The Magic Caf
Username:
Password:
[ Lost Password ]
  [ Forgot Username ]
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Not very magical, still... » » "Dr." Sebi... » » TOPIC IS LOCKED (0 Likes) Printer Friendly Version

 Go to page [Previous]  1~2~3~4~5~6~7~8~9 [Next]
tommy
View Profile
Eternal Order
Devil’s Island
16362 Posts

Profile of tommy
“In fact, when it comes to science, proving anything is an impossibility.”

“Even in theoretical physics, the most mathematical of all the sciences, our "proofs" aren't on entirely solid ground.”

https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswitha......f0142fb1

Now who is stupid and who is not?

Smile
If there is a single truth about Magic, it is that nothing on earth so efficiently evades it.

Tommy
Cliffg37
View Profile
Inner circle
Long Beach, CA
2492 Posts

Profile of Cliffg37
Come on Tommy. Name calling is not an appropriate debate technique. The only valid use for name calling is if you are trying to make someone angry. I seldom come to situations in my life where I find greater success in getting someone mad at me. Do you?

That article makes an excellent point and is well worth reading. But that does not mean anyone is stupid.
Magic is like Science,
Both are fun if you do it right!
tommy
View Profile
Eternal Order
Devil’s Island
16362 Posts

Profile of tommy
Quote:
On Apr 21, 2019, S2000magician wrote:
Quote:
On Apr 21, 2019, tommy wrote:
There is nothing to prove in it, whether we accept it or not. It does not require us to do anything. That is the point. We do not have to prove there is no ghost.

I've wasted enough time on this.

Your position is stupid.

I expected much better of you, tommy.



Smile
If there is a single truth about Magic, it is that nothing on earth so efficiently evades it.

Tommy
Cliffg37
View Profile
Inner circle
Long Beach, CA
2492 Posts

Profile of Cliffg37
LOL well played.
Magic is like Science,
Both are fun if you do it right!
S2000magician
View Profile
Inner circle
Yorba Linda, CA
3465 Posts

Profile of S2000magician
Quote:
On Apr 23, 2019, Cliffg37 wrote:
LOL well played.

You'll note that I never called anyone stupid.

tommy, in particular, has shown time and again that he is not stupid.
yachanin
View Profile
Inner circle
Cleveland, OH
2097 Posts

Profile of yachanin
Please excuse the repeat post, but I thought it may have been lost among the flurry of posts that followed:

Quote:
On Apr 23, 2019, yachanin wrote:
I've enjoyed reading this interesting discussion and it led me to wonder if the following might be a sufficient proof of the claim that "Science cannot prove a negative"?

If X does not exist, then there is no evidence of X.
There is no evidence of X.
Therefore, X does not exist.

You might recognize the above as an example of the logical fallacy, "affirming the consequent." Thus, no matter how much science searched for evidence of X, but found no evidence of X, science could not conclude, "X does not exist," because to do so would be a logical fallacy.

Your thoughts?

My intuition tells me (and it's certainly been wrong in the past) that science can, under some conditions, prove a negative, while under other conditions, it cannot.


Thoughts, anyone?

Regards, Steve
tommy
View Profile
Eternal Order
Devil’s Island
16362 Posts

Profile of tommy
If X does not exist then there will be no Xs on Big Ben and by strange coincidence:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/content/dam/......dth=1240
If there is a single truth about Magic, it is that nothing on earth so efficiently evades it.

Tommy
landmark
View Profile
Inner circle
within a triangle
5154 Posts

Profile of landmark
Quote:
On Apr 23, 2019, yachanin wrote:
Please excuse the repeat post, but I thought it may have been lost among the flurry of posts that followed:

Quote:
On Apr 23, 2019, yachanin wrote:
I've enjoyed reading this interesting discussion and it led me to wonder if the following might be a sufficient proof of the claim that "Science cannot prove a negative"?

If X does not exist, then there is no evidence of X.
There is no evidence of X.
Therefore, X does not exist.

You might recognize the above as an example of the logical fallacy, "affirming the consequent." Thus, no matter how much science searched for evidence of X, but found no evidence of X, science could not conclude, "X does not exist," because to do so would be a logical fallacy.

Your thoughts?

My intuition tells me (and it's certainly been wrong in the past) that science can, under some conditions, prove a negative, while under other conditions, it cannot.


Thoughts, anyone?

Regards, Steve


The problem of living in an infinite world. Isn't this the white crow paradox? Every non-white crow we find is evidence for the absence of white crows; in fact every non-white object of any kind or any white non-crow object of any kind is evidence for there being no white crows--but at the same time, the abundance of evidence is not proof of the white crow's non-existence.

