Need feedback on Cayce claims

Rodney said:
What's interesting is that Cayce and Ketchum had a falling out in 1911 and never spoke again...
Click to expand...

Rodney said:
For example, at p. 172 of An American Prophet, Sidney Kirkpatrick states that, in December 1911, "Ketchum admitted to taking readings on the horse races and other forms of gambling. He referred to this as 'getting a few tips.' As far as Edgar was concerned, the partnership was finished. Ketchum himself must have realized it, for he left town before the partnership was officially disbanded. Edgar never saw him again."
Click to expand...


So the "falling out" was from Cayce's side, rather than Ketchum's, and the reason they "never spoke again" was that they never met again rather than emnity.
 
paximperium said:
Are you now claiming that Ketchum was not a deluded true believer?
Click to expand...
Ketchum was a young doctor when he met Cayce in Hopkinsville, Kentucky. One of Ketchum's first patients was a girl named Aime Dietrich, whom Cayce had recently cured from a seemingly incurable condition. Her father, the former superintendent of schools in Hopkinsville, told Ketchum about Cayce. Ketchum asked Cayce to give him a reading for a condition that Ketchum was suffering from. Ketchum believed that it was appendicitis, but Cayce diagnosed it as a back injury that Ketchum had suffered before he met Cayce. Cayce recommended osteopathic adjustments, which cured the condition.

So, that's how Ketchum became a believer in Cayce. Cayce went on to successfully diagnose many more cases for Ketchum, which is what led to the publication of an article about Cayce in the New York Times on October 9, 1910. That article stated:

"It is well enough to add that Dr. Wesley H. Ketchum is a reputable physician of high standing and successful practice in the homeopathic school of medicine. He possesses a classical education, is by nature of a scientific turn, and is a graduate of one of the leading medical institutions of the country. He is vouched for by orthodox physicians in both Kentucky and Ohio, in both of which states he is well known. In Hopkinsville, where his home is, no physician of any school stands higher, though he is still a young man on the shady side of Dr. Osler's deadline of 40. Dr. Ketchum wishes it distinctly understood that his presentation of the subject is purely ethical, and that he attempts no explanation of what must be classed as mysterious mental phenomena."
 
Rodney said:
Ketchum was a young doctor when he met Cayce in Hopkinsville, Kentucky. One of Ketchum's first patients was a girl named Aime Dietrich, whom Cayce had recently cured from a seemingly incurable condition. Her father, the former superintendent of schools in Hopkinsville, told Ketchum about Cayce. Ketchum asked Cayce to give him a reading for a condition that Ketchum was suffering from. Ketchum believed that it was appendicitis, but Cayce diagnosed it as a back injury that Ketchum had suffered before he met Cayce. Cayce recommended osteopathic adjustments, which cured the condition.

So, that's how Ketchum became a believer in Cayce. Cayce went on to successfully diagnose many more cases for Ketchum, which is what led to the publication of an article about Cayce in the New York Times on October 9, 1910. That article stated:

"It is well enough to add that Dr. Wesley H. Ketchum is a reputable physician of high standing and successful practice in the homeopathic school of medicine. He possesses a classical education, is by nature of a scientific turn, and is a graduate of one of the leading medical institutions of the country. He is vouched for by orthodox physicians in both Kentucky and Ohio, in both of which states he is well known. In Hopkinsville, where his home is, no physician of any school stands higher, though he is still a young man on the shady side of Dr. Osler's deadline of 40. Dr. Ketchum wishes it distinctly understood that his presentation of the subject is purely ethical, and that he attempts no explanation of what must be classed as mysterious mental phenomena."
Click to expand...
Are you now claiming that Ketchum was not a deluded true believer?
 
If I may just interrupt the Ketchum discussion for a moment here:

In regard to the OP, based on the lack of any additional feedback to the contrary, I am going to conclude that Cayce's description of the origin of man COULD have happened the way he described it, and that we don't actually have any solid evidence to contradict him.

With that being the case, I'll scrap the idea behind this paper. If Cayce COULD be right about this stuff, then there's no point to exploring it further.

