Here's a question. What if spirit communication is possible under various circumstances, but that (since it is not as infallible as picking up a phone and asking your questions) it is too unreliable to ever be "proven" to your satisfaction?
If it's possible then it's possible to prove it. The easiest example would be that of a code word.
Let me know who died, and what code word we share, and I'll be a believer.
Not scientific enough? Okay there are many people with terminal illnesses. Some would be willing to participate in testing. Here's how you set up reliable testing. Have one control group: no code word. Have 1/3 group provide a control word to one person. That word is only known to them and is not a word that would normally hold special meaning. That word is written down and sealed in an envelop, which is signed and sealed, then signatured by a neutral party observer. Another 1/3 does the same.
Then the control group attempts, there should be no code word and they should know that there is no code word. The other 1/3 has the close relative who does not know the code word (that eliminates it being 'mind reading', which while a paranormal ability isn't speaking to the dead). Then the remaining 1/3 would know the code word, and would participate.
What accuracy rate would be higher than guessing? Easy enough to determine, have various people, some trained in 'cold reading' techniques and some who aren't trained at all play 'mediums'. People who state that they have no paranormal abilities. This will give you a control number for a 'guess rate'.
Someone who is able to speak with the dead should certainly score off the charts compared to the 'non-psychics'. Right?
And that's merely one possible experiment I can think of right off the top of my head. I'm certain that others could devise even better experiments.
I ask because that is the conclusion I've reached, that it is unlikely for scientific tests to be able to "prove" it, or to eliminate subjectivity from evaluating it, or even to strongly and consistently yield the kinds of information that skeptics say they need to see. (And we know that NO amount of "anecdotal evidence" will ever be convincing.) No, imo...testing will never remove ALL doubt, if one is so inclined to doubt. (And for those who -do- put some stock in so-called "anecdotal evidence", negative results of testings will not be 100% convincing that "there is -nothing- to it.")
Let's assume that it's a 'skill'. If so, then like other skills, it can be learned. Even if one has no talent for various skills (lets say...painting, which I do as a hobby), one CAN be taught to paint. I cannot teach someone to be a 'talented' artist, but they can be taught to paint.
Another example would be mathematics. You can teach *anyone* mathematics, provided they are of normal abilities. However you cannot 'teach' someone to be on par with say...Albert Einstein. No amount of teaching would ever bring me up to par with him. (Or DaVinci for art
). However it can be demonstrated how to do it.
Okay let's assume that this 'skill' is completely different from everything...and it's not a skill, but an inherent ability, and just as one cannot train a blind person to see, this skill cannot be taught. Okay. I think we all understand that one cannot 'describe' the color red, without resorting to references of 'red' things. You can say 'red, like an apple' but if you have no reference point for red, it's meaningless. However we CAN describe colors in scientific terms, discussing wavelengths of light, etc. It's possible to demonstrate it, even if one cannot 'see' it. Make sense?
Even assuming that this is an ability that cannot be taught, it can certainly be demonstrated. And if it is an actual ability it can be demonstrated with a degree of accuracy. Otherwise, it doesn't exist. Even if it has a 'woo' factor (I love that term).
For example, there's the famous 'birthday' calculations. (In a pool of less than 365 people, as low as 50 people odds are high that two will share a birthday). That has a high WOO factor for people who don't understand the math (and believe me I'm not claiming to always understand the math, I have to often slog through it slowly with a pencil, or ask for help
), but you can mathematically demonstrate probability, which explains it.
With mediums who claim to communicate with the dead, misses are explained away. Hits are held up as proof positive, even if those hits can be demonstrated to be a result of inside information, clues given from previous questions, free association (starts with an M....), commonality (you're generally not looking to communicate with people you hate, so of course they love you and vice versa), or sheer luck. As I said previously there are many ways to set up experiments which would clearly demonstrate accuracy (or lack thereof). That's merely ONE example (and unfortunately probably a rather invasive and expensive one, so it may not be the most 'ideal'). I'm certain that people could come up with even better ways to test the accuracy of such claims.
However based on what I've seen in this thread, Lorri has no intentions of proving her claims anyway.
It's not difficult for people to believe in fallacy. No one is immune from that, and some very intelligent people have ascribed to false beliefs. However to continually seek knowledge and information is good. The refusal of mediums to submit to any form of testing of their assertations (because they don't 'need' to prove it to anyone!) certainly raises the red flag to me.
There ARE things I take on faith...limited faith...after all I can't do quantum physics (at least not well haha). I can't personally research every news story. I can't interview every individual present at specific events. So we all take things on a certain amount of faith. However that faith is based in reality. I know that I can trust the calculations of specific authorities, because they offer up their work for review. Other people who are also trustworthy are able to check and double check their work. They are able to verify it, and/or reproduce it. With media sources, again it's possible to be fooled, but you have other agencies who also investigate stories. And when fraud is exposed, they take a huge hit to credibility. Extending reasonable belief in such cases is something most people do. And if they wish to personally research it further...they can. It may take considerable time and expense, but it's possible.
However someone claiming to talk to the dead is something that requires quite a bit of extension of belief. I'm more than willing to believe some minor news story from a noteworthy source, especially when I have limited investiment (or no investment) in the information. Someone claiming to literally have proof of an afterlife...well if they could demonstrate such it would literally be the biggest news story ever. The greatest scientific discovery
ever. Belief or not in an afterlife, most people would love to have proof.
The fact that such proof has not been forthcoming, ever...is why many people are skeptical. Many have faith that there is something beyond death (because there is no factual proof one way or another, it's the realm of faith), many may have hope that there's something...but it has not ever been demonstrated as factual.
And I'd certainly
love for someone to demonstrate it as factual. I think most people would. Unfortunately there's not even enough evidence to demonstrate it as a probability.