For our local part of the universe, it's probably a wise person to bet as if there were no white crows. But Damon Runyan's caution about Jacks jumping out of the deck and squirting cider, still, as always, applies.
S2000magician
View Profile
Inner circle
Yorba Linda, CA
3465 Posts

Profile of S2000magician
Quote:
On Apr 23, 2019, landmark wrote:
Quote:
On Apr 23, 2019, yachanin wrote:
Please excuse the repeat post, but I thought it may have been lost among the flurry of posts that followed:

Quote:
On Apr 23, 2019, yachanin wrote:
I've enjoyed reading this interesting discussion and it led me to wonder if the following might be a sufficient proof of the claim that "Science cannot prove a negative"?

If X does not exist, then there is no evidence of X.
There is no evidence of X.
Therefore, X does not exist.

You might recognize the above as an example of the logical fallacy, "affirming the consequent." Thus, no matter how much science searched for evidence of X, but found no evidence of X, science could not conclude, "X does not exist," because to do so would be a logical fallacy.

Your thoughts?

My intuition tells me (and it's certainly been wrong in the past) that science can, under some conditions, prove a negative, while under other conditions, it cannot.


Thoughts, anyone?

Regards, Steve

The problem of living in an infinite world.

Is the world infinite?
stoneunhinged
View Profile
Inner circle
3067 Posts

Profile of stoneunhinged
Quote:
On Apr 24, 2019, S2000magician wrote:

Is the world infinite?


That would be something to think about, and not simply be ideologically (scientifically?) asserted.

Do science and ideology mix? Do science and technology mix? Do ideology and technology mix?
tommy
View Profile
Eternal Order
Devil’s Island
16362 Posts

Profile of tommy
Probably.

X does not exist is probably self-evidently wrong as well.
If there is a single truth about Magic, it is that nothing on earth so efficiently evades it.

Tommy
stoneunhinged
View Profile
Inner circle
3067 Posts

Profile of stoneunhinged
Quote:
On Apr 24, 2019, tommy wrote:
X does not exist is probably self-evidently wrong as well.


It is.
R.S.
View Profile
Regular user
CT one day I'll have
176 Posts

Profile of R.S.
Quote:
On Apr 23, 2019, S2000magician wrote:
Quote:
On Apr 23, 2019, R.S. wrote:
Quote:
On Apr 22, 2019, S2000magician wrote:
Quote:
On Apr 22, 2019, R.S. wrote:
From page 3 of the thread:

“It’s not a statement that psychic phenomena CANNOT be proven to exist. Rather, it has YET to be demonstrated to exist. ”

This is probably the source of the confusion. I think “proven” is the key word here.

The key word is "it's". What is the "it" to which you're referring?

“there has not yet been a (unambiguously statistically significant) demonstration of any psychic phenomena that has been accepted by the mainstream scientific community.”

Well . . . there's the problem: that most certainly isn't the "it" that was the topic of discussion when you wrote that sentence.

Please go back and reread your post on page 3, dated Apr 18, 2019 06:08 am.



Sorry Bill, I’m not sure where the disconnect is. There’s nothing there that’s in opposition to “there has not yet been a (unambiguously statistically significant) demonstration of any psychic phenomena that has been accepted by the mainstream scientific community.”

Ron
"It is error only, and not truth, that shrinks from inquiry." Thomas Paine
R.S.
View Profile
Regular user
CT one day I'll have
176 Posts

Profile of R.S.
Quote:
On Apr 23, 2019, Cliffg37 wrote:
Quote:
There is one question on the table, and anything other than a yes, no, or maybe answer is just noise and deflection:
Would you rather see someone like Cayce or a modern science-based MD?
Ron


Ron, among all else, I didn't realize this was the question. To me the answer is obvious. I am going to see my board certified M.D. if I need medical care. There is no argument on that at all... FOR ME. I don't claim to put words in anyone else's mouth, nor do I have the right to make decisions for anyone else, but for me that is my truth and my plan.


Thank you Cliff. But I’m curious to see how someone who equates Cayce’s methods with that of modern medicine would answer that question.

Ron
"It is error only, and not truth, that shrinks from inquiry." Thomas Paine
R.S.
View Profile
Regular user
CT one day I'll have
176 Posts

Profile of R.S.
Quote:
On Apr 23, 2019, Tom Cutts wrote:
Quote:
On Apr 23, 2019, R.S. wrote:
Quote:
On Apr 22, 2019, Tom Cutts wrote:
Quote:
On Apr 22, 2019, R.S. wrote:
I never flat out said “it doesn’t exist”, but rather it has yet to be “proven”.


