Libretio - by your words you have stated that you believe that there are a number of con-artist as well as people with true psychic ability.
So by your own criteria how do you distinguish between the con-artists from truly psychic?
I am curious to know as I believe that I can speak for the vast majority of people who you would term a 'denialist' in saying that we are not denying anything, all we are looking for (in anything) is a reasonable burden of proof to conclude a scientific probability before we will accept something as either fact, highly probable or probable.
You cannot reasonably expect people to believe anything they are told just because they cannot prove it is not true.
I'm not expecting anyone to believe anything at all. But you're operating from the starting point that ALL paranormal claims are the product of either fraud or delusion, and my starting point is enquiry and debate. I have an open mind. Your postings suggest the opposite.
Well, actually, it would help someone who wanted to learn something about logical fallacies. I don't see why any "rabid denialists" would have hijacked this particular page, seeing as it isn't about psychic ability.
Since the site cannot be trusted to provide objective information on the subject of paranormal claims, it follows that it cannot be trusted in other areas which might tie into it, no matter how peripheral it might seem. I'd rather take my chances elsewhere.
Libretio - by your words you have stated that you believe that there are a number of con-artist as well as people with true psychic ability.
No, I'm saying there's the possibility that some claims of psychic ability are true. I'm not a scientist or a parapsychologist, so I don't have the means by which to measure a person's abilities. But I want to know ALL the facts surrounding a claim before making a final judgement. That's an open-minded approach. Others on this thread are claiming - without any equivocation - that ALL psychics are frauds. That is something else altogether.
I am curious to know as I believe that I can speak for the vast majority of people who you would term a 'denialist' in saying that we are not denying anything, all we are looking for (in anything) is a reasonable burden of proof to conclude a scientific probability before we will accept something as either fact, highly probable or probable.
It's blindingly obvious that denialists (as opposed to sceptics) are NOT engaged in the scientific pursuit of evidence, only in the denial of any and all claims of the paranormal. That's a different thing from the open-minded approach you've proposed. A genuine 'sceptic' would enquire after the evidence that DOES exist for various claims, and not simply dismiss them out of hand.
My coat is not in the room where I'm currently sitting at my computer. It's on a peg on the door downstairs. I've verified it by going to the door and checking. There, I've just proved a negative. Not so hard after all.
Now prove the assertion that ALL psychics are frauds.
That isn't proving a negative.
That is proving a positive - that your coat is on the peg downstairs - and extrapolating from that fact that your coat cannot therefore also be in the room.
For your logic to work in the realm of psychic ability, the only way to prove no one has psychic ability would be to prove that every single person didn't have psychic ability ... which of course isn't possible in practical terms.
You are using a logical fallacy "something is either true or not true. You cannot prove that it is false, it therefore MUST be true".
Give just one credible example of this evidence you believe does exist.
What do you mean by 'credible'? Since it's clear you don't think ANY of it is credible, and since you'll obviously rubbish anything I offer in evidence, we both know it's an exercise in bullshit and futility. Who do you think you're trying to fool?
Twist it any way you want, but it won't make any difference. And constantly claiming that I'm dealing in 'logical fallacies' doesn't make it so.
You are dealing in one of the best known logical fallacies. That isn't my opinion, that IS a fact ... though I expect you'll trot out the rather pathetic "just because you say something doesn't make it so" line yet again.
You deny that you are relying on something that is a well known logical fallacy but have the nerve to accuse others of being "denialists".
What do you mean by 'credible'? Since it's clear you don't think ANY of it is credible, and since you'll obviously rubbish anything I offer in evidence, we both know it's an exercise in bullshit and futility. Who do you think you're trying to fool?
You are quite right. I don't think you'd be able to provide anything credible.
But go on, provide some evidence. I PROMISE I won't snipe ... but lets see if you can impress anyone else.
You are dealing in one of the best known logical fallacies. That isn't my opinion, that IS a fact ...
When denialists get together, do they hold hands in a circle and recite this particular mantra? You say it's so, therefore it is. Absolutely breathtaking.
You are quite right. I don't think you'd be able to provide anything credible.
And the mask slips.
You're actually inviting me to make statements that you've already decided - sight unseen! - to disbelieve, and you want me to think this isn't a snarky, mean-spirited fishing exercise?
Yes, it is. The coat isn't in my room, and I can prove it isn't in my room by checking it's actual location.
Twist it any way you want, but it won't make any difference. And constantly claiming that I'm dealing in 'logical fallacies' doesn't make it so.
.
But what if you can't check its actual location? What if someone asks you where the coat is and you say " you're asking the wrong questions"?
What if there is a locked cupboard that looks like it might contain the coat, but when you're asked to open it, you suddenly feel wrong and leave?
What if someone offers to X-ray the door, but you say "the test conditions aren't right"?
That's the game these fakers are playing. A negative could be proven by scientifically testing so called psychics by people who are rigorous scientists, but they never submit to it
No, I'm saying there's the possibility that some claims of psychic ability are true. I'm not a scientist or a parapsychologist, so I don't have the means by which to measure a person's abilities. But I want to know ALL the facts surrounding a claim before making a final judgement. That's an open-minded approach. Others on this thread are claiming - without any equivocation - that ALL psychics are frauds. That is something else altogether.
.
I had assessed the available evidence and despite many many claims I find nothing to indicate that such powers exist.
I am open minded in that it could be a possibility, but I am happy to conclude that given the lack of evidence (where should be plenty) psychic powers do not exist and that in all probability it is safe to conclude all psychics are frauds (or deluded).
When denialists get together, do they hold hands in a circle and recite this particular mantra? You say it's so, therefore it is. Absolutely breathtaking.
And the mask slips.
You're actually inviting me to make statements that you've already decided - sight unseen! - to disbelieve, and you want me to think this isn't a snarky, mean-spirited fishing exercise?
The true denialist at work. Have you NO humility?
I've not worn any mask - I'll happily admit that I think you've been talking cobblers from the start - but I'm not the only person on this forum you could try convincing.
You've said categorically "the evidence that DOES exist" but you haven't made any attempt to provide this evidence. That's understandable in the circumstances - it's a fairly typical defence mechanism - you can't provide any credible evidence because there isn't any credible evidence, so you slip around like an eel to evade the question.
On the other hand "deniers" or "sceptics" have repeatedly been able to provide evidence that those who claim to have psychic abilities are merely performing mundane trickery.
In my opinion, with plenty of evidence of fake psychics, but no evidence for genuine psychics, only a gullible fool would continue to believe that some people have psychic abilities.
The Peter Popoff expose was brilliant. But even more staggering....the guy gets exposed, goes bankrupt, disappears for a bit, only to surface again and rake in more millions! :o
I've not worn any mask - I'll happily admit that I think you've been talking cobblers from the start - but I'm not the only person on this forum you could try convincing.
You're labouring under the delusion that I'm trying to 'convince' anybody of anything! All I've done from the outset is take a position, and all you've done is attack that position with claims that suggest you think you're superior to anyone who thinks differently from yourself.
You've said categorically "the evidence that DOES exist" but you haven't made any attempt to provide this evidence. That's understandable in the circumstances - it's a fairly typical defence mechanism - you can't provide any credible evidence because there isn't any credible evidence, so you slip around like an eel to evade the question.
Your 'challenge' amounted to this: "Provide credible evidence I can laugh at, since the definition of 'credible' is so vague that I can say whatever I like about anything you have to offer. I freely admit I think it's all shite, so I'm predisposed to dismiss your evidence out of hand, though any other plebs who frequent this thread might possibly find something of worth in it. Naturally, I'll invite them to point fingers and laugh as soon as you post anything. Credible or not."
I wasn't avoiding your challenge, I just found it worthless and deceitful.
Your attempt to claim martyrdom by accusing me of evasiveness over a 'challenge' that was designed with the specific intention of allowing you to accuse me of 'evasiveness' is beyond a joke.
In fact, I had to laugh when I realised you were actually trying to make yourself look saintly by pretending to care that I provide evidence for other people on the thread! Your 'challenge' wasn't about helping to educate anyone, it was about making yourself look smugly superior. A deceitful approach, and all too typical of head-in-the-sand denialists.
But if anyone does care to look at some of the evidence, they can start by investigating the links here and work outward for themselves.
No doubt you'll dismiss the lot of it as fakery and foolishness. Which is exactly what you intended in the first place.
But go on, provide some evidence. I PROMISE I won't snipe ... but lets see if you can impress anyone else.
I deliberately capitalised the word for a reason.
You've posted a link - which, I'll admit, surprises me - but it's rather lost within your last post (rant) so I'll repost and hopefully it'll be clearer for anyone else who wants to take a look ...
I will take a look through some of the links, and see if any of it change my views, but I'll leave it to others to comment on whether the evidence is credible or not.
No I won't, actually. I was very clear that I wouldn't ...
I deliberately capitalised the word for a reason.
You've posted a link - which, I'll admit, surprises me - but it's rather lost within your last post (rant) so I'll repost and hopefully it'll be clearer for anyone else who wants to take a look ...
I will take a look through some of the links, and see if any of it change my views, but I'll leave it to others to comment on whether the evidence is credible or not.
Comments
So by your own criteria how do you distinguish between the con-artists from truly psychic?
I am curious to know as I believe that I can speak for the vast majority of people who you would term a 'denialist' in saying that we are not denying anything, all we are looking for (in anything) is a reasonable burden of proof to conclude a scientific probability before we will accept something as either fact, highly probable or probable.
You don't have a monopoly on rational argument, no matter how much you might want to believe otherwise.
Since you've offered no evidence to back up that claim, it remains nothing more than an opinion masuerading as fact.
I'm not expecting anyone to believe anything at all. But you're operating from the starting point that ALL paranormal claims are the product of either fraud or delusion, and my starting point is enquiry and debate. I have an open mind. Your postings suggest the opposite.
Since the site cannot be trusted to provide objective information on the subject of paranormal claims, it follows that it cannot be trusted in other areas which might tie into it, no matter how peripheral it might seem. I'd rather take my chances elsewhere.
No, I'm saying there's the possibility that some claims of psychic ability are true. I'm not a scientist or a parapsychologist, so I don't have the means by which to measure a person's abilities. But I want to know ALL the facts surrounding a claim before making a final judgement. That's an open-minded approach. Others on this thread are claiming - without any equivocation - that ALL psychics are frauds. That is something else altogether.
It's blindingly obvious that denialists (as opposed to sceptics) are NOT engaged in the scientific pursuit of evidence, only in the denial of any and all claims of the paranormal. That's a different thing from the open-minded approach you've proposed. A genuine 'sceptic' would enquire after the evidence that DOES exist for various claims, and not simply dismiss them out of hand.
That isn't proving a negative.
That is proving a positive - that your coat is on the peg downstairs - and extrapolating from that fact that your coat cannot therefore also be in the room.
For your logic to work in the realm of psychic ability, the only way to prove no one has psychic ability would be to prove that every single person didn't have psychic ability ... which of course isn't possible in practical terms.
You are using a logical fallacy "something is either true or not true. You cannot prove that it is false, it therefore MUST be true".
No I don't have a monopoly on rational argument .... but everything I've said is consistent with recognised rational argument.
Your arguments have hinged on known logical fallacies.
I prefer the view from where I'm standing thanks.
Yes, it is. The coat isn't in my room, and I can prove it isn't in my room by checking it's actual location.
Twist it any way you want, but it won't make any difference. And constantly claiming that I'm dealing in 'logical fallacies' doesn't make it so.
Recognised by who? People with the same viewpoint as yourself? That's only 'consistent' if you happen to agree with them.
Give just one credible example of this evidence you believe does exist.
What do you mean by 'credible'? Since it's clear you don't think ANY of it is credible, and since you'll obviously rubbish anything I offer in evidence, we both know it's an exercise in bullshit and futility. Who do you think you're trying to fool?
You are dealing in one of the best known logical fallacies. That isn't my opinion, that IS a fact ... though I expect you'll trot out the rather pathetic "just because you say something doesn't make it so" line yet again.
You deny that you are relying on something that is a well known logical fallacy but have the nerve to accuse others of being "denialists".
You are quite right. I don't think you'd be able to provide anything credible.
But go on, provide some evidence. I PROMISE I won't snipe ... but lets see if you can impress anyone else.
