So you cant prve me wrong Kendra? That must mean i am right by your own admission then?
pillsbury0 said:
At the same time it is up to you to state what you base your statement on. What facts do you have to support your claim in this specific case only?
Well going by Kendras logic i dont need to state anything. But the fact I have witnessed Kendra work, and have had numerous readings from her, I have come to the above conclusions, for the sake of this point
I am not assuming anything, i am stating that kendra IS a fraud, and out of everyone on this forum i am most qualified to state that, due to the time i spent with her, the readings i have received, and also my knowledge of the subject.
the sceptic/believer arguement cannot be one sided, It is time that those on the sceptic/cynic/non believer /whatever else you want to call it side of the fence back up their claims with proof as well.
I have made a claim, it is now up to Kendra or anyone else to prove me wrong. Going by Kendras logic, i do not need to prove I am right, and the fact kendra cannot prove me wrong, therefore means that my statement is true, without me providing any proof whatsoever.
Wow that was easy.
Hell why dont all the sceptics start using this believer logic! it would make our lives so much easier.
No no noooo Jonnykins...not this time... Sceppies presume it is ok to not have to offer proof of their belief etc...Why dont you actually do something that no sceppie has ever probably done before... Go on..have a go..what have you got to loose? Without trying to turn this thread around as normally happens on BP...go on...I dare ya...
So you cant prve me wrong Kendra? That must mean i am right by your own admission then?
pillsbury0 said:
At the same time it is up to you to state what you base your statement on. What facts do you have to support your claim in this specific case only?
Well going by Kendras logic i dont need to state anything. But the fact I have witnessed Kendra work, and have had numerous readings from her, I have come to the above conclusions, for the sake of this point
I am not assuming anything, i am stating that kendra IS a fraud, and out of everyone on this forum i am most qualified to state that, due to the time i spent with her, the readings i have received, and also my knowledge of the subject.
the sceptic/believer arguement cannot be one sided, It is time that those on the sceptic/cynic/non believer /whatever else you want to call it side of the fence back up their claims with proof as well.
I have made a claim, it is now up to Kendra or anyone else to prove me wrong. Going by Kendras logic, i do not need to prove I am right, and the fact kendra cannot prove me wrong, therefore means that my statement is true, without me providing any proof whatsoever.
Wow that was easy.
Hell why dont all the sceptics start using this believer logic! it would make our lives so much easier.
Ok, so when you have stated time and time again quite rightly I am not a fraud,doe sthat mean you are now lieing or was then?
Post by Mr. Jon Donnis on Jan 14, 2007 23:28:32 GMT
kendra said:
No no noooo Jonnykins...not this time... Sceppies presume it is ok to not have to offer proof of their belief etc...Why dont you actually do something that no sceppie has ever probably done before... Go on..have a go..what have you got to loose? Without trying to turn this thread around as normally happens on BP...go on...I dare ya...
So do you accept that because you can offer no proof to prove me wrong that you are in fact a fraud by your own logic?
Ok, so when you have stated time and time again quite rightly I am not a fraud,does that mean you are now lieing or was then?
For the sake of the point i am so excellently making, i have just decided now that my previous opinions of you were wrong.
So again, can you prove my statement wrong? Yes or no?
And if you cannot, do you accept by your own reasoning that you are a fraud?
A bad ass who will beat you like he's using the fists of god.
I am gonna leave this convo now, as it is getting a bit silly, i am more fascinated by the other thread to be honest.
Kendra, find me a dodgy claim by Randi andi will try and investigating it
Jon, I am a believer...so ,majority of peeps I know are believers...do you really think anyone is going to take a claim by a believer seriously against Randi? And its not getting silly... You tell us time and time again to re-evaluate what we believe to be true and any individuals we deem to be experts/mentors and so on. I 'm just asking the same of sceptics..what is so silly in that?
And its not getting silly... You tell us time and time again to re-evaluate what we believe to be true and any individuals we deem to be experts/mentors and so on. I 'm just asking the same of sceptics..what is so silly in that?
Nothing at all Kendra.
'When the going gets tough, the tough get going' apparently.
Inky....would you say that believers/mediums etc etc go more so on experience or evidence?
Good question.
I would say that 'believers' (and I'm talking right across the board now from psychics to those who believe in alternative medicine etc.) reach their conclusions almost exclusively through personal experience.