Interesting, so what did you mean when you said it, and I am quoting you, “doesn’t exist”?


Quote:
On Apr 16, 2019, R.S. wrote:

And the absence of replicable, significant, and unambiguous evidence for psychic phenomena after decades of investigation IS the evidence (so far anyway) that psychic phenomena doesn't exist.

Ron


And be fore you go off about “so far anyway” qualifying that, it doesn’t. The EXACT point is that science has not proven that psychic phenomena doesn’t exist. Not up till now. Not any time in the future. Science can not and does not prove that something does not exist. Any extrapolation to that end of scientific data is a belief unproven by science.


Your attempt to deflect from my unanswered question won’t work.

Ron


Not deflecting from anything. Just pointing out your lie.


Noise. If you’re not deflecting then why haven’t you answered?

Ron
"It is error only, and not truth, that shrinks from inquiry." Thomas Paine
R.S.
View Profile
Regular user
CT one day I'll have
176 Posts

Profile of R.S.
Quote:
On Apr 23, 2019, Tom Cutts wrote:
Quote:
On Apr 23, 2019, R.S. wrote:
Quote:
On Apr 22, 2019, Tom Cutts wrote:
Quote:
On Apr 22, 2019, R.S. wrote:

There was no “conflation” on my part.



Hmmm... what famous, well documented liar are you starting to resemble? I already have proven where and how you initiated the “conflation”. Your repeated denial of it will not change that fact.


What has been “proven” is that you are desperate to avoid answering my question by repeatedly making false and IRRELEVANT accusations of “conflation.”

(bolding in your post below is mine)

“Death Rays, being a “psychic”, and yes, even ignoring the then current understanding of medicine are all irrelevant to my simple comparison of the similarities between the very basic technique in common between Cayce and modern corporate medicine.”


Quote:

Quote:

So now it’s “obtuse humor”, huh? Between obtuse humor and alliteration, you oughta get a standup gig.


Thank you. Yes, others have mention I have a knack for stand-up comedy. My interest in stage time rests elsewhere, so I don’t see that happening in the near future. And for clarity’s sake, it is not “so now”; it always was. You just missed it. But I applaud your attempt to mischaracterize it.


Quote:


Quote:
Let’s put my post and yours side by side for comparison:

MINE:
“As far as Cayce, he (probably unwittingly) employed the standard psychic technique of throwing out many predictions (and prescriptions in his case) and counted on the fact that people would remember the occasional hit and forget all the misses.”


YOURS:
“As far as Cayce, he (probably unwittingly) employed the current corporate medical practice of throwing out many predictions (and prescriptions in his case) and counted on the fact that people would remember the occasional hit and forget all the misses.”


[I]“I was simply addressing YOUR statement about “throwing out multiple diagnosis (and prescriptions) hoping that the misses will be forgotten and the successes will be remembered. Example after example of You said “PRECISELY”!


Hmmm... I don’t see the word “PRECISELY” in your quoting of me. Perhaps you can share which use of “PRECISELY” you are referring to, so I may accurately address it without jumping to a conclusion about what you mean.


Again, from another post of yours:

“I was simply addressing YOUR statement about “throwing out multiple diagnosis (and prescriptions) hoping that the misses will be forgotten and the successes will be remembered. Example after example of modern corporate medicine show this is precisely the method being used…”

This directly relates to your “fix” of my post:

“As far as Cayce, he (probably unwittingly) employed the current corporate medical practice of throwing out many predictions (and prescriptions in his case) and counted on the fact that people would remember the occasional hit and forget all the misses.”

So it’s obvious to everyone that you were equating Cayce’s methods as precisely that of modern science-based medicine. If it wasn’t obvious in your original “fix” of my post (it was), it certainly was obvious in your follow up explanation.

But then when I asked whether you would rather see someone like Cayce or a modern science-based MD you desperately tried to shift the focus to death rays and Armageddon.

Quote:

Quote:

OK, but do you think I should see someone like Cayce or a modern science-based MD?


You? You should see someone like Cayce. Smile


Why?

Quote:

Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
On Apr 16, 2019, R.S. wrote:

And the absence of replicable, significant, and unambiguous evidence for psychic phenomena after decades of investigation IS the evidence (so far anyway) that psychic phenomena doesn't exist.

Ron


Quote:
On Apr 21, 2019, R.S. wrote:

my current position on the status of psychic phenomena (that it has yet to be demonstrated) is not a declaration that it cannot ever be proven to exist.

Ron


So your position has changed in the last five days?