Thanks so much to the few who were able to offer feedback, and to fls especially for the help.
 
paximperium said:
Are you now claiming that Ketchum was not a deluded true believer?
Click to expand...
There are only three possibilities here:
(1) Ketchum knew that Cayce did not have a paranormal ability, but used him as a gimmick.
(2) Cayce convinced Ketchum that he had a paranormal ability when, in fact, he was simply a clever hoaxer.
(3) Cayce convinced Ketchum that he had a paranormal ability because, in fact, he did.

Of these three possibilities, I think (2) is the least likely, and that's the only one of the three that would even come close to making Ketchum "a deluded true believer." Even under (2), however, Ketchum would have become a believer only because he was repeatedly tricked, as opposed to someone who believes in something solely based on faith. So, your question does not actually make much sense.
 
Mojo said:
No, a diluted true believer. See above.
Click to expand...
"He is vouched for by orthodox physicians in both Kentucky and Ohio, in both of which states he is well known. In Hopkinsville, where his home is, no physician of any school stands higher . . ."
 
Rodney said:
There are only three possibilities here:
(1) Ketchum knew that Cayce did not have a paranormal ability, but used him as a gimmick.
(2) Cayce convinced Ketchum that he had a paranormal ability when, in fact, he was simply a clever hoaxer.
(3) Cayce convinced Ketchum that he had a paranormal ability because, in fact, he did.
Click to expand...


I can think of at least one other:

(4) Cayce had no paranormal powers but both he and Ketchum believed that he did, as a result of confirmation bias.

There are almost certainly more.

Of these three possibilities, I think (2) is the least likely...
Click to expand...


Why? It is well established that Ketchum had already been taken in by at least one hoax: "Dr. Wesley H. Ketchum is a reputable physician of high standing and successful practice in the homeopathic school of medicine."
 
Last edited:
Rodney said:
"He is vouched for by orthodox physicians in both Kentucky and Ohio, in both of which states he is well known. In Hopkinsville, where his home is, no physician of any school stands higher . . ."
Click to expand...
So says...who again?
 
Mojo said:
I can think of at least one other:

(4) Cayce had no paranormal powers but both he and Ketchum believed that he did, as a result of confirmation bias.
Click to expand...
Also known as "accurately diagnosing cases that the medical community had either incorrectly diagnosed or failed to diagnose at all."
 
Rodney said:
Also known as "accurately diagnosing cases that the medical community had either incorrectly diagnosed or failed to diagnose at all."
Click to expand...


We don't have any evidence that he accurately diagnosed any conditions, despite threads here in which you presented what you said were his strongest cases.
 
Rodney said:
The New York Times -- that infamous tabloid.
Click to expand...
No. Says WHO again?
Having a happy friendly article make broad claims is not evidence. And yes, if NYT made this claim without actual fact checking or providing actual citation, it is nothing more than tabloid nonsense.
 
ExMinister said:
If I may just interrupt the Ketchum discussion for a moment here:

In regard to the OP, based on the lack of any additional feedback to the contrary, I am going to conclude that Cayce's description of the origin of man COULD have happened the way he described it, and that we don't actually have any solid evidence to contradict him.

With that being the case, I'll scrap the idea behind this paper. If Cayce COULD be right about this stuff, then there's no point to exploring it further.

Thanks so much to the few who were able to offer feedback, and to fls especially for the help.
Click to expand...

You're welcome. Although I don't feel that I was able to offer much help except to point out that the Stop Sylvia information is compelling because of the solved cases. And as has been demonstrated to you, mere overwhelming scientific consensus does not count as 'solved' in the eye of the believer.

However, is it possible to target your paper to fence-sitters? Surely overwhelming scientific consensus has a role there?

Linda
 
Thanks, Linda. Maybe so.

Again, my purpose for bringing this here was to try to establish whether my counterpoints were in fact a reflection of overwhelming scientific consensus (I like the way you phrased that!), especially regarding the pole shift and various dates. I felt there was contradictory material out there on various scientific web sites and was hoping for feedback on whether or not I was including pseudoscience or false statements of my own.

I found a quote by Cayce yesterday from a letter he wrote, saying, "Evolution of the soul I believe; of species no." (440-11) That is something I could more easily counter on my own.

At any rate, it does seem there is plentiful material to include in such a paper. I'll give it some more thought.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom