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]
S2000magician
View Profile
Inner circle
Yorba Linda, CA
3465 Posts

Profile of S2000magician
Quote:
On Apr 19, 2019, tommy wrote:
An alibi merely raises a reasonable doubt if he is lucky and it does not prove he did not commit the offense and if he did this goes by the technical name of a false alibi.

A false alibi isn't an alibi.

Some alibis are proof. And you know that.
tommy
View Profile
Eternal Order
Devil’s Island
16363 Posts

Profile of tommy
An alibi is a plea of having been elsewhere when an action took place. An alibi is not proof but is merely evidence which can be accepted or rejected by the tribunal of fact. Where is Lobo anyway?
If there is a single truth about Magic, it is that nothing on earth so efficiently evades it.

Tommy
S2000magician
View Profile
Inner circle
Yorba Linda, CA
3465 Posts

Profile of S2000magician
Quote:
On Apr 19, 2019, tommy wrote:
An alibi is a plea of having been elsewhere when an action took place. An alibi is not proof but is merely evidence which can be accepted or rejected by the tribunal of fact.

Fair enough.

I'll look for a different word.

But you clearly understand the idea I'm expressing: if you were in gaol in Manchester, that's proof that you didn't commit a purse snatching in Mumbai at the same time.

And, of course, none of this has any bearing on your burden of proof for your claim that one cannot prove a negative.

Quote:
On Apr 19, 2019, tommy wrote:
Where is Lobo anyway?

His bride recently had surgery and is home recuperating therefrom, so I'm imagine that a devoted husband such as Lobo is at her side day and night attending to her every need.
tommy
View Profile
Eternal Order
Devil’s Island
16363 Posts

Profile of tommy
Truly sorry to hear that and we wish them well.


I think what you are trying to say Bill is that one can prove the negative that a man cannot be in two places at the same time.
If there is a single truth about Magic, it is that nothing on earth so efficiently evades it.

Tommy
Tom Cutts
View Profile
Staff
Northern CA
5902 Posts

Profile of Tom Cutts
My gawd, that was the most boring alibi I have ever heard. It was more like a lullibi. (Errant spelling on purpose) Smile
tommy
View Profile
Eternal Order
Devil’s Island
16363 Posts

Profile of tommy
How do we know it was not his doppelganger?
If there is a single truth about Magic, it is that nothing on earth so efficiently evades it.

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

Profile of R.S.
Quote:
On Apr 19, 2019, S2000magician wrote:
Quote:
On Apr 19, 2019, R.S. wrote:
Quote:
On Apr 18, 2019, S2000magician wrote:
A statement that psychic phenomena do not exist is most certainly a statement that they cannot be proven to exist.

I disagree.

Then you're wrong.



I disagree.

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 19, 2019, Tom Cutts wrote:
Quote:
On Apr 19, 2019, R.S. wrote:
And that’s why the Atlantean death rays are in PARENTHESIS! Here, I CLEARLY said that he delivers diagnoses “from a sleep-like trance.” But for some reason you are misconstruing my insertion of historical trivia with his actual methods. YOU are the one adding death rays and Armageddon to his methods – not me!

The VERY THINLY VEILED use of parenthesis isn’t fooling anyone. You increased the proximity of that statement for the exact purpose of increasing your hoped effect on the conjoined statement. You brought them together for that specific purpose. You combined the two claims in one sentence for that specific purpose. YOU purposefully conflated. I simply inflated your conflate. (Phew, that’s a long way to go for some alliteration fun.)



“Thinly veiled”?? Are you kidding me? And do you seriously think that I think that Cayce incorporated death rays in his method of diagnoses/treatments?? Come on Tom.

You disingenuously deflected to death ray declarations and dubious definitions (more alliteration fun).


Quote:


Quote:
Quote:
You also took my other comment about Cayce and equated it with modern medicine by stating that modern medicine “employs 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.”

Are you backing off of that now?

