• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Telepathy

Since when is being skeptical come with a license to ignore evidence?

There's another thread featuring a video of Michael Shermer and Graham Hancock discussing the Younger Dryas and the evidence of a massive flood some 12,500 years ago, but you can't even get people to watching it! Maybe a few, but most have posted therein openly admitting that they won't watch the video because it is a waste of their time...

Here too is the video I originally referenced with my OP, that everyone has asked to see, but no one bothered to review it, much less offer a reasoned rebuttal.

That's not being skeptical, that being ignorant.
 
King of the Americas said:
Here too is the video I originally referenced with my OP, that everyone has asked to see, but no one bothered to review it, much less offer a reasoned rebuttal.
Click to expand...

Is this the video you're talking about? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZoqNe-U53wA&t=6897s

If so, could you outline specifically what evidence you've found convincing? I watched the first 10 minutes from the time you linked to, and the speaker offered two things as "proof". The first was him speaking about "thousands" of documented cases where people have seen relatives or loved ones who are away somewhere, telling someone else about it, that other person writing the information down with dates which can be verified independently, and the people involved learning after that date that the person in question died at the time of the vision. He makes this claim, but offers nothing to support it. If there's even one case that is as well-documented as he claims these "thousands" are, then that's one more than I've ever heard of, and some quick googling doesn't turn up one single case like the kind he describes. I'm not inclined to just take his word for it.

The second is where he speaks about medium Leonora Pipes. This would be the Leonora Pipes who was investigated thoroughly and of whom contemporary reports say there is no indication that she was doing anything different to mostly cold reading with a little hot reading sprinkled in here and there.

More specifically, he speaks about a spirit who frequently contacted her called "G. P.", who was someone who had died recently who was known to some of the people who visited her. It appears that upon his death this scholar gave up many of his abilities - such as being able to speak Greek - and found himself giving false and incorrect information about his own life.

Some of the reactions of those who knew him are mentioned in this book:

Now a cousin of Pellew's wrote to Mr. Clodd to tell him that, if he cared to ask the family, he would learn that all the relatives of the dead man regarded Mrs. Piper's impersonation of him as "beneath contempt". Mr Clodd wrote to Professor Pellew, George's brother, and found that this was the case. The family has been pestered for fifteen years with reports of the proceedings and requests to authenticate them and join the S.P.R. They said that they knew George, and they could not believe that, when freed from the burden of the flesh, he would talk such "utter drivel and inanity." As to "intimate friends," one of these was Professor Fiske, who had been described by Dr. Hodgson as "absolutely convinced" of the identity of "G. P." When Professor Pellew told Professor Fiske of this, he replied, roundly, that it was "a lie". Mrs. Piper had, he said, been "silent or entirely wrong" on all his test questions.
Click to expand...

The story the speaker in that video is referring to generally there is what that penultimate sentence describes as "a lie".

Since what I've watched so far has been absolutely pathetic as far as presenting evidence for "psy", as the speaker calls it, and I'm loathe to spend another half an hour having someone spout such easily-disprovable drivel at me, perhaps you could just specify where exactly in the video (if it is indeed the one referenced in the OP) the "rather astounding test results" of which you speak?
 
I again note that the video, which now, according to KotA is supposed to contain the evidence foe TELEPATHY is not, in fact, talking about telepathy at all but rather some other feat of alleged psy bunk, namely summoning of the dead (who no longer think or produce magnetic or electromagnetic fields with their brains, that, according to kota, might explain telepathy).
 
Oystein said:
I again note that the video, which now, according to KotA is supposed to contain the evidence foe TELEPATHY is not, in fact, talking about telepathy at all but rather some other feat of alleged psy bunk, namely summoning of the dead (who no longer think or produce magnetic or electromagnetic fields with their brains, that, according to kota, might explain telepathy).
Click to expand...

In the world of woo everything eventually blends into a grey lumpy mash.
 
P.J. Denyer said:
Why can't these people understand the word 'near'? Watching that I couldn't believe a medical doctor was coming out with some of it.
Click to expand...



Doctors are no different than any other person in their credulity and faith. A medical degree is no protection against woo.
 
xjx388 said:
Doctors are no different than any other person in their credulity and faith. A medical degree is no protection against woo.
Click to expand...

Obviously not successfully in all cases. But if education, knowledge and training in observation and appraising evidence aren't protection against woo, then what is?
 
Oystein said:
I again note that the video, which now, according to KotA is supposed to contain the evidence foe TELEPATHY is not, in fact, talking about telepathy at all but rather some other feat of alleged psy bunk, namely summoning of the dead (who no longer think or produce magnetic or electromagnetic fields with their brains, that, according to kota, might explain telepathy).
Click to expand...

We are more than these bounded skin suits.
 
xjx388 said:
Doctors are no different than any other person in their credulity and faith. A medical degree is no protection against woo.
Click to expand...

Protection against woo...?

What is woo, and why might one need protection from it?

It is real, imagined, fakery, foolery?

Does woo have types and sorts?

Maybe you could start another thread, and define woo?
 
King of the Americas said:
Yes.

&

No.
Click to expand...

Why not? You asked for a reasoned rebuttal. I gave a reasoned rebuttal of the first two points discussed in the video, and held off on watching another half an hour's worth of material if it wasn't going to be any more convincing than what I'd already seen, and therefore want to know if there are any arguments in that video that you believe to actually be convincing. The only response from you is "no".

It seems to me that this is a fair indication that none of the subsequent arguments are any more convincing. Which leads us back to where we started - you promising "some rather astounding test results", and then failing to provide them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom