Why not prove it?

[papageorge1]

2 minutes ago, spartan max2 said:

Imagine for a moment that you believe that there are people who communicate with the dead, you believe they do this through a connection that gives them feelings and images. 

If you honestly 100 percent are a believer of that then the idea that it has to be proven through exact verbal information would seem like appels and oranges. 

That's all I'm trying to say lol. 

 

In your example a medium would more be like:

" I am getting feelings of great love. And... I'm seeing a meadow, an opening, some kind of field?".

 

Actually at the University of Arizona (Dr. Gary Schwartz and colleagues) addressed this very problem of proving mediums to a scientific community. They actually showed something anomalous is going on in double-blind controlled studies constructed to allow odds against chance analysis. 

The basic idea was for psychics to read people they couldn't even see and compare the accuracy to random people. The test requires rather gifted psychics and was successful statistically sometimes to a dramatic degree. 

[Habitat]

1 minute ago, XenoFish said:

I want my thread to stay on topic. So either get on topic and stay on topic or I will report you for derailment and trolling. 

yet again. you are not the arbiter.

[papageorge1]

5 minutes ago, Jodie.Lynne said:

THIS is not what you claimed earlier:

If you have evidence, or claim that prime evidence has been presented, then why not show it?

If I had 100% bona fide, certifiable & verifiable evidence of a housecat sized, fire-breathing dragon living with me, why would I present Z-grade evidence to prove it's existence?

You want to believe in woocrap theories, because, whatever your reasons are ( I'm not a mind reader, so I don't know ). You have proof of all this stuff? Then frellin' present your #1 BEST argument. Until then, all your claims and assertions are of null value.

Put up, or shut up.

Who is the official 'certifier' whose judgment everyone will accept?

[XenoFish]

6 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

University of Arizona Dr. Gary Schwartz

http://skepdic.com/essays/gsandsv.html

Gary Schwartz validates mediums with about as much care as Pope John Paul II validated saints. In his Afterlife Experiments, Schwartz anoints John Edward and Laurie Campbell on the basis of a few readings that dazzle the former Harvard professor. Never mind that Ray Hyman and Richard Wiseman don't see anything in the readings that can't be explained by cold or hot reading. Schwartz dismisses his critics as super-skeptics and is convinced that these mediums are the real thing. He is the self-proclaimed expert on the subject, so it is not surprising that some members of the media go to Schwartz as their point-man when they have a question about something important like a television series about a medium.

Not my job to do your job.

Edited October 21, 2019 by XenoFish

[Jodie.Lynne]

7 minutes ago, spartan max2 said:

Imagine for a moment that you believe that there are people who communicate with the dead, you believe they do this through a connection that gives them feelings and images. 

If you honestly 100 percent are a believer of that then the idea that it has to be proven through exact verbal information would seem like appels and oranges. 

That's all I'm trying to say lol. 

 

In your example a medium would more be like:

" I am getting feelings of great love. And... I'm seeing a meadow, an opening, some kind of field?".

 

Imagine, yes, let's daydream about what fun that would be!

You are missing the point. ALL of my grandparents died long before my parents even married. I never met any of them. I couldn't possibly be a 'favourite', since I didn't exist until long after they were gone.

And how frackin' difficult is it to state something like "I feel great love...."

I would be 100% convinced if a "psychic" said: "Jodie, the codebook means X, Y, and Z, and you will find your Dad's money".

The rub being, my Dad DID leave a codebook, and none of the family have been able to figure out what he meant. And there was about $10 grand missing from his accounts.

 

 

But. I am no longer interested in trying to get the stupid to see reason. So, y'all woo-hoo-ers get along with your bad selves.

[papageorge1]

1 minute ago, XenoFish said:

http://skepdic.com/essays/gsandsv.html

Gary Schwartz validates mediums with about as much care as Pope John Paul II validated saints. In his Afterlife Experiments, Schwartz anoints John Edward and Laurie Campbell on the basis of a few readings that dazzle the former Harvard professor. Never mind that Ray Hyman and Richard Wiseman don't see anything in the readings that can't be explained by cold or hot reading. Schwartz dismisses his critics as super-skeptics and is convinced that these mediums are the real thing. He is the self-proclaimed expert on the subject, so it is not surprising that some members of the media go to Schwartz as their point-man when they have a question about something important like a television series about a medium.

Not my job to do your job.

LOL. I don't accept the Skeptics Dictionary as a reasonable source of information.

