Does that mean then???...that serious sceptics are not of the opinion that mediumship .the paranormal etc is not possible,just that it is improbable?
Absolutely.
All you have to do is provide the evidence, and we'll believe*. But that evidence will have to be as water-tight as, say, the theory of evolution, the heliocentric solar system, etc...
Surely it's not a big ask, given how common psychic abilities seem to be? If we can prove that the Earth goes around the sun and that mankind evolved over billions of years from single-celled organisms, surely it can't be THAT difficult to provide proof that mediumship is real...
* EDIT: I should point out that there's a bit more to it than that - the evidence must be peer-reviewed and demonstrable, repeatable, etc... and must be compared against known fraudulent techniques. There's no reason why it should have any less treatment than any other scientific theory.
Ahh but you see this is where the problem is... So very many TV mediums etc would have us believe that you can turn get the spirit world jigging around etc at command. You simply cannot.. So many different things rely upon the situation when the medium is being tested. Being tested for example,being put under stress,knowing you re being judged changes then the mediums natural flow. There has to be physical changes that occur within the medium...Thats not taking into account also the mental pressure also..
Put yourself in a mediums position..You have absolute faith,absolute belief,but you know as well as anyone anything can swing both ways. Your under a test condition,whether in a lab or not is irrelevant. Just absolutely loads of things are going on inside that head..the same head that needs to do the translating of the message etc that is being given.
You doubt the info by scrutinising it,wanting something far more solid as such..forgetting the message isn't for you its for that person..yet you will still dismiss,and scroll through the info your receiving,dismissing tons..
Just not a normal situation to be in,also it is so bloody important that the person who is doing the testing knows the intricacies and has understanding (not just basic) of how mediumship is meant to work.
And why do you go through such hell....because you want to sincerely do well not just for the test,but for the person you are giving that message to, and for yourself,knowing how important it is to get exact info,you end up giving inaccurate info because your trying to ensure exact info is being given.
I understand this issue, but now put yourself in the position of the scientist/sceptic trying to investigate those claims.
They simply cannot accept the medium's word as proof. As in every single other aspect of science, there needs to be something concrete, something tangible that they can work with. There needs to be something that they can put on the table in front of other scientists who will be able to confirm or deny based on that evidence.
I think the Inquistor said earlier that mediumship is based on personal beliefs - that's not something scientists can test. However, TLE, hallucinations, etc... ARE things that can be tested, and have shown to produce effects similar to what mediums describe.
So, staying in the sceptics shoes, on the one hand, you have something that is completely untestable and must rely on the word of the medium, compared to on the other hand all the documented scientific evidence from psychology, neurology, etc... which can be used to explain mediumship and other psychic abilities. Forgetting for a moment that you are a medium, which would you choose?
This is why I say that no scientist will give you a 100% definite answer. Scientists can't completely rule out the possibility that psychic abilities exist, but they can narrow down the probability that it exists through more and more tests on psychology, neurology and all the other 'ologies!
Fry: Hey, wait, I'm having one of those things…you know, a headache with pictures. Leela: An idea?
It's the message that should be tested - not the messenger. I have no doubt that may mediums do ''receive'' messages - but from where?. That, unfortunately can never be tested so this old argument will go on...and on...and on... and................!
It's the message that should be tested - not the messenger. I have no doubt that may mediums do ''receive'' messages - but from where?. That, unfortunately can never be tested so this old argument will go on...and on...and on... and................!
Understand and agree to an extent with what your saying Mesmo...but as long as there are meidums there will be sceppies..at least this may be one way of getting the two to unite and hey who knows...maybe..just maybe
Hang on, we know that sceptics exist, but we have yet to prove that mediums do.
What is the criteria to be a medium? Just to say "I am a medium"
I dont think so, for someone to claim to be a medium they must have the ability to communicate with the dead.
So strictly speaking there is yet to be a single medium ever found. Doesnt mean they dont exist, just means we have yet to find one.
