Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 3
Still Waters

Paranormal proof: prize unclaimed 37 years on

325 posts in this topic

8 hours ago, I'mConvinced said:

Objective view:

An ordinary occurrence is something like people breathing. Everyone does it, it's obvious, testable and agreed upon.

An extraordinary occurrence would be something like a Ghost appearing on the 10 o'clock news and saying Hi.

I understand your point that, subjectively, what is strange to one person may not be strange to another, but that isn't what the saying means.

The word itself is defined as:

"very unusual or remarkable"

We can say for sure that paranormal experiences are not usual for the vast majority. Therefore they are extraordinary. This is not an appeal to popularity its a definition of a word.

Obviously no one is unbiased but I feel you can certainly gather evidence and present it for discussion. Papa makes extraordinary claims with zero evidence.

I think I understand your position a little clearer and it may all come down to a game of semantics. :yes: Language can sometimes be a barrier of expressing rather deep concepts such as this. What you call ordinary occurrences, I would simply call rare occurrences, and I do personally find it to be an important distinction. But overall I think we're basically on the same page. :tu:

6 hours ago, I'mConvinced said:

Sorry if it appeared that way, it isn't how I felt. I was about to go to bed and just rushed out a reply.

I'm more than happy to go over any detail of something I've said. It is hard to convey full meaning from forum posts and questions, disagreement and mistakes are to be expected as a normal part of debate.

I totally understand. It can be frustrating at times to respond satisfactory to a detailed post when there's only so many hours in a day.

2 hours ago, Merc14 said:

I had a long reply to this written and I hit the wrong key and lost it all.  I'll try and answer later but I wanted ti apologize for getting nasty with you, it was late, I was tired and it was uncalled for:tu:

Oh man, I hate it when that happens! :o Trust me, that's happened to me numerous times. <_< I've kinda made it a habit of mine to copy everything to my clipboard before posting anything just in case since that kinda thing unfortunately happens all to often.

2 hours ago, Merc14 said:

"I am a very good judge of character and I believe this person is genuine and honest, therefore I accept his fantastical story as true."

The above is an example of something you've written (not verbatim) on this forum many times, so what would you call the above? 

If this is genuinely what papa has said before in the past, then yeah, I have to agree that this is ridiculous. (sorry papa)

I'm not entirely opposed to the idea of 'intuition' in certain cases, but for the most part it's completely unreliable. Especially when in reference to evidences regarding the existence of something, or in reference to anything that establishes a worldview. In that sense it's no different then the concept of 'faith', which is unreasonable by definition.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
38 minutes ago, Aquila King said:

In that sense it's no different then the concept of 'faith', which is unreasonable by definition.

Amen brother...err I mean well said!

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, I'mConvinced said:

Amen brother...err I mean well said!

I find it funny how the word 'Amen' derives from the Egyptian Sun God 'Amen Ra', and yet Christians act as if it's their term. :rolleyes: Completely oblivious to how their entire religion is founded on paganism basically.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/14/2017 at 4:05 PM, papageorge1 said:

My belief is based on a reasoned analysis of the overall quantity, quality and consistency of the evidence and not on any marquee cases . Any particular case can be argued and obfuscated into infinity; not going there.

No it is based on no reason no analysis just plain old gullibility.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/15/2017 at 6:51 PM, papageorge1 said:

What about totally out off the blue sightings, multiple independent witnesses, physical phenomena, etc..  Not everything fits in an hallucination theory. Like most theories, the theory accounts for some, but not all.

Back to the old and tired residualization story. Where is this residue you hint exists? Where?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/15/2017 at 7:04 PM, papageorge1 said:

An intelligently considered body of anecdotal evidence and argumentation can affect my worldview. 

That's why you are so gullible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/16/2017 at 1:11 AM, papageorge1 said:

Who determined that? 

original post

On 9/15/2017 at 9:43 PM, Merc14 said:

You never objectively consider things.  Never.  

 

The answer is your own posts papageorge1.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/16/2017 at 1:29 PM, papageorge1 said:

Overshadowed by those directly involved scientists saying they do not seem to be manufactured human hands.

You are using known frauds as your "directly involved" people. What a failure!

