|
|
|
|||
| Go to page [Previous] 1~2~3~4~5~6~7~8~9 [Next] | ||||||||||
S2000magician Inner circle Yorba Linda, CA 3465 Posts 
|
Quote:
On Apr 21, 2019, tommy wrote: Only if we accept your original statement on faith. Is that what you're requiring us to do? |
|||||||||
tommy Eternal Order Devil's Island 16543 Posts
|
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.
If there is a single truth about Magic, it is that nothing on earth so efficiently evades it.
Tommy |
|||||||||
|
S2000magician Inner circle Yorba Linda, CA 3465 Posts
|
Quote:
On Apr 21, 2019, tommy wrote: I've wasted enough time on this. Your position is stupid. I expected much better of you, tommy. |
|||||||||
|
tommy Eternal Order Devil's Island 16543 Posts
|
Said Alice
If there is a single truth about Magic, it is that nothing on earth so efficiently evades it.
Tommy |
|||||||||
|
R.S. Regular user CT one day I'll have 188 Posts
|
Quote:
On Apr 21, 2019, Tom Cutts wrote: There was no “conflation” on my part. You are the one making the conflation from two separate posts in an apparent attempt to delegitimize the above statement in order to justify not answering my follow up question. So since you agree that death rays, psychics, etc, are all irrelevant to your comparison of Cayce and modern medical practice, then stop bringing them up and answer this: For a medical issue, would you rather see someone like Cayce or a modern science-based MD? Quote:
So now it’s “obtuse humor”, huh? Between obtuse humor and alliteration, you oughta get a standup gig. Quote:
Let’s look at this other 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…” “Precisely the method being used". You said “PRECISELY”! So which is it after all… “similar”, or “precisely”? Quote:
OK, but do you think I should see someone like Cayce or a modern science-based MD? What would YOU do? HA! Quote:
Your attempt to deflect from my unanswered question won’t work. For a medical issue, would you rather see someone like Cayce or a modern science-based MD? Ron
"It is error only, and not truth, that shrinks from inquiry." Thomas Paine
|
|||||||||
|
R.S. Regular user CT one day I'll have 188 Posts
|
Quote:
On Apr 21, 2019, S2000magician 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. I never flat out said “it doesn’t exist”, but rather it has yet to be “proven”.
"It is error only, and not truth, that shrinks from inquiry." Thomas Paine
|
|||||||||
Cliffg37 Inner circle Long Beach, CA 2491 Posts
|
How many people realize that what this thread is really doing is arguing philosophy in the name of science?
The main difference between Philosophy and Science is that one looks for definitive answers and one looks for more broad and general ideas, but not necessarily answers. Often the two look alike which makes it very tempting to equate the two. On Star Trek, the scientist, Mr. Spock practices a very blatant form of utilitarian philosophy. The writers blend it well, but they are not the same. My point is this... This entire thread is pointless. No one will definitively prove anything here. Put it to bed.
Magic is like Science,
Both are fun if you do it right! |
|||||||||
|
tommy Eternal Order Devil's Island 16543 Posts
|
The presumption of innocence is the legal principle that requires one to presume the negative, that the accused did not commit the offense and to await the evidence that proves the positive that he did. The accused is not required to prove his negative not guilty plea or anything else. We can reasonably apply this legal principle to claims of physic phenomena. Those who make the positive claim that such things exist are required to positively prove it, while we can deny it and presume the negative that such does not exist. Likewise, we will not be required to prove the negative or anything else. Moreover, if you think this legal principle is stupid then you can go and tell it to the judge.
If there is a single truth about Magic, it is that nothing on earth so efficiently evades it.
Tommy |
|||||||||
|
S2000magician Inner circle Yorba Linda, CA 3465 Posts
|
Quote:
On Apr 22, 2019, R.S. wrote: The key word is "it's". What is the "it" to which you're referring? |
|||||||||
Tom Cutts Staff Northern CA 5931 Posts
|
Quote:
On Apr 22, 2019, R.S. wrote: 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 before 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. |
|||||||||
|
Tom Cutts Staff Northern CA 5931 Posts
|
Quote:
On Apr 22, 2019, Cliffg37 wrote: That is a beautiful image, but it misses anything to do with what I am getting at. Those who think I intend to prove the existence psy phenomenon are not seeing the forest through the trees. I am simply here because those who post that psy phenomena has been proven by science to not exist have posted errantly. If they hold the belief that psy phenomena does not exist, they are holding a belief which is unproven by science. When one cloaks such unscientific beliefs in the robes of science, one adds to the false understanding of what science is and what it can and can’t do. |
|||||||||
|
Cliffg37 Inner circle Long Beach, CA 2491 Posts
|
Quote:
On Apr 22, 2019, Tom Cutts wrote: Let's put on our Einstein hats and do a thought experiment. I am going to make a statement... "There is no such thing as a fire breathing dragon." The first argument anyone should make is that I don't know what environments exist on other planets, and the statement is therefore foolish. There absolutely could be fire breathing dragons on other planets. OK, I amend. "There is no such thing as a fire breathing dragon on Earth." You can now argue that while you and I have never seen one other than in fantasy cinema, such a thing could exist. Are there creatures that are heavier than air and yet can fly? Any bird, and especially an albatross is much heavier than air, and yes they both fly and glide. Could a living creature breathe fire? Yes, it could. (I did not say any do, I said it could.) the requirements are largely met already by our poisonous reptile friends. Think of a spitting cobra. All that would be required would be to change out his venom for a phosphorus, oxygen and fuel compound and he could spit fire rather than venom. Would it look like the fantasy fire breathers? No, it would look more like spitting fireballs, but it could be. Now it is my turn to argue; while such a creature could exist, there are none on Earth. Now you ask if I have looked everywhere? Pretty much the whole Earth has been explored. "Gee Mr. Scientist. Have you explored all the deep caves underground?" "No" "Gee Mr. Scientist, have you explored the land mass under the ice of Antarctica?" "No" "Then how do you know there aren't any?" "One day we will have explored all that, and the odds are good we will not find any." "But it could happen?" "Well it could." And then we are back to square one with no fire breathing dragons on Earth. We have NOT proved a negative, only stated our experiential non-evidence.