And it is my opinion that Kendra is not a medium
Yup wonderful ,super dooper I am not a medium..now thats cleared that up
So you gonna look into Randi then Jon?
Ive tried reading this thread over and over, but I have no idea what we are supposed to be investigating Randi for.... I would gladly take your challenge Kendra, if you can give me a clue as to what I'm supposed to be looking for.
I don't mind who I investigate, Higgs, Randi, Hinn... But I need a start point! Am I looking to see if his claim of being a sceptic is false? If that were the case I would need to find out if he secretly believed in the paranormal and that could be tricky. Other than that, I'm at a loss.
But, tell me what you want Kendra, and I shall do my best to find it. I'm not a "believer" in Randi, he's just a bloke who doesn't believe in the paranormal, so fair game for an investigation as far as I'm concerned. Just as long as there is something to investigate!
If you have an idea that he's not all he appears to be, tell me what it is, and if there is proof of that, I shall find it.
As for your input into the discussion, well other than a dig at me what have you actually done?
I only came across this topic yesterday Jon. Some of us don't actually spend our whole lives on the forum, we have other things to do and in my case I have been travelling. Does that answer your query? And why are you always on the defensive when someone posts their view of how a topic is being handled? Seems it's ok for you to make remarks but not for others, bit one sided I feel.
It's my opinion that you are backing off from providing proof that Kendra has asked for, proof that you have requested from believers in the past.
You have also stated in the past that you welcome debate and people disagreeing with your stance so why do YOU take everything so personally.
I know this post was aimed at Jon specifically, but one point...
cheyanne71 said:
It's my opinion that you are backing off from providing proof that Kendra has asked for, proof that you have requested from believers in the past.
Kendra has not asked for any proof. Kendra has set a challenge, and refuses to co-operate with follow-up questions that myself and several other people have asked - if there is something to investigate James Randi for, something a bit more substantial than "he's a cheat/fraud/whatever" is required. It's not wriggling out of the question or challenge by any means. It's just asking a reasonable question. It's actually part of the investigation.
Here's a counter-challenge for Kendra (and anyone else who wants to take it up).
Despite all the evidence to the contrary, the Earth does not revolve around the sun. Go and find me the evidence to back that up.
Fry: Hey, wait, I'm having one of those things…you know, a headache with pictures. Leela: An idea?
Post by Mr. Jon Donnis on Jan 16, 2007 10:47:58 GMT
cheyanne71 said:
I only came across this topic yesterday Jon. Some of us don't actually spend our whole lives on the forum, we have other things to do and in my case I have been travelling. Does that answer your query? And why are you always on the defensive when someone posts their view of how a topic is being handled? Seems it's ok for you to make remarks but not for others, bit one sided I feel.
Because your post was not part of any discussion, it was just a blind attack on me, if youhad been part of the conversation, or even become part of it, then you can make any comment you wish, instead you saw a chance to attack and did it without reason.
It's my opinion that you are backing off from providing proof that Kendra has asked for, proof that you have requested from believers in the past.
Proof of what? Are you really that dumb?
She has just said "Go prove Randi is a fraud" Thats it, she needs to give us something to investigate.
I already KNOW that Randi cant really bend metal with his mind, i know he is a magician, what am i supposed to investigate? Kendra hasnt actually stated anything for us to look at.
You have also stated in the past that you welcome debate and people disagreeing with your stance so why do YOU take everything so personally.
I take it personally when it is an unwarrented attack from someone.
Hell everyone attacks me, i am not bothered, but when someones ONLY input into a multipage debate is just an attack on me, well it pissed me off.
The fact you have not been banned for your ignorance has shown that I am willing to give you a chance to become part of the debate.
Why do you have to just tag onto someone like Kendra i dont know.
She does all the hard work, all the debate, the arguments, she is the one who "takes on the sceppies" and then you come along, jump on her bandwagon and think that you are her equal.