[XenoFish]

More on the good doctor.

https://neurology.arizona.edu/gary-e-schwartz-phd

https://lach.arizona.edu/veritas

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Gary_Schwartz

 

[XenoFish]

1 minute ago, papageorge1 said:

LOL. I don't accept the Skeptics Dictionary as a reasonable source of information.

I don't care. I'm doing what you should be doing. Instead you'd rather waste time. Support yourself. 

[papageorge1]

Just now, XenoFish said:

I don't care. I'm doing what you should be doing. Instead you'd rather waste time. Support yourself. 

Who will be our official judge that everyone will accept as to whether I supported myself?

Otherwise we'll go on forever.

[spartan max2]

3 minutes ago, Jodie.Lynne said:

Imagine, yes, let's daydream about what fun that would be!

You are missing the point. ALL of my grandparents died long before my parents even married. I never met any of them. I couldn't possibly be a 'favourite', since I didn't exist until long after they were gone.

And how frackin' difficult is it to state something like "I feel great love...."

I would be 100% convinced if a "psychic" said: "Jodie, the codebook means X, Y, and Z, and you will find your Dad's money".

The rub being, my Dad DID leave a codebook, and none of the family have been able to figure out what he meant. And there was about $10 grand missing from his accounts.

 

 

But. I am no longer interested in trying to get the stupid to see reason. So, y'all woo-hoo-ers get along with your bad selves.

Did I just get called a woo-hoo-er  lol

I'll add it to my collection.

I wasn't arguing mediums are real homie haha. 

[XenoFish]

5 minutes ago, Jodie.Lynne said:

Imagine, yes, let's daydream about what fun that would be!

You are missing the point. ALL of my grandparents died long before my parents even married. I never met any of them. I couldn't possibly be a 'favourite', since I didn't exist until long after they were gone.

And how frackin' difficult is it to state something like "I feel great love...."

I would be 100% convinced if a "psychic" said: "Jodie, the codebook means X, Y, and Z, and you will find your Dad's money".

The rub being, my Dad DID leave a codebook, and none of the family have been able to figure out what he meant. And there was about $10 grand missing from his accounts.

 

 

But. I am no longer interested in trying to get the stupid to see reason. So, y'all woo-hoo-ers get along with your bad selves.

You can even mislead them by giving false information. Tell them you're wondering if "Uncle Bob" successfully passed over, when you don't have an uncle bob in the family. The tool of that trade are hot and cold readings. 

[Jodie.Lynne]

4 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

Who is the official 'certifier' whose judgment everyone will accept?

How about if I have Lockheed ( my cute-as-a-bug dragon ) bite you on your bottom? Would that be proof enough of his existence?

At the risk of sounding pedantic, Evidence is evident.

If I drop an apple off the top floor of the Empire State Building, it is evidence of gravity, yes? It doesn't matter what your ethnic, religious, or political background is, it is e-v-I-d-e-n-c-e.

If I drop a lit match into a puddle of gasoline, does your bias prevent you from noting that gasoline is flammable?

If I claim to be able to levitate, using my mind powers, shouldn't the demonstration be convincing to everyone present? If not, why?

You, as I have stated elsewhere, are a believer in every out of the norm woocrap that is out there. You claim that you have the moral high ground because you are "open minded" to possibilities. In fact, you are extremely closed minded, because you disregard any real evidence that contradicts your beliefs. You are as bad as, if not worse than, the YEC.

[Jodie.Lynne]

13 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

LOL. I don't accept the Skeptics Dictionary as a reasonable source of information.

Of course not, because you reject every valid example of science and reality, in favor of your delusions.

[XenoFish]

Let's take someone like Wim Hof, though not supernatural he has trained his mind and body to handle extreme cold. Has been studied, and teaches his method. What he does is in my eyes a prime example of a mind-body connection. 

Shouldn't this also apply to those claiming supernatural abilities? 

I think self-regulatory methods can be learned by everyone. 

You would think that telekinesis which is the most objectively provable ability should be the same? 

Edited October 21, 2019 by XenoFish

[papageorge1]

3 minutes ago, Jodie.Lynne said:

How about if I have Lockheed ( my cute-as-a-bug dragon ) bite you on your bottom? Would that be proof enough of his existence?

At the risk of sounding pedantic, Evidence is evident.

If I drop an apple off the top floor of the Empire State Building, it is evidence of gravity, yes? It doesn't matter what your ethnic, religious, or political background is, it is e-v-I-d-e-n-c-e.

If I drop a lit match into a puddle of gasoline, does your bias prevent you from noting that gasoline is flammable?

If I claim to be able to levitate, using my mind powers, shouldn't the demonstration be convincing to everyone present? If not, why?

You, as I have stated elsewhere, are a believer in every out of the norm woocrap that is out there. You claim that you have the moral high ground because you are "open minded" to possibilities. In fact, you are extremely closed minded, because you disregard any real evidence that contradicts your beliefs. You are as bad as, if not worse than, the YEC.

Notice in all that you avoided the question posed: Who is the official 'certifier' whose judgment everyone will accept?

If I say the evidence is clear and convincing and you say it's not, how do we settle that? That was the gist of my question. We would just  disagree.

Debates on this stuff have been done a hundred times on here. Why repeat ourselves?

[papageorge1]

5 minutes ago, Jodie.Lynne said:

Of course not, because you reject every valid example of science and reality, in favor of your delusions.

I actually respect science but understand its current limitations.

[acute]

1 hour ago, Liquid Gardens said:

"It doesn't work that way"

© acute 2017.

Do not use without permission.

[Jodie.Lynne]

2 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

Who is the official 'certifier' whose judgment everyone will accept?

You are either too dense to get it, or are deliberately being obtuse.

 

IF a thing exists, or IS, there is no need for an 'arbiter' to decide. EVERYONE will see for themselves, yes? 

Gravity. Does it exist? Yes or No? 

It doesn't matter if you are a primitive bushman, or a nuclear scientist. You see that "things fall", doesn't matter if you know the formula, or not. You SEE it, you OBSERVE it. It IS a FACT.

 

Now demonstrate any of your theories, in a way as to be evident to all.

[acute]

Just now, Jodie.Lynne said:

Gravity. Does it exist? Yes or No? 

Not a good example! 

I believe there is an ongoing debate about gravity.

[XenoFish]

1 minute ago, acute said:

© acute 2017.

Do not use without permission.

You are the resident self-proclaimed psychic. Can you do a better job at explain psychic abilities than the others haven't? Are you willing to enlighten us? Yes or No, it's up to you. 

Do not give acute a hard time. I want this discussion to happen. 

[+OverSword]

2 hours ago, XenoFish said:

This has been something that has been pestering me for years now. I often read a claims of some extraordinary ability. Seeing ghost, telepathy, psychokinesis, etc. Whenever it is suggested that they offer to be studied, they refuse. Why? I mean if they can literally produce some supernatural/paranormal/psychic effect. Then they could change the worlds view on human biology and physics, yet nothing. It is almost if is the claim was false to begin with. So why bother making a claim in the first place? 

Do anyone else think about it this way?

How such abilities would benefit humanities view of nearly everything. And why supposed gifted people never change the skeptics minds. 

How many videos of a ghost have been posted on UM?  People have posted links to articles which include videos, photo's, eyewitness accounts.  That not evidence?  Most surely most of them are not real if not all our hoaxes, but if a real one or one that could not be disproved was posted you would never believe it so what is the point of you starting this thread?

[Jodie.Lynne]

6 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

I actually respect science but understand its current limitations.

No, you do not respect science. You disregard the scientific method of determining whether a thing is true or not, in favor of your supernatural bias.

 

Please demonstrate a way to falsify ghosts. Or ESP. Or telekinetics.

[+OverSword]

37 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

Actually at the University of Arizona (Dr. Gary Schwartz and colleagues) addressed this very problem of proving mediums to a scientific community. They actually showed something anomalous is going on in double-blind controlled studies constructed to allow odds against chance analysis. 

The basic idea was for psychics to read people they couldn't even see and compare the accuracy to random people. The test requires rather gifted psychics and was successful statistically sometimes to a dramatic degree. 

link?

[XenoFish]

1 minute ago, OverSword said:

How many videos of a ghost have been posted on UM?  People have posted links to articles which include videos, photo's, eyewitness accounts.  That not evidence?  Most surely most of them are not real if not all our hoaxes, but if a real one or one that could not be disproved was posted you would never believe it so what is the point of you starting this thread?

I posted it because I can. It started out with the premise of why psychics and those claiming supernatural powers do not prove it, do not help science explore what they can do. Because it sounds more like a lie than real. 

[Jodie.Lynne]

1 minute ago, OverSword said:

but if a real one or one that could not be disproved was posted you would never believe it so what is the point of you starting this thread?

If it couldn't be disproved, or conversely, couldn't be proved to be a hoax, or misidentified, that would go towards proving that there was 'something' beyond our science.