Magic is like Science,
Both are fun if you do it right! |
|||||||||
|
Tom Cutts Staff Northern CA 5931 Posts
|
Quote:
On Apr 22, 2019, R.S. wrote: 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. Quote:
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:
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. Quote:
You? You should see someone like Cayce. 
Quote:
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. |
|||||||||
|
Tom Cutts Staff Northern CA 5931 Posts
|
Quote:
On Apr 22, 2019, Cliffg37 wrote: That is a fun experiment, but it is inaccurate if it is meant to be an example of my discussion. Let’s try this: “Science has proven that fire breathing dragons do not exist.” Cliff, can science prove something doesn’t exist? Now if you want to claim that such a question is the philosophy of science, that might make a delightful, perhaps beautiful, turn of words. |
|||||||||
|
Cliffg37 Inner circle Long Beach, CA 2491 Posts
|
Quote:
On Apr 22, 2019, Tom Cutts wrote: No Tom. Period. Science cannot prove a negative. I can prove there is no dragon in this room, but I cannot prove there aren't any anywhere. I cannot prove there is no such thing. I really want to be done with this thread that I consider to be bad science and a spit in the face of the scientific method. This makes the third time I told myself to stop posting here. This thread and the quack doctor that inspired it both annoy me.
Magic is like Science,
Both are fun if you do it right! |
|||||||||
|
S2000magician Inner circle Yorba Linda, CA 3465 Posts
|
Quote:
On Apr 22, 2019, Cliffg37 wrote: Here we go again! How do you know that science cannot prove a negative? Mathematics certainly can; mathematicians do it all the time, and reductio ad absurdum proofs are amongst the most elegant of the lot. The proof that √2 is not rational is a classic, as is the proof that there are not only a finite number of primes. If you know that science cannot prove a negative, I'd like to see your proof of that. If it cannot be proven that science cannot prove a negative, I'd like to see some intellectual honesty in the form of science asking us to take that statement on faith. |
|||||||||
|
tommy Eternal Order Devil's Island 16543 Posts
|
In the field of psychic phenomena, the only thing they have ever proven is that they can’t be trusted with the sheep.
If there is a single truth about Magic, it is that nothing on earth so efficiently evades it.
Tommy |
|||||||||
|
Cliffg37 Inner circle Long Beach, CA 2491 Posts
|
Quote:
On Apr 22, 2019, S2000magician wrote: OK, I looked up that proof, and yes, it made sense to me. Now do realize, I don't call my self an expert in mathematics. There are many who know far more skill in math than I do, and many who can do things with math that I only dream of. But I do not see how one applies to the other. You have cited a wonderful intelligent mathematical proof. I am citing physical phenomena. For years people who felt they were doing science were trying to turn base metals into gold. Can you prove it cannot be done? Easier still can you suggest how we would prove it cannot be done. You took my statement "You cannot prove a negative," and applied it to numbers (your area of expertise after all.) Perhaps I should have simply said you cannot prove something cannot happen.
Magic is like Science,
Both are fun if you do it right! |
|||||||||
|
S2000magician Inner circle Yorba Linda, CA 3465 Posts
|
Quote:
On Apr 22, 2019, Cliffg37 wrote: No, I cannot prove that it cannot be done. But I've never asserted that it cannot be done, so I have assumed no burden of proof. Quote:
On Apr 22, 2019, Cliffg37 wrote: I did. Guilty as charged. Quote:
On Apr 22, 2019, Cliffg37 wrote: Perhaps you should have, but I don't see how that helps you. You've made a positive (i.e., declarative) statement: "You (i.e., anyone) cannot prove that something cannot happen." The person who makes a positive (i.e., declarative) statement assumes the burden of proof for that statement. That's the cornerstone of science. So . . . you know where this is going! . . . let's see the proof that one cannot prove that something cannot happen. |
|||||||||
|
Cliffg37 Inner circle Long Beach, CA 2491 Posts
|
Rotfl Your asking me to prove that you cannot prove that something cannot happen.
Magic is like Science,
Both are fun if you do it right! |
|||||||||
| 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] | ||||||||||
Posted: Apr 21, 2019 05:14 pm 
| [ Top of Page ] |
|
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2024 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 < 
|