Stop being a sheep, be a shepherd like Kendra.
Yes she is an infuriating, annoying red head, but at least she doesnt hide behind a "bigger" pesonality only to jump out and attack when she sees the chance.
You are what we like to call a Noob.
Why dont YOU start a thread, a debate, you be the instigator of a discussion, instead of sucking the blood off people like Kendra
A bad ass who will beat you like he's using the fists of god.
Because your post was not part of any discussion, it was just a blind attack on me,
It was a reasonable response to an ongoing debate, a discussion I had only come across on that day. I didn't know there were set rules about not being able to post a comment no matter if you hadn' t been a part of that discussion from the onset. Are you telling me I have no right to enter a discussion and post my point of view at a later stage?
Are you really that dumb?
is that not a personal attack on me?
The fact you have not been banned for your ignorance has shown that I am willing to give you a chance to become part of the debate.
that's the second time you have threatened me with being banned Jon just because you disagreed with what I said. I seem to remember you posting not long ago that you are very thick skinned and it takes an awful lot to rile you and you welcome a good argument. I don't think my post warrants such harsh treatment but it's your perogative Jon!
You are what we like to call a Noob.
your point being?
Why dont YOU start a thread, a debate, you be the instigator of a discussion, instead of sucking the blood off people like Kendra
I will start a thread when there is something interesting to start a discussion about, not just for the sake of it! I don't suck the blood of anybody.
Yup wonderful ,super dooper I am not a medium..now thats cleared that up
So you gonna look into Randi then Jon?
Ive tried reading this thread over and over, but I have no idea what we are supposed to be investigating Randi for.... I would gladly take your challenge Kendra, if you can give me a clue as to what I'm supposed to be looking for.
I don't mind who I investigate, Higgs, Randi, Hinn... But I need a start point! Am I looking to see if his claim of being a sceptic is false? If that were the case I would need to find out if he secretly believed in the paranormal and that could be tricky. Other than that, I'm at a loss.
But, tell me what you want Kendra, and I shall do my best to find it. I'm not a "believer" in Randi, he's just a bloke who doesn't believe in the paranormal, so fair game for an investigation as far as I'm concerned. Just as long as there is something to investigate!
If you have an idea that he's not all he appears to be, tell me what it is, and if there is proof of that, I shall find it.
Cool...at last someone who will give it a go... Basically to see Randi as a fraud,setting tests as he wants them,altering the results..etc etc
I typed into Google "is James Randi a fraud?" and it came up with 1,100,000 pages, now rather than spend all eternity reading every one I took three examples of people claiming he is a fraud from the first page. I have no opinion on whether he is or not as I am still digesting the info,but most of the fraud claim is based on how he has refused to test certain people and will set specific tests for each individual and so the "moving the goalposts " suggestion is repeated regularly. The three pages I found are as follows:
Remember, credophiles have a seemingly pathological need to discredit Randi and the JREF challenge. They need to discredit Randi as an excuse for not applying for the challenge. Don't underestimate that point.
I didn't read any of the articles in depth as I've seen them before and they are not from credible sources.
I mean RENSE!!!
We're looking for a reason to investigate Randi for fraud; not to find out that credophiles don't like him.
Thats why I said that the fraud claim was based on his setting of specific tests for each individual and his refusing to test certain people because he thinks they are complete idiots. I didnt see anything that shows he is a fraud, I was just showing some of the claims against him and the only reason seems to be that he rightly refuses to have a one size fits all policy for those who claim these talents. I have never seen anything that shows any suggestion of fraud from Randi personally .
i147.Report this post to Admin please.com/albums/r281/PILLSBURY069/avatar_3247DOUGHBOY.gif[/IMG]
Doesnt Randi actually allow the challengers to choose their own independent scientists, as well as one appointed by him in a double blind test for the challenge?? If that is the case and I am sure it is..then the challengers should put up or shut up.
Does anyone else think this is a bit of a strawman from Kendra?
