Seances: Magick versus Psychic

[phlogistician]

Scott, I think you are the poster boy for the phrase 'Mind so open your brains fell out'.

Really, if you want some credibility, you have to take a stand against utter bullshit. Maybe the govt sent ghosts to plant the explosives in the WTC, which is why nobody saw anybody placing them? Maybe they used the ghosts of old exploded TNT so nobody could see the explosives!

Oh, and I am taking the piss out of you, in case you don't understand sarcasm.

 

[scott3x]

No, I'm not. I'm trying to lump people who naysay into a group called 'naysayers' . Whether they're knowledgeable or not in these areas remains to be seen as far as I'm concerned...

I wasn't aware that there was a difference between magic and magick. Good to know.

The more knowledgeable part was demonstrated by contrasting these two responses.

Only in regards to the fact that magic and magick mean different things.

A naysayer is generically someone whom opposes something no matter what.

Not from the definitions of the term I've seen. Here's wordreference.com's definition:
someone with an aggressively negative attitude

This being a science site, non-science is going to be opposed fiercely

His claim wasn't based on any science that I could see, which is why i asked him to prove it.

and you can look at any college science curriculum and observe that there are no magick science courses.

You apparently agreed with the following statements I made in a previous post:

My father once said, [true] magic is science not yet known. Many things that were once attributed to magic have now entered the realm of science and the realm of science is definitely expanding.

Furthermore, even if magick isn't taught in college science doesn't mean that it can't be studied scientifically. It also seems clear to me that magick clearly falls into the realm of parapsychology. I'm not sure why sciforums has a forum dedicated to parapsychology, but I'm guessing that the fact that wikipedia defines it as "a discipline that seeks to investigate the existence and causes of psychic abilities and life after death using the scientific method" probably has something to do with it.

 

[scott3x]

Scott, I think you are the poster boy for the phrase 'Mind so open your brains fell out'.

You did much better in response to my first post in this thread. If this is the level of discussion here, perhaps I should leave.

 

[Crunchy Cat]

Only in regards to the fact that magic and magick mean different things.

That's a rpetty big difference right off the bat.

Not from the definitions of the term I've seen. Here's wordreference.com's definition:
someone with an aggressively negative attitude

I see, and should the input of someone with an aggressively negative attitude be dismissed if that person is correct?

His claim wasn't based on any science that I could see, which is why i asked him to prove it.

That proof you are looking for has actually been demonstrated in this subforum over and over again. Countless experiments have been conducted that show one thing... para-anything does not exist. The JREF foundation offers a 1 million dollar prize to anyone whom can demonstrate psychic/para anything... and this has been in place for a very long time. To date, everyone whom has accepted the challenge has either failed misreably or chickened out. Skinwalker knows this but he also knows that anyone defending a psychic claim is the one that has to generate the proof. There is nobody on the planet whom can do this because the phenomenon doesn't exist. Again this is something that Skinwalker knows.

You apparently agreed with the following statements I made in a previous post:

Correct.

Furthermore, even if magick isn't taught in college science doesn't mean that it can't be studied scientifically.

Well that's not quite true. To study something scientifically a phenomena has to exist in the first place. There is no phenomena of magick; however, the people whom "exercise magick" can be studied scientifically. That is why we know it is a psychological expression of creativity. It satisfies several psychological needs but at the same time has no real effect on objective reality.

It also seems clear to me that magick clearly falls into the realm of parapsychology. I'm not sure why sciforums has a forum dedicated to parapsychology, but I'm guessing that the fact that wikipedia defines it as "a discipline that seeks to investigate the existence and causes of psychic abilities and life after death using the scientific method" probably has something to do with it.

Can't say, I don't know who started the subforum; however, this site has evolved over time and its present form focuses on examining subjects from a scientific standpoint.

At present there is ZERO evidence for the existence of anything psychic / para; however, there are plenty of human behaviors to study. Your participation in this thread is a study of human behavior.

 

[eddie23]

Prove it.

proof is in your words.
You have been doing it for a while.
now you are looking for a way to make it real?
must have been fake for a while.

 

[phlogistician]

You did much better in response to my first post in this thread. If this is the level of discussion here, perhaps I should leave.

I called you a woowoo in my first response to you. You have done nothing to change my opinion. You need to show some discernment in what you are willing to believe.

 

[scott3x]

Only in regards to the fact that magic and magick mean different things.

That's a rpetty big difference right off the bat.

It's a point that was easily resolved. It's the rest that complicated.

Not from the definitions of the term I've seen. Here's wordreference.com's definition:
someone with an aggressively negative attitude

I see, and should the input of someone with an aggressively negative attitude be dismissed if that person is correct?

Ofcourse not. I gave Skinwalker the chance to prove his assertion. While he didn't initially understand what I was asking him to prove, he did attempt to provide evidence for his claim anyway. As far as I'm concerned, however, he failed to provide any real evidence.

 

[cosmictraveler]

So, I have been doing psychic type seances for quite awhile and I know there are a huge number of ways to do them otherwise, such as using magickal techniques. A friend of mind brought this up and I was wondering if anyone could give me the main difference in the techniques, apart from the use of magickal items in the process. I am really interested in learning more about magick as a whole as well...

So what have you learned , or should I ask, where did you vanish off to? :shrug:

 

[scott3x]

His claim wasn't based on any science that I could see, which is why i asked him to prove it.

That proof you are looking for has actually been demonstrated in this subforum over and over again.

Sorry, but I won't take your word for it.

Countless experiments have been conducted that show one thing... para-anything does not exist.

I highly doubt that you can show me even one that conclusively proves that 'para-anything does not exist'.

The JREF foundation offers a 1 million dollar prize to anyone whom can demonstrate psychic/para anything...

I've heard that James Randi is rather selective as to who he will even listen to, let alone gives a chance to prove anything; there's been complaints on his board concerning that.

and this has been in place for a very long time. To date, everyone whom has accepted the challenge has either failed misreably or chickened out.

Perhaps James only allows recognized frauds to take the challenge and won't allow true people with special abilities to take the challenge. Perhaps people who can really do things aren't interested in James' million bucks. Perhaps people with such abilities are afraid of what would happen to them if they revealed themselves.

Skinwalker knows this but he also knows that anyone defending a psychic claim is the one that has to generate the proof.

I don't have to prove anything to Skinwalker or to anyone else. If Skinwalker wants to make claims as if they were known fact, however, I think it certainly makes sense to see if he actually has proof for them.

There is nobody on the planet whom can do this because the phenomenon doesn't exist. Again this is something that Skinwalker knows.

The Catholic Church thinks it knows a lot of things too. Personally I like having evidence before believing in things, but to each their own.

 

[scott3x]

Prove it.

proof is in your words.

How so?

You have been doing it for a while.

What is it that you believe I've been doing?

now you are looking for a way to make it real?

Looking for a way to make what real?

 

[scott3x]

Originally Posted by scott3x

You did much better in response to my first post in this thread. If this is the level of discussion here, perhaps I should leave.

I called you a woowoo in my first response to you.

Yes, but atleast you got what I was asking to prove right off the bat. It seems you're now more for the name calling then anything else.

You have done nothing to change my opinion.

I've downgraded my opinion of you. You seem to be in your element with the name calling. To each their own, I suppose.

You need to show some discernment in what you are willing to believe.

I would say the same to you.

 

[PsychoticEpisode]

I guess the biggest puzzle is why aren't we all using psychics? Why doesn't Obama consult one of New York City's finest bone readers to help gauge his economic policies? Why do we need detectives or any of the science relating to police work when psychics do their thing. If psychic material is so valuable then it should be free to all or at least subsidized by the gov't. I would like to know when I wake up in the morning if I'm going to be safe or not, wouldn't you? The benefits of psychic phenomena should be a basic human right. Why isn't it?

