Medium Colin Fry
- Thread starter scepticuk2
- Start date
thaiboxerken
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Sep 17, 2001
- Messages
- 34,587
You can go ahead and admit that you can't find fallacy in my arguements, Jallenecs. We can also let your silence on the matter speak for you.
thaiboxerken
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Sep 17, 2001
- Messages
- 34,587
jallenecs said:
No sacred cow here, I am not here to impress anybody. There is no act going on either. You are as bad as a believer, you see things that just aren't there.
ShowMe is still delusional with no doubts about Colin Fry.
thaiboxerken
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Sep 17, 2001
- Messages
- 34,587
showme2 said:
TBK
"""Yes, but the fact that NOT ONE has ever been validated scientifically means that they are all charlatans.""""
Well, that is as classic an example of illogical conclusion-reaching as I have seen on any forum. So THAT's how "scientifically you reach conclusions is it ? I pity you.
""""Your own personal delusion and arrogance. You are unable to accept the fact that you can be fooled. """"
If you read the post properly - you can read, I take it? - I have accepted the possibility that I could be fooled, though I regard it as extremely unlikely and have that I have not been fooled.
""""It obviously won't convince anyone else, and I don't expect it to do so.
Yet, here you are trying to convince us.""""
Absolutely wrong, I'm not trying yo convince YOU of anything. Why the hell should I care what YOU think ?
Try to calm down and don't get so angry. You'll develop high blood pressure if you carry on as you are.
__________________
"""Yes, but the fact that NOT ONE has ever been validated scientifically means that they are all charlatans.""""
Well, that is as classic an example of illogical conclusion-reaching as I have seen on any forum. So THAT's how "scientifically you reach conclusions is it ? I pity you.
""""Your own personal delusion and arrogance. You are unable to accept the fact that you can be fooled. """"
If you read the post properly - you can read, I take it? - I have accepted the possibility that I could be fooled, though I regard it as extremely unlikely and have that I have not been fooled.
""""It obviously won't convince anyone else, and I don't expect it to do so.
Yet, here you are trying to convince us.""""
Absolutely wrong, I'm not trying yo convince YOU of anything. Why the hell should I care what YOU think ?
Try to calm down and don't get so angry. You'll develop high blood pressure if you carry on as you are.
__________________
thaiboxerken
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Sep 17, 2001
- Messages
- 34,587
TBK
"""Yes, but the fact that NOT ONE has ever been validated scientifically means that they are all charlatans.""""
Well, that is as classic an example of illogical conclusion-reaching as I have seen on any forum. So THAT's how "scientifically you reach conclusions is it ? I pity you.
Yes, scientific conclusions are dependant on science. There is no science to validate the claims of mediums.
If you read the post properly - you can read, I take it? - I have accepted the possibility that I could be fooled, though I regard it as extremely unlikely and have that I have not been fooled.
In other words, you don't believe you were fooled and have no doubts.
Absolutely wrong, I'm not trying yo convince YOU of anything. Why the hell should I care what YOU think ?
Because you want others to catch your insanity, that way you won't feel like your beliefs are weird.
Try to calm down and don't get so angry. You'll develop high blood pressure if you carry on as you are.
LOL. I am hardly angry. I am a bit disturbed by the fact that you are not alone in your delusions of spirits. Oh well, maybe natural selection will get to you yet.
"""Yes, but the fact that NOT ONE has ever been validated scientifically means that they are all charlatans.""""
Well, that is as classic an example of illogical conclusion-reaching as I have seen on any forum. So THAT's how "scientifically you reach conclusions is it ? I pity you.
Yes, scientific conclusions are dependant on science. There is no science to validate the claims of mediums.
If you read the post properly - you can read, I take it? - I have accepted the possibility that I could be fooled, though I regard it as extremely unlikely and have that I have not been fooled.
In other words, you don't believe you were fooled and have no doubts.
Absolutely wrong, I'm not trying yo convince YOU of anything. Why the hell should I care what YOU think ?
Because you want others to catch your insanity, that way you won't feel like your beliefs are weird.
Try to calm down and don't get so angry. You'll develop high blood pressure if you carry on as you are.
LOL. I am hardly angry. I am a bit disturbed by the fact that you are not alone in your delusions of spirits. Oh well, maybe natural selection will get to you yet.
TBK
I would not get into a philosophical debate because you are plainly not up to it ....
--- """Yes, but the fact that NOT ONE has ever been validated scientifically means that they are all charlatans.""""
Yes, scientific conclusions are dependant on science. There is no science to validate the claims of mediums. " ----
Nobody said anything about "scientifically". I was talking about logic and rational conclusion-reaching. And there is no logical or rational link between your statement "No-one has been validated" and your conclusion that ergo they must all be frauds. You can rationally conclude that ONLY when they have ALL been tested.
(But, as you admit and complain about, they have not all been tested. Therefore your conclusion cannot but be false and illogical.) Logic and "science" are not the same thing.
Enjoyable though this conversation is, I am now off to the pub for a pint or two of excellent British beer.
Keep your spirits up !
I would not get into a philosophical debate because you are plainly not up to it ....
--- """Yes, but the fact that NOT ONE has ever been validated scientifically means that they are all charlatans.""""
Yes, scientific conclusions are dependant on science. There is no science to validate the claims of mediums. " ----
Nobody said anything about "scientifically". I was talking about logic and rational conclusion-reaching. And there is no logical or rational link between your statement "No-one has been validated" and your conclusion that ergo they must all be frauds. You can rationally conclude that ONLY when they have ALL been tested.
(But, as you admit and complain about, they have not all been tested. Therefore your conclusion cannot but be false and illogical.) Logic and "science" are not the same thing.
Enjoyable though this conversation is, I am now off to the pub for a pint or two of excellent British beer.
Keep your spirits up !
thaiboxerken
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Sep 17, 2001
- Messages
- 34,587
TBK
I would not get into a philosophical debate because you are plainly not up to it ....
Nope, I'm more into this topic of the paranormal.
Nobody said anything about "scientifically". I was talking about logic and rational conclusion-reaching. And there is no logical or rational link between your statement "No-one has been validated" and your conclusion that ergo they must all be frauds. You can rationally conclude that ONLY when they have ALL been tested.
Ah, but my negative assertion is the default position. Until ONE medium has been proven not to be a fraud, they all should be considered frauds. The reason is because many have been shown to be frauds and none have shown to be otherwise. Those that haven't been shown to be frauds have simply evaded testing. One would have to redefine known sciences to accept that a medium could be real, that's why it is not a logical fallacy to state that mediums must be charlatans since none have proven to be real.
Mediums are frauds is as logical of a statement as "pixies don't exist on earth". Even though every concievable place on earth hasn't been explored, it's logical to assume pixies don't exist simply because they haven't turned out in ANY place that people have claimed to see them.
I would not get into a philosophical debate because you are plainly not up to it ....
Nope, I'm more into this topic of the paranormal.
Nobody said anything about "scientifically". I was talking about logic and rational conclusion-reaching. And there is no logical or rational link between your statement "No-one has been validated" and your conclusion that ergo they must all be frauds. You can rationally conclude that ONLY when they have ALL been tested.
Ah, but my negative assertion is the default position. Until ONE medium has been proven not to be a fraud, they all should be considered frauds. The reason is because many have been shown to be frauds and none have shown to be otherwise. Those that haven't been shown to be frauds have simply evaded testing. One would have to redefine known sciences to accept that a medium could be real, that's why it is not a logical fallacy to state that mediums must be charlatans since none have proven to be real.
Mediums are frauds is as logical of a statement as "pixies don't exist on earth". Even though every concievable place on earth hasn't been explored, it's logical to assume pixies don't exist simply because they haven't turned out in ANY place that people have claimed to see them.
TBK
Ah ! - but once the Pixies have turned up (as have the mediums) you cannot presume that Pixies do not exist until you have tested them all and concluded that they are not Pixies but something else.
THAT is logic and rationality. Not your pseudo-scientific "default position".
(Besides, you were arguing with jallenecs only recently that it was improper to have a default position ! You cannot know either way until it has been tested and proven one way or the other, you were asserting. Do try to be consistent.)
I would not put too much faith in your "science" I'm afraid, because too many blunders have been made by scientists.
One of them said "You will never get energy from the atom" just before the dawning of the atomic age.