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/16/2017 at 3:26 PM, papageorge1 said:

The prize is not applicable to people having non-reproducible experiences. The prize is about people doing something paranormal before judges. Which is another subject in itself.

People that experienced a coincidence or had a misunderstanding is all you got then. Figures.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, I'mConvinced said:

It's definitely an appeal to authority, just not his own this time. In this case the authority is the reliability and credibility of his witnesses. I guess by using only his own judgement in the matter it's also an appeal to his own authority at the same time.

As with everything Papa says he can't back the claims he makes either way. Anecdotal evidence is all he has and it's the best we'll get. From now on I'll point out logical flaws but I'm not entering another debate without Papa presenting something substantive to talk about.

Frankly, I don't believe there is all of this anecdotal evidence. I think he is making that up. There is never anything posted just a single anecdote from papageorge1 that there are many such stories. I see no reason at all to believe it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Aquila King said:

I find it funny how the word 'Amen' derives from the Egyptian Sun God 'Amen Ra', and yet Christians act as if it's their term. :rolleyes: Completely oblivious to how their entire religion is founded on paganism basically.

That's actually not correct.  It's derived from the Hebrew "aman", which has no evidenced relationship to Egyptian other than a sonic coincidence...

 

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, ChrLzs said:

That's actually not correct.  It's derived from the Hebrew "aman", which has no evidenced relationship to Egyptian other than a sonic coincidence...

 

I learned things.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Merc14 said:

"I am a very good judge of character and I believe this person is genuine and honest, therefore I accept his fantastical story as true."

The above is an example of something you've written (not verbatim) on this forum many times, so what would you call the above? 

 

Hilarious. Very not verbatim to say the least.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

4 hours ago, stereologist said:

No it is based on no reason no analysis just plain old gullibility.

I claim it is based on solid objective reasoning  not successfully refuted yet on this forum! I am dead serious.

Edited by papageorge1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

5 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

I claim it is based on solid objective reasoning  not successfully refuted yet on this forum! I am dead serious.

You use unsound reasoning based on anecdotes to come up with what you already believe.

There actually is little to nothing to refute. You first need to provide something to refute. Still waiting.

You support frauds such as Geller and Maussan. You pretend there is some evidence out there and do not present it.

Pointing out laughable commentary is not the same as refuting.

Edited by stereologist
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

4 hours ago, ChrLzs said:

That's actually not correct.  It's derived from the Hebrew "aman", which has no evidenced relationship to Egyptian other than a sonic coincidence...

 

Everyone knows it's supposed to be Ramen. 

Image result for flying spaghetti monster

Edited by ChaosRose
4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Never be afraid to share your opinions with others, no matter how outlandish they are. Just remember that someone once said in a meeting: "Let's make a movie about a tornado full of sharks."

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

On 9/17/2017 at 4:12 AM, Aquila King said:

I would make a case for some like Rupert Sheldrake and others, but I'm sure you consider him to be among these 'hoaxers' as well.

Well, from my point of view.. I know Sheldrake's 'work' rather well.  I wouldn't call him a hoaxer, but I would call him a poor researcher, gullible, biased, and a collector of anecdotes (all of which he believes are accurate and unquestionable, apparently).

Some time ago I offered to do a reasonably comprehensive appraisal/review of one of his books, and of course the obvious one is Dogs That Know When Their Owners Are Coming Home.  Note that I own a copy of this book (paid $2 on ebay!), so yes, I have read it, carefully ...  Maybe now is the time to get off my lazy posterior and do that.  I was actually hoping to be at least impressed by some parts of his book, but, sadly, no.  It's awful.  Non-scientific, completely ignores multiple possibilities that would explain the dogs behavior...  even if we were to accept the anecdotes exactly at face value, Sheldrake doesn't bother to think about all the things that might cause this behavior.  Then there's the question of why we would just accept these stories - virtually none of them are documented/evidenced in any proper way and what's even worse, most have been sent to Sheldrake precisely because these owners love their dogs to death and think they are special...  It is Confirmation Bias and Cherry Picking (and several other logical fallacies) at their hideous worst...

Anyway, you could say I am biased against Mr Sheldrake and the paranormal, but then again, I am very happy to quote him in detail and precisely point out all the flaws in his studies - would you be interested in participating in such a thread, AK?  Last time I brought this up, there weren't too many folks enthused.  I'd be delighted to hear opinions and comments/criticisms from both sides, and you'd be surprised how polite I can be if the debate is done in good faith.. :D

Quote

It's easy for many to dismiss the scientists we disagree with simply because we disagree with them.

I'd like to think I differ a little, in that I have a pretty good idea of not only what good science is, but why it is done in a particular way.  (Immodestly) I'm really good at spotting those that are doing the wrong thing, and am always happy to explain why and debate it..

Edited by ChrLzs
Bad Gramma!
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, papageorge1 said:

Hilarious. Very not verbatim to say the least.

What is hilarious is you don't recognize one of your signature phrases.  Doesn't matter, everyone else does and their opinion of you goes down even more with this silly response.   If I cared enough about what you have to say I'd dig up all the times you made this stupid declaration but what would be the point?

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, ChrLzs said:

would you be interested in participating in such a thread, AK?  Last time I brought this up, there weren't too many folks enthused.  I'd be delighted to hear opinions and comments/criticisms from both sides, and you'd be surprised how polite I can be if the debate is done in good faith.. :D

Sure, sounds good. :yes: 

Though I might suggest we open the topic up a little broader to encompass any scientists who go against the mainstream. I don't exactly know how it would be set up, but, oh well. :unsure2: We'll figure somethin' out.

Although I will say I'm not a fan of long drawn out debates, because there's always an inevitable point one reaches where we both end up repeating the same talking points, and repeating myself is a bit of a pet-peeve of mine. I'm more of a say it one-an-done kinda guy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

as I've said..theres no need to prove your special ability for money. because your ability worth much more than the money. and proving it will actually harm you. thats common sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, michaelpast said:

as I've said..theres no need to prove your special ability for money. because your ability worth much more than the money. and proving it will actually harm you. thats common sense.

Then how do we or even they/you(?) know that you know if you have a 'special ability' if it can not be honestly validated? 

On 9/17/2017 at 1:44 PM, Aquila King said:

I'm not entirely opposed to the idea of 'intuition' in certain cases

Intuition is a psychological function that comes from the subconscious. I'm intuitive and my intuition revolves around people. It's about subconsciously noticing subtle body ques and making assessments of the person. Be they friend or threat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/18/2017 at 8:54 AM, Merc14 said:

What is hilarious is you don't recognize one of your signature phrases.  Doesn't matter, everyone else does and their opinion of you goes down even more with this silly response.   If I cared enough about what you have to say I'd dig up all the times you made this stupid declaration but what would be the point?

Hey, "Show me the evidence".:lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, michaelpast said:

as I've said..theres no need to prove your special ability for money. because your ability worth much more than the money. and proving it will actually harm you. thats common sense.

Of course, common sense.  Can I ask how it would harm you to use your special powers?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

On 23/09/2017 at 7:06 PM, michaelpast said:

as I've said..theres no need to prove your special ability for money.

Or to share it with humanity - what a load of utterly selfish mongrels they must be, to want to keep it to themselves.

 

Oh wait, or could it be because they don't have the abilities they claim (perhaps even really think) they have, and would rather make lame one line posts pretending to be secwut superheroes....

 

Quote

because your ability worth much more than the money.

Indeed, who cares about the money?  Oh wait, that would be those who charge for their services, or run ad-supported YT channels..  And yes, one shouldn't be motivated by money - one should be thinking of the future of our planet and those who live upon it.  Please re-read the first sentence I wrote above.

Quote

and proving it will actually harm you.

Really?  The MIB will come get you?  How is it that those who were tested by the CIA (and failed) all survived and lived on?  Gosh our ebil gubmint is so incompetent.

But no, really, please elaborate - how will it harm you?  And answer the most basic of questions - shouldn't this power be shared?

(Hint - the answer is Yes, IF IT DAM WELL EXISTED...)

Quote

thats common sense.

????  Really ?   ...So detail it, using simple language for us lesser mortals without the gift.....

 

Edited by ChrLzs
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 3

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.