Seances: Magick versus Psychic

[scott3x]

Sorry Crunchy, no one gets to claim omniscience here.
Your claim of knowing the 'true' reality is no more valid than anyone elses.

Well said EndLightEnd

 

[Crunchy Cat]

Sorry Crunchy, no one gets to claim omniscience here.
Your claim of knowing the 'true' reality is no more valid than anyone elses.

Whose claiming omniscience? I posted several bullets concerning what reality is saying. They are observables. They are evidence. Whether I accept them (i.e. believe) or not is irrelevant.

Something interesting to note is that both yourself and scott3x don't really appear to care about the evidence. It shows a strong psychological bias for psychic/para ideas, but that's not a problem I can help you with. Only you can decide to override your bias and employ evidence-based assessment.

 

[EndLightEnd]

Because reality agrees with me.

Its comments like these Crunchy, thats all I was pointing out. A bit defensive?

If anything, you would agree with reality dont you think? Not the other way around.

 

[scott3x]

Something interesting to note is that both yourself and scott3x don't really appear to care about the evidence.

Just because it seems that way to you doesn't make it true.

 

[Crunchy Cat]

Its comments like these Crunchy, thats all I was pointing out. A bit defensive?

That comment was an answer to a very specific question. Neither the question nor answer had anything to do with omniscience. You then went on to state that I issued a claim to know "the true reality"... which was not the case so I pointed out exactly what I claimed which were specific observations that anyone can make. Whether or not you interpret that as defensive doesn't seem relevant.

If anything, you would agree with reality dont you think? Not the other way around.

I don't think the order in a sentence matters. What does matter is that reality has the "final say" so if some specific notion in my mind and reality are in agreement then that notion is true. If they are in disagreement then the notion is false because reality is always correct.

 

[Crunchy Cat]

Just because it seems that way to you doesn't make it true.

Correct; however, your posts do reflect what you care about and don't care about. Think of a self-proclaimed psychic touting their "hits" and utterly ignoring their "misses". They care about the hits because it validates their claim and consequently ignore the misses because that would contradict their claim. I get the impression you're that way with evidence... if you found really good supportive evidence then I have no doubt you would be all over it; however, the contradictory evidence can be brushed off without a care. Don't feel bad, that is perfectly human. It is however utterly unscientific and does nothing towards the attainment or recognition of truth.

 

[scott3x]

Something interesting to note is that both yourself and scott3x don't really appear to care about the evidence.

Just because it seems that way to you doesn't make it true.

Correct; however, your posts do reflect what you care about and don't care about.

Sure. Not sure what your point is here though.

Think of a self-proclaimed psychic touting their "hits" and utterly ignoring their "misses". They care about the hits because it validates their claim and consequently ignore the misses because that would contradict their claim.

Consequently? No. Anway, we can certainly think of the unreserved disbeliever in paranormal events, proclaimed or unproclaimed. They care about the misses for paranormal stuff because it validates their beliefs and ignore the hits because that would contradict their beliefs.

I get the impression you're that way with evidence.

Why do you get that impression?

 

[Crunchy Cat]

Sure. Not sure what your point is here though.

It was explicitly stated in the last part of my last post... and you asked about it at the bottom of your last post.

Consequently? No. Anway, we can certainly think of the unreserved disbeliever in paranormal events, proclaimed or unproclaimed. They care about the misses for paranormal stuff because it validates their beliefs and ignore the hits because that would contradict their beliefs.

I disagree because most (if not all) non-believers I have come across base their non-belief on objective evidence. In other words they are very likely to believe what reality says is true and not believe what reality says is false.

Why do you get that impression?

* Because you aren't supplying supportive evidence for your implied position, you aren't acknowledging the contradictory evidence against your implied position, but you are nonetheless arguing for it.

* Quite a few of the scientific professionals on this site have indepently labeled you as a "woo woo". As the average of expert assessment (in this case determining fact from fiction with a scientific mindset) tends to be very accurate, I suspect there is a high degree of accuracy to their assessment of you.

 

[scott3x]

Sure. Not sure what your point is here though.

It was explicitly stated in the last part of my last post... and you asked about it at the bottom of your last post.

Looked through a few of my previous posts, still don't know what you're referring to, so which post would that be?

Consequently? No. Anyway, we can certainly think of the unreserved disbeliever in paranormal events, proclaimed or unproclaimed. They care about the misses for paranormal stuff because it validates their beliefs and ignore the hits because that would contradict their beliefs.

I disagree because most (if not all) non-believers I have come across base their non-belief on objective evidence.