Now what was name? .... oh yes - some fella called Einstein!
But you're keeping me away from the pub and some different kind of spirits ..... I'll have a large Scotch for you while I'm there.
Ah ! - but once the Pixies have turned up (as have the mediums) you cannot presume that Pixies do not exist until you have tested them all and concluded that they are not Pixies but something else.
THAT is logic and rationality. Not your pseudo-scientific "default position".
(Besides, you were arguing with jallenecs only recently that it was improper to have a default position ! You cannot know either way until it has been tested and proven one way or the other, you were asserting. Do try to be consistent.)
I would not put too much faith in your "science" I'm afraid, because too many blunders have been made by scientists.
One of them said "You will never get energy from the atom" just before the dawning of the atomic age.
Now what was name? .... oh yes - some fella called Einstein!
But you're keeping me away from the pub and some different kind of spirits ..... I'll have a large Scotch for you while I'm there.
Showme2,
If the following is true(and it is)
“The only explanation we EVER have for ANYTHING is a natural one”
Therefore the default position is no supernatural.
This is a “neutral” position or NO Default position.. therefore TBK’s “no default position” assertion is correct.
I can never fathom why people give the supernatural any credence when it has not even the faintest glimmer of proof or evidence…
Why do they have this burning NEED for the Supernatural to exist ???
If the following is true(and it is)
“The only explanation we EVER have for ANYTHING is a natural one”
Therefore the default position is no supernatural.
This is a “neutral” position or NO Default position.. therefore TBK’s “no default position” assertion is correct.
I can never fathom why people give the supernatural any credence when it has not even the faintest glimmer of proof or evidence…
Why do they have this burning NEED for the Supernatural to exist ???
"" ---- If the following is true(and it is)
“The only explanation we EVER have for ANYTHING is a natural one” ----"
Yes, no argument. That is self-evident.
But you seem to believe that you understand the whole of the "natural" world by applying science to it - or more accurately physics.
And history proves that such an assertion is fallacious in the extreme.
“The only explanation we EVER have for ANYTHING is a natural one” ----"
Yes, no argument. That is self-evident.
But you seem to believe that you understand the whole of the "natural" world by applying science to it - or more accurately physics.
And history proves that such an assertion is fallacious in the extreme.
The Mighty Thor
Muse
- Joined
- Sep 27, 2003
- Messages
- 961
Aussie Thinker said:
Tradition. Fear (of death, of loss, of the wholly capricious and often cruel actions of nature) Grief, self-aggrandisement (I know something that you don't -- or, I am one of the chosen, the elect) moral bankruptcy (morals MUST come from a Higher Authority than Man). Delusion. Fraud.
Those are just some, but generally, as Hume says in his Enquiry, people conduct their lives for the most part governed by custom and nature, not reason.
malc
The Mighty Thor
Muse
- Joined
- Sep 27, 2003
- Messages
- 961
I note that the believers here assume they are intellectually superior to the sceptics.
Methinks they doth protest too much!
The believers in paranormal phenomena have the burden of proof. The more extraordinary the claim, the more evidence is required.
Should we believe an extraordinary claim rather than that a man might be deceived or be lying about an experience? No.
As a Presbyterian, jallinecs will probably believe that he is predestined for Grace. He was 'chosen' to be one of the elect. He was not an accident of birth. He will probably also believe in 'the laying on of hands'.
So, it is no surprise that he believes in 'spirits'.
malc
Methinks they doth protest too much!
The believers in paranormal phenomena have the burden of proof. The more extraordinary the claim, the more evidence is required.
Should we believe an extraordinary claim rather than that a man might be deceived or be lying about an experience? No.
As a Presbyterian, jallinecs will probably believe that he is predestined for Grace. He was 'chosen' to be one of the elect. He was not an accident of birth. He will probably also believe in 'the laying on of hands'.
So, it is no surprise that he believes in 'spirits'.
malc
Almost agreed. The problem is that neithe pixies nor mediums have shown up.
What has shown up is a bunch of claims.
Sticking with the pixie analogy, we have lots of people saying:
"I have pixies! Believe me!"
Some of the pixie claimants have been obviously debunked.