No, I am not. What ever gave you that idea?


Because you’re avoiding the question;
Would you rather be treated by someone like Cayce or by a modern science-based MD?


Quote:



Quote:
And if you “equate” one thing with another, you consider them to be the same. I.E. “virtually identical.

I see the problem here. Are you aware that there is more than one generally accepted definition for the word “equate”?

“to state the equality of or between; put in the form of an equation: to equate growing prosperity with the physical health of a nation.”
From https://www.dictionary.com/browse/equate

Would you say that in the above definition example the dictionary is stating that growing prosperity and the physical health of a nation are VIRTUALLY IDENTICAL or is it that they share a certain commonality on which they can be compared, or equated?


The 1st definition (which is usually the most common usage of a word) in your link says:
1. to regard, treat, or represent as equivalent

Now are you going to argue about the word “equivalent” too? Or "represent"? The bottom line is that you modified my post to make your point that Cayce and modern medicine employ the same technique of throwing out many predictions/prescriptions and counted on the fact that people would remember the occasional hit and forget all the misses. Do I have that wrong?


Ron
"It is error only, and not truth, that shrinks from inquiry." Thomas Paine
tommy
View Profile
Eternal Order
Devil’s Island
16363 Posts

Profile of tommy
It derives from equal, the same.
If there is a single truth about Magic, it is that nothing on earth so efficiently evades it.

Tommy
Tom Cutts
View Profile
Staff
Northern CA
5902 Posts

Profile of Tom Cutts
Quote:
On Apr 20, 2019, R.S. wrote:
And do you seriously think that I think that Cayce incorporated death rays in his method of diagnoses/treatments?? Come on Tom.


Do you seriously think that I think that you think that Cayce incorporated death rays in his method? I don’t. I SPECIFICALLY said “I don’t see...”. It was a way of pointing out that those things which you chose to conflate by their increased proximity with the diagnosis and prescription technique are irrelevant to my point. Their sole purpose of use by you was simply to further impugn the character of the person rather than the specifics of the very basic description of something else which he did.


Quote:
declarations and dubious definitions (more alliteration fun).


That is a beauty!


Quote:
Because you’re avoiding the question;
Would you rather be treated by someone like Cayce or by a modern science-based MD?

I have not avoided the question. I have addressed it in that I explained that it is irrelevant.

Quote:
The 1st definition (which is usually the most common usage of a word) in your link says:
1. to regard, treat, or represent as equivalent

Are you unfamiliar with the concept of multiple definitions? Come on, Ron.

Quote:
Now are you going to argue about the word “equivalent” too? Or "represent"?

Why would I? Those are words used to describe the definition YOU choose to ascribe to my words. Then you further went to inflame your definition of “equate” to the phrase “virtually identical” That is your journey, not mine. I have shown you the definition I used in my words. It is a commonly accepted, often used definition, such that it even appears in the dictionary.


Quote:
The bottom line is that you modified my post to make your point that Cayce and modern medicine employ the same technique of throwing out many predictions/prescriptions and counted on the fact that people would remember the occasional hit and forget all the misses. Do I have that wrong?


No, but you are very close. I will make this distinction specifically for you, since you seem wrapped up in absolutes at the moment. Not “same”... “similar”.
S2000magician
View Profile
Inner circle
Yorba Linda, CA
3465 Posts

Profile of S2000magician
Quote:
On Apr 20, 2019, R.S. wrote:
Quote:
On Apr 19, 2019, S2000magician wrote:
Quote:
On Apr 19, 2019, R.S. wrote:
Quote:
On Apr 18, 2019, S2000magician wrote:
A statement that psychic phenomena do not exist is most certainly a statement that they cannot be proven to exist.

I disagree.

Then you're wrong.

I disagree.

I got that.

So . . . you're saying that if psychic phenomena do not exist it is still possible to prove that they do?
tommy
View Profile
Eternal Order
Devil’s Island
16363 Posts

Profile of tommy
Are you saying that he is saying that he can prove a negative and that he is wrong?
If there is a single truth about Magic, it is that nothing on earth so efficiently evades it.

Tommy
S2000magician
View Profile
Inner circle
Yorba Linda, CA
3465 Posts

Profile of S2000magician
Quote:
On Apr 20, 2019, tommy wrote:
Are you saying that he is saying that he can prove a negative and that he is wrong?

No.

But I admire your initiative.

What does this have to do with your burden of proof?
R.S.
View Profile
Regular user
CT one day I'll have
176 Posts

Profile of R.S.
Quote:
On Apr 20, 2019, Tom Cutts wrote:
Quote:
On Apr 20, 2019, R.S. wrote:
And do you seriously think that I think that Cayce incorporated death rays in his method of diagnoses/treatments?? Come on Tom.


Do you seriously think that I think that you think that Cayce incorporated death rays in his method? I don’t. I SPECIFICALLY said “I don’t see...”. It was a way of pointing out that those things which you chose to conflate by their increased proximity with the diagnosis and prescription technique are irrelevant to my point. Their sole purpose of use by you was simply to further impugn the character of the person rather than the specifics of the very basic description of something else which he did.


Tom, whether he was impugned or not is totally irrelevant to this:

“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.”

Which is what I have been trying to get to the bottom of this entire time. And by the way, it appears that the sole purpose of YOUR comment was to impugn current corporate medicine.


Quote:


Quote:
declarations and dubious definitions (more alliteration fun).


That is a beauty!


Thank you.

Quote:


Quote:
Because you’re avoiding the question;
Would you rather be treated by someone like Cayce or by a modern science-based MD?

I have not avoided the question. I have addressed it in that I explained that it is irrelevant.


Again, it IS relevant because you posted this:

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.

Quote:


Quote:
The 1st definition (which is usually the most common usage of a word) in your link says:
1. to regard, treat, or represent as equivalent

Are you unfamiliar with the concept of multiple definitions? Come on, Ron.

Quote:
Now are you going to argue about the word “equivalent” too? Or "represent"?

Why would I? Those are words used to describe the definition YOU choose to ascribe to my words. Then you further went to inflame your definition of “equate” to the phrase “virtually identical” That is your journey, not mine. I have shown you the definition I used in my words. It is a commonly accepted, often used definition, such that it even appears in the dictionary.


Quote:
The bottom line is that you modified my post to make your point that Cayce and modern medicine employ the same technique of throwing out many predictions/prescriptions and counted on the fact that people would remember the occasional hit and forget all the misses. Do I have that wrong?


No, but you are very close. I will make this distinction specifically for you, since you seem wrapped up in absolutes at the moment. Not “same”... “similar”.


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.”

It’s obvious from your “fix” of my post that you think that current corporate medical practice utilizes the SAME method that I ascribed to Cayce. If that’s not the same, I don’t know what is. And I was actually being generous by giving you some leeway and characterizing your comparison as “virtually identical”.

So if you’re now going to insist that they’re not the same, but are just “similar”, then answer this:

Would you rather be treated by someone like Cayce or by a modern science-based MD?

Thanks.

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 20, 2019, S2000magician wrote:
Quote:
On Apr 20, 2019, R.S. wrote:
Quote:
On Apr 19, 2019, S2000magician wrote:
Quote:
On Apr 19, 2019, R.S. wrote:
Quote:
On Apr 18, 2019, S2000magician wrote:
A statement that psychic phenomena do not exist is most certainly a statement that they cannot be proven to exist.

I disagree.

Then you're wrong.

I disagree.

I got that.

So . . . you're saying that if psychic phenomena do not exist it is still possible to prove that they do?


No – I’m saying that “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
"It is error only, and not truth, that shrinks from inquiry." Thomas Paine
tommy
View Profile
Eternal Order
Devil’s Island
16363 Posts

Profile of tommy
Where there is nothing to prove, there is no burden of proof.
If there is a single truth about Magic, it is that nothing on earth so efficiently evades it.

Tommy
Tom Cutts
View Profile
Staff
Northern CA
5902 Posts

Profile of Tom Cutts
Quote:
On Apr 21, 2019, R.S. wrote:

Tom, whether he was impugned or not is totally irrelevant to this:

“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.”

Correct! That you chose to impugn him by conflating death rays and the above statement in an attempt to undermine the above statement (which it has become clear to me that you do not understand because you are restricting yourself to only definitions which are absolutes rather than those which are accurate, common use) does not affect it nor my use of the common (although possibly fading away in this day and age of internet, short attention span fads) use of “fixed that for you” However, once you did it, it was reasonable to address it. I did. Now I think we may have an accord. [To be clear by “accord” I mean “”(of a concept or fact) be harmonious or consistent with”, not the car, not a treaty, not a granting of anything.]. 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:
And by the way, it appears that the sole purpose of YOUR comment was to impugn current corporate medicine.

No, it wasn’t, but it is clear you completely missed the, small and albeit obtuse, humor in the use of “fixed that for you”. Is that why you are struggling to understand the meaning of the statement?

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.”


Since you are a stickler for absolutes: Those were not “side by side”; please try again. Smile

Quote:
I don’t know what is.
I agree that you don’t know. Are you aware that if two people wear what is commonly referred to as matching shirts to a party, and someone says, “Look, they wore the same shirt.” It doesn’t mean they are both wearing the one shirt, although that might be quite the talk of party. It doesn’t mean that both shirts are missing that peculiar extra button. It doesn’t mean that both shirts have the same snag from when Joe thought he could climb that tree that one day. Are you aware it means, in fact, that the two people have similar shirts which in some basic ways have commonality between each other?

As to you persistent, irrelevant question; it is still irrelevant. You should see a doctor about that. HA!

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?
S2000magician
View Profile
Inner circle
Yorba Linda, CA
3465 Posts

Profile of S2000magician
Quote:
On Apr 21, 2019, R.S. wrote:
Quote:
On Apr 20, 2019, S2000magician wrote:
Quote:
On Apr 20, 2019, R.S. wrote:
Quote:
On Apr 19, 2019, S2000magician wrote:
Quote:
On Apr 19, 2019, R.S. wrote:
Quote:
On Apr 18, 2019, S2000magician wrote:
A statement that psychic phenomena do not exist is most certainly a statement that they cannot be proven to exist.

I disagree.

Then you're wrong.

I disagree.

I got that.

So . . . you're saying that if psychic phenomena do not exist it is still possible to prove that they do?

No – I’m saying that “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.”

This isn't a question about your current position.

Try to keep up.

You said that a statement that it doesn't exist is not a statement that it cannot be proven.

It's that statement that I'm saying is wrong.
S2000magician
View Profile
Inner circle
Yorba Linda, CA
3465 Posts

Profile of S2000magician
Quote:
On Apr 21, 2019, tommy wrote:
Where there is nothing to prove, there is no burden of proof.

You said that the burden of proof lies with the person who makes the claim, and you've made the claim that one cannot prove a negative.

There most certainly is something to prove: the truth of your claim.

Or are we simply to accept your claim as true without proof? You know: on faith.
tommy
View Profile
Eternal Order
Devil’s Island
16363 Posts

Profile of tommy
One cannot prove a negative is negative and therefore then there is nothing to prove.

“I see nobody on the road,' said Alice

'I only wish I had such eyes,' The King remarked in a fretful tone. 'To be able to see Nobody! And at that distance too! Why it's as much as I can do to see real people, by this light!”

― Lewis Carroll, Alice's Adventures in Wonderland & Through the Looking-Glass
If there is a single truth about Magic, it is that nothing on earth so efficiently evades it.

Tommy
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 0.1 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