If they have experienced something for themselves then they know it's true and that's it. If scientific studies show that what they believe in is not true then they simply dismiss the scientific findings!
Now, personal experience can be a powerful convincer as we have no inbuilt mechanism to compare what we experience to something else. We do not have an inbuilt ‘control condition’ or baseline. Therefore, when we experience something, we have to take it ‘on faith’ that our brain has constructed an accurate representation of reality.
That’s where the problem lies. It is well known, mainly though studies in cognitive psychology, that what we experience and the conclusions we jump to, are often not a very good representation of what is real. In other words: our senses of perception and reality are fallible; we just don’t realise it.
It should be obvious now that this situation is a recipe for drawing false conclusions about things (!)
This is why science developed the randomised controlled trial (RCT) to test things out. Tests have to be designed to remove all of these human biases from testing so that we can find what is actually real from what appears to be real.
And just to expand the point…
Notice how people react to questions about beliefs such as psychic ability (but particularly about things like ‘energy healing’). If you say that there’s no scientific evidence to show that it works the usual reply is: “have you tried it for yourself?”
Their entire line of reasoning is based on personal anecdote. What they are basically saying is that personal experience is far more important that scientific evidence. I’m arguing that this is absolutely wrong as we have so many inbuilt cognitive biases (errors of reasoning and perception etc.) that we are very prone to reaching false conclusions.
In short, we’re often far too willing to believe in the infallibility of our senses. That’s why we often end up believing in things that just ain’t so.
Jon, I am a believer...so ,majority of peeps I know are believers...do you really think anyone is going to take a claim by a believer seriously against Randi? And its not getting silly... You tell us time and time again to re-evaluate what we believe to be true and any individuals we deem to be experts/mentors and so on. I 'm just asking the same of sceptics..what is so silly in that?
What's silly is that you're STILL approaching it from the wrong angle. As Jon said, find and present some evidence that Randi is a fraud and that will give us sceptics something to evaluate. Sceptics cannot evaluate such a vague statement as "James Randi is a fraud".
We can state that Derek Acorah is a fraud because of evidence gathered over the years. His claims sounded dodgy to start off with, and were fully compliant with what is known about cold reading. Further investigation has more or less proved this.
It's not a case of not wanting to find evidence that Randi is a fraud. If he's a fraud in any sense, he deserves to be exposed in the same way as anyone else. But until something a bit more substantial than "he's a fraud" is put on the table, there's nothing to investigate!
I fail to see why this simple concept cannot be grasped.
EDIT: removed certainty in the paragraph about Derek, as there is no such thing as 100% certainty in science.
Post by Mr. Jon Donnis on Jan 15, 2007 10:46:10 GMT
cheyanne71 said:
And its not getting silly... You tell us time and time again to re-evaluate what we believe to be true and any individuals we deem to be experts/mentors and so on. I 'm just asking the same of sceptics..what is so silly in that?
Nothing at all Kendra.
'When the going gets tough, the tough get going' apparently.
In fact the Inquisitor is handling this discussion very well, much beter than me in fact, so I thought i would leave it to him.
As for your input into the discussion, well other than a dig at me what have you actually done?
A bad ass who will beat you like he's using the fists of god.
I think,and i am happy to be told if i am wrong,what Kendra is saying is that believers are constally told by sceptics to re evaluate their beliefs. Retest experiences,look at events in a different manner,sceptically,never accept anything on a face value. Not just one example but anything and everything that has brought them to their conclusion in a belief in SOME paranormal events and or beliefs. I believe that Kendra is simply asking any sceptic to do the same. Look at what events,personal experiences,they work both ways,research ,study etc that brought them to the conclusion that Randi is what he professes to be. A serious investigator into paranormal or physic events and claims. Sceptics on here continually question believers on that belief often asking what event,happening,study,anything led them to a conclusion. The same believers often see there replies dismissed or rubbished. I feel she is imply asking any sceptic on here to carry out the same exercise using Randi's as a focus to have any sceptic justify and explain there decision that Randi is,to coin a phrase,the real dollar. Till now either the sceptics posting did not understand that or chose to ignore it. Unless of course they see no reason why they should proof it to a believer.
Inky....would you say that believers/mediums etc etc go more so on experience or evidence?
Good question.
I would say that 'believers' (and I'm talking right across the board now from psychics to those who believe in alternative medicine etc.) reach their conclusions almost exclusively through personal experience.
