New and a sceptic but...

[Habitat]

What is clear is that anyone setting out to "prove" the paranormal (don't like the word much, but what else do you use) to scientific standards, is a space cadet. There's a whole lot of ego at work in any such scheme,  to be the very first, and one and only, and it does not have, er, a ghost of a chance of success.

[ShadowSot]

1 minute ago, Habitat said:

What is clear is that anyone setting out to "prove" the paranormal (don't like the word much, but what else do you use) to scientific standards, is a space cadet. There's a whole lot of ego at work in any such scheme,  to be the very first, and one and only, and it does not have, er, a ghost of a chance of success.

And no ego at all in assuming the paranormal chose you specifically to interact with, of course. 

 It's probably worth noting that most discoveries are not made by people seeking fame. There's actually very little of it, for most discoveries really. 

 Even someone like Einstein wasn't seeking fame. It was an end result of his own curiosity and personal research. 

 I don't know what fallacy this is, I presume Emma knows. Would it be "no true Scotsman" perhaps?

[Habitat]

7 minutes ago, ShadowSot said:

 

 It's probably worth noting that most discoveries are not made by people seeking fame. There's actually very little of it, for most discoveries really. 

 Even someone like Einstein wasn't seeking fame. It was an end result of his own curiosity and personal research. 

 

No surprises in that. Self aggrandizement doesn't leave much room for anything else.

[ShadowSot]

8 minutes ago, Habitat said:

No surprises in that. Self aggrandizement doesn't leave much room for anything else.

And yet according to you anyone investigations paranormal occurances  is only doing it for fame an fortune. 

Edited January 11, 2017 by ShadowSot
Autocorrect

[Habitat]

10 minutes ago, ShadowSot said:

And no ego at all in assuming the paranormal chose you specifically to interact with, of course. 

I don't know. I must have met the criteria to some extent. But I am the vessel, not the one doing the pouring. Otherwise nothing, imo.

[Habitat]

1 minute ago, ShadowSot said:

And yet according to you anyone investigations paranormal occur ancestors is only doing it for fame an fortune. 

?????????

[ShadowSot]

1 minute ago, Habitat said:

?????????

Fixed.

[ShadowSot]

3 minutes ago, Habitat said:

I don't know. I must have met the criteria to some extent. But I am the vessel, not the one doing the pouring. Otherwise nothing, imo.

Yep, that's a familiar phrase. Many anpriest, yogi, and conman has used it.

[Habitat]

4 minutes ago, ShadowSot said:

And yet according to you anyone investigations paranormal occurances  is only doing it for fame an fortune. 

If the intent is to crack it wide open for inspection by all, it is rather "ambitious" to put it kindly. Ain't gonna happen. Wilfulness cannot penetrate this veil, imo.

[Habitat]

4 minutes ago, ShadowSot said:

Yep, that's a familiar phrase. Many anpriest, yogi, and conman has used it.

Of which I am none of the above.

[ShadowSot]

20 minutes ago, Habitat said:

If the intent is to crack it wide open for inspection by all, it is rather "ambitious" to put it kindly. Ain't gonna happen. Wilfulness cannot penetrate this veil, imo.

Right. Only exposed to people who, so far, according to you, approach it uncritically, and through happenstance easily dismissed as circumstance, but first primed to accept the mundane as the profound. 

 

22 minutes ago, Habitat said:

Of which I am none of the above.

No, just using several of the same claims and language.

[Habitat]

2 minutes ago, ShadowSot said:

but first primed to accept the mundane as the profound. 

I don't know about mundane. I have seen material objects manipulated with such seeming violence, they should have been smashed to pieces, but were not, the second surprise in that, was I was quite unmoved and unconcerned by any of it. I'd have expected to be agog.

[ShadowSot]

2 minutes ago, Habitat said:

I don't know about mundane. I have seen material objects manipulated with such seeming violence, they should have been smashed to pieces, but were not, the second surprise in that, was I was quite unmoved and unconcerned by any of it. I'd have expected to be agog.