If psychic ability is genuine then the benefits to mankind are incalculable. Let's make every psychic a state treasure, make them wealthy, give them anything they want. In return all we want is to talk to our dead, know the future, solve a crime, etc.

Only a psychic can make this happen. I leave it up to all psychics to go out there and prove your worth. The world is your oyster, fabulous wealth and fame await each and every one of you. All you need to do is to bring it. What is the price of a little freelancing when untold fortune is in your cards.(no pun intended)

 

[phlogistician]

Yes, but atleast you got what I was asking to prove right off the bat. It seems you're now more for the name calling then anything else.

I don't think you did get it, no. I was asking the OP for proof of their extraordinary claim of holding seances. I was not asking Skin to prove the 'almost certainly either a fraud or deluded' statement. I wholeheartedly agree with Skinwalker.

I've downgraded my opinion of you. You seem to be in your element with the name calling. To each their own, I suppose.

Like I care what a woowoo thinks.

I would say the same to you.

You could say that, but it would be rather silly. You seem to accept anything is possible without a shred of proof. I'm a skeptic however, and and I display discernment.

 

[fedr808]

So, I have been doing psychic type seances for quite awhile and I know there are a huge number of ways to do them otherwise, such as using magickal techniques. A friend of mind brought this up and I was wondering if anyone could give me the main difference in the techniques, apart from the use of magickal items in the process. I am really interested in learning more about magick as a whole as well...

Magick can be many things, many of which are in items like pills, white powder, or "joints," the best are in needles, usually it requires ingestion, not too much technique. P.S. magick doesnt help your driving.

 

[Crunchy Cat]

It's a point that was easily resolved. It's the rest that complicated.

It's really not that complicated. There is an educational gap and comprehension gap between you and Skin / plog. They know more about reality and are consequently far more adapt at determining what isn't real.

Ofcourse not. I gave Skinwalker the chance to prove his assertion. While he didn't initially understand what I was asking him to prove, he did attempt to provide evidence for his claim anyway. As far as I'm concerned, however, he failed to provide any real evidence.

Let's examine it then. In your own words, what is his claim and what is his proof? Similarly, is his claim addressing an underlying claim that hasn't been proven? If so then whomever is supporting the underlying claim has to prove it first.

 

[Crunchy Cat]

Sorry, but I won't take your word for it.

You don't have to. The subforum is right here and you are welcome to explore it, keep track of the experiment threads, and confirm the results of 100% failure.

I highly doubt that you can show me even one that conclusively proves that 'para-anything does not exist'.

"para-anything" not existing is general and the best way to see it is to confirm all the failed para-claims; however, I CAN point out an example of a failed claim/experiment. After all, I am more than willing to provide supportive evidence for my assertions; however, it requires work (I have to search for the thread).

My question to you is that if I go through the work of digging up an example (as evidence), am I wasting my time? If not then explain why? My experience is that if I bring evidence to someone that contradicts their position then they tend to not accept it (usually in the form of pretending it isn't there).

I've heard that James Randi is rather selective as to who he will even listen to, let alone gives a chance to prove anything; there's been complaints on his board concerning that.

He is more selective, but that is something new (i.e. past few years). He's been getting alot of crank spam and it got to the point where he had to filter it (which is completely reasonable). Don't forget the DECADES that the challenge was open to ANY joe-bob on the street at any time.

Perhaps James only allows recognized frauds to take the challenge and won't allow true people with special abilities to take the challenge. Perhaps people who can really do things aren't interested in James' million bucks. Perhaps people with such abilities are afraid of what would happen to them if they revealed themselves.

If you read the complete list of applicant failures on his site (which span far beyond his current anti-spam selection criteria) then you would see a 100% failure rate in 100% of the applicants.

The non-interest / fear factor of people with "para-abilities" isn't in line with human behavior. The lure of $1 mill will always win out... always.

I don't have to prove anything to Skinwalker or to anyone else. If Skinwalker wants to make claims as if they were known fact, however, I think it certainly makes sense to see if he actually has proof for them.

If you issue a claim (direct or implied) that para-anything is real then you most certainly do to attain any kind of credibility. Regarding Skin's "claims", I direct you to post #35.

The Catholic Church thinks it knows a lot of things too. Personally I like having evidence before believing in things, but to each their own.

I doubt it. It doesn't take a significant amount of effort to realize that para-whatever has been claimed as existing as far back as recorded history goes. It's also quite self-evident that there is no supportive evidence for any of it. We live in a world with billions of people... whom have video recorders. Their combined efforts make the rarest of phenomena viewable to all in mass quantity, yet nothing para ever shows up.

So the real question becomes why do the claims exist? The answer is a combination of human psychology, natural hallucinatory phenomena, and in some cases brain defects. There are many psychology studies on why people believe weird things. The knowledge is available and this subforum is a microcosm example of it.

So again, I have my doubts that you care about the evidence because it's right in front of you.

 

[fedr808]

Is it fair to define this as a wooowooo thread?

 

[scott3x]

This is the claim you made:

If you assert that you have been doing "psychic seances" for some time, you're almost certainly either a fraud or deluded.

The lack of understanding -and the apparent woo-woo factor- is with you. My statement above is a conclusion to a syllogistic argument, not a claim (i.e. a premise).

The name calling just doesn't end around here, does it?

And I believe you're the moderator here, right?

I'm beginning to think that perhaps this forum isn't for me. Anyway, Wikipedia begins its definition of a syllogism thusly:
A syllogism, or logical appeal, (Greek: συλλογισμός — "conclusion," "inference"), (usually the categorical syllogism) is a kind of logical argument in which one proposition (the conclusion) is inferred from two others (the premises) of a certain form.

By that definition, you'd have used not 1, but 2 premises or claims. I'd never heard of the term before now but it seems clear to me that you were attempting to claim something as fact, which is why I asked you to prove it.

 

[scott3x]

I never said there were verifiable examples which show psychic seances to be a matter of fact.

Then you're in agreement that there are no good reasons to believe in either?

In either? As far as I was concerned, I was only talking about psychic seances, of which I don't really know all that much about. I just wikid it and got this for an intro:
A séance (pronounced /ˈsay-ons/) is an attempt to communicate with spirits.

I don't know all that much about that type of thing. So my contention stands the same; I could tell you that I believe that perhaps one can communicate with ghosts, in the style of movies such as "Ghost" even if I haven't heard "there were verifiable examples which show psychic seances to be a matter of fact." However, since I've never heard of 3000 people -dying- because of a ghost and wars being instigated because of it, it's not the type of thing I put a whole lot of time into, unlike 9/11.

Please... pick a side: reason or fantasy. Stick with it. Are you woo or are you not?

I think you see things too much in black and white. reason or fantasy. woo woo or not. To paraphrase my father, who knows something on the subject:
"The line between imagination and reality is more imaginary then real".

You can also take it from another angle, one that many governments use and which a senior George W. Bush adviser was fairly explicit about:
''We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality.".

 

[SkinWalker]

The syllogisms are:

• If psychic abilities exist, they would be probably be observed.
• Psychic abilities have not been observed.
• Therefore, psychic abilities probably do not exist.

• People are known to lie and become deluded.
• Psychic abilities probably do not exist.
• Those that assert they have psychic abilities are probably lying or deluded.

Not a single shred of legitimate evidence has ever shown the existence of psychic abilities (or ghosts for that matter). Never has there been the headline, "Psychic wins lottery."

To assert that one is psychic or that ghosts exist demonstrates gullibility, ignorance, and a lack of critical thought -but it does not demonstrate the possession of any real knowledge or empirical data.

If you assert that there are probably ghosts you are asserting a woo-woo claim.

Yes, I am a moderator here. Yes, I'm using a label considered pejorative by those that are woo-woos. This is a science board and woo-woo, pseudoscience, conspiracy nuts, and preachers will likely be ridiculed and will certainly be called on their poppycock.