skeptics to play the "move the goalposts" game, saying, "Okay, that's evidence to support your position, but it's not extraordinary enough evidence." They demand more and more even though they don't demand the same of anything they deem non-extradorinary. The truth is that "extraordinary claim," whatever that may mean, do NOT require "extraordinary evidence." Like anything else, they just require evidence. |
|||||||||
dmkraig Inner circle 1949 Posts |
[quote]On 2013-10-28 19:30, R.S. wrote:
Quote:
The problem with your statement, Ron, is illustrated by the word you choose to put in quotes. Who determines what are "fantastic" claims? You? Me? Someone or some other group? Further, what will be accepted as "more robust evidence?" Respectfully, without specifics, your statement which superficially seems valid remains wide open for interpretation, and for pseudo-skeptics, no evidence of paranormal phenomena will ever be enough…at least I've seen no evidence at all that indicates otherwise. |
|||||||||
dmkraig Inner circle 1949 Posts |
Quote:
On 2013-10-28 19:34, bremen79 wrote: Francesco, I don't think increasing the number of tests is necessarily extraordinary. Rather, it would be if you need a thousand correct predictions to believe something is true but demand 100,000 correct predictions. |
|||||||||
Synesthesia Regular user 115 Posts |
Quote:
On 2013-10-29 14:10, dmkraig wrote: I think you're playing semantics a bit, and this is precisely why I tried to bring it back to a description that amounts to the same thing as Occam's Razor (as Bob pointed out). So let's try rephrasing the statement in a slightly clearer way: "Only extraordinary observations call for extraordinary explanations." If the claim is to be made that a particular observed phenomenon is achieved by means currently completely unknown to science, then the observations must be of something extraordinary -- or, to be less poetic, something that is conclusively inexplicable by known means. |
|||||||||
dmkraig Inner circle 1949 Posts |
Quote:
On 2013-10-29 09:38, Bard wrote: I respectfully disagree. Where is there anything written that we have a "moral obligation" to expose frauds? Who gave out that moral obligation and assigned it? Considering the people who have driven world economies into the ground and lying politicians, I find it an insult to say we have a moral obligation to prove someone did not use psychic powers to bend a spoon while doing nothing to put the frauds and their machinations who have ruined the lives of tens of thousands of people. In the long run, does it matter if you can or cannot bend spoons compared to having enough savings to live a long and happy retirement? And as to Joe Weed, really? Didn't he write that when you think of something the hair in your ears wiggles and sends out a sound that others can hear so they can read your mind? That requires some proof of any kind, not even extraordinary proof! |
|||||||||
bremen79 Regular user Boston 116 Posts |
Quote:
On 2013-10-29 14:18, dmkraig wrote: Personally I don't think the "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" sentence should be taken literally. In scientific terms, it does not mean anything, a part from the fact that Occam's razor should taken into account, but that is true for any claim, of any kind. So, in my view, the problem is all in the numbers and in the phenomena that, even if true, are so close to random chance to be almost indistinguishable. In other words, nobody was ever able to bend a spoon in controlled conditions and in reproducible way, otherwise this question would be solved long time ago. We only have extremely weak correlations, that by their nature are observable only using tons of experiments and it is difficult to tell if there are real or not.
Francesco
"I'm not going to censor myself to comfort your ignorance" Jon Stewart |
|||||||||
Pakar Ilusi Inner circle 5777 Posts |
And after all that, ladies and gentleman...
Psychic spoon bending is still a trick. :ohyes:
"Dreams aren't a matter of Chance but a matter of Choice." -DC-
|
|||||||||
R.S. Regular user CT one day I'll have 184 Posts |
Quote:
On 2013-10-29 12:28, mastermindreader wrote: Thanks for that link, Bob. Ron
"It is error only, and not truth, that shrinks from inquiry." Thomas Paine
|
|||||||||
R.S. Regular user CT one day I'll have 184 Posts |
Quote:
On 2013-10-29 14:10, dmkraig wrote: Sorry if there's a disconnect here. Some believe that there are certain people in the world who have the ability to bend spoons using just the power of their minds - by "mentally commanding" the spoon to bend (thus, "wishing it"). And that's the phenomenon I was addressing. Do you deny that some people believe there are people who can bend spoons using "mind power"? Do you believe there are people who can bend spoons/metal using just their mind? I've already put the question out to Tom (and to others here), but nobody has responded to that particular question. I wonder why. It's a simple question. And this thread is, after all, about spoon bending. Which is the more extraordinary claim: 1) I can do 30 pushups. 2) I can levitate a good 6 feet off the ground and hover indefinitely using only the sheer force of my will. Now, if you asked me for evidence in support of #1, I might offer the word of several of my coworkers, or of independent strangers, or of YOUR acquaintances, who witnessed me perform the feat. You may conclude, based on the known trustworthiness of the witnesses, and by my fit physique, and by the fact that doing 30 pushups is not such a big deal anyway, that I have offered sufficient evidence to "prove" my claim to your satisfaction. However, that same sort of evidence would NOT be sufficient for you to believe my more extraordinary claim of levitation, now would it? Lastly, what distinguishes a "pseudo-skeptic" from a plain old "skeptic"?? Moving the goalposts is a game that can be played by both sides, so don't pretend that only skeptics are guilty of doing it. Ron
"It is error only, and not truth, that shrinks from inquiry." Thomas Paine
|
|||||||||
R.S. Regular user CT one day I'll have 184 Posts |
[quote]On 2013-10-29 14:15, dmkraig wrote:
Quote:
On 2013-10-28 19:30, R.S. wrote: Good question. The best I can do for now (and I know this is a less than perfect answer) is to say that, like pornography, we all know a fantastic claim when we hear one. But the bottom line is that whatever the claim is, the evidence should support it. And more outlandish sounding claims require more than just anecdotal evidence, don't you agree? "It's good to have an open mind, but not so open that your brains fall out." Ron
"It is error only, and not truth, that shrinks from inquiry." Thomas Paine
|
|||||||||
mastermindreader 1949 - 2017 Seattle, WA 12586 Posts |
I agree with that Ron. But "extraordinary proof" doesn't mean proof that merely goes beyond the anecdotal. The statistical evidence (clearly not anecdotal) for psi is substantial to meet the standards of ordinary proof.
