NationStates Jolt Archive

Do you believe that psychics and telapaths exist? Why or why not?

I know it's a short question but still, I feel this will turn into a decent discussion.

No. Because.

Psychic = Scam Artist.

Every "psychic" uses cold or hot reading techniques to fool the recipient into believing their vague and worthless "information" or "predictions" come from "the other side", "spirit guides" or other bullshit. They do not care about the people they hurt - they only want your money.

Check out this site: http://www.randi.org/

Do you believe that psychics and telapaths exist? Why or why not?

I know it's a short question but still, I feel this will turn into a decent discussion.
But of course...After all...
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/e/ed/Shawn_Spencer.jpg
I'm a psychic.


Seriously though, of course not. And if you're foolish enough to, please read this:

http://www.hardsf.org/HSFPTelp.htm

Also this:

http://www.hardsf.org/HSFPEvol.htm

That ought to cover everything.

(For that matter, just plain read the stuff on that site. It's very interesting.)

Psychics no, if you're talking about predicting the future then simply no, it's a scam.

Depending on how you define telepathy then perhaps. I certainly don't think hearing another person's inner monologue is possible but we do pick up on emotions through a myriad of senses.

The brain gives off electrical activity, heightened by excitement or emotion, I'd be surprised if we don't, in some way, pick up and translate these. Beyond that we also emit pheromones.

It may be that further study and better sensors might detect patterns in this electrical activity that narrow down the type of emotion.

I wouldn't mind some assistance in reading people, if that comes from software and sensors on my mobile phone, I'm fine with that.

I believe there are people who have particularly heightened senses, and can read body language, facial expression, tone of voice, emotion, etc. better than others, and have a more developed sense of intuition.

Lets put it this way, there is a reason you've never seen the headline "Psychic wins Powerball Millions" and why the Psychic Friends Network went bankrupt (you'd have thought they'd see it coming).

I believe there are people who have particularly heightened senses, and can read body language, facial expression, tone of voice, emotion, etc. better than others, and have a more developed sense of intuition.

Indeed, though I doubt it's an inherent ability, it's simply more important for them to do so.

Middle children probably have a higher than average ability overall because they're often required to do so as they seek to be noticed, they also tend to be observers. Youngest children in families of 4 or more may also have this.

Everyone's an individual of course, point being that I suspect everyone has similar abilities should they be required to develop them.

Do you believe that psychics and telapaths exist? Why or why not?

I knew you were going to ask that. *nods knowingly*

*edit* OK, I'll be serious. Astrology is a heap of hooey. I have yet to see a psychic who used truly supernatural power, and I haven't seen any evidence supporting telepathy except for some anecdotal evidence from people who want to believe in it. I have seen people who use amazing observational skills to reach conclusions that are almost 'psychic', but entirely through their well-trained natural abilities.

I believe there are people who have particularly heightened senses, and can read body language, facial expression, tone of voice, emotion, etc. better than others, and have a more developed sense of intuition.

That's what we call hyper attentive/observant, and it's very useful, especially when combined with an eidetic memory.

It's also the closest to reality that telepathy/whatever will ever get to.

Princeton spent about 20+ years looking for psychic powers and stuff. As far as I know all they found is that human minds may be able to effect random statistical processes, but only to a barely detectable degree. Even then the data has been highly criticized.

The effect is so small though it rules out things like predicting the future or telepathy or telekinesis. Personally I think they stuffed the experiments up to be honest.

If I was doing experiments to find psychics, I'd use the Bill Murray technique from Ghostbusters.

If I was doing experiments to find psychics, I'd use the Bill Murray technique from Ghostbusters.

Assuming it was still the 80s, I too would look for psychics by seducing Sigourney Weaver.

Not so much now though.

My thoughts:

On the one hand, I don't find anyone who claims to have psychic powers to be credible. This goes triple for impossible stuff, like predicting the future.

On the other hand, there's a lot of experimental evidence to suggest that humans may have some sort of latent abilities. Some animals (such as sharks) can sense electrical fields generated by other living beings. While this is WAY outside my area of expertise, it seems possible to me that if humans possessed this ability, they could refine it to sense emotions by noting which parts of the brain are more active. Genetic engineering might be able to activate such abilities.

Do you believe that psychics and telapaths exist? Why or why not?


Psychics, in the meaning of people suffering from psychiatric diseases, do exist.
Anyway, the so-called psi-powers etc do not, I think.

Arguments against:
1.No one has ever been able to show "psychic powers" under laboratory supervision.
2.Most "psychic powers" have been debunked as theatrical tricks or as illusions by skepticals' organisations (like the italian CICAP, italian commitee controlling claims of paranormal activities, which includes scientists, science journalists, and professional illusionists and prestidigitators)
3.No one has ever given a reliable explanation (not even an hint) about HOW said psi-powers are supposed to work. Electromagnetical fields of the brain? Too weak, and waveform disruption even at short range (so good-bye information).

Ok, it's nice to picture psi-powers, magic etc, but one should keep in his mind that there's a difference between fantasy and reality.

*reads first post*
*closes eyes and concentrates*

The vast majority of responses will say "No."

Telepathic talents are simply useless in the face of a population that is easily manipulated by conservative media outlets and Reality Television. They're practically obsolete.

I knew this thread was coming.

I knew this thread was coming.

Of course you did LG. *pies*

I'm on the fence as to whether my stereo turned on this morning because I dreamed of music, because I was sleepwalking, or because one of my neighbors has a remote on the same frequency. The first is the most appealing.

Of course you did LG. *pies*

*gets pied* I saw that coming.

*gets pied* I saw that coming.

Did you see the fire ants in it?

Did you see the fire ants in it?

AIEEE!!! AIEEEE!!!! *runs around in circles shrieking and waving arms in the air* AIEEEE!!!


...I mean.... sure... sticks head in a barrel of Bactine.

...I mean.... sure... sticks head in a barrel of Bactine.

Does Bactine always bubble and release clouds of thick yellow gas?

Do you believe that psychics and telapaths exist? Why or why not?

I know it's a short question but still, I feel this will turn into a decent discussion.

That there are some people out there that can do strange unexplainable things I have no doubt, I also agree with the majority here that most of those we would cal 'psychics' are scamasters.

I've had plenty of people try to read my mind. You can read about some of those who tried by googling "spontaneous head asplode".

I believe that some form of extrasensory -- or more properly hypersensory perception is possible.

However, I have never seen anyone who claims to be "psychic" or "sensitive" or any of that sort of thing who is not either deluded or lying. When you watch them work, you can see what they're doing -- they are either deliberately "cold reading" their audience to lead them down a certain path, or they are following their audience, blindly extemporising and looking for clues in the audience's reaction for where to take their story next. I've seen "psychics" do this even when it is very obvious that they don't realize (are in denial) that they are doing it.

A good "psychic" is just someone who is very good at improv acting.

Psychics, in the meaning of people suffering from psychiatric diseases, do exist.
Anyway, the so-called psi-powers etc do not, I think.

You left out some letters. The word you're looking for is "psychotic." *puts dictionary down next to breakfast tray*

Does Bactine always bubble and release clouds of thick yellow gas?

*glub*

Oooh! You lot are all so depressingly scientific and rationalist. Didn't you hear of Hamlet's great one-liner:
"There are more things in heaven and earth,Horatio, than are dreamt of in man's philosophies."
Being psychic doesn't mean knowing that the guy has the Jack of Hearts in his hands. It means sometimes having an inexplicable premonition that soething will happen and it does. Mystics call it "the gift" and it certainly can be.
It can involve things like communicating with others through dreams (happened to me), getting a psychic image send to you non-verbally from someone close to you (that's also happened to me) being told goodbye from a deceased relative who lived miles away (has happened to many people but not me).
Something that many many of us feel is "bad vibes" from places and situations. There may be input from our five senses kicking in here but there is also our sixth sense at work making our hairs on our neck stand out.
So forget the "psychic" entertainers and hustlers - they're obvious target. Forget the James Randi debunkers too. They're really pathetic - what's their motivation?
Trust your own senses - all six of them.

Oooh! You lot are all so depressingly scientific and rationalist. Didn't you hear of Hamlet's great one-liner:
"There are more things in heaven and earth,Horatio, than are dreamt of in man's philosophies."
Being psychic doesn't mean knowing that the guy has the Jack of Hearts in his hands. It means sometimes having an inexplicable premonition that soething will happen and it does. Mystics call it "the gift" and it certainly can be.
It can involve things like communicating with others through dreams (happened to me), getting a psychic image send to you non-verbally from someone close to you (that's also happened to me) being told goodbye from a deceased relative who lived miles away (has happened to many people but not me).
Something that many many of us feel is "bad vibes" from places and situations. There may be input from our five senses kicking in here but there is also our sixth sense at work making our hairs on our neck stand out.
So forget the "psychic" entertainers and hustlers - they're obvious target. Forget the James Randi debunkers too. They're really pathetic - what's their motivation?
Trust your own senses - all six of them.

"If Helen Keller were psychic, would you say she had a fourth sense?" -George Carlin

Oooh! You lot are all so depressingly scientific and rationalist. Didn't you hear of Hamlet's great one-liner:
"There are more things in heaven and earth,Horatio, than are dreamt of in man's philosophies."
And, of course, the delusional, psychotic Hamlet ends up killed, while Horatio lives on.
Btw, philosophies dream of heavens, science investigates reality.



Being psychic doesn't mean knowing that the guy has the Jack of Hearts in his hands. It means sometimes having an inexplicable premonition that soething will happen and it does
Like guy having the J of H in his hands. I smell contradiction.

Forget the James Randi debunkers too. They're really pathetic - what's their motivation?
To prevent frauds against the gullible. Which makes a motivation moral enough.

Trust your own senses - all six of them.
Sight, touch, hearing, taste, smell, somatoaesthetics (that would be the sense that tells you how your limbs are placed). Makes six. I do trust my own six senses... keeping in mind that they can be tricked by illusions.

Do you believe that psychics [...] exist?
In most languages, it's the word for people we call "mental".

Trust your own senses - all six of them.


Only the six? Shit last I heard there were at least 20 odd!

Only the six? Shit last I heard there were at least 20 odd!

I knew you were gonna say that.

I knew you were gonna say that.

I knew you were gonna say that.

I knew you were gonna say that.

I know what you're going to do tonight.

Be sure to buy some lube.

I know what you're going to do tonight.

Be sure to buy some lube.

What to cook chicken?

What to cook chicken?

Well you're going to need the lube for what you're going to do with the drum stick.

Well you're going to need the lube for what you're going to do with the drum stick.

Bwahahah see now I know you are a charlaton! We only have thighs my man, thighs only!

I believe psychotics exist. I believe that they believe that they're psychic.

Do you believe that psychics and telapaths exist? Why or why not?

I know it's a short question but still, I feel this will turn into a decent discussion.

They don't exist because they always fail scientific inquiry.

Finally found it; http://xkcd.com/373/.

I don't believe in psychics. I believe in physics.

Oooh! You lot are all so depressingly scientific and rationalist.

if psychic powers were real, guess which methods would be able to demonstrate that fact

If I was psychic, I wouldn't be in school studying. I'd play the powerball and win big!

I believe that some form of extrasensory -- or more properly hypersensory perception is possible.

However, I have never seen anyone who claims to be "psychic" or "sensitive" or any of that sort of thing who is not either deluded or lying. When you watch them work, you can see what they're doing -- they are either deliberately "cold reading" their audience to lead them down a certain path, or they are following their audience, blindly extemporising and looking for clues in the audience's reaction for where to take their story next. I've seen "psychics" do this even when it is very obvious that they don't realize (are in denial) that they are doing it.

