Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
stevnpa

New and a sceptic but...

191 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

preacherman76
21 minutes ago, Habitat said:

 

Seemingly so, but why would that be so disconcerting ? Why is the prospect of oblivion more attractive ?

I don't know. Maybe the attraction is more about feeling superior. That they are right, and you(not you per say) are wrong. This built from western societies demand that materialism is all there is. Maybe for some its the fear of what their peers will do if anyone even thinks about stepping outside that box. I couldn't really say, as I'm not in their position.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Merc14
7 hours ago, preacherman76 said:

Wow, dude, read the link. No one made such a claim, but it appears it did meet the standard for further research. That was by peer review. Randi literally set the bar higher in this subject then science would have at this point in the research for what would be considered a "normal" subject..  

You would be wrong here because his experiments were so badly flawed that they were, essentially, worthless and Randi was just one of many, many people to find major flaws in how the "experiment" was run and interpreted.   If his research did meet the standards for further research, whatever that means, then please show me this further LEGITIMATE research that repeated Schwartz's results?   

7 hours ago, preacherman76 said:

There are people, lots of people who will deny any possibility of an afterlife no matter what's provided. The very possibility destroys their world view, and cuts deep into the ego. Of which its obvious by Randi's comments that he has a large one.

I have no idea what happens to us after death and made no such claims one way or the other.  Nether did anyone else here, as far as I remember, so not sure what you are bringing this up for but I do know that Dr Schwartz and his mediums did NOT communicate with anyone in that afterlife and neither has anyone else in history.  I don't know if Dr. Schwartz is a fraud and a hoaxer or just delusional but he experiments proved nothing except he is very gullible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
preacherman76
9 hours ago, Merc14 said:

You would be wrong here because his experiments were so badly flawed that they were, essentially, worthless and Randi was just one of many, many people to find major flaws in how the "experiment" was run and interpreted.   If his research did meet the standards for further research, whatever that means, then please show me this further LEGITIMATE research that repeated Schwartz's results?   

I have no idea what happens to us after death and made no such claims one way or the other.  Nether did anyone else here, as far as I remember, so not sure what you are bringing this up for but I do know that Dr Schwartz and his mediums did NOT communicate with anyone in that afterlife and neither has anyone else in history.  I don't know if Dr. Schwartz is a fraud and a hoaxer or just delusional but he experiments proved nothing except he is very gullible.

Randi's problem, admittedly, was that they didn't start out with triple blind studies. You don't go straight for the most expensive most time consuming study. You first try experiments to see if it worth reaching that level of study. That's exactly what they did, and the finding proves the study was ready to go to the next level, by peer review. No on even made any solid claims, only that further research was needed. Randi couldn't even be honest in that regard. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Butler
On 12/01/2017 at 2:53 PM, papageorge1 said:

Can you justify that statement?? I just hear the so-called skeptic community on the attack, not 'the entire world of legitimate science'. His stuff is peer-reviewed as he explains in that link.

Fail.  There are no peer reviews. Even after 15 years. Not one. 

If you read the link  ..........   

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
psyche101
17 hours ago, preacherman76 said:

I don't know. Maybe the attraction is more about feeling superior. That they are right, and you(not you per say) are wrong. This built from western societies demand that materialism is all there is. Maybe for some its the fear of what their peers will do if anyone even thinks about stepping outside that box. I couldn't really say, as I'm not in their position.

Is "Materialism" the new colloquialism for "Deliberate ignorance" or something?   

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
preacherman76
2 hours ago, psyche101 said:

Is "Materialism" the new colloquialism for "Deliberate ignorance" or something?   

No. I wouldn't say that. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Fail.  There are no peer reviews. Even after 15 years. Not one. 

Fail....Check out the Journal of the Society for Psychical Research (January 2001)

I would assume then that you always require peer reviewed papers when you hear a criticism of Dr. Gary Schwartz's works.:mellow:

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Merc14
12 hours ago, preacherman76 said:

Randi's problem, admittedly, was that they didn't start out with triple blind studies. You don't go straight for the most expensive most time consuming study. You first try experiments to see if it worth reaching that level of study. That's exactly what they did, and the finding proves the study was ready to go to the next level, by peer review. No on even made any solid claims, only that further research was needed. Randi couldn't even be honest in that regard. 

