FriendsCommunitiesMetaphyiscalHeader

Forums Forums Answering Skeptics and Debunking Cynics "There’s no end to the good this could do!"

6 voices
20 replies
  • Author
    Posts
  • #62288
    ceceoh
    Participant
    Quote:
    Now, WHY do I think this is so important? Because I am very awed and curious about the universe, and if there ARE spirits out there or other phenomena which psychics claim, then I want to know about them! I’m not trying to stamp out the truth; I want the truth brought to light! If these things are real, then I want them taken out of the fringes and put in the forefront of research, so we can really do something with them! World peace! End hunger! Contact extraterrestrials! Resolve historical and religious disputes! There’s no end to the good this could do!

    Mike, I took Pam’s suggestion and started another thread for this. I think it deserves addressing.

    I admire the altruistic nature of your statements, and your ability to look at this subject with an open, but skeptical mind. But I feel that your statements should be address from a spiritual angle, rather than scientifically. Understand that I am a believer.

    “If these things are real, then I want them taken out of the fringes and put in the forefront of research…”

    If these “things” are real, then they are the immortal spirits which reside for a time in our bodies, and I seriously doubt that they consider themselves to be on the “fringes” of anything.

    “so we can really do something with them!”

    Just what do you intend to DO with these spirits? Jump through hoops? Roll over and play “dead”? (Whoops, they’ve been there, done that.) Are you really suggesting that these spirits can be subject to our commands?

    “World peace! End hunger! Contact extraterrestrials! Resolve historical and religious disputes! There’s no end to the good this could do!”

    How about “Free will”? These issues are a part of this world, and our for US to resolve. They are all part of the lessons that we are put here to learn. “God”, in whatever form you choose to think of him/her/it, is known as “The Creator”, not “The Referee”. (This is my own opinion, of course.) Do you really want the clouds to open up and this omniscient form to descend and dictate exactly how we should behave? Or perhaps we could all stamp our feet like children and demand “We know you’re there, now fix it!” I’m sorry, but I don’t believe that either of these are an option. These are our problems. We have to figure them out on our own…and no, I don’t believe God “inflicted” them on us. We came up with these problems all on our own.

    As for ending “religious disputes”? Shoot, if everyone in the world believed, we’d still manage to start a war over whether spirits were blue or green!

    IMHO Mike, if you want to decide if the “Afterlife” is real or not, you’re going to have to come up with a better reason for believing then those listed above.

    #70260
    AriesMoon
    Participant

    This statement is along the lines of similar statements that skeptics make, i.e., if he is psychic than he should be able to win the lottery, or find a buried treasure or convey messages of the secrets of the universe. I think it is meant to be more personal than that.

    Are skeptics saying that if science can prove that there is another dimension where the consciousness of our deceased relatives still exists that this proven knowledge would somehow solve world problems such as war, hunger, poverty and all the other travesties and tragedies that we read about in the newspapers and see on television? Are they saying only if it is scientifically proven that the world can be a better place? If so, I disagree.

    I believe that we (human beings) are able to solve these problems NOW, with the knowledge that we already have, if we were all like-minded enough to do so. And therein lies the problem. We (in general) are all scurrying around on this earth looking out for number one. Why do we do that? Because our society is set up in such a way that we are forced to do so. We are forced to focus our everyday attentions on meeting the basic necessities of life: food, clothing, shelter, etc.

    I think that belief in the continuation of consciousness, i.e., the knowledge that death does not end our existence, takes away an ingrained human fear. Somewhere on the net I found the statement: “love is the absence of fear”. I believe that if people no longer fear death, that gives them a freedom to express their love for one another in a way that they have not been previously able to do (this community is an example of that free expression of love). I believe that if people change, society changes.

    I believe that as more people are exposed, in their own way, through their own experiences to the possibility that they don’t die and begin to believe, they will begin to shift their priorities and will no longer focus strictly on the “struggle for the legal tender” (Jackson Browne). I think people will start to focus on …. PEOPLE! They will take time to stop and look around and say – things must change! This is the way that the world will become a better place. Whether life after death is scientifically proven or not – doesn’t matter.