A good "psychic" is just someone who is very good at improv acting.

^ This.

I actually did an extensive research project on "ESP" years ago, and my results were more than a little intriguing. I mostly worked with a very simple test, in which I would draw from a deck of playing cards and a subject seated on the other side of a screen was asked to tell me if the card I was looking at was red or black, twenty times per test. I ended up running this test on a variety of subjects approximately a thousand times. Logically, as I ran the test again and again, the success rate should have approached 50%. It didn't. It averaged out at about 57% early on and just stayed there. I kept using new subjects; it didn't matter. People just kept doing a little better than they statistically ought to have.

I'm not credulous enough to conclude that they were actually reading my mind or clairvoyantly "seeing" the cards or anything like that, and none of them indicated having any such experience. It is hard not to conclude, however, that it is at least possible that the human brain has some ways of receiving and interpreting information that we don't entirely understand yet - just enough to make someone focusing very hard on the concept of "red or black?" able to get an accurate feel for which it might be slightly more often than not.

Finally found it; http://xkcd.com/373/.

I don't believe in psychics. I believe in physics.
I was typing out a lengthy response, detailing my opinions on various claims of psychic ability, but now I don't need to bother. Thank you once more, Randall Munroe :tongue:

If someone DOES succeed at James Randi's million dollar challenge, do you have any idea how many endless hordes of confused people will contact them for love potions and such?

And they wonder why everyone with such an ability would refuse to go public...

...and this thread is now getting ads from internet psychics and astrologers. Tee hee. :tongue:

If someone DOES succeed at James Randi's million dollar challenge, do you have any idea how many endless hordes of confused people will contact them for love potions and such?

And they wonder why everyone with such an ability would refuse to go public...

Yea, true. I'd still try to play the lottery though.

^ This.

I actually did an extensive research project on "ESP" years ago, and my results were more than a little intriguing. I mostly worked with a very simple test, in which I would draw from a deck of playing cards and a subject seated on the other side of a screen was asked to tell me if the card I was looking at was red or black, twenty times per test. I ended up running this test on a variety of subjects approximately a thousand times. Logically, as I ran the test again and again, the success rate should have approached 50%. It didn't. It averaged out at about 57% early on and just stayed there. I kept using new subjects; it didn't matter. People just kept doing a little better than they statistically ought to have.

I'm not credulous enough to conclude that they were actually reading my mind or clairvoyantly "seeing" the cards or anything like that, and none of them indicated having any such experience. It is hard not to conclude, however, that it is at least possible that the human brain has some ways of receiving and interpreting information that we don't entirely understand yet - just enough to make someone focusing very hard on the concept of "red or black?" able to get an accurate feel for which it might be slightly more often than not.
We don't even know how our own brains work, yet people presume to be able to declare the limits of what's possible or not in the universe. This thread makes me laugh. :D To my mind, it is ridiculous to claim categorically that the kinds of experiences currently called "esp" or "telepathy" or "clairvoyance", etc., just do not exist in any form, given how little we know of our own capacity to gather information from our environment or how our brains process that information.

That said, however, I don't want to downplay the presence of fakers and charlatans.

I used to read tarot cards for extra income. There was nothing "psychic" about it, and I made no pretense to such in the way I did it. It's just that I happen to be a good improvisational storyteller and I can entertain an audience. I didn't go in for any of that new-age magic-crystal-fairy stuff, either. I laid out and read the tarot with rather the same style as a poker dealer in a casino. But when I was doing that, I got to hang out with the kind of people who listen to psychics, who fancy themselves "a little bit psychic," who pay perfectly good money to buy magic crystals that improve logic and reasoning (I'm serious). There is a very strong need in people to feel special, to feel like they're in an exclusive club, like they've got a connection to something that adds luster to their drab days and sets them apart from their boring friends. After a while, I found it kind of sad. Such people do no harm to the world with their little fantasies and wishes, but they are prime targets for scam artists who could do harm -- kind of like cute dogs who have fleas.

I tend to take a mystic's view of the universe. I believe there is a legitimate use for things like tarot cards and mediumistic trances, and other so-called "psychic" stuff -- but foretelling the future, and bringing reassuring messages from dead Uncle Goopy, and selling magic brik-a-brak, and otherwise claiming to be above the mortal masses and therefore worth the fees you charge, are not among them.

Yes, I do believe in psychic powers :P

Do you believe that psychics and telapaths exist? Why or why not?

I know it's a short question but still, I feel this will turn into a decent discussion.Yup.
Or at least enough improbable scenarios have transpired within my experiences to make a pretty consistent argument.

^ This.

I actually did an extensive research project on "ESP" years ago, and my results were more than a little intriguing. I mostly worked with a very simple test, in which I would draw from a deck of playing cards and a subject seated on the other side of a screen was asked to tell me if the card I was looking at was red or black, twenty times per test. I ended up running this test on a variety of subjects approximately a thousand times. Logically, as I ran the test again and again, the success rate should have approached 50%. It didn't. It averaged out at about 57% early on and just stayed there. I kept using new subjects; it didn't matter. People just kept doing a little better than they statistically ought to have.

I'm not credulous enough to conclude that they were actually reading my mind or clairvoyantly "seeing" the cards or anything like that, and none of them indicated having any such experience. It is hard not to conclude, however, that it is at least possible that the human brain has some ways of receiving and interpreting information that we don't entirely understand yet - just enough to make someone focusing very hard on the concept of "red or black?" able to get an accurate feel for which it might be slightly more often than not.Oh... you should have examined where in the experiment most people got the right answers (and also, did you explicitly tell the subject they were right or wrong when they made the guess?).

From a cognitive science perspective, much of what appears to be psychic is the final manifestation of complex unconscious analysis of a situation the unconsciousness is used to dealing with. The examples I'm thinking of are: Vic Braden, a tennis coach who can near 100% predict when a professional tennis player (even one he hasn't seen before) will double fault after having missed their first serve; and art critics who, on a hunch, correctly identified a Greek statue as a fake where an entire army of lawyers and scientists failed.

In both cases the people are in their field of expertise -- they have had lots of experience and their unconsciousness is primed for pattern recognition in that area.

Drifting slightly, one problem with the unconscious is that it can make associations that we don't necessarily want it to make (a lie repeated often enough becomes the truth). One such example can be found when doing an Implicit Association Test (IAT). https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/demo/takeatest.html -- click the link at the bottom and then do the race IAT. (and please try to do the test as fast as possible otherwise you're testing your conscious as opposed to your unconscious)

Most people will find the results shocking or frustrating. And apparently from the test results this isn't white likes white and black likes black, it's everyone likes white. What this test shows is just how strong a tool our unconscious is, but also how warped that tool can get.

Now, come back in a few days and do the test again after looking at these pictures or reading about them
http://tbn4-beta.google.com/images?q=tbn:4D_0aofGOLSqJM:http://www.globalsoulpower.com/content_images/1/MandelaPassport.jpg http://tbn4-beta.google.com/images?q=tbn:ZThBsXRDqQ74xM:http://www.nerve.com/CS/blogs/scanner/2008/martin-luther-king2.jpg http://tbn4-beta.google.com/images?q=tbn:GQUca-JtzjkoOM:http://www.allaboutjazz.com/photos/profile/jimi-hendrix.jpg

That should also tell how easily influenced your unconscious is - for better or worse.


So... um... related point... people give away a shit load more information in their facial expressions than they realise, and some people are much adept at reading these signs than others.

I should probably start my own thread.

I believe that there are things that our current knowledge and logic can not explain yet. There are things that science can not yet explain because if it could explain everything yet, then you can just throw the whole scientific method out the window because it's obsolete now.

It was once believed that Chi was all a bunch of bullshit erupting out of the mouths of Eastern lunatics. Now, it's believed to be all in the mind and blood. It's believed to be good blood flow and eletrical impulses.

Psychics may have a sixth sense (or seventh, if you count as many things as senses as some people do). They might actually be able to manipulate the fourth dimension (time). Not enough to time travel, but enough to get a blurry picture of what's to come. Some might be sensetive enough to "read" the electrical activity of other peoples' brains.

If everyone was as skeptical as sopme of you are, we'd all believe that the world was flat (it feels flat, after all) and that the sun actually rises and falls (it does look like it rises and falls). We probably wouldn't have the jumbled, random mess known as quantum physics because those physics kinda run contrary to logic. After all, how the hell can you change something's behavior just by looking at it?

If science hasn't completely disproven something, it hasn't completely disproven something. It's not like atoms suddenly, magically started actually existing once someone discovered something. It's not like Uranus magically formed the day it was discovered. Keep an open mind.

*snip*

Someone's been reading....amm....that book by the guy who wrote...amm...that other book.

Malcolm Gladwell, the book's a one word title....

...oy, memory.

Someone's been reading....amm....that book by the guy who wrote...amm...that other book.

Malcolm Gladwell, the book's a one word title....

...oy, memory.Yes, I think it was called blink. But also it was the closest thing to hand that I could reference from. I'm not to keen on the book as I disagree with a lot of Gladwell's comments and it reads like a self-help book.

We don't even know how our own brains work, yet people presume to be able to declare the limits of what's possible or not in the universe.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portal:Physics
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brain
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_brain

Wir müssen wissen, wir werden wissen! (David Hilbert!)
Und heute wir wissen mehr als damals! (me!)

Out of curiosity what do you all think of that show "Psychic Detective". Apparently it is real life stories of psychics helping the police solve crimes.

There's an evening radio program on the weekend where a guy does some 'communication with the dead' for callers. It's all so serious sounding, but anyone who knows what to listen for can tell when he's fishing for info - and theres no way to tell how much his call screeners get and pass on to him. I think it's called 'the other side' or something.

Of course, my skepticism doesn't keep me from enjoying 'Coast to Coast AM'

I actually did an extensive research project on "ESP" years ago, and my results were more than a little intriguing. I mostly worked with a very simple test, in which I would draw from a deck of playing cards and a subject seated on the other side of a screen was asked to tell me if the card I was looking at was red or black, twenty times per test. I ended up running this test on a variety of subjects approximately a thousand times. Logically, as I ran the test again and again, the success rate should have approached 50%. It didn't. It averaged out at about 57% early on and just stayed there. I kept using new subjects; it didn't matter. People just kept doing a little better than they statistically ought to have. Without knowing the protocol you followed there's no way I can tell, but I can imagine a number of scenarios that might throw off results.
For example. Did you reshuffle the pack for each single new draw? And how are your shuffling skills? (Although it would still be pretty remarkable for people to find hidden patterns due to artifacts in a shuffling technique.)
And then there's always that one in a million chance. (Of 20 barely significant scientific results, one can be expected to be a false positive. Unless you use 99% significance, in which case it's one in a hundred.)

If someone DOES succeed at James Randi's million dollar challenge, do you have any idea how many endless hordes of confused people will contact them for love potions and such?Actually, with some of the protocols they run, if they tested 1 person each day for a year, you'd expect one to win on pure chance alone.
That really disappointed me. So if someone wins the JREF prize, it won't convince me of psychic powers, quite yet. Maybe if they win twice in a row.

Out of curiosity what do you all think of that show "Psychic Detective". Apparently it is real life stories of psychics helping the police solve crimes.Like I mentioned on the previous page. These people are much better at recognising character traits and such than they give themselves credit for and so pass it off as psychic stuff.