Ok, but at this point you've set up a scenarios where there's no way to test this or prove it happens. Or that anyone could possibly verify unless maybe they already believe you, like yogis or so called chi masters or water dowsers. 

And even then, any attempt by another person to verify would implicitly fail. 

 And as we've agreed the field is full of issues of fraud and credulity, making your claims no more worthwhile than any other.

[Habitat]

2 minutes ago, ShadowSot said:

Ok, but at this point you've set up a scenarios where there's no way to test this or prove it happens. Or that anyone could possibly verify unless maybe they already believe you, like yogis or so called chi masters or water dowsers. 

And even then, any attempt by another person to verify would implicitly fail. 

 And as we've agreed the field is full of issues of fraud and credulity, making your claims no more worthwhile than any other.

Another of the family has had similar experiences, your assessment of the worth is purely to yourself, to me it is conclusive. Your cynicism is showing, were it the "old" me, I would not hint at imposture, merely opine that I was utterly unable to speak to the verity or otherwise. It is clear you have already assigned a probability to this, I advise you to desist from it.

[ShadowSot]

17 minutes ago, Habitat said:

Another of the family has had similar experiences, your assessment of the worth is purely to yourself, to me it is conclusive. Your cynicism is showing, were it the "old" me, I would not hint at imposture, merely opine that I was utterly unable to speak to the verity or otherwise. It is clear you have already assigned a probability to this, I advise you to desist from it.

Ah, see. No. 

 What I did was lay out exactly what you have stated the impossibility of attempting to verify what you are claiming is.

 I have pointed out that we both agree there are issues of credulity and fraud, though I am not stating that fraud is implicit on your presentation. 

 Due to the way you yourself have set the standards there is no way to seperate what you are saying, from any of the numerous other accounts that we have both agreed are cases of fraud or credulity. 

 I note again you are making claims about what I've said or what I think, which runs against what I have clearly said.

 Admittedly when I am actually paying attention to what I type.

 That is the only time I have actually implied any impropriety. 

[papageorge1]

6 hours ago, ShadowSot said:

Great. So like I said, we have no evidence that can be tested in any sort of objective fashion. 

Actually, it has been objectively proven in controlled tests with gifted mediums by researchers like Dr. Gary Schwartz. These are blind tests (the medium doesn't see or know who they are reading). The results have shown phenomenal odds against chance and eliminate any possibility of hot/cold reading (which has been the traditional skeptic explanation).

I read Schwartz's work and he is very cautious and conservative in his approach. I am already aware that those that seem to have a vehement passion against believers in the paranormal have launched all manners of attack against Schwartz. That game can go on forever and I listen to both sides and judge for myself.

[Emma_Acid]

33 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

Actually, it has been objectively proven in controlled tests with gifted mediums by researchers like Dr. Gary Schwartz. These are blind tests (the medium doesn't see or know who they are reading). The results have shown phenomenal odds against chance and eliminate any possibility of hot/cold reading (which has been the traditional skeptic explanation).

I read Schwartz's work and he is very cautious and conservative in his approach. I am already aware that those that seem to have a vehement passion against believers in the paranormal have launched all manners of attack against Schwartz. That game can go on forever and I listen to both sides and judge for myself.

http://www.csicop.org/si/show/how_not_to_test_mediums_critiquing_the_afterlife_experiments

This article lists why Dr Schwartz's experiments are unscientific.

If this had been proven we would know about it - and it would have changed the world.

Edited January 11, 2017 by Emma_Acid

[papageorge1]

1 hour ago, Emma_Acid said:

http://www.csicop.org/si/show/how_not_to_test_mediums_critiquing_the_afterlife_experiments

This article lists why Dr Schwartz's experiments are unscientific.

If this had been proven we would know about it - and it would have changed the world.

CSICOP? They are the exact type of mindset I was talking about in my post. I judge for myself after considering all sides.

[Emma_Acid]

32 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

CSICOP? They are the exact type of mindset I was talking about in my post. I judge for myself after considering all sides.