Which leaves the question - Exactly what IS extraordinary evidence? |
|||||||||
Tom Cutts Staff Northern CA 5925 Posts |
Quote:
On 2013-10-29 20:33, R.S. wrote: Quote: Actually you haven't. You simply threw it out into a group of people. No where was my name mentioned. No where was it directed toward me. I don't really associate with "believers" what ever that means, so I can't much answer for them.
I've already put the question out to Tom (and to others here), but nobody has responded to that particular question. I wonder why. It's a simple question. And this thread is, after all, about spoon bending. Hoping "believers" isn't something to do with Biebers! |
|||||||||
R.S. Regular user CT one day I'll have 184 Posts |
Quote:
On 2013-10-29 22:50, Tom Cutts wrote: You must have missed it, Tom: Oct. 28 at 7:30PM: Quote:
In a reply to Syneshesia, Tom seemed to express a belief that real spoon bending via "mind power" has been/can be achieved. But, let's let Tom speak for himself. Tom, do you believe that some people can bend spoons/metal with the power of their mind only? If so, who in your opinion, is the most prolific and accomplished real spoon bender out there? Anyone else care to answer that? If Tom doesn't believe that it is possible to bend spoons via mind power, then his response to Syneshesia requires further clarification. So, care to answer now? Ron
"It is error only, and not truth, that shrinks from inquiry." Thomas Paine
|
|||||||||
Bard Loyal user 223 Posts |
Quote:
On 2013-10-29 14:28, dmkraig wrote: The "Obligation" has to do with being a human being that cares about others. When I see someone being abusive and especially when I can identify fraud as part of that situation, I am obliged as a human being to address the issue. . . has something to do with that old idea of being our brother's keeper and all that other rhetoric so many seem to poo poo on now days. I have no idea what you're talking about when it comes to Mr. Weed. I've only read the one book, I use it when I teach (mainly so I can get people back into their head and practical training vs. visualizing their Chakras, etc. ) When I teach people about cultivating their psychic potential I want them to see it in as pragmatic a manner as possible and the Weed book gives me that vehicle as does certain of Cayce's material. At minimum what I teach will give us a more educated crop of human beings that can actually THINK and process genuine thought vs. those that see fluffy pink clouds and unicorns everywhere. I believe that every Mentalist that does Readings is a consumer watchdog. . . or should be. I know that many are and have been for decades but they work quietly, rarely chasing the headlines as so many failed magicians tend to do. But then we do have clowns like Ian Rowland encouraging harassing behavior in their books, when it comes to the local Reader. . . such a mature way of thinking. . . Being a Reader comes with a great deal of responsibility, responsibility that goes well beyond the client. That is why I feel it is our obligation and to our benefit, to expose and weed out the crooks and predators. But maybe that's just part of my low moral character and lack of ethics, in that I am a Reader, etc., etc. |
|||||||||
Tom Cutts Staff Northern CA 5925 Posts |
Quote: This time around, yes, I did miss it. When it was originally written I simply dismissed it, being that I never expressed the belief you claimed I did. A point which has already been covered.
You must have missed it, Tom: |
|||||||||
dmkraig Inner circle 1949 Posts |
Quote:
On 2013-10-29 14:20, Synesthesia wrote: No, I'm not playing semantics. I'm talking about specificity and accuracy. So now you've removed your definition from your unclear 2nd version of the statement. Even so, your definition of proof is still far too imprecise because you don't define "conclusively" or 'inexplicable." When I was a kid, it was conclusively stated by scientists that if you got a minor burn you should put butter on it. Now, that is conclusively disproved. Conclusions based on facts still change and are interpreted. Further, most people place such phenomena in the world of the mind, hence parapsychology. Evidence in that area follows the bell curve, allowing for too much wiggle room. The entire problem with the statement is that followers of the "extraordinary bla bla" are trying to measure the non-physical with the rules of physical evidence. True, the result of the non-physical could end up in the physical, but you still can't measure one with the other. You can measure the distance from point A to point B on a piece of paper with a physical ruler. How do you measure the distance from mind A to mind B? In the end, this debate will still come down to the saying: "For those who don't believe, no evidence is enough. For those who do believe, no evidence is necessary." |
|||||||||
Synesthesia Regular user 115 Posts |
It seems to me that you are now saying "it exists but can never be measured".
...Which I read as simply "it doesn't exist". |
|||||||||
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Penny for your thoughts » » "Real" psychics - spoon bending? (1 Likes) | ||||||||||
Go to page [Previous] 1~2~3~4~5~6 [Next] |
[ Top of Page ] |
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2024 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved. This page was created in 0.13 seconds requiring 5 database queries. |
The views and comments expressed on The Magic Café are not necessarily those of The Magic Café, Steve Brooks, or Steve Brooks Magic. > Privacy Statement < |