Maybe, the ability to recognise what is 'wrong' with a room and what caused it to be like that.

Anyone who believes in psychic powers raise my hand.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portal:Physics
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brain
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_brain

Wir müssen wissen, wir werden wissen! (David Hilbert!)
Und heute wir wissen mehr als damals! (me!)
Oh, how cute! You've looked up a brief overview of what we know. Well done!

Now show me all there is to know about those things. You know, all there is to know in the universe, everything we ever will learn about them. Have fun finding that on wiki.

Out of curiosity what do you all think of that show "Psychic Detective". Apparently it is real life stories of psychics helping the police solve crimes.
I've only watched a couple of hours of that show, but I don't think it gives us an accurate picture of what the supposed psychics are really doing when they do their stuff. So, to me, it's kind of useless for judging whether there's any validity to their claims or not.

However, I know a guy who used to be a homicide detective in NYC (he's retired from the force now). He told me that the department sometimes used a particular psychic to suggest leads to follow up on when a case went cold. He claimed that she had a high accuracy rate, meaning that the things she suggested did usually have to do with the case in question. Now, he was not an impartial observer, of course, so his anecdotal testimony isn't evidence of anything. I just mention it in relation to my view that this is an open question.

That said, the psychics on shows like "Most Haunted" are just playacting -- even if they don't know it. They are the blindly-extemporizing type of psychics.

Like I mentioned on the previous page. These people are much better at recognising character traits and such than they give themselves credit for and so pass it off as psychic stuff.

Maybe, the ability to recognise what is 'wrong' with a room and what caused it to be like that.
According to my ex-cop acquaintance, psychics are not brought into crime scenes to examine them. Obviously, that could be used against them at trial, as claiming evidence was tainted or the police were led down a false path.

Psychics apparently are more often used in cases where there are no leads. At first, they approach the cops, claiming to have had a dream about the case (or something similar) and having information to offer. Later, if the cops found it useful to work with them, they'll call that psychic again if they get stuck on another case. Usually, the psychic is shown very little of the evidence, at most just a few items associated with the crime or the person being sought, from which they supposedly "pick up impressions."

Because police departments don't like to advertise that they sometimes do this, I do not know if there are any studies about the accuracy rates of "police psychics." I would suspect that very, very, very few such psychics yield any usable or relevant information for the police at all.

However, there are a few instances in which police officers claim that a psychic's information panned out in reality. They claim that, while "picking up impressions" from some artifact associated with the crime, the psychic generated a description that turned out to match the perpetrator very closely once they found him, or a description of a place where some event related to the crime occurred that turned out, once they found the place, to be very accurate.

If such stories are true, then, to me, it raises an interesting question about how the psychics do that, since the "impressions" they are generating are not in any way related to the object they are observing and there's no context for them to play off of, no reactions of their cop audience to clue them that they are on the right track and should keep going.

I do not think such individuals do this consistently enough to claim proof of any "special ability," but if they've ever done it at all, that, to me, is an interesting phenomenon.

Oh... you should have examined where in the experiment most people got the right answers (and also, did you explicitly tell the subject they were right or wrong when they made the guess?).

Without knowing the protocol you followed there's no way I can tell, but I can imagine a number of scenarios that might throw off results.
For example. Did you reshuffle the pack for each single new draw? And how are your shuffling skills? (Although it would still be pretty remarkable for people to find hidden patterns due to artifacts in a shuffling technique.)
And then there's always that one in a million chance. (Of 20 barely significant scientific results, one can be expected to be a false positive. Unless you use 99% significance, in which case it's one in a hundred.)

The way the experiment was set up: I sat on one side of a screen, and the subject sat on the other. There were no other people present. I had a sheet of paper with four columns on it - Red (correct), Black (correct), Red (incorrect), and Black (incorrect). After the subject gave their answer, I would put a ticky mark in the appropriate column. The subjects were not told anything about their scores until their participation in the experiment was entirely concluded - so even the people who did it a few times had no idea how they'd done on previous attempts. I shuffled before each set of 20 draws, and I used a double deck - 104 cards. (I know I should have shuffled before each individual draw to keep it a perfectly random 50/50 chance, but that was quite frankly just too much of a pain in the ass. :tongue: ) I am a pretty good shuffler. No subject ever took the test twice back-to-back. I did not find any statistically significant pattern as to which of the 20 guesses people were most likely to get right or wrong.

Like I said, it's not enough to convince me that people have magical powers, but it was hard not to be persuaded that sometimes people's hunches at least might be based on ways of gathering information that we don't fully understand yet.

However, there are a few instances in which police officers claim that a psychic's information panned out in reality. They claim that, while "picking up impressions" from some artifact associated with the crime, the psychic generated a description that turned out to match the perpetrator very closely once they found him, or a description of a place where some event related to the crime occurred that turned out, once they found the place, to be very accurate.If enough psychics do enough predictions, some of them are gone be eerily accurate. And all the rest are forgotten, of course.
But I suppose, if an investigation is really at a dead end, it doesn't really matter whether it gets a new impulse only by chance. Unless the costs of the other cases outweigh the benefits.

If enough psychics do enough predictions, some of them are gone be eerily accurate. And all the rest are forgotten, of course.
But I suppose, if an investigation is really at a dead end, it doesn't really matter whether it gets a new impulse only by chance. Unless the costs of the other cases outweigh the benefits.
I suspect the police use them only for "brainstorming", to put fresh ideas into the cops heads, that's all. Because it's not like they're going to launch a manhunt for a one-armed bearded man with a parrot just on the say-so of a psychic. It's just that, on rare occasions, when they do arrest a suspect, he does turn out to be one-armed and bearded and wearing a t-shirt with a parrot on it.

What I meant was, that the anomaly of those rare "eerily accurate" instances is interesting in and of itself. I think anomalies are usually worth studying. Most of the time, they turn out to be nothing important, but sometimes they lead to new areas of knowledge. (EDIT: Even if it's just a more advanced refinement of a mathematical model.)

So to me, "how did this happen this one time?" is the interesting question, not "is this person psychic?" or "does this prove psychic powers?" etc.

Oh, how cute!
Thanks. I always appreciate compliments.


Now show me all there is to know about those things. You know, all there is to know in the universe, everything we ever will learn about them.
That, my friend, was for you and for starters.

Since people should speak only within the limits of their own current knowledge, I'll leave the burden of proving the existance of the phenomena you claimed as real to you. You seem to be a lot more informed than me about that, having experienced those phenomena by yourself.

Of course, without an explanation that allows other people to replicate your experiences and verify your claims about supernatural phenomena, such claims are assumed to be void. I call it an Ockham's Razor with a slice of Galilei.

Thanks. I always appreciate compliments.


That, my friend, was for you and for starters.

Since people should speak only within the limits of their own current knowledge, I'll leave the burden of proving the existance of the phenomena you claimed as real to you. You seem to be a lot more informed than me about that, having experienced those phenomena by yourself.
Where did I say any such thing as the above?

Where did I claim that such phenomena are real? Kindly quote me, please.

And where did I say I had any personal experience of anything but people claiming psychic powers they did not actually have? If I ever said otherwise, please quote me doing that as well. I'll wait.

Of course, without an explanation that allows other people to replicate your experiences and verify your claims about supernatural phenomena, such claims are assumed to be void. I call it an Ockham's Razor with a slice of Galilei.
You can call it that, if you like. I'll call it a strawman argument, since I never said any of the things you claim I did.

I can't think of a single police case where a psychic has actually been used. I can think of plenty where psychics have sent something to the police and then claimed that they had been 'consulted'. I doubt the police would because if they tried using a psychic as a witness in court they would jepoardise their own case because of the ridicule they would get.

I can't think of a single police case where a psychic has actually been used. I can think of plenty where psychics have sent something to the police and then claimed that they had been 'consulted'. I doubt the police would because if they tried using a psychic as a witness in court they would jepoardise their own case because of the ridicule they would get.
As I said, I was told by a cop that, on rare occasions, the NYPD consulted a psychic, and that they consulted the same psychic several times until she quit doing that kind of thing. He claimed that he himself, while working as a homicide detective, had been present at more than one meeting with this person. He indicated his belief that other departments also occasionally did the same thing. He had no reason to lie about this to me.

They did not use this person to gather evidence, obviously. I gathered that they used her only to stimulate potential new connections in the minds of the detectives that might open up new leads to investigate in otherwise stalled cases. That's what I meant by using psychics for "brainstorming."

Now I realize this is just anecdotal evidence, but I maintain that I am not lying, and that I have no reason to believe the cop who told it to me was lying, and it cannot be denied that "it takes just one white crow to prove that not all crows are black." Even if it only happens very rarely, that goes to show that it does happen, rarely, which is not the same as saying it doesn't happen.

That said, the psychics on shows like "Most Haunted" are just playacting -- even if they don't know it. They are the blindly-extemporizing type of psychics.

In fact it's even worse than that. I know some people who work on that show, 100% faked.

One of the things about experiments for psychic activity I've seen is that they assume that the psychic is in control of the ability and can just turn it on in the lab.

This may not actually be the case.

In fact it's even worse than that. I know some people who work on that show, 100% faked.
I used to watch that show regularly for the outright laughs. Is there anyone who actually buys into that BS? It was hilarious. I almost fell out of my chair every time one of their "psychics" got "possessed" -- whoopee, heady drama, that. :D And I loved how they never varied from their weekly formula of tramping around these ancient British buildings on windy stormy nights and getting all worked up because they heard a noise. Yeah, it's called an old house in the wind, you idiots. Though my favorite episode of all was the one where Uri "Spoon-Bender" Geller joined the team. Watching him and their guy Derek Acorah fight for camera time was just beautiful. Precious moments. :D

Eventually I had to give it up because I just couldn't stand the hostess's voice anymore. It was like a knitting needle through my sinuses.

One of the things about experiments for psychic activity I've seen is that they assume that the psychic is in control of the ability and can just turn it on in the lab.

This may not actually be the case.It might not, no. But if they can turn it on for TV shows and other paid performances, I doubt they suddenly lose that ability when a scientist is present.

Anyone who believes in psychic powers raise my hand.

You're confusing psychic powers with telekinesis, good sir.

...and just because someone believes in it doesn't mean they have enough power top do such a thing...

You're confusing psychic powers with telekinesis, good sir.

...and just because someone believes in it doesn't mean they have enough power top do such a thing...

lern2humour

There is no evidence for the existence of supernatural abilities. Until such time as there is, it's completely irrational to believe that they exist.

There is no evidence for the existence of supernatural abilities. Until such time as there is, it's completely irrational to believe that they exist.

Once again I have to say of course there is evidance, it is just that what evidance there is, is highly subjective, and perhaps will not convince everybody.

As to irrational belief, again I say that we all hold to some such things.

Once again I have to say of course there is evidance, it is just that what evidance there is, is highly subjective, and perhaps will not convince everybody.
How can evidence for such a thing be "subjective?"
Either facts in the world match with peoples' claims to have supernatural powers (that is, they can actually do the things they claim to), or the facts in the world do not match with their claims (they cannot do the things they claim to do). Reality is not subject to beliefs. Truth does not change on whims. What is, is. What is not, is not.
That some people are convinced by an argument and some are not does not necessarily make the argument's validity subjective. Some people are convinced by appeals to consequences, or by ad hominems, but those are still objectively bad arguments.

Further, one can objectively say that it is true that nobody has ever demonstrated legitimate supernatural abilities in a controlled setting. The fact that some people don't accept that doesn't make it any less valid. An appeal to evidence is not a fallacy, despite what some would have you believe.

