lilydapink
Sperm
Spiritual Angels Forum Member
Posts: 70
|
Post by lilydapink on Feb 6, 2007 11:58:50 GMT
Has anybody ever wondered why these celebrity mediums ie Derek Acorah, Colin Fry etc have never taken up the challenge set to them by Parapsycholigists the likes of Matthew Smith to take tests of their supposed mediumship under controlled conditions, if they are genuine mediums i'd have thought they would only be too happy to prove these people wrong.
|
|
|
|
Post by shazzz on Feb 6, 2007 13:03:34 GMT
There is a thread on here at the moment about this and the answer is, its not as simple and easy than just doing a test.......
Sorry I cant go into great detail, but the way this thread will go is, sceptics will say thats a cop out and of course you can do the tests and the mediums will say that sceptics dont know what mediumships involves and so a test is not that simple......
|
|
|
|
Post by Mr. Jon Donnis on Feb 6, 2007 14:59:21 GMT
Simple answer, fakes dont take tests
|
|
|
|
Post by shazzz on Feb 6, 2007 15:01:11 GMT
no Jon thats your answer
|
|
|
|
Post by lowrider on Feb 6, 2007 15:46:24 GMT
I rather thought the point of a test was to go some way to exposing fakes.
Of course when anyone thinking of taking any test is faced with a hostile exaniner who has already made up their mind ,why bother.
|
|
|
|
Post by aliennation345 on Feb 6, 2007 15:55:42 GMT
Simple answer, fakes dont take tests I was reading an article on a website that proclaims that Derek Acorah said he had taken such a test, but it was found he had not! so does that make him a fake then? |
|
|
|
Post by Mr. Jon Donnis on Feb 6, 2007 17:24:07 GMT
yes
|
|
|
|
Post by minniemouse on Feb 7, 2007 0:24:52 GMT
really - if any of them took the test or not. Those who do not believe wouldn't believe the results anyway. They'd come up with anything to question the results..saying they were fixed, rigged etc.
So, what's the point.
To me seeing is believing and I have seen the work of more than one medium. Some I didn't think were that authentic, others were spot on.
Zita
|
|
|
|
Post by Mr. Jon Donnis on Feb 7, 2007 8:53:59 GMT
You really dont understand scientific method do you.
That is an exposure of your own ignorance.
We have repeatable tests for a reason, so that operator bias can be removed, psychics fail tests because they are not really psychic.
In history not one single psychic has had success in repeatable peer reviewed tests.
This is nothing to do with people not believing, it doesnt work like that.
As for the really idiotic seeing is believing statement, well that again exposes your ignorance.
MILLIONS of people SAW the statue of liberty vanish, yet we KNOW it didnt.
BILLIONS of people have witnessed the moon enlarged when near the horizon, yet science can explain this "moon illusion"
SO no "seeing is believing" is an ignorant belief based on a lack of understanding.
|
|
|
|
Post by lowrider on Feb 7, 2007 10:17:24 GMT
Jon. b***cks.  You don't really understand people do you. "That is an exposure of your own ignorance". We have debated many times on this board and the majority of people have expressed a view that only a PERSONAL experience would truly convince them. Anything else they would have doubts about. It don't matter how many or how you do any tests.  How many times have you heard people ranting on that scientists know nothing,this is good for you one week bad for you the next ,my granny lived to 90 eating only lard,drinking stout and smoking 80 ciggies a day. ;D Most people do not fully trust science and some bloke in a white coat saying " yep we can speak to the dead" will not alter the majority of people opinions. Humans are funny buggers. |
|
|
|
Post by biscanbul on Feb 7, 2007 10:38:17 GMT
I totally agree with Lowrider that in many situations, particularly paranormal or supernatural ones, a personal experience is all that may truly convince someone.
However, for many things we have to accept that science does have many of the answers. Just take a number of the "day-to-day" things that we take for granted, yet science has explained the principles behind them and allowed them to be conceived, designed and manufactured.