Randi simply requested that Schwartz hand over his data to an independent panel for evaluation and he refused on the grounds Randi would pick a biased panel.  Several other researchers have criticized Schwartz's experimental methods as well, not just Randi, and Schwartz has claimed a 77% success rate with some of his mediums.  I am unaware of anyone repeating Schwartz's success rate which is part and parcel of the scientific method so not sure what you are saying here?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Butler
6 hours ago, papageorge1 said:

Fail....Check out the Journal of the Society for Psychical Research (January 2001)

I would assume then that you always require peer reviewed papers when you hear a criticism of Dr. Gary Schwartz's works.:mellow:

 

Are we still talking about conciousness after death?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
back to earth
On 1/16/2017 at 0:23 AM, preacherman76 said:

I don't know. Maybe the attraction is more about feeling superior. That they are right, and you(not you per say) are wrong. This built from western societies demand that materialism is all there is. Maybe for some its the fear of what their peers will do if anyone even thinks about stepping outside that box. I couldn't really say, as I'm not in their position.

Wot ! ?  :blink:           I had no idea that 'western society' demands that of us . 

Most of the wooers here are part of western society ..... then there are all those 'western society' religions , traditions , myths, superstitions , saints , etc, etc .  

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
papageorge1
Just now, The Butler said:

Are we still talking about conciousness after death?  

See, you guys are showing that you don't really understand what is being claimed. You seem to be thinking he is saying he has proven consciousness after death or something, What he does in his published papers is for example describe the controlled experiments that he does and the results that were obtained. His point is that no normal explanation can explain the results but does not conclude with what did cause the results. It is a very conservative process. He is just eliminating the normal explanations with controls for them.

Share this post


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

Fail....Check out the Journal of the Society for Psychical Research (January 2001)

I would assume then that you always require peer reviewed papers when you hear a criticism of Dr. Gary Schwartz's works.:mellow:

 

 Right, the Journal isn't taken seriously. 

 Not because it bucks the mainstream, though they like to sell it that way. Same as those journals that publish papers refuting that DNA of Bigfoot contains angelic DNA or journals dedicated to Flat Earth cosmology or Plasma Cosmology. 

 Their standards are lax, their results are not reproducible. That's a death nail for any publication attempting to to claim scientific credentials. 

 As for Western society being materialistic, this would be the same society dominated by Christianity, belief in ghosts, yes?

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
psyche101
14 hours ago, preacherman76 said:

No. I wouldn't say that. 

With all due respect, it certainly indicates that. It is a pop term that has been utilised more and more regularly when referring to the supernatural, as if the supernatural was defined and recognised. Simple fact is it is not. For all intents and purposes, the supernatural simply does not exist. I find it contentious to represent it as if that were the case. One might as well say Minotaurs guard the gates to the supernatural realm, we have as much evidence of that as we do the concept itself. It's a myth. Using the term "material universe" simply seems to indicate that one has contempt for, or little understanding of science, and scientific method. We have been at this for a long time now, and the last 100 years just keeps accelerating, we can measure the weak forces in nature, we can smash an atom down to elementary particles. If the supernatural does exist, and if it really does have an effect on this so called "material" universe, which it must if it has any effect or connection to humans, then we can measure an effect, if not the "realm" itself. Good God, doesn't it feel like one is play acting Dungeons and Dragons using terms like "Realms" anyway??? To say the supernatural is beyond the material realm is just a very poor excuse to support the concept. Handwaving. If people are to consider such concepts are actually viable, then I just feel people should be accountable and provide irrefutable proof, whining about Randi just makes one look like a failure, as he is not the Paranormal Authority on this planet. He simply provided an outlet for people to test their claims, as every one has failed all I see is sour grapes. Lets face it. These so called genuine people can go to any University on earth and have their claims tested. Then they could say SEE!!! Randi was not honest - but, never happened has it? Simply put, evidence does not support the idea of the supernatural, it is purely a belief choice, and really should not be touted as anything more than a thing people want to believe in, just like some people still believe fairies exist, or the earth is flat, as all of these things actually have better evidence contrary to the cultural myths that a more than surprising amount of people still subscribe to. 

So while you would not say that, it is certainly the impression getting across. Accountability is the indicator to watch here. Not hope.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Butler
53 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

See, you guys are showing that you don't really understand what is being claimed. You seem to be thinking he is saying he has proven consciousness after death or something, What he does in his published papers is for example describe the controlled experiments that he does and the results that were obtained. His point is that no normal explanation can explain the results but does not conclude with what did cause the results. It is a very conservative process. He is just eliminating the normal explanations with controls for them.

Sigh. The whole kerfuffle between Randi and Schwartz was about his claim of consciousness after death.  That's my understanding. 

I don't actually think  much of Randi, so you needn't concern yourself with labels here.  I think for myself.  

I read it all about 4 years ago. I thought both sides appeared to be arguing dishonestly or obtusely at times. I thought it was to do with misunderstanding each others points mostly. There was some mutual animosity too. It struck me as a lot of hot air over something rather pointless.  I'll do some more reading. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
papageorge1
Just now, The Butler said:

Sigh. The whole kerfuffle between Randi and Schwartz was about his claim of consciousness after death.  That's my understanding.  

No, it was about the quality of the experiments. The kerfuffle was about Randi attacking the experiments and Schwartz defending the experiments.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Butler
21 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

No, it was about the quality of the experiments. The kerfuffle was about Randi attacking the experiments and Schwartz defending the experiments.

OK. You made the claim.  The 2001 journal?  Link it. And show me, or cite the peer reviews please.   I can't find it. I found one from from 2007 that concludes similar positive findings.

I can see problems with the methodology after reading the abstract. 

 One of the original "experiments" was for a HBO TV special. 

Read this 

http://www.csicop.org/si/show/critique_of_schwartz_et_al.s_after-death_communication_studies

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
papageorge1
Just now, The Butler said:

OK. You made the claim.  The 2001 journal?  Link it. And show me, or cite the peer reviews please.   I can't find it. I found one from from 2007 that concludes similar positive findings.

I can see problems with the methodology after reading the abstract. 

 One of the original "experiments" was for a HBO TV special. 

Read this 

http://www.csicop.org/si/show/critique_of_schwartz_et_al.s_after-death_communication_studies

No offense, but you are not quite up to speed on this subject. The HBO stuff was not the important stuff as Randi tried to confuse people with. The important study was Schwartz's triple-blind experiment with gifted mediums (the mediums were not even told or saw who they were reading which eliminates the hot/cold reading hypothesis of the Randi types). And that certainly seemed to get Randi irrationally vindictive.

You must realize that Schwartz is fully aware of the importance of controlled experimental methodology. That is kind of his specialty if you study his lengthy credentials. The thought that you would read the abstract and find the problems with the methodology is slightly humorous to me.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
XenoFish

:sleepy:There hasn't been any consistent evidence of the paranormal or supernatural. Threads like these get boring real fast. Show me a Soul Particle and win all arguments. The Casper Element shouldn't be that hard to discover too.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
psyche101
7 minutes ago, XenoFish said:

:sleepy:There hasn't been any consistent evidence of the paranormal or supernatural. Threads like these get boring real fast. Show me a Soul Particle and win all arguments. The Casper Element shouldn't be that hard to discover too.

Randi is just a Red Herring that these claimants use as a scapegoat.

He is not any sort of authority on the Paranormal and or Supernatural. He simply offered a place to prove these claims. As nobody has actually been able to do so, he has been demonised. Simply fact is Randi exposed the claimants, and what we are seeing is revenge. 

If Randi had even said "this is evidence of the paranormal/supernatural" that would not cut the mustard. Such a claim would still have to undergo rigorous testing for confirmation. What Randi does is explain the trick, an imposing view of the tricks used, not all that different to Penn and Tellers "Fool Us". And as he did with Popoff and Geller. 

That is the thing with "alternative" practises in general. No one man has that say. If something is deemed alternative, like the Paranormal of Homeopathy, that is because it failed testing, or has not been tested. A claim that passes those tests is science, not "mainstream science" or any other terms these wannabe's dig up. No such thing actually exists, what we have is pass or fail, and these claims are one big fail.

If there was anything genuine at all about these concepts, Randi would be bypassed. His voice here is merely an indicator, it is not the final word by any means. In this way, he offered a genuine service for people to showcase their claims. That they failed is not his fault, nor is it his final call. They simply were not good enough to take the next step is all.