A few claim to have been proven but upon scrutiny the tests show obvious flaws (ala John Edward and Gary Swartz).
A few from a century or so ago have left intriguing documentation by some investigators. One could reasonably conclude that some of the investigators were in collusion, and that other investigators were unsuitable for the task.
A couple have passed the testing such as it was, or so it would seem. (I'm thinking Daniel Douglas Home). But that's one or two in what are still unconclusive tests from over a century ago; there are no equivalent cases for the present or recent past.
The majority avoid any testing, like Colin Fry.
They haven't earned a default position of doubt or "maybe" any more than the neverending legion of dowsers have earned it.
A lot of claimants to mediumship does not equal credibility.
Malcolm
"I note that the believers here assume they are intellectually superior to the sceptics."
Where do you "note" that from ?
I'm not aware that ANY non-sceptic has made a claim to intellectual superiority. Quite the reverse, in fact. It is (some of) the sceptics who are constantly alleging such intellectual superiority by poo-hooing what others say as ridiculous.
"I note that the believers here assume they are intellectually superior to the sceptics."
Where do you "note" that from ?
I'm not aware that ANY non-sceptic has made a claim to intellectual superiority. Quite the reverse, in fact. It is (some of) the sceptics who are constantly alleging such intellectual superiority by poo-hooing what others say as ridiculous.
472
I won't normally get into line-by-line debates because they usually simply cause confusion and get nobody anywhere. But this particular post is extremely sensible and worthy of comment.
""""Almost agreed. The problem is that neithe pixies nor mediums have shown up.
What has shown up is a bunch of claims.""""
Almost agreed again. However I am not aware of any Pixies having turned up, but plenty of those claiming to be mediums have. Rationally, you cannot say that because some have been proved fraudulent, they all must be.
""""Some of the pixie claimants have been obviously debunked. """
You mean the medium claimants I think. If so I agree. Indeed MANY of the medium claimants have been exposed as false.
"""""A few claim to have been proven but upon scrutiny the tests show obvious flaws (ala John Edward and Gary Swartz).""""
I agree about Edward. He is giving the distinct impression of Cold Reading at least some of the time.
""""A few from a century or so ago have left intriguing documentation by some investigators. One could reasonably conclude that some of the investigators were in collusion, and that other investigators were unsuitable for the task.""""
Agree with the first part. But your conclusion is neither logical nor rational but unsupported assumption. The "scientific testing" so promoted by sceptics has no place for unsupported asumptions and irrational conclusions.
""""A couple have passed the testing such as it was, or so it would seem. (I'm thinking Daniel Douglas Home). But that's one or two in what are still unconclusive tests from over a century ago; there are no equivalent cases for the present or recent past.""""
Agree with the first part. Leslie Flint was another.
Also agree with the second part. Tests around 100 years ago are probably not to be relied upon.
""""The majority avoid any testing, like Colin Fry.""""
I believe that Colin Fry has agreed to testing, provided that the testers will devote the same amount of time to testing that mediums devote to developing their talents - about 10 years. No takers! He won't agree to any testing by partial sceptics, and certainly not by James Randi et al who have a vested financial interest in producing negative results.
""""They haven't earned a default position of doubt or "maybe" any more than the neverending legion of dowsers have earned it."""
Depends entirely on how you assess "earned". Your criteria aren't the only ones that are acceptable to everybody.
""""A lot of claimants to mediumship does not equal credibility.""""
Nobody said it did !
Nice try - a sensible post here for a change !
I won't normally get into line-by-line debates because they usually simply cause confusion and get nobody anywhere. But this particular post is extremely sensible and worthy of comment.
""""Almost agreed. The problem is that neithe pixies nor mediums have shown up.
What has shown up is a bunch of claims.""""
Almost agreed again. However I am not aware of any Pixies having turned up, but plenty of those claiming to be mediums have. Rationally, you cannot say that because some have been proved fraudulent, they all must be.
""""Some of the pixie claimants have been obviously debunked. """
You mean the medium claimants I think. If so I agree. Indeed MANY of the medium claimants have been exposed as false.
"""""A few claim to have been proven but upon scrutiny the tests show obvious flaws (ala John Edward and Gary Swartz).""""
I agree about Edward. He is giving the distinct impression of Cold Reading at least some of the time.