If they have experienced something for themselves then they know it's true and that's it. If scientific studies show that what they believe in is not true then they simply dismiss the scientific findings!
Now, personal experience can be a powerful convincer as we have no inbuilt mechanism to compare what we experience to something else. We do not have an inbuilt ‘control condition’ or baseline. Therefore, when we experience something, we have to take it ‘on faith’ that our brain has constructed an accurate representation of reality.
That’s where the problem lies. It is well known, mainly though studies in cognitive psychology, that what we experience and the conclusions we jump to, are often not a very good representation of what is real. In other words: our senses of perception and reality are fallible; we just don’t realise it.
It should be obvious now that this situation is a recipe for drawing false conclusions about things (!)
This is why science developed the randomised controlled trial (RCT) to test things out. Tests have to be designed to remove all of these human biases from testing so that we can find what is actually real from what appears to be real.
And just to expand the point…
Notice how people react to questions about beliefs such as psychic ability (but particularly about things like ‘energy healing’). If you say that there’s no scientific evidence to show that it works the usual reply is: “have you tried it for yourself?”
Their entire line of reasoning is based on personal anecdote. What they are basically saying is that personal experience is far more important that scientific evidence. I’m arguing that this is absolutely wrong as we have so many inbuilt cognitive biases (errors of reasoning and perception etc.) that we are very prone to reaching false conclusions.
In short, we’re often far too willing to believe in the infallibility of our senses. That’s why we often end up believing in things that just ain’t so.
So.....how would you suggest individuals that experience something they deem life changing go about finding out if their experiences(majority personal) were real? If someone experienced something,whatever it was...they were probably on their own when it happend. That in itself is a huge problem for there are no witnesses. Even if they were to ask others for their input...how can it truly be known if it were real or not?..I have said time and time again that just because something can be reinacted does not mean 100% that is how it originally happend. So,in all seriousness Inky...what would you suggest?
I think,and i am happy to be told if i am wrong,what Kendra is saying is that believers are constally told by sceptics to re evaluate their beliefs. Retest experiences,look at events in a different manner,sceptically,never accept anything on a face value. Not just one example but anything and everything that has brought them to their conclusion in a belief in SOME paranormal events and or beliefs. I believe that Kendra is simply asking any sceptic to do the same. Look at what events,personal experiences,they work both ways,research ,study etc that brought them to the conclusion that Randi is what he professes to be. A serious investigator into paranormal or physic events and claims. Sceptics on here continually question believers on that belief often asking what event,happening,study,anything led them to a conclusion. The same believers often see there replies dismissed or rubbished. I feel she is imply asking any sceptic on here to carry out the same exercise using Randi's as a focus to have any sceptic justify and explain there decision that Randi is,to coin a phrase,the real dollar. Till now either the sceptics posting did not understand that or chose to ignore it. Unless of course they see no reason why they should proof it to a believer.
Ok,lets try this one more time shall we... I am simply asking for one sceppie on here to look at Randi from a different angle(just from investigation purposes. And they themselves seek out to find proof that Randi is all that he claims to be.. That is it..That is all I really dont see why no sceppie is willing to pick up the gauntlet and try.. What is the problem in somoene doing that?
Jon, I am a believer...so ,majority of peeps I know are believers...do you really think anyone is going to take a claim by a believer seriously against Randi? And its not getting silly... You tell us time and time again to re-evaluate what we believe to be true and any individuals we deem to be experts/mentors and so on. I 'm just asking the same of sceptics..what is so silly in that?
What's silly is that you're STILL approaching it from the wrong angle. As Jon said, find and present some evidence that Randi is a fraud and that will give us sceptics something to evaluate. Sceptics cannot evaluate such a vague statement as "James Randi is a fraud".
We can state that Derek Acorah is a fraud because of evidence gathered over the years. His claims sounded dodgy to start off with, and were fully compliant with what is known about cold reading. Further investigation has more or less proved this.
It's not a case of not wanting to find evidence that Randi is a fraud. If he's a fraud in any sense, he deserves to be exposed in the same way as anyone else. But until something a bit more substantial than "he's a fraud" is put on the table, there's nothing to investigate!
I fail to see why this simple concept cannot be grasped.
EDIT: removed certainty in the paragraph about Derek, as there is no such thing as 100% certainty in science.
Ok,have chnaged angle as no one is willing to play ball from the other posting I made.. Please see above