RED+HERRING.png

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
XenoFish

I wasn't even thinking of Randi when I made that post. My post was about those who claim that all paranormal and supernatural event's happen yet offer no hard evidence to support their claims. Outside of being a product of their imagination I can't see where they have much of a leg to stand on. Unless quantum woo is a force in nature. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
psyche101
21 minutes ago, XenoFish said:

I wasn't even thinking of Randi when I made that post. My post was about those who claim that all paranormal and supernatural event's happen yet offer no hard evidence to support their claims. Outside of being a product of their imagination I can't see where they have much of a leg to stand on. Unless quantum woo is a force in nature. 

Yeah, more looking at the comments you are commenting on. Randi has been victimised, and often is, but it is not his call. 

What he did was offer that avenue, accountability. What we all want to see regarding these claims. Plenty of opportunity for these claimants to provide that hard evidence, they just fail is all.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Merc14

Very telling that papa hates Randi so passionately and ignores all the others who have dismissed Schwartz's research. 

Edited by Merc14
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
back to earth

Same trip he does with Sai Baba . 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
eight bits

pg1

Quote

The thought that you would read the abstract and find the problems with the methodology is slightly humorous to me.

One purpose of an abstract is to provide prsopective readers with enough information to make an informed decision about whether the paper is worth taking their time to read. Your hero wrote an abstract that did what it was supposed to do. You can't fault the other poster for using the abstract as it is supposed to be used.

That said, methodological problems are more usually discovered when reading the body of the paper. That's because flaws are usually subtle, but not always.

The idea that "peer review" reliably means "high quality" is an internet meme. It thrives largely because:

- many "skeptics" are fans of science but inexperienced in scientific or other scholarly publishing, and

- with enough persistence, even a paper written in crayon on butcher paper will find some journal that will take it, after "peer review."

Surviving peer review generally means that the paper complies with the editorial policies of the journal. At some journals that will coincide with "high quality," while at others the journal may be content to publish papers solely on the basis of anticipated interest to the readership. At least some "peer reviewed" journals are outrightly pay to play.

There are many journals and new titles every year. There is basically no paper so lacking in scholarly merit that it cannot find a home somewhere. For those that cannot, there are cable TV specials.

Edited by eight bits

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
preacherman76
12 hours ago, psyche101 said:

With all due respect, it certainly indicates that. It is a pop term that has been utilised more and more regularly when referring to the supernatural, as if the supernatural was defined and recognised. Simple fact is it is not. For all intents and purposes, the supernatural simply does not exist. I find it contentious to represent it as if that were the case. One might as well say Minotaurs guard the gates to the supernatural realm, we have as much evidence of that as we do the concept itself. It's a myth. Using the term "material universe" simply seems to indicate that one has contempt for, or little understanding of science, and scientific method. We have been at this for a long time now, and the last 100 years just keeps accelerating, we can measure the weak forces in nature, we can smash an atom down to elementary particles. If the supernatural does exist, and if it really does have an effect on this so called "material" universe, which it must if it has any effect or connection to humans, then we can measure an effect, if not the "realm" itself. Good God, doesn't it feel like one is play acting Dungeons and Dragons using terms like "Realms" anyway??? To say the supernatural is beyond the material realm is just a very poor excuse to support the concept. Handwaving. If people are to consider such concepts are actually viable, then I just feel people should be accountable and provide irrefutable proof, whining about Randi just makes one look like a failure, as he is not the Paranormal Authority on this planet. He simply provided an outlet for people to test their claims, as every one has failed all I see is sour grapes. Lets face it. These so called genuine people can go to any University on earth and have their claims tested. Then they could say SEE!!! Randi was not honest - but, never happened has it? Simply put, evidence does not support the idea of the supernatural, it is purely a belief choice, and really should not be touted as anything more than a thing people want to believe in, just like some people still believe fairies exist, or the earth is flat, as all of these things actually have better evidence contrary to the cultural myths that a more than surprising amount of people still subscribe to. 

So while you would not say that, it is certainly the impression getting across. Accountability is the indicator to watch here. Not hope.

This is why science is still a long way off. Wait I don't mean to say science as a whole. Certain people who are in the scientific community are a long way off from beginning to understand the supernatural. How can you possibly begin to understand something you venomously deny is even possible? Even going as far as to be insulted by the idea.

I wasn't saying that materialism was "colloquialism for Deliberate ignorance or something", However I cant see now that it may be so in some cases.

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

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.