Now we're up to Ian mass reply #2:
Ian said in response to another quoteThat's an interesting contention, but not something I'm particularly interested in discussing. I happen to disagree with it; it would depend upon the claim and whether it is susceptible to a scientific investigation. I don't see what it has to do with your contention that things are irrational for all that which cannot be shown to be rational.
If you're not interested in discussing it, then why discuss it with you. Since it had to do specifically with the necessity to provide proof when one makes claims, I can go ahead and ignore everything else you have to say about it right? Since you have no interest in discussing it?
However I am going to pull this out:
I don't see what it has to do with your contention that things are irrational for all that which cannot be shown to be rational.
So something that is not rational would be....what?
Apparently you seem to be of the belief that if something is even remotely possible, it cannot be irrational. I disagree.
Let's pretend (because I love analogies!) that we live in Ancient Rome (now that I have Cleo's attention please don't be too harsh with me if I foul something up
). And lets pretend that someone claims that they can harness the power of the gods, the very lightning itself, and fix that lightning in a room to illuminate the darkness. Would such a claim be
rational at that time? No, it wouldn't be. It would fly in the face of everything they know.
As I pointed out previously (numerous times) that doesn't address a seperate question:
Is it possible? Obviously TODAY we know such a thing is possible. At that time, it wasn't. It doesn't mean someone was unable to do such a thing, merely that they couldn't. So it would be an irrational claim. Now if someone claimed that the illumination in a room came from the power of harnessed lightning, people would expect to see evidence of such, because it's not a believable claim
for that time. It is possible that the guy just has hidden candles somewhere. Or that he's using mirrors to light the room.
Whether or not something is potentially possible doesn't effect whether or not a claim is rational or irrational. For all I know, 500 years from now everyone will be able to communicate telepathically with the aid of technology. I really don't know. However if someone makes such an amazing claim, it flies in the face of all we know. So yes, they need to offer proof or demonstration of such if they wish to be believed, because their claims aren't rational. And because there is a stake in their claims.
Again refering back to the analogy I used before, if you claim to own a tiger, I don't care really. It's
unusual sure, but not that fantastic a claim. You claim to have a dragon....that's tremendously different.
And as far as is there a current ability for people to communicate with the dead, I responded to that earlier, I do not think so (in that I could easily be wrong, and frankly would love to be wrong). However there is no proof of such today. So based on the facts, currently it has never been proven. Just as it's never been proven that someone owns a dragon either.
Moving on:
Ian quoted me previously saying: Again, as I said previously if one states that they believe in God, or an afterlife, those things are articles of faith.[/i]
Ian responded You do understand don't you that if this is so, then it follows that atheism, and the belief that we cease to exist when we die are also articles of faith?
A little off track, but I'll bite. If someone believes that absolutely, then yes it's form of faith. No one knows what happens. As far as my personal beliefs, I've stated I don't know. If pressed I'd say well I think we end at death. I haven't seen anything that indicates otherwise. However if someone has a firm belief in whatever...then sure it's faith, because no one knows for certain, and no one can know. God cannot be proven anymore than 'God' can be disproven. (Just as you cannot prove or disprove Sagan's invisible dragon). However because you can't disprove Sagan's invisible dragon, does it mean such a dragon exists? No. Because God can't be disproven does it mean it exists? No.
Me? I'm agnostic. I don't know, and don't claim to know. I
think this is it...but I can be wrong and actually hope I am since I have no desire for 'me' to end. However I would also say that atheism bases their end belief more on facts, but in the end since it cannot be proven or disproven it is a belief IF stated as an absolute. If it's stated as a position in abscense of evidence, then that moves away from faith.
A bit off topic, but oh well. Bottom line I don't know what happens, but believe it likely that there's nothing. I don't know though.
Ian then responds to my previously saying basically the exact same thing earlierOK, you feel there is no afterlife. Very interesting I'm sure. So what??
The analogy was faith/belief versus fact. If someone wants to claim something as an article of
faith then it cannot be proven or disproven, as it is ...faith. However if someone wants to claim that communication with the dead is possible, that's not faith, that CAN be demonstrated.
If one believes that people survive somehow after death, that's faith. As such...it can't be proven or disproven. I may find it a reasonable or unreasonable solution, but it IS faith, because no one knows, and at this point it cannot be proven at all.
Someone claiming communication with the dead, is claiming something very specific, and very real. That can be proven or disproven. And if it could be proven as such, then it would also 'prove' the existence of an afterlife (if it was disproven as fraud then it doesn't disprove an afterlife, we're back at 'no one knows').
That was the specific issue I was raising as far as demonstration of the ability.
And Ian quotes me again, addressing that which I had previously addressed If one states that they can communicate with the dead, that is not an article of faith, that is something that can be demonstrated.