As to irrational belief, again I say that we all hold to some such things.
I try to minimize irrational belief as much as humanly possible, as should all thinking people. No society has ever suffered for being too reasonable, only from being too willing to put reason aside.

It might not, no. But if they can turn it on for TV shows and other paid performances, I doubt they suddenly lose that ability when a scientist is present.
Yeah, but those are the fake ones.

I think GoG's point was that IF there are people who really can do such things (not fake) then they may not be able to control how and when they do it.

There is no evidence for the existence of supernatural abilities. Until such time as there is, it's completely irrational to believe that they exist.
Once upon a time there was no evidence that were such things as radio waves. Was it irrational to believe that wireless communication could be possible?

Once upon a time there was no evidence that there were such things as atomic particles, yet many people believed in such things. Were they irrational?

When there is no evidence, the strictly correct answer is "I don't know," not "there's no such thing." Unless, of course, you have already tested every single person on the planet, for every possible variation on the idea of psychic ability, using every possible testing protocol. Have you? No? Then I maintain that "are psychics real?" and "are the kinds of things we currently call psychic phemonena possible?" are two completely separate and unrelated questions.

Once upon a time there was no evidence that were such things as radio waves. Was it irrational to believe that wireless communication could be possible?

Once upon a time there was no evidence that there were such things as atomic particles, yet many people believed in such things. Were they irrational?

When there is no evidence, the strictly correct answer is "I don't know," not "there's no such thing." Unless, of course, you have already tested every single person on the planet, for every possible variation on the idea of psychic ability, using every possible testing protocol. Have you? No? Then I maintain that "are psychics real?" and "are the kinds of things we currently call psychic phemonena possible?" are two completely separate and unrelated questions.

Yes, it would have been irrational to believe in radio waves, once upon a time.
Reason doesn't always get it right, certainly. But it tends to progress towards knowledge even when it starts out wrong, which is why it is preferable to non-reason. Evidence allows us to get closer and closer to the truth, to understand the world around us better and better. It's self-correcting.

Secondly, if you say "I don't know," then, strictly speaking, you don't believe. You may not specifically disbelieve either, but you do not believe. I never said that it's impossible that evidence could some day emerge, but until it does, believing in supernatural abilities is no more reasonable than believing in the tooth fairy.

I would like to propose, though, a scenario: If I said to you, "I can sprout wings and fly," you would probably say it's ridiculous. You'd ask me to prove it, no? Well, I could just easily reply "well, I can't do it at will or when people are watching!"
Is it suddenly just as reasonable to believe me as it is to doubt my claim?

There is no evidence for the existence of supernatural abilities. Until such time as there is, it's completely irrational to believe that they exist.

Once upon a time there was no evidence that were such things as radio waves. Was it irrational to believe that wireless communication could be possible?

I love the way you substituted "belief that it's possible that X might exists" for "belief that X exists". Combining it with a swap of "what may be possible in the future" and "what is possible now" was another master stroke.

I would like to propose, though, a scenario: If I said to you, "I can sprout wings and fly," you would probably say it's ridiculous. You'd ask me to prove it, no? Well, I could just easily reply "well, I can't do it at will or when people are watching!"
Is it suddenly just as reasonable to believe me as it is to doubt my claim?

No. It is more reasonable to doubt your claim because it defies current genetic theory, and would disprove all sorts of theories. This would be odd because the concensus is that these theories (like evolution) are pretty much right.

Saying you have an uncontrollable psychic ability, like a form of telepathy that only functions in moments of extreme stress, would be more reasonable to hypothesise because it would not be inconsistent with our current understanding of human biology and evolution.

No. It is more reasonable to doubt your claim because it defies current genetic theory, and would disprove all sorts of theories. This would be odd because the concensus is that these theories (like evolution) are pretty much right.

Saying you have an uncontrollable psychic ability, like a form of telepathy that only functions in moments of extreme stress, would be more reasonable to hypothesise because it would not be inconsistent with our current understanding of human biology and evolution.

But the wings are magic, you see, and as such defy science.

Yes, it would have been irrational to believe in radio waves, once upon a time.

Reason doesn't always get it right, certainly. But it tends to progress towards knowledge even when it starts out wrong, which is why it is preferable to non-reason. Evidence allows us to get closer and closer to the truth, to understand the world around us better and better. It's self-correcting.
I'm sorry, but to me that sounds like a ridiculous argument. Are you saying that all scientific researchers are irrational? Is it irrational to imagine something, say to yourself "I wonder if that could really happen or exist?" and then start experimenting or researching or going on expeditions to see if you can prove it? Are you saying that the explorers who set off to prove it was possible to circumnavigate the globe, with nothing but imagination and theory to encourage them and nothing at all to guide them, were not using reason in their endeavors?

How do you think we got where we are today, if not for people saying, "You know, I have no idea whether this idea of mine is possible, or how it could possibly work, but I really really believe it could be possible, and I'm going to figure it out, one way or another"?

Secondly, if you say "I don't know," then, strictly speaking, you don't believe. You may not specifically disbelieve either, but you do not believe. I never said that it's impossible that evidence could some day emerge, but until it does, believing in supernatural abilities is no more reasonable than believing in the tooth fairy.
I absolutely disagree.

Belief and knowledge are two different things, and their interdependence is uneven and unidirectional.

It is very easy to believe things you do not know. You believe certain things will happen in the future (such as that you will not win the lottery), even though you do not know it for a fact. You believe things about people you don't know and cannot see (such as believing that strangers are not out to get you) even though you have no actual knowledge of such people.

On the other hand, it is very difficult to disbelieve things you do know. If you are reading this on your computer, then you know for a fact that there are such things as computers and the internet. It would be very difficult for you to believe that computers and the internet are just a myth, given that you are currently using them.

So the existence of knowledge can affect belief, but the absence of knowledge has no effect on belief at all. Thus, it is perfectly possible to believe things you do not know. You do it yourself all the time. Everyone does.

I would like to propose, though, a scenario: If I said to you, "I can sprout wings and fly," you would probably say it's ridiculous. You'd ask me to prove it, no? Well, I could just easily reply "well, I can't do it at will or when people are watching!"
Is it suddenly just as reasonable to believe me as it is to doubt my claim?
And no reasonable person would not doubt the claims of people who say they can do something but then can never do it.

Now let me ask you to perform a trick on demand: Prove to me that the fact that a few people do not have the specific abilities they claim shows conclusively that no human beings have any kind of extra- or hypersensory abilities of any kind in any way, ever, at all.

If you can't prove it on demand, I'll conclude it's impossible to prove such an assertion.

I love the way you substituted "belief that it's possible that X might exists" for "belief that X exists". Combining it with a swap of "what may be possible in the future" and "what is possible now" was another master stroke.
I'm not exactly sure what point you're trying to make, but:

Radio waves did not suddenly pop into existence at the point that scientists invented radio devices. They are a natural phenomenon and had existed all the time, people just didn't know it for a long time.

If someday, science does manage to prove that human beings are capable of receiving information from their environment in ways that, today, we cannot observe or measure, that does not mean those will be new human abilities. It is far more likely that people -- maybe billions of people -- are doing those things right now, every day, as naturally as breathing, only we're not aware of it or of how we're doing it.

But the wings are magic, you see, and as such defy science.
See, when you say things like this, you are just revealing the way in which your mind is closed.

This is just my personal opinion, but I do not consider a closed mind to be a part of a scientific view of the world.

How can evidence for such a thing be "subjective?"
Either facts in the world match with peoples' claims to have supernatural powers (that is, they can actually do the things they claim to), or the facts in the world do not match with their claims (they cannot do the things they claim to do). Reality is not subject to beliefs. Truth does not change on whims. What is, is. What is not, is not.
That some people are convinced by an argument and some are not does not necessarily make the argument's validity subjective. Some people are convinced by appeals to consequences, or by ad hominems, but those are still objectively bad arguments.


Come on now you know the answer to this one. If I say I once saw a man levitate a pencil off of a bench, and after checking for wires, magnets etc.. and finding none.

I can certianly claim the 'evidance' of my senses. Now my word may not be enough to sway you, but it may be enoughto sway my sister. In which case, my 'evidance' though highly subjective is acepted by her.

Evidance is not the same as proof.


Further, one can objectively say that it is true that nobody has ever demonstrated legitimate supernatural abilities in a controlled setting. The fact that some people don't accept that doesn't make it any less valid. An appeal to evidence is not a fallacy, despite what some would have you believe.

I try to minimize irrational belief as much as humanly possible, as should all thinking people. No society has ever suffered for being too reasonable, only from being too willing to put reason aside.


True to a point, I would be interested to hear of some of these societies that have suffered as you suggest though.

As I said, I was told by a cop that, on rare occasions, the NYPD consulted a psychic, and that they consulted the same psychic several times until she quit doing that kind of thing. He claimed that he himself, while working as a homicide detective, had been present at more than one meeting with this person. He indicated his belief that other departments also occasionally did the same thing. He had no reason to lie about this to me.

They did not use this person to gather evidence, obviously. I gathered that they used her only to stimulate potential new connections in the minds of the detectives that might open up new leads to investigate in otherwise stalled cases. That's what I meant by using psychics for "brainstorming."

Now I realize this is just anecdotal evidence, but I maintain that I am not lying, and that I have no reason to believe the cop who told it to me was lying, and it cannot be denied that "it takes just one white crow to prove that not all crows are black." Even if it only happens very rarely, that goes to show that it does happen, rarely, which is not the same as saying it doesn't happen.

I didn't mean to imply I doubted what you were saying, things may well be different between the UK and US. My statement is just as anecdotal on something I have heard from the UK police.

I'm sorry, but to me that sounds like a ridiculous argument. Are you saying that all scientific researchers are irrational? Is it irrational to imagine something, say to yourself "I wonder if that could really happen or exist?" and then start experimenting or researching or going on expeditions to see if you can prove it? Are you saying that the explorers who set off to prove it was possible to circumnavigate the globe, with nothing but imagination and theory to encourage them and nothing at all to guide them, were not using reason in their endeavors?

How do you think we got where we are today, if not for people saying, "You know, I have no idea whether this idea of mine is possible, or how it could possibly work, but I really really believe it could be possible, and I'm going to figure it out, one way or another"?

But they don't go from "Hmm, I wonder if X is true" to "X is true" without first testing. If they test and test and test and never find that X is true, they think "Hmmm, perhaps X isn't true after all."


I absolutely disagree.

Belief and knowledge are two different things, and their interdependence is uneven and unidirectional.

It is very easy to believe things you do not know. You believe certain things will happen in the future (such as that you will not win the lottery), even though you do not know it for a fact. You believe things about people you don't know and cannot see (such as believing that strangers are not out to get you) even though you have no actual knowledge of such people.

On the other hand, it is very difficult to disbelieve things you do know. If you are reading this on your computer, then you know for a fact that there are such things as computers and the internet. It would be very difficult for you to believe that computers and the internet are just a myth, given that you are currently using them.

So the existence of knowledge can affect belief, but the absence of knowledge has no effect on belief at all. Thus, it is perfectly possible to believe things you do not know. You do it yourself all the time. Everyone does.

Well, I don't "believe that I won't win the lottery" or that "strangers are not out to get me"-- I lack a belief that I will win the lottery and I lack a belief that strangers are out to get me. (Coincidentally, because I don't buy lottery tickets, I can say, with confidence, that I do know I won't win the lottery unless I change my habits. :D)


And no reasonable person would not doubt the claims of people who say they can do something but then can never do it.