When denialists get together, do they hold hands in a circle and recite this particular mantra? You say it's so, therefore it is. Absolutely breathtaking.
And the mask slips.
You're actually inviting me to make statements that you've already decided - sight unseen! - to disbelieve, and you want me to think this isn't a snarky, mean-spirited fishing exercise?
The true denialist at work. Have you NO humility?
But what if you can't check its actual location? What if someone asks you where the coat is and you say " you're asking the wrong questions"?
What if there is a locked cupboard that looks like it might contain the coat, but when you're asked to open it, you suddenly feel wrong and leave?
What if someone offers to X-ray the door, but you say "the test conditions aren't right"?
That's the game these fakers are playing. A negative could be proven by scientifically testing so called psychics by people who are rigorous scientists, but they never submit to it
I am open minded in that it could be a possibility, but I am happy to conclude that given the lack of evidence (where should be plenty) psychic powers do not exist and that in all probability it is safe to conclude all psychics are frauds (or deluded).
The full segment from This Morning with Paul Zenon 'debunking' the 'psychic'
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FQU4ohwvYjY
I've not worn any mask - I'll happily admit that I think you've been talking cobblers from the start - but I'm not the only person on this forum you could try convincing.
You've said categorically "the evidence that DOES exist" but you haven't made any attempt to provide this evidence. That's understandable in the circumstances - it's a fairly typical defence mechanism - you can't provide any credible evidence because there isn't any credible evidence, so you slip around like an eel to evade the question.
On the other hand "deniers" or "sceptics" have repeatedly been able to provide evidence that those who claim to have psychic abilities are merely performing mundane trickery.
In my opinion, with plenty of evidence of fake psychics, but no evidence for genuine psychics, only a gullible fool would continue to believe that some people have psychic abilities.
Wow! looked at his website, you've gotta admire this guy's chutzpah, l made sure I kept my finger away from the 'donate' button though!
Go to the '108 cat calls in New York' thread, it's in a league of its own.
You're labouring under the delusion that I'm trying to 'convince' anybody of anything! All I've done from the outset is take a position, and all you've done is attack that position with claims that suggest you think you're superior to anyone who thinks differently from yourself.
Your 'challenge' amounted to this: "Provide credible evidence I can laugh at, since the definition of 'credible' is so vague that I can say whatever I like about anything you have to offer. I freely admit I think it's all shite, so I'm predisposed to dismiss your evidence out of hand, though any other plebs who frequent this thread might possibly find something of worth in it. Naturally, I'll invite them to point fingers and laugh as soon as you post anything. Credible or not."
I wasn't avoiding your challenge, I just found it worthless and deceitful.
Your attempt to claim martyrdom by accusing me of evasiveness over a 'challenge' that was designed with the specific intention of allowing you to accuse me of 'evasiveness' is beyond a joke.
In fact, I had to laugh when I realised you were actually trying to make yourself look saintly by pretending to care that I provide evidence for other people on the thread! Your 'challenge' wasn't about helping to educate anyone, it was about making yourself look smugly superior. A deceitful approach, and all too typical of head-in-the-sand denialists.
But if anyone does care to look at some of the evidence, they can start by investigating the links here and work outward for themselves.
No doubt you'll dismiss the lot of it as fakery and foolishness. Which is exactly what you intended in the first place.
No I won't, actually. I was very clear that I wouldn't ...
I deliberately capitalised the word for a reason.
You've posted a link - which, I'll admit, surprises me - but it's rather lost within your last post (rant) so I'll repost and hopefully it'll be clearer for anyone else who wants to take a look ...
Selected Peer-Reviewed Publications on Psi Research
I will take a look through some of the links, and see if any of it change my views, but I'll leave it to others to comment on whether the evidence is credible or not.
Given the sneery tone of our recent postings, you'll understand why I wasn't prepared to accept that assurance at face value.
I hoped it might.
That's all anyone on either side of the debate can ask for.
I am puzzled as James married Deyvi Peña, aka José Alvarez after Deyvi had been lying to him for many years,and he likes to expose frauds
Here's a link picked at random:
http://deanradin.com/evidence/sheldrake2003.pdf
"Testing a Language - Using Parrot for Telepathy"
No comment.
It's like asking an atheist to believe in god by showing him a bible.