Your attempt to deflect from my unanswered question won’t work.


It was a courtesy, Ron. It is plain to see from the direct quotes of your words above that something has changed. One can only ponder is it:
A. Your position has changed in those five days and you trying to come to grips with that while hoping to cover it up.
B. Your understanding of science has changed in those five days and you are trying to come to grips with that while covering it up.
C. You simply mis-spoke at first.
D. You are just here for the joy of the sport of arguing.
E. Any one of a number of things more alarming than these.


Your attempt to deflect from my unanswered question won’t work.

There is one question on the table, and anything other than a yes, no, or maybe answer is just noise and deflection:

Would you rather see someone like Cayce or a modern science-based MD?

Ron


There is no question. There is no table. It is utterly irrelevant to the topic. But it is entertaining, your fixation on it.

Last time. What this person or that person holds as a belief has nothing to do with scientific data. That you don’t understand that is very telling.


What's entertaining is your attempts to equivocate regarding your claim that Cayce's methods are "precisely" the methods used by modern medicine and your subsequent refusal to answer a simple question. But, you’re right about one thing – this is the last time. That you cannot/will not answer that one very simple (and relevant) question is very telling. Very telling.

Ron
"It is error only, and not truth, that shrinks from inquiry." Thomas Paine
landmark
View Profile
Inner circle
within a triangle
5154 Posts

Profile of landmark
Quote:
Is the world infinite?


For the purposes of the white crow argument, that assumption makes things more clear; but assuming that the world is finite but very large does not change the argument: each instance of a non-white crow provides evidence but not proof of the non-existence of white crows. But your point is taken--there's no proof of the infinite assumption.
S2000magician
View Profile
Inner circle
Yorba Linda, CA
3465 Posts

Profile of S2000magician
Quote:
On Apr 24, 2019, R.S. wrote:
Quote:
On Apr 23, 2019, S2000magician wrote:
Quote:
On Apr 23, 2019, R.S. wrote:
Quote:
On Apr 22, 2019, S2000magician wrote:
Quote:
On Apr 22, 2019, R.S. wrote:
From page 3 of the thread:

“It’s not a statement that psychic phenomena CANNOT be proven to exist. Rather, it has YET to be demonstrated to exist. ”

This is probably the source of the confusion. I think “proven” is the key word here.

The key word is "it's". What is the "it" to which you're referring?

“there has not yet been a (unambiguously statistically significant) demonstration of any psychic phenomena that has been accepted by the mainstream scientific community.”

Well . . . there's the problem: that most certainly isn't the "it" that was the topic of discussion when you wrote that sentence.

Please go back and reread your post on page 3, dated Apr 18, 2019 06:08 am.

Sorry Bill, I’m not sure where the disconnect is. There’s nothing there that’s in opposition to “there has not yet been a (unambiguously statistically significant) demonstration of any psychic phenomena that has been accepted by the mainstream scientific community.”

Nobody - certainly not I - has said that there's anything in opposition to that statement.

What I've said repeatedly is that that isn't the topic of discussion.

To refresh your memory, try this:

Quote:
On Apr 14, 2019, R.S. wrote:
Quote:
On Apr 14, 2019, Tom Cutts wrote:
Ron, your assumption is that psychic phenomena does not exist.

No, that’s not my “assumption” at all. It’s simply the null hypothesis.


Your null hypothesis - that psychic phenomena [do] not exist - is the topic of discussion. It's the "it".

And that's the statement to which I refer - duh! - when I say that a statement that psychic phenomena do not exist is most certainly a statement that they cannot be proven to exist.

If you think that this discussion is about the statement that I've continually told you isn't at issue, then you're mistaken.
tommy
View Profile
Eternal Order
Devil’s Island
16362 Posts

Profile of tommy
Was anybody with you when you found these white crows?
If there is a single truth about Magic, it is that nothing on earth so efficiently evades it.

Tommy
TomBoleware
View Profile
Inner circle
Hattiesburg, Ms
2933 Posts

Profile of TomBoleware
For a long time I thought there were no white squirrels.
But now we have one or two in the area. Not that rare after all.


Tom
The Daycare Magician Book
https://www.vanishingincmagic.com/amazekids/the-daycare-magician/

When you come to the point where you have no need to impress anybody, your freedom will begin.
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Not very magical, still... » » "Dr." Sebi... » » TOPIC IS LOCKED (0 Likes)
 Go to page [Previous]  1~2~3~4~5~6~7~8~9 [Next]
[ Top of Page ]
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2022 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved.
This page was created in 0.09 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 <

ROTFL Billions and billions served! ROTFL