You mean like every person who has ever claimed to by psychic, ever?


Now let me ask you to perform a trick on demand: Prove to me that the fact that a few people do not have the specific abilities they claim shows conclusively that no human beings have any kind of extra- or hypersensory abilities of any kind in any way, ever, at all.

If you can't prove it on demand, I'll conclude it's impossible to prove such an assertion.

No, it can't be proven, as such, but I think the fact that every single time anybody has ever claimed to have supernatural powers, they've turned out not to suggests a pattern. You may think that magic is "due," but I doubt it.
Recall, I never claimed it's impossible that such abilities could exist; I claimed that to think that they do without evidence is irrational.

I'm not exactly sure what point you're trying to make, but:

Radio waves did not suddenly pop into existence at the point that scientists invented radio devices. They are a natural phenomenon and had existed all the time, people just didn't know it for a long time.

If someday, science does manage to prove that human beings are capable of receiving information from their environment in ways that, today, we cannot observe or measure, that does not mean those will be new human abilities. It is far more likely that people -- maybe billions of people -- are doing those things right now, every day, as naturally as breathing, only we're not aware of it or of how we're doing it.
Yeah, and it's also hypothetically possible that scientists will find that people can conjure up fireballs with the right magical invocation. Doesn't mean that it's just as reasonable to think it likely as it is to think it's unlikely.


See, when you say things like this, you are just revealing the way in which your mind is closed.

This is just my personal opinion, but I do not consider a closed mind to be a part of a scientific view of the world.

How is doubting the existence of an ability that nobody has ever demonstrated in a controlled setting close-minded?

I'm not exactly sure what point you're trying to make, but:

That your analogy was deficient in the extreme. You tried to suggest that saying "there's currently no good evidence for psychic powers but I believe in them anyway" is equally reasonable to someone before the discovery of radio waves saying "It's possible that one day we'll be able to communicate over great distances without wires." I'd be more than happy to concede that humans may one day be found to have psychic powers (they may even be found to have them today), but that doesn't make current belief in them any less irrational.

Radio waves did not suddenly pop into existence at the point that scientists invented radio devices. They are a natural phenomenon and had existed all the time, people just didn't know it for a long time.

Well duh.

If someday, science does manage to prove that human beings are capable of receiving information from their environment in ways that, today, we cannot observe or measure, that does not mean those will be new human abilities. It is far more likely that people -- maybe billions of people -- are doing those things right now, every day, as naturally as breathing, only we're not aware of it or of how we're doing it.

"If someday, science does manage to prove that human beings have purple winged simians living in their anuses which are so small that, today, we cannot observe or measure them, that does not mean they will be new inhabitants of our anuses. It is far more likely that people -- maybe billions of people -- are hosts to these things right now, every day, as naturally as breathing, only we're not aware of it or of how we're doing it."

Does that make it any reasonable to believe, without any evidence, that we're currently home to purple, winged butt-monkeys?

But the wings are magic, you see, and as such defy science.

Well, then they can't be tested by science. If telepathy does naturally occur, it can be tested by science. Your analogy about magical wings does not really work, in that respect.

Secondly, if you say "I don't know," then, strictly speaking, you don't believe.

Sorry man, I'm calling you out on this one. I don't know if God exists, but I belive God does.:tongue:

Come on now you know the answer to this one. If I say I once saw a man levitate a pencil off of a bench, and after checking for wires, magnets etc.. and finding none.

I can certianly claim the 'evidance' of my senses. Now my word may not be enough to sway you, but it may be enoughto sway my sister. In which case, my 'evidance' though highly subjective is acepted by her.

Evidance is not the same as proof.

I do not doubt your word that you saw this, but I would counter that there are all sorts of people skilled at illusion, who can confound almost anybody who doesn't have some sort of specialty in it.
I would further claim that unless said person can demonstrate said ability in a controlled context, the evidence is relatively useless within the context of rationality and evidence-based reasoning.
Essentially, I'm arguing it's not subjective evidence at all, but that sometimes people don't consider all the objective facts of the situation.


True to a point, I would be interested to hear of some of these societies that have suffered as you suggest though.

Well, I would argue our current society suffers from this. People are willing to put reasoning and evidence aside and implicitly trust the word of a man because he was a war hero.
Imagine if everybody had critically evaluated the arguments for the Iraq war instead of just blindly following it?

I would further point to the Middle Ages. People were far to willing to blindly trust their religious leaders, allowing such atrocities as the Crusades and the Inquisition. Now, whether the leaders were genuinely devout in motivation is oft-debated, but few would disagree that the masses were truly faithful and set aside reason in these matters.

Well, then they can't be tested by science. If telepathy does naturally occur, it can be tested by science. Your analogy about magical wings does not really work, in that respect.

So, you agree that if Telepathy does occur, it can be tested by science.
People have tried to test for it, and so far every single time somebody was thought to be telepathic, it turned out that they were not.

If, however, Telepaths cannot recreate their abilities at will (the possibility that you proposed, if I am not mistaken), then telepathy is just as untestable as my magic wings, is it not?

Sorry man, I'm calling you out on this one. I don't know if God exists, but I belive God does.:tongue:

Well, in context, "I don't know" seemed to mean "I cannot say at all, one way or the other." You obviously think you can say (even if not with a large degree of certainty) one way or the other-- that's what your belief is. :tongue:

But they don't go from "Hmm, I wonder if X is true" to "X is true" without first testing.
Who said otherwise?

If they test and test and test and never find that X is true, they think "Hmmm, perhaps X isn't true after all."
Or they don't. They just try different approaches and keep going until they either make it happen or they die. Depends on how in love with their theory they are.

Well, I don't "believe that I won't win the lottery" or that "strangers are not out to get me"-- I lack a belief that I will win the lottery and I lack a belief that strangers are out to get me. (Coincidentally, because I don't buy lottery tickets, I can say, with confidence, that I do know I won't win the lottery unless I change my habits. :D)


You mean like every person who has ever claimed to by psychic, ever?
Yeah.

No, it can't be proven, as such, but I think the fact that every single time anybody has ever claimed to have supernatural powers, they've turned out not to suggests a pattern.
I see, so you assume that, because it has not been proven to date, it never will be. Apparently you believe it is impossible to predict the future only when "psychics" claim to do it. When you do it, it's perfectly reasonable. Well, you're entitled to be wrong in anyway you like. :tongue:

You may think that magic is "due," but I doubt it.
Another biased comment suggesting that I am arguing in favor of magic. Kindly quote any post of mine in which I either claimed that such things actually do exist as a matter of fact, or in which I talked about anything other than possible natural phenomena.

You should know that I am not in the habit of defending arguments I did not make. I never said psychic powers are definitely real, and I never said that anything is magical or supernatural.

Recall, I never claimed it's impossible that such abilities could exist; I claimed that to think that they do without evidence is irrational.
And recall, I explained why I disagree with that assertion.

Yeah, and it's also hypothetically possible that scientists will find that people can conjure up fireballs with the right magical invocation. Doesn't mean that it's just as reasonable to think it likely as it is to think it's unlikely.
More magic. You do realize that, of the two of us, you're the only one talking about magic, right?

And it's perfectly reasonable to think a thing is unlikely. In my opinion, it is not reasonable to assert that thinking it could exist is irrational, which is what you originally argued.

How is doubting the existence of an ability that nobody has ever demonstrated in a controlled setting close-minded?
The closed-mindedness was in the tone of your comment. There was no doubt at all in it. It was a categorical statement. It was also a mocking reference to "magic wings," as if anyone in this thread has been arguing for "magic." Mocking those who disagree with you and putting silly words into their mouths does not suggest an open-minded approach.

Rationalism does not defend against atrocities. At the risk of Godwinning myself, the Nazi concentration camps are a very good example of rational and clear thought be applied to very immoral ends.

Who said otherwise?

Well, you applied the scientist argument to my original claim that "thinking it does exist is irrational," so my point was that scientists really shouldn't think their new hypothesis is accurate, merely that it could be.

Or they don't. They just try different approaches and keep going until they either make it happen or they die. Depends on how in love with their theory they are.

But it's fairly irrational to allow being "in love with a theory" to impact your conclusions. Either the evidence is there, or it is not.

Yeah.


I see, so you assume that, because it has not been proven to date, it never will be. Apparently you believe it is impossible to predict the future only when "psychics" claim to do it. When you do it, it's perfectly reasonable. Well, you're entitled to be wrong in anyway you like. :tongue:

I never said, or intended to say, that it could never be demonstrated. I merely said that, up to this point, it has not been, so to think that it does exist, rather than to think it may exist, is irrational.

Another biased comment suggesting that I am arguing in favor of magic. Kindly quote any post of mine in which I either claimed that such things actually do exist as a matter of fact, or in which I talked about anything other than possible natural phenomena.

You should know that I am not in the habit of defending arguments I did not make. I never said psychic powers are definitely real, and I never said that anything is magical or supernatural.

Telepathic powers, as I understand them, are by definition supernatural.
Sure, some people may have, for example, a heightened sense of awareness, but I don't include that in telepathy.

And recall, I explained why I disagree with that assertion.

And I explained why I disagreed with the assertion. I think to say "yes, there exist these things called radio waves that work like this..." before there was evidence for such would have been irrational. It would have been true, sure, but purely by being a lucky guess.


More magic. You do realize that, of the two of us, you're the only one talking about magic, right?

How is the ability to see into the future, etc. with the power of your mind NOT magical?


And it's perfectly reasonable to think a thing is unlikely. In my opinion, it is not reasonable to assert that thinking it could exist is irrational, which is what you originally argued.

I draw a distinction between thinking it could exist and thinking it does exist. I am arguing about the latter. Sure, it could exist, just like the Vampirism (and, to stave off comments in the classical "monster" sense, not just people who feel the need to drink blood:tongue:).

The closed-mindedness was in the tone of your comment. There was no doubt at all in it. It was a categorical statement. It was also a mocking reference to "magic wings," as if anyone in this thread has been arguing for "magic." Mocking those who disagree with your and putting silly words into their mouths does not suggest an open-minded approach.

Again, telepathy, as I understand it, is by definition supernatural. I don't class incredibly observant people as telepaths as some might.

That your analogy was deficient in the extreme. You tried to suggest that saying "there's currently no good evidence for psychic powers but I believe in them anyway" is equally reasonable to someone before the discovery of radio waves saying "It's possible that one day we'll be able to communicate over great distances without wires."
No, actually, that is NOT what I tried to argue.

What I argued was that it is just as reasonable to think that it is possible that such phenomena are real even though they have not yet been proven, just as it was reasonable to believe that it might be possible to communicate over great distances without wires even though such a thing had not yet been accomplished.

I notice that you and PC, arguing vehemently in favor of rationality and reason, both can only present your arguments by putting words in my mouth and claiming I said things I never did. I don't believe that the cause of reason and rationality can only be defended by resorting to fallacies. Does it occur to you that you may be missing (or ignoring) something in my actual arguments?

I'd be more than happy to concede that humans may one day be found to have psychic powers (they may even be found to have them today), but that doesn't make current belief in them any less irrational.
So are you saying that in your opinion, explorers and researchers are irrational? Because they believe that a thing can be done currently. That's why they try to do it currently, to prove that.

Well duh.



"If someday, science does manage to prove that human beings have purple winged simians living in their anuses which are so small that, today, we cannot observe or measure them, that does not mean they will be new inhabitants of our anuses. It is far more likely that people -- maybe billions of people -- are hosts to these things right now, every day, as naturally as breathing, only we're not aware of it or of how we're doing it."