All I've got for supporting evidence on that statement is your word; sorry, but I want a little more evidence before believing that .

Why do you get that impression?

* Because you aren't supplying supportive evidence for your implied position

Actually, I did.

you aren't acknowledging the contradictory evidence against your implied position

W hat is my supposed implied position and what contradictory evidence would that be?

* Quite a few of the scientific professionals on this site have independently labeled you as a "woo woo".

While some, professionals or otherwise, may revel in such terms as 'woo woo', I personally prefer more precise reasonings for not agreeing with evidence. My main focus on sciforums has been regarding 9/11. In sciforums alone, I have a mechanical engineer in my corner when it comes to the WTC collapses as well as others who have dedicated a considerable amount of time to the issue, such as Headspin and psikeyhackr; and this is to say nothing of the much larger truth movement, including Steven Jones, a physicist who's published in Scientific American and Nature. While Bentheman, also a physicist, doesn't support the theory that the WTC buildings collapsed due to controlled demolition, I haven't seen him putting a whole lot of effort into looking into the supporting evidence for this claim either. The truth movement also includes thousands if not millions more, including many architects and engineers, pilots, firemen and people in the intelligence community.

 

[Crunchy Cat]

Looked through a few of my previous posts, still don't know what you're referring to, so which post would that be?

This:

I get the impression you're that way with evidence. ”

Why do you get that impression?

All I've got for supporting evidence on that statement is your word; sorry, but I want a little more evidence before believing that .

Target any non-believer on this site (even myself) and look through their posting history. You will note evidence citations and a continual pointing out where psychic/para claims are evidence-less (which in itself is a form of evidence).

Actually, I did.

Please do point it out. I must have missed it.

W hat is my supposed implied position and what contradictory evidence would that be?

That psychic/para phenomena objectively exist. Some contradictory evidence is in post #57.

While some, professionals or otherwise, may revel in such terms as 'woo woo', I personally prefer more precise reasonings for not agreeing with evidence.

Obviously you're not referring to this sub-forum.

My main focus on sciforums has been regarding 9/11. In sciforums alone, I have a mechanical engineer in my corner when it comes to the WTC collapses as well as others who have dedicated a considerable amount of time to the issue, such as Headspin and psikeyhackr; and this is to say nothing of the much larger truth movement, including Steven Jones, a physicist who's published in Scientific American and Nature. While Bentheman, also a physicist, doesn't support the theory that the WTC buildings collapsed due to controlled demolition, I haven't seen him putting a whole lot of effort into looking into the supporting evidence for this claim either. The truth movement also includes thousands if not millions more, including many architects and engineers, pilots, firemen and people in the intelligence community.

Sounds like you have an obsession with the WTC collapse.

 

[scott3x]

...your posts do reflect what you care about and don't care about.

Sure. Not sure what your point is here though.

It was explicitly stated in the last part of my last post... and you asked about it at the bottom of your last post.

Looked through a few of my previous posts, still don't know what you're referring to, so which post would that be?

This:

I get the impression you're that way with evidence.

Why do you get that impression?

Crunchy, after backtracking a bunch of posts and quoting all of it, I'm -still- not sure what you're referring to. I'll take a guess in the hopes to clear this up- are you trying to convey that I don't care about evidence?

All I've got for supporting evidence on that statement is your word; sorry, but I want a little more evidence before believing that .

Target any non-believer on this site (even myself) and look through their posting history. You will note evidence citations and a continual pointing out where psychic/para claims are evidence-less (which in itself is a form of evidence).

When someone new joins the conversation concerning 9/11 over in pseudoscience, I don't expect them to read the history; although they can ofcourse; gluon apparently read all 100+ pages of the WTC collapses thread I started there before entering the fray. In any case, I find that I've already seen enough history of your posting style with me to get a general impression of the way you work.

Think of a self-proclaimed psychic touting their "hits" and utterly ignoring their "misses". They care about the hits because it validates their claim and consequently ignore the misses because that would contradict their claim. I get the impression you're that way with evidence.

Why do you get that impression?

* Because you aren't supplying supportive evidence for your implied position

Actually, I did.

Please do point it out. I must have missed it.

Straight from post 45 in this thread:

I tell you what, start a thread on Jim Marrs and "Psi Spies" and quote the most convincing two passages.

I'm not going to scour the book to find the 2 passages I find the most convincing. But I'll give you the first part of the Preface, which I think provides ample room for discussion:
*************
In 1992, following the success of my book Crossfire: The Plot that Killed Kennedy, I began to look for other dark secrets being hidden away by the federal government. What I found led me into an incredibly journey through time, space, ESP, UFOs, censorship, and disinformation.