There is no "judging for yourself" when it comes to scientific accuracy. It is either a well designed experiment or not.

[back to earth]

9 hours ago, ShadowSot said:

Great. So like I said, we have no evidence that can be tested in any sort of objective fashion. 

 

9 hours ago, Habitat said:

To you, that supports your predisposition to dismiss it. To me, it says that there is an uncanny privacy in these demonstrations that keeps the uninitiated guessing. Open access it ain't.

Ummmmm ... that is very much in a 'subjective fashion ' .

[back to earth]

9 hours ago, Habitat said:

I don't make the rules. It appears very clear to me that communication from the beyond proceeds under strict rules, beside the secrecy part. That ( secrecy) must be universal, otherwise we would have the celebrated case evidences. 

Ummmm .... you just did !   See post above   ^

[papageorge1]

34 minutes ago, Emma_Acid said:

There is no "judging for yourself" when it comes to scientific accuracy. It is either a well designed experiment or not.

So then who is the final judge on disagreements? Who officially decides if an experiment is 'well designed' when there are differences of opinion on that issue.

Edited January 11, 2017 by papageorge1

[back to earth]

9 hours ago, Habitat said:

To you, my story is unlikely as dragons, I understand that. To me it is a settled matter. And are dragons more likely in your mind, than death not being necessarily the end ? If so, you are even less convinced. All is well, it is the way of the "beyond", not to shock and disturb the ardent materialist with evidence. It stands on a softening of that attitude, of "knowing" that it cannot be, to a point of admitted "not knowing", for any thing to change.

Are you serious ?   

That is the lamest made up excuse I have read ! 

And I have not even closed my mind to the possibility of 'after life communication ' .  Just because you or I have experienced something like that, to me does not give it automatic creedence .....

as there is a test       to apply to such communication .  Have you ever thought of that ?  

But this idea of 'the beyond' not wanting to upset materialists , and hiding anytime someone with a recording device turns up ..... I xant believe you dont have the intelligence to at least get an inkling of doubt about that  . 

[back to earth]

9 hours ago, Habitat said:

Call it anything you like, I don't make the rules. For example, you may receive a demonstration of some kind, that for some reason, you doubt. It might seem unlikely it was a natural event, but you have doubts. It very likely will occur a second time, frequently shortly after. You will not get a third.

Not true in my case .  I had a LOT of doubt and 'knew' it was my mind 'playing tricks' , I demanded more proof, it happened a LOT MORE than 3 times.  There is NO rule like this, you are making it up or this is entirely relevent to you and is not some universal 'beyond'    'law'  . 

[back to earth]

9 hours ago, ShadowSot said:

I really, really like how you keep defaulting to the perspective that I'm some one who would be shocked by the existence of the afterlife or of the beyond. 

 It seems it doesn't matter how many times I point out I was a believer, that I still pursue reading on paranormal investigations, and while I treat such topics with skepticism I genuinely want them to be true. 

 But that just seems to be difficult for you to grasp. 

 

Well, good thing I have couched every post of mine with caveats, possibilities, hopes, and where there might be flaws, right? 

 I'd have to go back and count how many times I've said "but this doesn't mean it's impossible" at this point in one form or another, but I'm pretty sure if you didn't read it the first time, it won't matter much. 

 I'm honestly sitting here scratching my head over this. 

 After stating I used to be a believer, that investigation lead me to skepticism, after stating I would desperately love to speak to a ghost, or to have proof of an afterlife, and leaving open the possibility there is something that's been missed, while giving the reasons I think it's un likely, I really don't see how you could get to me being someone either claiming to know anything 100% or would be stunned to find evidence of the paranormal. 

 

Because its a basic protective default position ... Mr Walker used to love to do it to and many other people here  too . 

I was considered to be a materialistic atheist , just because I doubted some people's wild and over the top and near, if not completely, crazy claims !   I even posted details of my past studies and involvement in all types of stuff from ritual magic through to UFOs , they just dont like my conclusions  ... which were similar to your own. 

Its obvious what we are up against here .