Does that make it any reasonable to believe, without any evidence, that we're currently home to purple, winged butt-monkeys?
Yes. It is my opinion that being proved right in the end is the ultimate vindication, and if it were to come to light that such beliefs were right all along, then the people who mocked them with smart-ass remarks about purple winged butt-monkeys can then get down on their knees and kiss the monkey winking at them from out my ass.

Once more, for the record, I do not believe in magic or the supernatural. Read my goddamned posts, and stop inventing bullshit to try to make fun of me with.

Rationalism does not defend against atrocities. At the risk of Godwinning myself, the Nazi concentration camps are a very good example of rational and clear thought be applied to very immoral ends.

Nazism wasn't based on reason at all. How is blindly following a leader(who developed a quasi-religious cult around himself and his party) rational at all? Sure, the methods they used were based on reason, but the actions themselves were not.

So, you agree that if Telepathy does occur, it can be tested by science.
People have tried to test for it, and so far every single time somebody was thought to be telepathic, it turned out that they were not.

If, however, Telepaths cannot recreate their abilities at will (the possibility that you proposed, if I am not mistaken), then telepathy is just as untestable as my magic wings, is it not?
No.

People cannot produce the symptoms of migraine at will. That does not mean they don't have migraines or that there is no such thing as migraines.

Epileptics and narcoleptics cannot produce their seizures at will on demand, but that does not mean those disorders don't exist.

Somehow, despite the inability of the subjects to produce the effects at will, science still managed to learn about them.

So, you agree that if Telepathy does occur, it can be tested by science.
People have tried to test for it, and so far every single time somebody was thought to be telepathic, it turned out that they were not.

If, however, Telepaths cannot recreate their abilities at will (the possibility that you proposed, if I am not mistaken), then telepathy is just as untestable as my magic wings, is it not?

No. people cannot control their adrenaline reactions, yet they are testable by science. The same can be said of physiological reactions during childbirth.

It would be foolish for a scientist to tell a random test subject to immediately begin exhibiting the symptoms of the onset of labour, and then claim that childbirth doesn't exist or is untestable. when the subject finds himself or herself unable to exhibit the phenomena to be studied.

If ESP phenomena are somehow linked to some other factor that we are not including in the experiments, then the experiments tell us nothing.

No.

People cannot produce the symptoms of migraine at will. That does not mean they don't have migraines or that there is no such thing as migraines.

Epileptics and narcoleptics cannot produce their seizures at will on demand, but that does not mean those disorders don't exist.

Hm, good point.

But then, would not the hypothetical magic wings also be testable? I was running with the assumption (from the post to which I was replying) that they were not by virtue of being not re-creatable.

I do not doubt your word that you saw this, but I would counter that there are all sorts of people skilled at illusion, who can confound almost anybody who doesn't have some sort of specialty in it.

Heh in fact this never has happend to me, but the point is, evidance can be anything, what you are talking about is proof, I can present all sorts of evidance that may back up any number of claims I make, wether I can prove my eivdance is objectivly valid, is another thing althogether.


I would further claim that unless said person can demonstrate said ability in a controlled context, the evidence is relatively useless within the context of rationality and evidence-based reasoning.

But can still be called evidance huh.


Essentially, I'm arguing it's not subjective evidence at all, but that sometimes people don't consider all the objective facts of the situation.

To which I would answer, I know of not one single being that has ever had access to all of the objective facts, do you?



Well, I would argue our current society suffers from this. People are willing to put reasoning and evidence aside and implicitly trust the word of a man because he was a war hero.
Imagine if everybody had critically evaluated the arguments for the Iraq war instead of just blindly following it?

Ahhh so you suggest then that sometimes 'suffering' can also be subjective. I have very good friend who insists in calling me a 'faith sufferer' and no matter how many times and in how many ways I explain to him that I don't fell that I am suffering at all, he wont have it.



I would further point to the Middle Ages. People were far to willing to blindly trust their religious leaders, allowing such atrocities as the Crusades and the Inquisition. Now, whether the leaders were genuinely devout in motivation is oft-debated, but few would disagree that the masses were truly faithful and set aside reason in these matters.

Both of these examples confuse me. The masses really had no sway or say in wether or not to institue both the crusades and the inquastion, so how exactly was 'trusting blindly' the reason for both of these?

Nazism wasn't based on reason at all. How is blindly following a leader(who developed a quasi-religious cult around himself and his party) rational at all? Sure, the methods they used were based on reason, but the actions themselves were not.

I was not discussing nazism in general. I was discussing the Holocaust in particular. It took many clear thinking, organised, level headed epople working together, in full knowledge of the obstacles involved to pull off a monumental, though sickening and horrid, feat of modern engineering and project management.

When a mob runs through a Jewish neighbourhood slaughtering people at random, then there is need of more rationality.

When they are being carefully numbered, catalogued, shipped, stripped and gassed with a maximum of efficiency and careful scheduling, there is obviously enough rationalism and logic involved. Ther is then need for compassion and empathy.

Hm, good point.

But then, would not the hypothetical magic wings also be testable? I was running with the assumption (from the post to which I was replying) that they were not by virtue of being not re-creatable.

No. It's because they're magic. Science makes certain unprovable assumptions upon which everything is based. One of them is tha things do not have supernatural causes. Magic wings would disqualify themselves based on their supernatural aspect. If you simply had wings that sprouted spontaneously, but were completely natural, then they would be theoretically testable.

Basic assumptions of science (Nachmias and Nachmias 1996, pp. 5-7))

1. Nature is orderly, i.e., regularity, pattern, and structure. Laws of nature describe order.

2. We can know nature. Individuals are part of nature. Individuals and social exhibit order; may be studied same as nature.

3. All phenomena have natural causes. Scientific explanation of human behavior opposes religious, spiritualistic, and magical explanations.

4. Nothing is self evident. Truth claims must be demonstrated objectively.

5. Knowledge is derived from acquisition of experience. Empirically. Thru senses directly or indirectly.

6. Knowledge is superior to ignorance. (See Sjoberg and Nett previous link)

http://web.utk.edu/~dhasting/Basic_Assumptions_of_Science.htm

Heh in fact this never has happend to me, but the point is, evidance can be anything, what you are talking about is proof, I can present all sorts of evidance that may back up any number of claims I make, wether I can prove my eivdance is objectivly valid, is another thing althogether.



But can still be called evidance huh.

It can be called it, but whether it's valid evidence or not is another matter.


To which I would answer, I know of not one single being that has ever had access to all of the objective facts, do you?

Of course not. But that doesn't make reality subjective; it merely explains why different people using reason and evidence often draw different conclusions.



Ahhh so you suggest then that sometimes 'suffering' can also be subjective. I have very good friend who insists in calling me a 'faith sufferer' and no matter how many times and in how many ways I explain to him that I don't fell that I am suffering at all, he wont have it.

I suggest no such thing. Your friend is objectively wrong if, indeed, you are not suffering. But the Iraq war has objectively caused suffering, no?



Both of these examples confuse me. The masses really had no sway or say in wether or not to institue both the crusades and the inquastion, so how exactly was 'trusting blindly' the reason for both of these?

What crusades would there have been without people willing (even eager) to fight them? Without peasants to work the fields to pay for them?

I was not discussing nazism in general. I was discussing the Holocaust in particular. It took many clear thinking, organised, level headed epople working together, in full knowledge of the obstacles involved to pull off a monumental, though sickening and horrid, feat of modern engineering and project management.

When a mob runs through a Jewish neighbourhood slaughtering people at random, then there is need of more rationality.

When they are being carefully numbered, catalogued, shipped, stripped and gassed with a maximum of efficiency and careful scheduling, there is obviously enough rationalism and logic involved. Ther is then need for compassion and empathy.
But had there been more reason to begin with, they never would have felt the need to plan out the Holocaust, no?

No. It's because they're magic. Science makes certain unprovable assumptions upon which everything is based. One of them is tha things do not have supernatural causes. Magic wings would disqualify themselves based on their supernatural aspect. If you simply had wings that sprouted spontaneously, but were completely natural, then they would be theoretically testable.



http://web.utk.edu/~dhasting/Basic_Assumptions_of_Science.htm

Fair enough. But if you disqualify the supernatural, then does that also disqualify the more subtle supernatural, such as the ability to see into the future or actually read minds (again, I'm not including people who are good at predicting things or figuring out what people are thinking by virtue of being observant and such, but only people who are telepathic in the more conventional sense. I think it's vital to distinguish between the two.)

Well, you applied the scientist argument to my original claim that "thinking it does exist is irrational," so my point was that scientists really shouldn't think their new hypothesis is accurate, merely that it could be.
No shit, really? Then maybe you should have said that, in those words, from the beginning, instead of attacking me for something I never said.

But it's fairly irrational to allow being "in love with a theory" to impact your conclusions. Either the evidence is there, or it is not.
Who said anything about conclusions? I'm talking about the belief in a possibility that drives the process in advance of reaching conclusions.

And evidence is there, obviously, or else what would the theory be based on? However scant or anomalous the evidence may be, it is enough to suggest in someone's mind that something might be possible and to set them off on a path of experiment/exploration to text/prove it. Maybe they'll find something. Maybe they won't. What difference does that make to whether they are rational or not?

I never said, or intended to say, that it could never be demonstrated. I merely said that, up to this point, it has not been, so to think that it does exist, rather than to think it may exist, is irrational.
OK, repetition number 3: And I explained why I disagree with that statement.

Telepathic powers, as I understand them, are by definition supernatural.
Sure, some people may have, for example, a heightened sense of awareness, but I don't include that in telepathy.
I don't believe that anything that exists is supernatural. If it exists or happens in the natural universe, then it is by definition a natural object/phenomenon.

To me, "supernatural" is a nonsense word. So if you say you don't believe that supernatural things exist, then, in my point of view, you're just saying that things that don't exist don't exist.

So no matter what form "telepathy" takes, no matter what kind of ability we decide to call "telepathy," if it exists, then it is natural.

And I explained why I disagreed with the assertion. I think to say "yes, there exist these things called radio waves that work like this..." before there was evidence for such would have been irrational. It would have been true, sure, but purely by being a lucky guess.
So you think it is possible for an idea to be true and irrational at the same time?

How is the ability to see into the future, etc. with the power of your mind NOT magical?
I don't know. I don't know every detail of how the universe and time work, so I have no idea how seeing into the future, if such a thing could be real, would work. But it is my view that, if it is real, then it's not magical.

It is my vew that "magic" and "supernatural" are words for things we do not understand. As soon as we come to understand them, those words no longer apply.

I draw a distinction between thinking it could exist and thinking it does exist. I am arguing about the latter. Sure, it could exist, just like the Vampirism (and, to stave off comments in the classical "monster" sense, not just people who feel the need to drink blood:tongue:).
Well, then why don't you go find someone who actually argues that they DO exist to fight with then, because I never did.

Again, telepathy, as I understand it, is by definition supernatural. I don't class incredibly observant people as telepaths as some might.
Well, you can define your terms as you like, but if you refuse to address my arguments with my terms as I have explained them to you, then you're not really addressing my arguments, are you?

No, actually, that is NOT what I tried to argue.

What I argued was that it is just as reasonable to think that it is possible that such phenomena are real even though they have not yet been proven, just as it was reasonable to believe that it might be possible to communicate over great distances without wires even though such a thing had not yet been accomplished.