Ian responds: How so? And what is meant by "demonstrate"? I certainly don't believe it can be demonstrated. How do you rule out the superpsi hypothesis for example??
Again I could toss back your 'read and understand' quote at you, but /shrug. I stated previously in this thread one potential experiment for medium communication. That was one off the top of my head. I'm certain that others could devise even better methods. But I had previously proposed methods by which to test it. So that's what I mean by 'demonstrate'. (And I took into account telepathy in my experimental design). Again what I proposed was completely off the top of my head. I'm certain I could come up with better and I'm even more certain that others could come up with better methods than that. But it's certainly one workable possibility.
Now we're at Ian post #3 (by the way, if you respond in multiple posts again, I'm not doing the work to respond, this is quite a pain in the ass).
Ian quotes me as previously statingIf someone makes a claim that, oh a one time incident occurred and they believe that a dead relative or angel or whatever helped or assisted them, that's an article of faith.
Ian responds to that quoteSpecific details of the incident are required. Saying 'it's an article of faith' conveys nothing to me.
If one person recounts an experience that cannot be substantiated, is paranormal, and is completely personal to them, that's an article of faith. If I state that someone dead came and spoke with me...you cannot prove it, or disprove it. The experience already occurred. There is no possible way to measure it. Alternative possibilities may be offered, but the reality is that its one person's personal
belief. And as such is an article of faith.
I have flown through the skies. I really have. I have died countless times. I have also had an amazing sexual experience with Mel Gibson (back in his lethal weapon days
). None of this is
real, it all occurred during the 1/3 of my life in which I'm asleep. But what if I make the argument that sleep is the reality and everything else is non-reality. Well that's another topic, but there are various arguments, many philosophical for that (which I'm sure you must be aware of).
If someone claims to have experienced something paranormal, whether it's visitiations by the dead, or abduction by aliens, they may be completely sincere in their assertations. They may TRULY believe what they're stating and that to them, it is real. That doesn't make it 'real' though.
So if someone wants to make the assertation that they have the ability to speak to the dead, but can offer absolutely no proof of such, then yes, that's going to fall under faith. If it's faith, fine, we accept that it cannot be proven or disproven. However when someone states they have an ability to constantly perform such feats, then that's not faith, they're asserting something that can be demonstrated, not a one-time faith event. Now it can be proven or disproven (and there would be numerous ways to do so, I've already expressed one potential way).
See the difference? That's the point I'm making. Ian you had previously expressed that such things may not be demonstratable, and if something cannot be, then it's faith-based. However in this thread, specifically THESE claims, Lorri claimed to be able to communicate with the dead on a regular basis. She claims to work as a professional medium. That would absolutely be demonstratable, for if we believe her claims (that she is a professional medium) she 'demonstrates' that ability for money to clients.
And because I'm constantly repeating what I've already posted...
Ian quotes me as saying previouslyHowever, if one states that they can communicate with the dead, as mediums claim, then that is testable. I've come up with (I think I posted it on this thread) one potential way to test it, just off the top of my head. It may not be feasible monetarily, but it's one potential. I'm certain people can come up with other protocols that are better and would be pretty definitive.
Ian respondsTestable??
Could you paste in your method for testing?
I posted it previously in this thread. If you read the thread, it should be on page 1 or 2. It involved using a group of terminally ill people, shouldn't be hard to find.
Ian quotes me as sayingSo we're back at rationality. I stated before why it's reasonable to believe such a claim is irrational. It doesn't just defy experience, reason, science and logic, it also has never been proven.
Ian respondsIt's not possible to prove anything outside of deductive logic. Certainly no empirical claim has been proven. If you are referring to good scientific evidence, how would this be possible to achieve? Especially if the communication channels with dead people leave much to be desired??
Anyway, in saying it defies experience you are therefore claiming that the unusual, or the rare doesn't in fact occur. The less said about this the better.
As regarding it defying reason, science and logic, I am unable to see how you reach this conclusion. Why don't you explain?
I'm not claiming the unusual or rare doesn't occur (or cannot occur). I'm stating the fact that communication with the dead has
never been proven to occur. And as I have stated repeatedly I anxiously await evidence demonstrating it.
You seem to argue that abscense of evidence is somehow proof. That it can and does exist, but it cannot be measured, tested or really seen because it's so rare, or because it doesn't work that way...however that's hardly the case.
The people making such claims, in this specific situation (and thread) Lorri claims to work as a professional medium. Hence, she claims that her 'abilities' are specific enough that she is able to
charge people money in exchange for use of her 'powers'. That's pretty damned specific. If it can work accurately enough to work in demonstration for people paying money, then it can certainly work accurately enough to be tested to demonstrate that it does indeed exist.
And I stated previously one possible method to test it. And as I said before I'm certain that others could come up with even better methods since that was literally just off the top of my head.