""""A few from a century or so ago have left intriguing documentation by some investigators. One could reasonably conclude that some of the investigators were in collusion, and that other investigators were unsuitable for the task.""""
Agree with the first part. But your conclusion is neither logical nor rational but unsupported assumption. The "scientific testing" so promoted by sceptics has no place for unsupported asumptions and irrational conclusions.
""""A couple have passed the testing such as it was, or so it would seem. (I'm thinking Daniel Douglas Home). But that's one or two in what are still unconclusive tests from over a century ago; there are no equivalent cases for the present or recent past.""""
Agree with the first part. Leslie Flint was another.
Also agree with the second part. Tests around 100 years ago are probably not to be relied upon.
""""The majority avoid any testing, like Colin Fry.""""
I believe that Colin Fry has agreed to testing, provided that the testers will devote the same amount of time to testing that mediums devote to developing their talents - about 10 years. No takers! He won't agree to any testing by partial sceptics, and certainly not by James Randi et al who have a vested financial interest in producing negative results.
""""They haven't earned a default position of doubt or "maybe" any more than the neverending legion of dowsers have earned it."""
Depends entirely on how you assess "earned". Your criteria aren't the only ones that are acceptable to everybody.
""""A lot of claimants to mediumship does not equal credibility.""""
Nobody said it did !
Nice try - a sensible post here for a change !
thaiboxerken
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Sep 17, 2001
- Messages
- 34,587
TBK
Ah ! - but once the Pixies have turned up (as have the mediums) you cannot presume that Pixies do not exist until you have tested them all and concluded that they are not Pixies but something else.
No Pixies have ever shown up for scientific testing. Mediums are the same as Pixies, they don't show up for scientific testing. It's because both Pixies and Mediums don't exist.
THAT is logic and rationality. Not your pseudo-scientific "default position".
Hardly, logic dictates that if all there is are stories and anecdotes.. then one should not assume something exists. In fact, one should assume such a thing doesn't exist, since it defies the laws of physics.
(Besides, you were arguing with jallenecs only recently that it was improper to have a default position ! You cannot know either way until it has been tested and proven one way or the other, you were asserting. Do try to be consistent.)
That's your little belief. You can keep it. Default positions are the scientific ones.
I would not put too much faith in your "science" I'm afraid, because too many blunders have been made by scientists.
One of them said "You will never get energy from the atom" just before the dawning of the atomic age.
Now what was name? .... oh yes - some fella called Einstein!
No faith involved in science, just evidence. Oh, that scientists that said "you wil l never" changed his mind after shown evidence. You, however, won't change your mind, despite the evidence. Colin Fry was caught cheating, and you still believe he's a medium.
Ah ! - but once the Pixies have turned up (as have the mediums) you cannot presume that Pixies do not exist until you have tested them all and concluded that they are not Pixies but something else.
No Pixies have ever shown up for scientific testing. Mediums are the same as Pixies, they don't show up for scientific testing. It's because both Pixies and Mediums don't exist.
THAT is logic and rationality. Not your pseudo-scientific "default position".
Hardly, logic dictates that if all there is are stories and anecdotes.. then one should not assume something exists. In fact, one should assume such a thing doesn't exist, since it defies the laws of physics.
(Besides, you were arguing with jallenecs only recently that it was improper to have a default position ! You cannot know either way until it has been tested and proven one way or the other, you were asserting. Do try to be consistent.)
That's your little belief. You can keep it. Default positions are the scientific ones.
I would not put too much faith in your "science" I'm afraid, because too many blunders have been made by scientists.
One of them said "You will never get energy from the atom" just before the dawning of the atomic age.
Now what was name? .... oh yes - some fella called Einstein!
No faith involved in science, just evidence. Oh, that scientists that said "you wil l never" changed his mind after shown evidence. You, however, won't change your mind, despite the evidence. Colin Fry was caught cheating, and you still believe he's a medium.
thaiboxerken
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Sep 17, 2001
- Messages
- 34,587
showme2 said:
If you take a look around the forum, I haven't posted anything since you went to the pub. It amazes me how silly believers think that everyone else is on their schedule. Ever consider that maybe I was at a pub and went to bed afterwards?