I notice that you and PC, arguing vehemently in favor of rationality and reason, both can only present your arguments by putting words in my mouth and claiming I said things I never did. I don't believe that the cause of reason and rationality can only be defended by resorting to fallacies. Does it occur to you that you may be missing (or ignoring) something in my actual arguments?

Let's look at the original post from PC shall we? He began by saying:

There is no evidence for the existence of supernatural abilities. Until such time as there is, it's completely irrational to believe that they exist.

A very reasonable position. You were the one who distorted his position:

Once upon a time there was no evidence that were such things as radio waves. Was it irrational to believe that wireless communication could be possible?

Once upon a time there was no evidence that there were such things as atomic particles, yet many people believed in such things. Were they irrational?

When there is no evidence, the strictly correct answer is "I don't know," not "there's no such thing." Unless, of course, you have already tested every single person on the planet, for every possible variation on the idea of psychic ability, using every possible testing protocol. Have you? No? Then I maintain that "are psychics real?" and "are the kinds of things we currently call psychic phemonena possible?" are two completely separate and unrelated questions.

PC (and subsequently myself) argued that it's unreasonable to believe something until there's evidence for it. You attacked a different position: that it's reasonable to deny the possibility of something in the absense of universal evidence. I don't think either I or PC hold this view.

I suggest you slow down and read what people are arguing before going off on a rant. We agree that's it's reasonable to say that it's possible that telepathy is true (apologies for the convoluted sentence :p), what we're disputing it's the reasonability of believing that it is true without evidence.

So are you saying that in your opinion, explorers and researchers are irrational? Because they believe that a thing can be done currently. That's why they try to do it currently, to prove that.

You're clearly very sensitive about people 'putting words in your mouth' so please don't do the same to others. Beginning your research by assuming that what you're looking for exists is a very bad idea as it's likely to warp your interpretation of the data. Instead, a researcher or explorer should say "It's possible that X, let's find out".

Yes. It is my opinion that being proved right in the end is the ultimate vindication, and if it were to come to light that such beliefs were right all along, then the people who mocked them with smart-ass remarks about purple winged butt-monkeys can then get down on their knees and kiss the monkey winking at them from out my ass.

And until that day holding the butt-monkey beliefs would be unreasonable, no?

Once more, for the record, I do not believe in magic or the supernatural. Read my goddamned posts, and stop inventing bullshit to try to make fun of me with.

Who said the microscopic flying butt-monkeys were magical? I used a classic reductio ad absurdum to show the problem with your post, making fun of you is not my intention.

Hm, good point.

But then, would not the hypothetical magic wings also be testable? I was running with the assumption (from the post to which I was replying) that they were not by virtue of being not re-creatable.
Yes, they would be. They'd be testable just like migraines, epileptic seizures, sleep disorders, GoG's example of the physiological processes of labor, and hell, even just like that odd noise that comes out of your car when you're driving around the neighborhood but not when you go to the mechanic, can all be subject to testing.

How? Simple, the observers have to sit around and wait for the phenomenon to happen on its own and be ready to pounce when it does.

But had there been more reason to begin with, they never would have felt the need to plan out the Holocaust, no?

You may wish to believe that, but I see no reason to do so.

Fair enough. But if you disqualify the supernatural, then does that also disqualify the more subtle supernatural, such as the ability to see into the future or actually read minds (again, I'm not including people who are good at predicting things or figuring out what people are thinking by virtue of being observant and such, but only people who are telepathic in the more conventional sense. I think it's vital to distinguish between the two.)

If it has any supernatural or magic component, then science cannot test it. Science would only be able to test these things if they were completely natural.

No. It's because they're magic. Science makes certain unprovable assumptions upon which everything is based. One of them is tha things do not have supernatural causes. Magic wings would disqualify themselves based on their supernatural aspect. If you simply had wings that sprouted spontaneously, but were completely natural, then they would be theoretically testable.

that's not an assumption necessary to science. being supernatural would not put something outside the realm of empirical investigation unless it also didn't have empirical consequences. magic would not necessarily be inscrutable.

Let's look at the original post from PC shall we? He began by saying:



A very reasonable position. You were the one who distorted his position:



PC (and subsequently myself) argued that it's unreasonable to believe something until there's evidence for it. You attacked a different position: that it's reasonable to deny the possibility of something in the absense of universal evidence. I don't think either I or PC hold this view.

I suggest you slow down and read what people are arguing before going off on a rant. We agree that's it's reasonable to say that it's possible that telepathy is true (apologies for the convoluted sentence :p), what we're disputing it's the reasonability of believing that it is true without evidence.



You're clearly very sensitive about people 'putting words in your mouth' so please don't do the same to others. Beginning your research by assuming that what you're looking for exists is a very bad idea as it's likely to warp your interpretation of the data. Instead, a researcher or explorer should say "It's possible that X, let's find out".



And until that day holding the butt-monkey beliefs would be unreasonable, no?



Who said the microscopic flying butt-monkeys were magical? I used a classic reductio ad absurdum to show the problem with your post, making fun of you is not my intention.

I started to type out a response, but I think this more or less covered the general gist of it, and rather more succinctly than I think I would have been capable of. :)

You may wish to believe that, but I see no reason to do so.

The Holocaust was a result of blindly following the wishes of deranged madmen. Blind obedience is, by definition, unreasonable, no?


If it has any supernatural or magic component, then science cannot test it. Science would only be able to test these things if they were completely natural.

Unless, of course, there are empirical consequences. Science can test things like Young Earth Creationism, for example, because despite being a supernatural claim, it has consequences for the natural world.

that's not an assumption necessary to science. being supernatural would not put something outside the realm of empirical investigation unless it also didn't have empirical consequences. magic would not necessarily be inscrutable.

I think it is necessary. Whenever you devise an experiment, you seek to control for all the other factors that may influence the outcome. Since it is impossible for us to control for supernatural factors, we have to assume that they are not operating.

Consequently, if we still find anomalies after doing all our controls, we have to assume that the cause of these anomalies is also natural.

It can be called it, but whether it's valid evidence or not is another matter.

Hehehe didn't I just say that!


Of course not. But that doesn't make reality subjective; it merely explains why different people using reason and evidence often draw different conclusions.

Yes of course, and by-the-by I have never claimed reality as subjective, I only said that 'evidance' can be.



I suggest no such thing. Your friend is objectively wrong if, indeed, you are not suffering. But the Iraq war has objectively caused suffering, no?

Whether you conciosly know it or not your certianly did. when you talked about your presidant, it is clear that not all of your fellow country men agree with you and so some will claim that the USA is not suffering becuase of his actions.

Yes you are objectivly correct.



What crusades would there have been without people willing (even eager) to fight them? Without peasants to work the fields to pay for them?

Ohh you mean nobels to fight them, and how many of these peasants voulntered to work in the fields, you know to support the cause?

The Holocaust was a result of blindly following the wishes of deranged madmen. Blind obedience is, by definition, unreasonable, no?

No. It wasn't blind obedience. The industrialised genocide of the Holocaust was so complex that it must have constantly created problems that would have demanded that people use their brains to resolve these complications. If they are doing that, they are not following orders blindly.

Unless, of course, there are empirical consequences. Science can test things like Young Earth Creationism, for example, because despite being a supernatural claim, it has consequences for the natural world.

No. It is a natural claim. It also happens to be wrong, and we know this because we can test the natural aspects of it. The supernatural aspects of the claim are outside of the purview of science.

Yes, they would be. They'd be testable just like migraines, epileptic seizures, sleep disorders, GoG's example of the physiological processes of labor, and hell, even just like that odd noise that comes out of your car when you're driving around the neighborhood but not when you go to the mechanic, can all be subject to testing.

How? Simple, the observers have to sit around and wait for the phenomenon to happen on its own and be ready to pounce when it does.

Heh, real scientists are proactive:

Scientist: So, Mr Jones, you have a twin named Patrick and you say you've shared his thoughts in the past when he's been in danger?

Jones: Yes that's right.

Scientist: Good... good...

*presses button*

*A section of wall falls away to reveal a pane of sound-proofed glass. Behind it, Patrick is being slowly lowered into a tank of mutant seabass*

Jones: What the hell! You're sick! Stop it!

Scientist: I'd be only to happy to, Mr Jones, just as soon as you tell me which playing card I showed Patrick just before you came into the room.

Jones: But I thought I was only here to audition for the Jerry Springer show!

I can dream. :$

Let's look at the original post from PC shall we? He began by saying:



A very reasonable position. You were the one who distorted his position:

It is your opinion that his position is reasonable. It is my opinion that his position is unreasonable. I explain why I think that. You call my explanations distortions. I do not think I distorted anything. Apparently this chasm is too wide to bridge.

PC (and subsequently myself) argued that it's unreasonable to believe something until there's evidence for it. You attacked a different position: that it's reasonable to deny the possibility of something in the absense of universal evidence. I don't think either I or PC hold this view.
I originally argued that the belief that such things are possible is a reasonable belief.

PC was the one who, in responding to such comments by me and others, changed a "belief that X is possible" to a "belief that X exists." He did that in the post you quoted.

I am not the one who distorted this debate.

I suggest you slow down and read what people are arguing before going off on a rant. We agree that's it's reasonable to say that it's possible that telepathy is true (apologies for the convoluted sentence :p), what we're disputing it's the reasonability of believing that it is true without evidence.
I suggest you do the same because I am not the one failing to understand what the argument is about. I know perfectly well what you are arguing. I am disputing your assertions about what is reasonable or unreasonable. I disagree because I think you are wrong, not because I don't know what you are saying.

You're clearly very sensitive about people 'putting words in your mouth' so please don't do the same to others.
I do not believe I have done so.

Beginning your research by assuming that what you're looking for exists is a very bad idea as it's likely to warp your interpretation of the data.
Rather I think you're the one putting words into other people's mouths, because neither I nor anyone else has suggested any such thing as the above.

Instead, a researcher or explorer should say "It's possible that X, let's find out".
Which is what I have been saying all along, which you would know if you had read the thread, as you advise me to do.

And until that day holding the butt-monkey beliefs would be unreasonable, no?
No. For the reasons I already stated.

Who said the microscopic flying butt-monkeys were magical? I used a classic reductio ad absurdum to show the problem with your post, making fun of you is not my intention.
Ah, unintended consequences, eh? They can be so pesky. Next time, try making a classic reductio ad absurdum that isn't nothing but an extended insult.

I started to type out a response, but I think this more or less covered the general gist of it, and rather more succinctly than I think I would have been capable of. :)
Then I refer you to the response to it that I posted.

Hehehe didn't I just say that!



Yes of course, and by-the-by I have never claimed reality as subjective, I only said that 'evidance' can be.

But evidence is merely a reflection of reality.



Whether you conciosly know it or not your certianly did. when you talked about your presidant, it is clear that not all of your fellow country men agree with you and so some will claim that the USA is not suffering becuase of his actions.

Yes you are objectivly correct.

Actually, I was talking about the people getting their houses blown up and such. And the evidence objectively says that they are.



Ohh you mean nobels to fight them, and how many of these peasants voulntered to work in the fields, you know to support the cause?
Oh, there was a huge religious fervor to work as hard as possible, in the fields of battle and agriculture, to support the Crusades. Certain preachers were very influential in making sure this was true.

No. It wasn't blind obedience. The industrialised genocide of the Holocaust was so complex that it must have constantly created problems that would have demanded that people use their brains to resolve these complications. If they are doing that, they are not following orders blindly.

Sure they were. They may have been considering, rationally, how to follow the orders, but not if they should have followed them in the first place.


No. It is a natural claim. It also happens to be wrong, and we know this because we can test the natural aspects of it. The supernatural aspects of the claim are outside of the purview of science.

And certain supernatural claims are contingent on natural claims. "God breathed life into a clump of dirt, and by doing so formed the first human body, 6,000 years ago" is a supernatural claim, in that it is essentially magic (even if it is divine in nature). Yet that is contingent on the idea that the first humans were created 6,000 years ago, and not evolved from other organisms. Thus, we disprove the supernatural claim by demonstrating its natural consequences are false.

Heh, real scientists are proactive:



I can dream. :$
I take it this is your way of conceding a point?

I take it this is your way of conceding a point?

The phrase 'WTF?' comes to mind. Besides the strangeness of the idea that an instance of humour is conceding any point at all, which point do you think I'm conceding?

The phrase 'WTF?' comes to mind. Besides the strangeness of the idea that an instance of humour is conceding any point at all, which point do you think I'm conceding?
The point that the fact that a phenomenon cannot be reproduced on demand is not proof that it doesn't exist.

Though I realize that was not originally your point (it was PC's), so I guess I should have said "agree with" rather than "concede."

I originally argued that the belief that such things are possible is a reasonable belief.

PC was the one who, in responding to such comments by me and others, changed a "belief that X is possible" to a "belief that X exists." He did that in the post you quoted.

Really? The post of PC's that I quoted doesn't seem to be in response to anyone in particular, he certainly doesn't quote anyone.

I am not the one who distorted this debate.

He didn't even address his first post to you: he posted his own opinion in isolation. I'm not sure how this counts as distortion...

I suggest you do the same because I am not the one failing to understand what the argument is about. I know perfectly well what you are arguing.

So why do you keep putting up straw man arguments like:

So are you saying that in your opinion, explorers and researchers are irrational? Because they believe that a thing can be done currently. That's why they try to do it currently, to prove that.

?

If you know I accept that it's reasonable to acknowledge the possibility of something then this point was utterly irrelevant to the discussion. The same goes for all your earlier comments about the 'possibility of wireless communication' etc. Either you're wrong about the position you're arguing against or you're bringing up an awful lot of irrelevant points.

On the one hand you say you disagree with me when I say that "believing in purple butt-monkeys is unreasonable until there's evidence for them", and then you claim that you're not arguing anything of the sort.

Since I'm not the only one who's apparently failing to understand your point, do you think it's possible that this could be down to a lack of clarity on your part rather that deliberate distortion on ours?

Ah, unintended consequences, eh? They can be so pesky. Next time, try making a classic reductio ad absurdum that isn't nothing but an extended insult.

So you want me to make a reductio ad absurdum without showing that your reasoning leads to an absurd result? Gotcha. There's a difference between making fun of an argument and making fun of a person you know.

The point that the fact that a phenomenon cannot be reproduced on demand is not proof that it doesn't exist.

Though I realize that was not originally your point (it was PC's), so I guess I should have said "agree with" rather than "concede."

Actually his (original) point seems to have been that if it cannot be reproduced on demand then it's untestable, not that it's proved to be non-existent. My post wasn't intended to concede or agree with anything, it was simply an (apparently abortive...) attempt to lighten the mood. :(

it is impossible for us to control for supernatural factors

only if they are absolutely inscrutable. i see no reason to believe that they are necessarily so.

But evidence is merely a reflection of reality.

Is it? I would not have said so. Evidance is just that which shows something.

If my child cries when I take an icecream off of him, I can claim his crying as evidance that he did not like me taking his icecream from him.

It may be the case that this is so, it may not be, it may be that a bee stung him at the same time. This though does not invalidate the fact that he cried when I took his icecream.

Sure they were. They may have been considering, rationally, how to follow the orders, but not if they should have followed them in the first place.

They may have questioned the orders, and then come up with perfectly rational reasons to follow them. The point is that more rational behaviour is not more moral behaviour.

And certain supernatural claims are contingent on natural claims. "God breathed life into a clump of dirt, and by doing so formed the first human body, 6,000 years ago" is a supernatural claim, in that it is essentially magic (even if it is divine in nature). Yet that is contingent on the idea that the first humans were created 6,000 years ago, and not evolved from other organisms. Thus, we disprove the supernatural claim by demonstrating its natural consequences are false.

You did not prove that god did not breathe life into a clump of dirt. All you did was prove that it must have happened much earlier, if it did happen. The part where god breathes life into something is neither provable nor disprovable. It's just outside of what science can intelligently make a comment on.

only if they are absolutely inscrutable. i see no reason to believe that they are necessarily so.

Since it would be impossible to test if they are inscrutable (I've never seen this word used outside of stereotypical descriptions of the Chinese. I assume it means that you can't really glean any information about them), we have to assume that they have no effect on what we study with schience.

You did not prove that god did not breathe life into a clump of dirt. All you did was prove that it must have happened much earlier, if it did happen. The part where god breathes life into something is neither provable nor disprovable. It's just outside of what science can intelligently make a comment on.

1) "god breathed life into a clump of dirt, and by doing so formed the first human body, 6,000 years ago"
2) "god breathed life into a clump of dirt at some point"

those are two completely different claims, both of which have supernatural content. but the empirical consequences inherent in 1 made it testable - allowed it to be disproven, in fact. 2 still has empirical consequences, but is much less restricted in scope, so harder to pin down what evidence exactly would contradict it.

but this isn't a problem with the supernatural aspect of it, but rather with its lack of precision. presumably the fact that the origin of life didn't actually involve a clump of dirt at all counts though. to be really safe, you have to pull the supernatural claim away from any specific empirical consequences at all. head towards something like

3) "however and whenever life originated, god played some sort of role, a role which is absolutely indistinguishable to us from god playing no role at all."

of course, that's not actually saying anything at all - the supernatural adds nothing at all. and that is the only sort of supernatural claim that is untestable in principle. but note that even utterly mundane things are untestable if used in such statements.

4) "however and whenever life originated, the dwarf planet pluto played some sort of role, a role which is absolutely indistinguishable to us from pluto playing no role at all."

Since it would be impossible to test if they are inscrutable

on what grounds?

Really? The post of PC's that I quoted doesn't seem to be in response to anyone in particular, he certainly doesn't quote anyone.
His remark was responded to by several people. He was the one who defended his remark as written, rather than clarify it.

He didn't even address his first post to you: he posted his own opinion in isolation. I'm not sure how this counts as distortion...
So?

So why do you keep putting up straw man arguments like:



?
The question you quoted and others like it are not an argument, strawman or otherwise. They are questions. You can tell that by the fact that there's a question mark at the end of them. I am not putting up a statement, attributing it to PC or you and then attacking it. I am asking PC and you if that is what you mean. If either of you had chosen to respond, it would have been an opportunity for you to clarify your arguments.

If you know I accept that it's reasonable to acknowledge the possibility of something then this point was utterly irrelevant to the discussion. The same goes for all your earlier comments about the 'possibility of wireless communication' etc. Either you're wrong about the position you're arguing against or you're bringing up an awful lot of irrelevant points.
At this point, I would be interested to know just what you think my argument is. You've mentioned bits and pieces that were off the mark, but I'd like to know what you think I've been talking about in its entirety.

On the one hand you say you disagree with me when I say that "believing in purple butt-monkeys is unreasonable until there's evidence for them", and then you claim that you're not arguing anything of the sort.
The bolded part shows a lack of clarity right there. "Anything of [what] sort"? Do you think I denied saying that your argument is unreasonable? Because if you do, then you're wrong. Read the past several posts again and try to figure out the connections.

Since I'm not the only one who's apparently failing to understand your point, do you think it's possible that this could be down to a lack of clarity on your part rather that deliberate distortion on ours?
No, I don't.

So you want me to make a reductio ad absurdum without showing that your reasoning leads to an absurd result? Gotcha.
Actually, I'd just be satisfied with you making a reductio ad absurdum that actually was one -- you know one that actually reduced MY argument to an absurdity rather than introduce some notion that is utterly unrelated to what I was actually saying.

There's a difference between making fun of an argument and making fun of a person you know.
There's also a difference between making fun of an argument a person actually made and one they never made.

Actually his (original) point seems to have been that if it cannot be reproduced on demand then it's untestable, not that it's proved to be non-existent.
I addressed that in another post.

My post wasn't intended to concede or agree with anything, it was simply an (apparently abortive...) attempt to lighten the mood. :(

1) "god breathed life into a clump of dirt, and by doing so formed the first human body, 6,000 years ago"
2) "god breathed life into a clump of dirt at some point"

those are two completely different claims, both of which have supernatural content. but the empirical consequences inherent in 1 made it testable - allowed it to be disproven, in fact. 2 still has empirical consequences, but is much less restricted in scope, so harder to pin down what evidence exactly would contradict it.

but this isn't a problem with the supernatural aspect of it, but rather with its lack of precision. presumably the fact that the origin of life didn't actually involve a clump of dirt at all counts though. to be really safe, you have to pull the supernatural claim away from any specific empirical consequences at all. head towards something like

3) "however and whenever life originated, god played some sort of role, a role which is absolutely indistinguishable to us from god playing no role at all."

of course, that's not actually saying anything at all - the supernatural adds nothing at all. and that is the only sort of supernatural claim that is untestable in principle. but note that even utterly mundane things are untestable if used in such statements.

4) "however and whenever life originated, the dwarf planet pluto played some sort of role, a role which is absolutely indistinguishable to us from pluto playing no role at all."


I think this is a situation where your claims are correct and mine are too. The problems in this specific assertion are a lack of specificity, and a lack of significant supernatural roles, and the underlying assumption of science.

But if we made a very clear and precise detailing of the supernatural process by which god animated some random aggregation of sediment, we would resolve the specificity issue but come no closer to having a testable model.

We are further hampered by the fact that we have never witnessed en masse or recorded a phenomena that most people accept as supernatural, so we have nothing to compare it to. We can't look at the time we all saw god pump the cosmic pneuma into inorganic matter and compare it to that other time that when we witnessed abiogenesis and then compare new supernatural stuff to that.

And you're right about the empirical impacts. But it dovetails with what I'm saying. We can know about the empirical impacts of supernatural events, but that is because the impacts are themselves not supernatural.

on what grounds?

I thought you meant 'can't be scrutinised' by 'inscrutable', which is synonymous with 'untestable'. If something can't be tested by science, how do you devise a scientific test to see if it is testable?

And you're right about the empirical impacts. But it dovetails with what I'm saying. We can know about the empirical impacts of supernatural events, but that is because the impacts are themselves not supernatural.

my point is that specific supernatural claims are testable. yes, science can't deal with inherently untestable claims, but it is obviously the not case that all supernatural claims are untestable, nor, for that matter, are all natural claims untestable. thus the category of untestable claims doesn't map nicely onto some natural/supernatural dichotomy.

unless you want to hold that "god breathed life into a clump of dirt, and by doing so formed the first human body, 6,000 years ago" is not a supernatural claim at all. but in that case, what is it?

also, consider the somewhat parallel case that we can observe the impacts of fundamental natural forces, but the actual forces themselves can only be gotten to indirectly.

I thought you meant 'can't be scrutinised' by 'inscrutable', which is synonymous with 'untestable'. If something can't be tested by science, how do you devise a scientific test to see if it is testable?

nah, i mean by inscrutable something like 'not capable of being understood'. i see no reason to assume the supernatural is such, and clearly can imagine that, for example, 'real' magic would be entirely orderly and understandable