For example, a mobile phone or a television (analog signal). People believe that electromagnetic waves of different energies and wavelengths pass through the air and allow them to watch TV, use a mobile phone, but no-one has every actually seen these waves and it is impossible to do so given our current understanding of science. However, we can infer their existence from what the waves allow us to do.
Science is all based on theories, best guess and analysis of the evidence. Everything which science has so far "proven" is there ready to be knocked off its pedestal. That is the beauty of it.
Regarding personal health and the effect of different substances breathed or imbibed into the body, there is a large body of evidence that many things are of harm, but different people (both within and without demographics) exhibit a wide range of tolerances for such substances. You may hear of someones' grandmother living until 90 drinking stout and smoking 40 a day for the last seven decades, but how many more cases of liver damage, lung cancer, etc. do you hear of?
If a team of scientists (or teams of scientists) produced huge quantities of evidence that humans could talk to the dead, which was verifiable in every way and totally repeatable, of course people would have to take it seriously. Yet, when you compare "hard science" such as how a mobile phone works with what I tend to call "soft science" such as that found in humans (e.g. how diseases and disorders appear and what causes them) there are such a huge number of variables that the rigorous scientific methodology applied to many systems, whereby one variable at a time is changed, cannot be done with human systems. Because talking to the dead invariably will involve humans, you have to "muddy the waters" and deal with individual capabilities and personalities. Therefore, it becomes much more difficult to "prove" anything to a reasonable degree of confidence.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mr. Jon Donnis on Feb 7, 2007 13:52:31 GMT
Nice post biscanbull, you seem to be a very intelligent person.
|
|
|
|
Post by biscanbul on Feb 7, 2007 14:26:49 GMT
I try my best. I read around subjects as thoroughly as I possibly can (time and money permitting).
|
|
|
|
Post by Mr. Jon Donnis on Feb 7, 2007 18:29:57 GMT
You actually remind me of someone i used to know, he was a bit of a CHOColate fan, but in the end we found out he liked BOTTY so we stopped talking to him
|
|
|
|
Post by lowrider on Feb 7, 2007 20:16:05 GMT
You actually remind me of someone i used to know, he was a bit of a CHOColate fan, but in the end we found out he liked BOTTY so we stopped talking to him  |
|
lilydapink
Sperm
Spiritual Angels Forum Member
Posts: 70
|
Post by lilydapink on Feb 7, 2007 22:06:38 GMT
You actually remind me of someone i used to know, he was a bit of a CHOColate fan, but in the end we found out he liked BOTTY so we stopped talking to him Why did you stop talking to him just because he was gay Jon, your not homophobic on top of everything else are you... |
|
jomarie
Egg
nosy old bugger
Posts: 212
|
Post by jomarie on Feb 7, 2007 22:14:17 GMT
You actually remind me of someone i used to know, he was a bit of a CHOColate fan, but in the end we found out he liked BOTTY so we stopped talking to him Why did you stop talking to him just because he was gay Jon, your not homophobic on top of everything else are you... Jon's alot of things, but he's not homophobic 
|
|
|
|
Post by Mr. Jon Donnis on Feb 7, 2007 23:40:09 GMT
You actually remind me of someone i used to know, he was a bit of a CHOColate fan, but in the end we found out he liked BOTTY so we stopped talking to him Why did you stop talking to him just because he was gay Jon, your not homophobic on top of everything else are you... Lol, no. I know Biscanbul, I was best man at his wedding, my comments were an in joke between us. And what do you mean "on top of everything else" |
|
|
|
Post by Me on Feb 8, 2007 0:46:14 GMT
You actually remind me of someone i used to know, he was a bit of a CHOColate fan, but in the end we found out he liked BOTTY so we stopped talking to him |
|
|
|
Post by Me on Feb 8, 2007 0:46:41 GMT
You actually remind me of someone i used to know, he was a bit of a CHOColate fan, but in the end we found out he liked BOTTY so we stopped talking to him Why did you stop talking to him just because he was gay Jon, your not homophobic on top of everything else are you... ;D |
|