    In my opinion, this is the message that John Edward is trying to get across. The messages from those crossed over are “personal” messages meant for each individual being read. It is up to us to “communicate, appreciate and validate the people in our lives TODAY” (John Edward). When we do this, we change our own personal lives for the better. It is only when people change on a personal level (inside), that real change in the world (outside) can happen.

    ((((friends)))), (((((world))), ((((skeptics))))), (((((John Edward)))))

    #70264
    rotabilis
    Participant

    Originally posted by ceceoh

    Mike, I took Pam’s suggestion and started another thread for this. I think it deserves addressing.

    I admire the altruistic nature of your statements, and your ability to look at this subject with an open, but skeptical mind. But I feel that your statements should be address from a spiritual angle, rather than scientifically. Understand that I am a believer.[/quote]

    Thanks! I appreciate and welcome your response.

    Quote:
    “If these things are real, then I want them taken out of the fringes and put in the forefront of research…”

    If these “things” are real, then they are the immortal spirits which reside for a time in our bodies, and I seriously doubt that they consider themselves to be on the “fringes” of anything.

    You misunderstood what I meant by “things”. I apologize for not being more clear. I was not talking about the spirits. I was talking about the ability to communicate with them, other paranormal abilities, paranormal phenomena in general, and the existence of the afterlife itself. The idea that these things could be practically demonstrated is viewed, by the world scientific community, as being out on the fringe. What the spirits themselves think is quite another matter. :-)

    Quote:
    “so we can really do something with them!”

    Just what do you intend to DO with these spirits? Jump through hoops? Roll over and play “dead”? (Whoops, they’ve been there, done that.) Are you really suggesting that these spirits can be subject to our commands?

    “World peace! End hunger! Contact extraterrestrials! Resolve historical and religious disputes! There’s no end to the good this could do!”

    How about “Free will”?

    Again, I wasn’t talking about the spirits. But it’s interesting that you should mention free will. Spirits have free will too, don’t they? if they do, then I would expect them be not only free from our control, but free from anyone’s control. The way they behave now, it’s as if they’re forbidden to speak unless it won’t make much difference to the world. But that wouldn’t be free will, now would it? So it seems strange that they aren’t a lot more active and talkative. I would expect Chandra Levy, Nicole Brown Simpson, JFK and Jimmy Hoffa to tell us not only who killed them, but where to find the evidence. I would expect Fermat to either give us the missing proof of his Last Theorem, or else admit that he didn’t really have one after all. I would expect Einstein to verify whether he was right about hidden variables. And so on. These people would have wanted to tell us these things. So why don’t they?

    I can anticipate an answer you might give: once these people die, they are let in on God’s Plan, and this new knowledge persuades them that it really is for the best to keep everything cryptic and mysterious. Very neat.

    Anyway, enough digression. I wasn’t talking about spirits, but about psychic abilities. Who knows what we could do once we study these abilities and learn how they actually work? The potential is awesome! And imagine the social change that would result if we had proof of the afterlife? The mind reels!

    Quote:
    These issues are a part of this world, and our for US to resolve.

    Of course we must resolve our own problems. But having concrete information about hitherto unsubstantiated human abilities and other planes of existence would have a huge impact on our accomplishment of that.

    Quote:
    They are all part of the lessons that we are put here to learn. “God”, in whatever form you choose to think of him/her/it, is known as “The Creator”, not “The Referee”. (This is my own opinion, of course.) Do you really want the clouds to open up and this omniscient form to descend and dictate exactly how we should behave? Or perhaps we could all stamp our feet like children and demand “We know you’re there, now fix it!”

    Certainly not. Although I do think that withholding information from us IS treating us like children. But I have no desire to turn this into a debate about God. There are plenty of people who believe that God exists, but also believe that He cannot be scientifically proven, that the dead cannot communicate with the living, and that paranormal abilities do NOT exist. Claims to the contrary are fringe claims. God is not. So please don’t make this be about God.

    Quote:
    I’m sorry, but I don’t believe that either of these are an option. These are our problems. We have to figure them out on our own…and no, I don’t believe God “inflicted” them on us. We came up with these problems all on our own.

    I never claimed otherwise. Please do not imply my espousal of viewpoints which I have not espoused.

    Quote:
    As for ending “religious disputes”? Shoot, if everyone in the world believed, we’d still manage to start a war over whether spirits were blue or green!

    That sounds rather cynical. I thought cynicism wasn’t allowed in this forum?

    Quote:
    IMHO Mike, if you want to decide if the “Afterlife” is real or not, you’re going to have to come up with a better reason for believing then those listed above.

    The list you refer to is not a list of reasons why I’d believe the afterlife is real; it is a list of some of the benefits which that knowledge might bring. I listed them to illustrate the potential good John Edward could do if he allowed truly skeptical and well-respected scientists to test him under rigorous conditions. But as far as my personal reasons to believe are concerned, I require only one: scientific evidence. If the afterlife was scientifically established, then I would believe it, regardless of whether it offered any benefit at all.

    #70270
    rotabilis
    Participant

    Originally posted by AriesMoon
    This statement is along the lines of similar statements that skeptics make, i.e., if he is psychic than he should be able to win the lottery, or find a buried treasure or convey messages of the secrets of the universe. I think it is meant to be more personal than that.[/quote]

    And hence, less subject to independent, unbiased confirmation. Very convenient.

    Quote:
    Are skeptics saying that if science can prove that there is another dimension where the consciousness of our deceased relatives still exists that this proven knowledge would somehow solve world problems such as war, hunger, poverty and all the other travesties and tragedies that we read about in the newspapers and see on television?

    No, I’m saying that a discovery that big can’t help but have SOME huge impact on human society. It would transform our understanding of the universe in a very profound way. It would be a big deal.

    Quote:
    Are they saying only if it is scientifically proven that the world can be a better place?

    No, absolutely not.

    Quote:
    I believe that we (human beings) are able to solve these problems NOW, with the knowledge that we already have, if we were all like-minded enough to do so.

    On that point, I quite agree with you. Thank goodness! If I thought we needed proof of the paranormal in order to solve humanity’s problems, then I would be quite cynical and depressed, since I don’t believe in the paranormal. On the contrary, I am quite optimistic that we can and will solve our own problems, without any paranormal help.

    Quote:
    And therein lies the problem. We (in general) are all scurrying around on this earth looking out for number one. Why do we do that? Because our society is set up in such a way that we are forced to do so.

    Again, I agree. Well said.

    Quote:
    We are forced to focus our everyday attentions on meeting the basic necessities of life: food, clothing, shelter, etc.

    Actually, if we were allowed to focus on meeting our own basic needs, things would be in a lot better shape. But we’re not. Instead, most of us are forced by the so-called “free market system” to spend all our productive time selling our labor to an “employer”, and getting back only a tiny fraction of the value of that labor. If the only work we had to do was the amount necessary to meet our basic material needs, then we’d only have to work approximately 2 or 3 hours per week. We would then have oodles more free time to spend focusing on whatever we liked, including spiritual growth.

    Quote:
    I think that belief in the continuation of consciousness, i.e., the knowledge that death does not end our existence, takes away an ingrained human fear. Somewhere on the net I found the statement: “love is the absence of fear”. I believe that if people no longer fear death, that gives them a freedom to express their love for one another in a way that they have not been previously able to do (this community is an example of that free expression of love). I believe that if people change, society changes.

    Love is not the absence of fear of death; love is the absence of fear of the other. We can love one another when we stop fearing one another. Death has nothing to do with it. If anything, it seems to me that the knowledge that life is short is something which helps to bring people together. Knowing that my life is temporary encourages me to learn to focus less on myself, and more on others, especially those who will come after me. The less selfish and the more selfless I become, the less fear death holds for me.

    Quote:
    I believe that as more people are exposed, in their own way, through their own experiences to the possibility that they don’t die and begin to believe, they will begin to shift their priorities and will no longer focus strictly on the “struggle for the legal tender” (Jackson Browne). I think people will start to focus on …. PEOPLE! They will take time to stop and look around and say – things must change! This is the way that the world will become a better place. Whether life after death is scientifically proven or not – doesn’t matter.

    It seems to me that the effect is the opposite of what you describe. People who believe in a world after this one are likely to be LESS concerned with improving things in THIS world. I see this behavior on the part of some fundamentalist Christians, who seem to get downright gleeful when bad stuff happens in the world, because to them it’s a sign that Armageddon is soon approaching, when they’ll be Raptured away to a better place.

    Quote:
    In my opinion, this is the message that John Edward is trying to get across. The messages from those crossed over are “personal” messages meant for each individual being read. It is up to us to “communicate, appreciate and validate the people in our lives TODAY” (John Edward). When we do this, we change our own personal lives for the better. It is only when people change on a personal level (inside), that real change in the world (outside) can happen.

    I certainly have no problem with that aspect of John Edward’s message. It’s a good message, and apart from the supernatural overtones, I agree with it. It is a message which others before him have made, and they needed no spirit guides to come up with it.

    #70271
    AriesMoon
    Participant

    And Peace be with you Too, Michael!

    Thank you for your response.

    #70278
    ceceoh
    Participant

    Originally posted by rotabilis

    Thanks! I appreciate and welcome your response.

    You’re Welcome, and thanks for keeping it “clean”.

    You misunderstood what I meant by “things”. I apologize for not being more clear.

    Apologies accepted. When science says “Let’s study these ‘things’ and see what we can ‘do’ with them”, I get twitchy. History is rife with examples where people have been reduced to “things” in the name of scientific research. I don’t think I need to list examples; we’re all familiar with them.

    …Again, I wasn’t talking about the spirits. But it’s interesting that you should mention free will. Spirits have free will too, don’t they? if they do, then I would expect them be not only free from our control, but free from anyone’s control. The way they behave now, it’s as if they’re forbidden to speak unless it won’t make much difference to the world. But that wouldn’t be free will, now would it? So it seems strange that they aren’t a lot more active and talkative. I would expect Chandra Levy, Nicole Brown Simpson, JFK and Jimmy Hoffa to tell us not only who killed them, but where to find the evidence. I would expect Fermat to either give us the missing proof of his Last Theorem, or else admit that he didn’t really have one after all. I would expect Einstein to verify whether he was right about hidden variables. And so on. These people would have wanted to tell us these things. So why don’t they?

    Yes, this is where it gets interesting, doesn’t it? John Edward says that the manner of a person’s crossing isn’t so important to them, once they have passed. (Though I do suspect that he has helped the authorities at times) whereas Sylvia Brown and other mediums will give answers to murder investigations on the air. What has been accomplished with this information usually isn’t revealed. (Goverment can be as tight-lipped as any spirit sometimes. :) ) I do know that no spirit can be called onto the witness stand at this time. Evidence offered through a medium will not be accepted in a court of law, so just how much good can this information do us?

    I understand that the CIA has used mediums in the past. Edgar
    Cayce relayed medical procedures in trance state. I’m sure there are other examples of information being offered by the spirit world, but much of it has been rejected by the very people who could do anything with this information, because of the source.

    Maybe we’re in our “baby step” phase. Once it has been more universally accepted that our spirits CAN speak with us, then more information will be forthcoming.

    I can anticipate an answer you might give: once these people die, they are let in on God’s Plan, and this new knowledge persuades them that it really is for the best to keep everything cryptic and mysterious. Very neat.

    Yes! It is neat! :D

    That sounds rather cynical. I thought cynicism wasn’t allowed in this forum?

    LOL! Touche’! Yes, when it comes to mankind and his motives, I’m a big time cynic. Hey, I never said I didn’t have my own lessons to learn.

    Quote:
    The list you refer to is not a list of reasons why I’d believe the afterlife is real; it is a list of some of the benefits which that knowledge might bring. I listed them to illustrate the potential good John Edward could do if he allowed truly skeptical and well-respected scientists to test him under rigorous conditions.

    Actually, I shudder to think of that kind-hearted young man being put in a room with “truly skeptical” scientists. By the way, Mike, have you ever heard of the Experimenter’s Expectancy Effect?

    Enjoy your journey, Mike.

    Cece

    #70283
    rotabilis
    Participant

    Originally posted by ceceoh
    John Edward says that the manner of a person’s crossing isn’t so important to them, once they have passed.[/quote]

    Sounds like a dodge to me.

    Quote:
    (Though I do suspect that he has helped the authorities at times) whereas Sylvia Brown and other mediums will give answers to murder investigations on the air. What has been accomplished with this information usually isn’t revealed. (Goverment can be as tight-lipped as any spirit sometimes. :) )

    If the information given by a psychic had made the critical difference in solving a crime, we’d know about it.

    Quote:
    I do know that no spirit can be called onto the witness stand at this time. Evidence offered through a medium will not be accepted in a court of law, so just how much good can this information do us?

    Plenty. I gave just a few examples.

    Quote:
    I understand that the CIA has used mediums in the past. Edgar Cayce relayed medical procedures in trance state. I’m sure there are other examples of information being offered by the spirit world, but much of it has been rejected by the very people who could do anything with this information, because of the source.

    It has been rejected because spirit communication has no scientific support. That is why I am arguing for rigorous scientific testing. You’re supporting my argument here.

    Quote:
    Maybe we’re in our “baby step” phase. Once it has been more universally accepted that our spirits CAN speak with us, then more information will be forthcoming.

    Again, rigorous scientific testing with successful results would go a long way toward universal acceptance. That’s why I’m arguing for it. The ball is in Edward’s court (and that of other allegedly genuine mediums).

    Quote:
    Yes! It is neat! :D

    I meant “neat” as in “convenient”.

    Quote:
    Actually, I shudder to think of that kind-hearted young man being put in a room with “truly skeptical” scientists. By the way, Mike, have you ever heard of the Experimenter’s Expectancy Effect?

    No, I have not. But have you heard of the scientific method, and how it corrects for bias on the part of the experimenter?

    Why do you shudder? It shouldn’t matter how skeptical the scientists are, if they do their job right. If they don’t, that fact will come out in peer review.

    Quote:
    Enjoy your journey, Mike.

    Likewise, Cece. :-)

    #70285
    rotabilis
    Participant
    Quote:
    There is NO ‘test’, scientific or otherwise, that will make the masses instantly agree on the existence of ADC, SOC, etc, etc.

    Instantly? No. Progressively? Yes there is.

    Quote:
    How many of you, myself included, have said “I would only TRULY believe if it happens to ME, period? Not death, of course (though that WOULD do it!), I mean an experience such as a reading with John where you received information that could ONLY have been gotten through ADC ;)

    You mean, an experience such as a reading with John where you received information that you THINK could only have been gotten through ADC. This, of course, is not sufficient. Anyone can be individually fooled. That is why we have the scientific method.

    Quote:
    For now, that’s the way it’s gotta be: one person at a time…

    Very convenient.

    #70289
    rotabilis
    Participant

    Originally posted by Mr Al
    Please be so kind as to NOT tell me WHAT I mean.

    I mean, exactly what I said. Information which could ONLY have come from someone who has passed. Such as a conversation the two of you had many years ago, with NO ONE around to overhear and which was of such a nature (trivial; ‘of the moment’; whatever) that neither party would have mentioned it to ANYONE afterward. Just as an example.

    I apologize for my phrasing. My point was that you COULD be mistaken. No matter how unlikely it seems to you, you still could be. Please note that I am not excluding myself from this. I said that anyone could be fooled; that includes me.

    #70291
    scrambled6
    Participant

    Originally posted by rotabilis

    I apologize for my phrasing. My point was that you COULD be mistaken. No matter how unlikely it seems to you, you still could be. Please note that I am not excluding myself from this. I said that anyone could be fooled; that includes me.

    Implying that sitters are “fooled” or now as you call it, “mistaken” insults not only the intellegence of the sitter but it would also go as far as to insult the thousands of people across the country who have been read by JE Big number, don’t you think? So all those people are being “fooled” or “mistaken”? Don’t think so.

    …..Mr. Al, you are correct….out of the example that you have given above, for someone to have a conversation in which only you and the person who have crossed only know what the specific topic was about and then for JE to bring it up, is one of many validations…..I have testimony to that.

    #70293
    rotabilis
    Participant

    Originally posted by scrambled6
    Implying that sitters are “fooled” or now as you call it, “mistaken” insults not only the intellegence of the sitter but it would also go as far as to insult the thousands of people across the country who have been read by JE Big number, don’t you think? So all those people are being “fooled” or “mistaken”? Don’t think so.[/quote]

    I assure you, it is not an insult. The smartest person in the world can still be fooled. In fact, high intelligence can conceivably be a liability, as it can lead to overconfidence in one’s own ability to separate fact from fiction. Scientists are no better; sometimes they are the easiest people to fool.

    It doesn’t matter how many people believe something. There are many things that are believed by lots of people, but which cannot be simultaneously true. Christianity and Hinduism cannot both be true, yet each has many thousands of believers.

    And of course, there is the perennial example of how everyone used to believe that the earth was flat, or that the sun orbited it…

    #70298
    Pam B
    Keymaster

    Originally posted by rotabilis

    I assure you, it is not an insult. The smartest person in the world can still be fooled. In fact, high intelligence can conceivably be a liability, as it can lead to overconfidence in one’s own ability to separate fact from fiction. Scientists are no better; sometimes they are the easiest people to fool.

    It doesn’t matter how many people believe something. There are many things that are believed by lots of people, but which cannot be simultaneously true. Christianity and Hinduism cannot both be true, yet each has many thousands of believers.

    And of course, there is the perennial example of how everyone used to believe that the earth was flat, or that the sun orbited it…

    rotabilis, it is not for you to decide what someone else perceives as insult. This is a fundamental principal of emotional maturity and psychology. If someone tells you they’re insulted by a remark you have made, they’re insulted whether you intended it or not.

    This is also fundamental to the GAP between believers and non-believers. The PUSH in the media, by professional media skeptics and cynics, is hurtful to those of us who believe. Regardless of the “intent”.

    The failure of those people, and yourself in the statement you made above, is in not recognizing the insult to our freedom to believe, to choose what we believe, and the insult to our intelligence, that you are discounting the phenomenological evidence of hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of human beings since the dawn of time.

    Because YOU have not had the experience – does NOT mean that we ALL – possibly millions of us, have been “fooled.”

    Christianity IS real for those who experience it. Hinduism IS real for those who experience it. There are MANY realities – simply because you have not experienced those realities yourself, does not give you the authority, ability or moral right to declare those people FOOLED.

    The denial of phenomenological evidence in favor of binary, readable data on paper, is arrogant and denies the very elements of Man that separates us from the animals.

    #70302
    scrambled6
    Participant

    Originally posted by rotabilis

    I assure you, it is not an insult. The smartest person in the world can still be fooled. In fact, high intelligence can conceivably be a liability, as it can lead to overconfidence in one’s own ability to separate fact from fiction. Scientists are no better; sometimes they are the easiest people to fool.

    rotabilus….you assure me of nothing.

    Oh….and the earth ISN’T flat? Oooops…. fooled again.

    #70310
    rotabilis
    Participant

    Originally posted by Pam
    The failure of those people, and yourself in the statement you made above, is in not recognizing the insult to our freedom to believe, to choose what we believe, and the insult to our intelligence, that you are discounting the phenomenological evidence of hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of human beings since the dawn of time.

    Because YOU have not had the experience – does NOT mean that we ALL – possibly millions of us, have been “fooled.”

    Christianity IS real for those who experience it. Hinduism IS real for those who experience it. There are MANY realities – simply because you have not experienced those realities yourself, does not give you the authority, ability or moral right to declare those people FOOLED.

    Pam, are you saying that there is not a single, objective reality in which we coexist? If so, then why do science at all? For that matter, why have schools? By your logic, no teacher could ever correct a student, because nothing a student says or writes is actually “wrong”; it’s just reflective of that student’s individual reality. No one should ever try to correct another’s mistakes, because there ARE no mistakes; plus the act of correction, or even suggesting that someone might be wrong, is an insult.

    How far would civilization get if we followed that line of reasoning?

    If I have misunderstood you, then please explain to me under what circumstances it IS okay to suggest to someone that they might be in error.

    Thanks for the discussion! Your forum is very cool. :-)

    #70311
    ceceoh
    Participant

    quote:


    Originally posted by ceceoh
    John Edward says that the manner of a person’s crossing isn’t so important to them, once they have passed.


    Sounds like a dodge to me.

    Oh, Mike, that phrase is beginning to give me a headache. The man is like any other savant. You ask them why they can do something, they say they don’t know, and cynics say “he’s covering up”. They ask why he gets this information and not that, he says I don’t know, and the cynics say “dodging the question”. Ask me why I rub my hands together when I’m nervous, or write with my right hand and throw a ball with my left. I DON’T know! Am I a liar? No. I simply don’t know.

    quote:


    ough I do suspect that he has helped the authorities at times) whereas Sylvia Brown and other mediums will give answers to murder investigations on the air. What has been accomplished with this information usually isn’t revealed. (Goverment can be as tight-lipped as any spirit sometimes. )



    the information given by a psychic had made the critical difference in solving a crime, we’d know about it.

    (Pats Mike’s hand) Of course we would. There must be literally 1000s of law enforcement agents out there who are willing to admit that they closed a case with information from a psychic.

    quote:


    I do know that no spirit can be called onto the witness stand at this time. Evidence offered through a medium will not be accepted in a court of law, so just how much good can this information do us?



    Plenty. I gave just a few examples.

    I’m sorry, but where are the court cases where the testimony of a spirit through a medium have been accepted as evidence? I did watch a movie where this happened. The woman was laughed out of the court room. I know there are some people willing to come forward to state that information from a psychic helped in convicting a criminal. But it is never acknowledged officially. That is because there are too many people out there who would reject this information out of hand. Why pass along information that will be ridiculed or rejected? If the spirits are silent in these matters, could it be that they just don’t want to “waste their breath”?

    quote:


    I understand that the CIA has used mediums in the past. Edgar Cayce relayed medical procedures in trance state. I’m sure there are other examples of information being offered by the spirit world, but much of it has been rejected by the very people who could do anything with this information, because of the source.[b/]



    It has been rejected because spirit communication has no scientific support. That is why I am arguing for rigorous scientific testing. You’re supporting my argument here.

    Sounds like a real Catch-22 to me. Reject doing any follow up research on information given by a psychic, because there is no scientific evidence to prove that what psychics do is real. Reject any research done to prove that psychic phenomena is real, because – well – it just ain’t. And if the rare skeptical researcher
    did actually look into it, and started to find evidence that that there might be something to this, well, now he’s a “believer”. Good luck getting his work published in any “serious” scientific journal. That’s the politics of science.

    quote:


    Maybe we’re in our “baby step” phase. Once it has been more universally accepted that our spirits CAN speak with us, then more information will be forthcoming.



    Again, rigorous scientific testing with successful results would go a long way toward universal acceptance. That’s why I’m arguing for it. The ball is in Edward’s court (and that of other allegedly genuine mediums).

    See above Mike. There will be no rigorous scientific testing until the anecdotal evidence becomes so overwhelming that the scientific “boys club” can safely approach the subject without being laughed off the stage. Look what happened to poor Joseph Tesla when he started ranging beyond the bound of what was considered “acceptable research”. (By the way, Joseph. Thanks for the AC. Love your work!)

    quote:


    Yes! It is neat!



    I meant “neat” as in “convenient”.

    I know. Just “jerkin’ your chain” there, buddy. ;)

    quote:


    Actually, I shudder to think of that kind-hearted young man being put in a room with “truly skeptical” scientists. By the way, Mike, have you ever heard of the Experimenter’s Expectancy Effect?



    No, I have not. But have you heard of the scientific method, and how it corrects for bias on the part of the experimenter?

    See “the politics of science” above. We’re not talking about some nice, safe subject like constructing a better type of steel or fabricating an artificial heart. We’re addressing the human condition and the afterlife. It’s gonna be a little harder to leave your bias at the door on that one. Remember, scientific research declared for centuries that I was an “inferior being”, so you’ve got to forgive me if I’m a little skeptical of the “scientific method”. After all, you science guys are only human.

    Why do you shudder? It shouldn’t matter how skeptical the scientists are, if they do their job right. If they don’t, that fact will come out in peer review.

    Oh, honey! The Tuskeegee Experiments? Joseph Mengele’s “research”? The screams of thousands of animals sacrificed for repetitive experiments conducted only so some research facility could keep the grant money coming in? Shoot, Edgar Cayce was literally tortured onstage, in front of an audience while in a trance state, by two medical doctors. They wanted to see if he was faking. And no one raised a hand, because, hey, it was “scientific research”. He did not come out of his trance, but was crippled for months by the abuse.

    Now I’m not saying that anyone is going to physically torture John Edward. (right?) But I believe the psychological stress of being tested by your “skeptical scientists” would be all too real. And for what? To be told the results are “inconclusive”? That more research is needed? Just how many months or years do you want this man to dedicate to the cold eyes of your “skeptical scientists”? I think he has another job to do.

    “And so it goes.”

    Cece

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 21 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.