It began with my discovery of a psychic ability termed remote viewing, or RV. This phenomenon in the past had been called clairvoyance, prophecy, or soothswaying. Although recorded by all cultures throughout human history, it was believed to be simply an occult fantasy until scientific studies during the 20th century confirmed its existence.

Despite the fact that remote viewing was developed by various tax-supported government agencies including the CIA, the Defense Intelligence Agency, and even the U.S. Army, a majority of Americans still have never heard of this facility.

But remote viewing forever changed the lives of the men and women employed in its use. This included people only tangentially connected to the government-funded RV programs.

This book became one of the casualities in the ongoing conflict between sicence and ESP, military secrecy and the public's right to know, as well ast he never-ending intramural competition between government agencies and power-seeking individuals.

What you are about to read was suppressed in the summer of 1995, four months before the existence of government sponsored remote viewing was publicly revealed by a CIA press release.

The story of remote viewing- then one of our government's most closely guarded secrets- now has filtered into certain aware segments of the public, where it continues to attract growing fascination and interest. Today, several experienced viewers are bringing this phenomenal technology to a wider audience. Others have spoken about it in books, articles or public speeches. Even some entrepreneurs now advertise psychic readings reportedly accomplished through RV.
*************

What is my supposed implied position and what contradictory evidence would that be?

That psychic/para phenomena objectively exist. Some contradictory evidence is in post #57.

Your 'contradictory' evidence begins with "Because reality agrees with me". Hardly the stuff of hard science . You continue with such choice lines such as "Psychic/para claims have existed as far back as history has been recorded. Since that time, there has been zero supportive evidence of those claim", but you fail to provide any evidence that that is, in fact, the case.

While some, professionals or otherwise, may revel in such terms as 'woo woo', I personally prefer more precise reasonings for not agreeing with evidence.

Obviously you're not referring to this sub-forum.

I was actually including this sub-forum.

My main focus on sciforums has been regarding 9/11. In sciforums alone, I have a mechanical engineer in my corner when it comes to the WTC collapses as well as others who have dedicated a considerable amount of time to the issue, such as Headspin and psikeyhackr; and this is to say nothing of the much larger truth movement, including Steven Jones, a physicist who's published in Scientific American and Nature. While Bentheman, also a physicist, doesn't support the theory that the WTC buildings collapsed due to controlled demolition, I haven't seen him putting a whole lot of effort into looking into the supporting evidence for this claim either. The truth movement also includes thousands if not millions more, including many architects and engineers, pilots, firemen and people in the intelligence community.

Sounds like you have an obsession with the WTC collapse.

Sigh. I spend a paragraph given well reasoned arguments and you lampoon me with a sentence. Really does make me wonder if I'm spending my time wisely :-/.

 

[scott3x]

Because reality agrees with me.

If anything, you would agree with reality dont you think? Not the other way around.

I don't think the order in a sentence matters.

English is actually rather particular when it comes to syntax. See, the way your sentence is structured there, one could be led to believe that reality has taken sides in this debate and agrees with your position

What does matter is that reality has the "final say" so if some specific notion in my mind and reality are in agreement then that notion is true. If they are in disagreement then the notion is false because reality is always correct.

We agree on that at any rate.

 

[Crunchy Cat]

Crunchy, after backtracking a bunch of posts and quoting all of it, I'm -still- not sure what you're referring to. I'll take a guess in the hopes to clear this up- are you trying to convey that I don't care about evidence?

Correct and I also conveyed that we were addressing it in another section of this conversation. The entire purpose of conveying this information was so that you would not get lost... but sadly it doesn't appear to have been effective.

When someone new joins the conversation concerning 9/11 over in pseudoscience, I don't expect them to read the history; although they can ofcourse; gluon apparently read all 100+ pages of the WTC collapses thread I started there before entering the fray. In any case, I find that I've already seen enough history of your posting style with me to get a general impression of the way you work.

That's why it helps to direct people to evidence when they ask of course. On a sidenote, I hope gluon isn't one of your supporters. He's this sites #1 crackpot pseudoscientist.

Meanwhile, don't worry about my posting style. It's the content that matters.

Straight from post 45 in this thread:

Yep, I didn't read that post at the time because it was bogged down with alot of unrelated things. I took another look and sure enough found these entries:

"Although recorded by all cultures throughout human history, it was believed to be simply an occult fantasy until scientific studies during the 20th century confirmed its existence.
...
...
...
Today, several experienced viewers are bringing this phenomenal technology to a wider audience. "

This itself isn't evidence. It is a claim of evidence (one stop closer I suppose). Evidence is a demonstration that reality agrees with some notion in your mind. Showing valid confirmation in science would be a good form of evidence as well as showing the phenomena itself would be a good form of evidence. That's what's required for the claim.

Your 'contradictory' evidence begins with "Because reality agrees with me". Hardly the stuff of hard science .

That wasn't part of the evidence. That was an answer to a question. The evidence was bulleted and clearly labeled as such.

You continue with such choice lines such as "Psychic/para claims have existed as far back as history has been recorded. Since that time, there has been zero supportive evidence of those claim", but you fail to provide any evidence that that is, in fact, the case.

That's an easy one. It's an absence of objective phenomena over the course of human history. At present we have billions of people in the world and nobody can demonstrate jack in a controlled environment. But that is just one point of evidence. You have to read several points and think about what reality is saying. I honestly don't think you have any desire to do that.

I was actually including this sub-forum.

Well then, please show the evidence (and not the claims of evidence as pointed out above).

Sigh. I spend a paragraph given well reasoned arguments and you lampoon me with a sentence. Really does make me wonder if I'm spending my time wisely :-/.

As well reasoned as the arguments might have been, they didn't really argue for something. If you're trying to demonstrate that the association between yourself and "woo woo" is incorrect then what you presented was far too little and very likely far too late.

Personally, I think that if you come to a science forum and issue claims (especially ones that are "out there") then you better have some very hard evidence. I can't say how your WTC thread aligns to this; however, if it's in pseudoscience then that is a bad sign as it's more or less synonymous with delusional.

As far as psychic/para claims are concerned the best I have seen in that post you pointed out was a claim of evidence (rather than evidence itself). Maybe this isn't an issue of you not having evidence but more an issue of understanding what evidence means? I don't know. Maybe it would make sense for you to define (in your own words) the concepts of truth and evidence?

 

[Read-Only]

As far as psychic/para claims are concerned the best I have seen in that post you pointed out was a claim of evidence (rather than evidence itself). Maybe this isn't an issue of you not having evidence but more an issue of understanding what evidence means? I don't know. Maybe it would make sense for you to define (in your own words) the concepts of truth and evidence?

CC, you may not have noticed (but I'm willing to bet you have) that Scott demonstrates absolutely NO ability to think and reason on his own. All he EVER does is just regurgitate some nonsense that he's found on one of the dozens of woo-woo sites that he spends a tremendous amount of time on.

He's shown us dozens and dozens of time that he cannot separate fact from fantasy. He has so little scientific knowledge - even of the basics - that he cannot stand on his own two feet when it comes to deciding between actual evidence and just anecdotal stuff. Not only those problems but he apparently REFUSES to put any effort into learning any real science! And perhaps that last fault is the greatest one of all.

And those are just some of the reasons that I have written him off as a total loss and will never communicate with him again. Besides, with him, "communication" is just a one-way street anyway since he will never accept any information that doesn't support his nutty ideas.

 

[Crunchy Cat]

CC, you may not have noticed (but I'm willing to bet you have) that Scott demonstrates absolutely NO ability to think and reason on his own. All he EVER does is just regurgitate some nonsense that he's found on one of the dozens of woo-woo sites that he spends a tremendous amount of time on.

He's shown us dozens and dozens of time that he cannot separate fact from fantasy. He has so little scientific knowledge - even of the basics - that he cannot stand on his own two feet when it comes to deciding between actual evidence and just anecdotal stuff. Not only those problems but he apparently REFUSES to put any effort into learning any real science! And perhaps that last fault is the greatest one of all.

And those are just some of the reasons that I have written him off as a total loss and will never communicate with him again. Besides, with him, "communication" is just a one-way street anyway since he will never accept any information that doesn't support his nutty ideas.

Heh, yep it is quite clear that scott3x's interpretation of reality is very unconstrained due to knowledge gaps, thought gaps, and good old fashioned human psychology, bias, and imagination filling those gaps.

My goal isn't to convince him of anything as we both know what he accepts or rejects is his problem. My goal is to gently poke, prod, and peel (oops did I say that out loud?).

 

[Crunchy Cat]

English is actually rather particular when it comes to syntax. See, the way your sentence is structured there, one could be led to believe that reality has taken sides in this debate and agrees with your position

Most people realize reality isn't a sapient life form that takes sides and can thusly derive a message that the the notions in my head are validated by reality.

We agree on that at any rate.

We'll see.

 

[scott3x]

Crunchy, after backtracking a bunch of posts and quoting all of it, I'm -still- not sure what you're referring to. I'll take a guess in the hopes to clear this up- are you trying to convey that I don't care about evidence?

Correct and I also conveyed that we were addressing it in another section of this conversation. The entire purpose of conveying this information was so that you would not get lost... but sadly it doesn't appear to have been effective.

You may consider the possibility that if I'm getting lost at times, it's because you're not conveying things well...

 

[scott3x]

When someone new joins the conversation concerning 9/11 over in pseudoscience, I don't expect them to read the history; although they can ofcourse; gluon apparently read all 100+ pages of the WTC collapses thread I started there before entering the fray. In any case, I find that I've already seen enough history of your posting style with me to get a general impression of the way you work.

That's why it helps to direct people to evidence when they ask of course.

While you might have suggested to gluon that he read the 100 pages before commenting, I wouldn't have; doing that type of thing may well have turned off most people from contributing at all.

On a sidenote, I hope gluon isn't one of your supporters.

He seems to be more on the inside job side of the debate and we recently became sci forums friends. Not sure if that'd qualify as a 'supporter', but perhaps.

He's this sites #1 crackpot pseudoscientist.

I have heard something of gluon in the past. In all honesty, I haven't really looked at too many of his posts at present, as the subjects he's involved in haven't generally coicided with the subjects I'm involved in. I have heard that he's coping with certain serious issues that have made him flare up and even be temporarily banned. However, I believe that just because a person has certain flaws doesn't mean that they can't significantly contribute to important issues.

Meanwhile, don't worry about my posting style. It's the content that matters.

I'm equating the 2; however, if I -really- thought your posting style/content was that bad, I wouldn't respond at all.

 

[scott3x]

Straight from post 45 in this thread:

Yep, I didn't read that post at the time because it was bogged down with alot of unrelated things. I took another look and sure enough found these entries:

"Although recorded by all cultures throughout human history, it was believed to be simply an occult fantasy until scientific studies during the 20th century confirmed its existence.
...
...
...
Today, several experienced viewers are bringing this phenomenal technology to a wider audience.

This itself isn't evidence. It is a claim of evidence (one stop closer I suppose). Evidence is a demonstration that reality agrees with some notion in your mind. Showing valid confirmation in science would be a good form of evidence as well as showing the phenomena itself would be a good form of evidence. That's what's required for the claim.

Fair enough. Even with what you quoted, however, someone like me would find plenty to work with; you could have asked:

You say that:
"Although recorded by all cultures throughout human history, it was believed to be simply an occult fantasy until scientific studies during the 20th century confirmed its existence."

Can you show me the scientific studies which confirm its existence?​

If you'd done that, I might have said, "I think so, let me take a look in the book", and then perhaps come up with a few select passages.

You could also have asked:

Can you tell me more about these experimental viewers?
​

I know for a fact that Psi Spies talks a lot about them and am sure I could have found some more information on them. But you let these leads pass by, leaving me to wonder if you're really interested in learning more about these claims.

I also see that you left -out- a bunch of the text that I brought up in post 45. For the sake of brevity, I won't quote it again. I will mention, however, that the section I'm referring to begins with "Despite the fact that remote viewing was developed by various tax-supported government agencies" and ends with "The story of remote viewing- then one of our government's most closely guarded secrets- now has filtered into certain aware segments of the public, where it continues to attract growing fascination and interest."

 

[Crunchy Cat]

Fair enough. Even with what you quoted, however, someone like me would find plenty to work with; you could have asked:

You say that:
"Although recorded by all cultures throughout human history, it was believed to be simply an occult fantasy until scientific studies during the 20th century confirmed its existence."

Can you show me the scientific studies which confirm its existence?​

If you'd done that, I might have said, "I think so, let me take a look in the book", and then perhaps come up with a few select passages.

That is exactly why I thought you didn't understand what a request for evidence meant... and I was correct. So yes please do show me those passages, but using my own "remote viewing", I predict that what you show will not be evidence.

You could also have asked:

Can you tell me more about these experimental viewers?
​

I know for a fact that Psi Spies talks a lot about them and am sure I could have found some more information on them. But you let these leads pass by, leaving me to wonder if you're really interested in learning more about these claims.

I also see that you left -out- a bunch of the text that I brought up in post 45. For the sake of brevity, I won't quote it again. I will mention, however, that the section I'm referring to begins with "Despite the fact that remote viewing was developed by various tax-supported government agencies" and ends with "The story of remote viewing- then one of our government's most closely guarded secrets- now has filtered into certain aware segments of the public, where it continues to attract growing fascination and interest."

Psi-spies? Talking about things as if their factual doesn't make them so.