Seances: Magick versus Psychic

[scott3x]

What book do you believe I said I'd read?

If you ever find this alleged evidence for your case, I could take a look.

Ring a bell? Jon Ronson: The Men Who Stare At Goats.

When you first spoke of the evidence, you didn't mention that it was in that book; I meant an article or 2 online.

You didn't seem to get very far with Jim Marrs' "Alien Agenda". Or do you mean that you just read the intros?

How many more times: I only got as far as Marrs' intro because he promised no new sources and the sources he was using have already been thoroughly shown to be wrong.

Just because -you- believe they have been thoroughly shown to be wrong doesn't make it so.

"In my experience, there's no such thing as luck." - Obi Wan Kenobi, Star Wars.

You really cannot be serious!
Quoting a fictional character as support

Some works of fiction are also works of great philosophical import. I wouldn't call Star Wars the best in this genre, but it certainly had its moments. For a wealth of philosophical discussions in fictional works, I suggest reading some of Frank Herbert's novels, particularly the Dune Series. Here's an excerpt from the link on Frank Herbert:

The Dune saga, set in the distant future and taking place over millennia, deals with themes such as human survival and evolution, ecology, and the intersection of religion, politics and power. Dune itself is the "best-selling science fiction novel of all time," and the series is widely considered to be among the classics in the genre.[2][3]​

Anyway, I'll give you an example of just how "lucky" Swann has been. Here's a... blah blah balh... etc

Oli, when you insert your own material (blah blah blah etc.), don't make it appear as if I said it. What you did is misleading.

Doesn't this come under the heading of "only reading sources that support your view"?

I've gone over this same point with shaman_ in the past. I've read a fair amount of what -you- have said and you definitely don't support my view. I notice that you have ignored the entire excerpt I provided to back up my claim, which, I believe, speaks volumes for -your- ability to listen to opposing views.

Most of this controversy was going on the late seventies, early eighties and has been shown to be wishful thinking and self-deception.

Prove it.

The fact that these experiments were conducted in the same laboratory, with the same basic protocol, using the same viewers across experiments, the same targets across experiments, and the same investigators aggravates, rather than alleviates, the problem of independent replication. If subtle, as-yet-undetected bias and flaws exist is the protocol, the very consistency of elements such as targets, viewers, investigators, and procedures across experiments enhances the possibility that these flaws will be compounded.

http://skepdic.com/remotevw.html

The same person was -not- used to produce effects on the magnetometer. The protocols were also more stringent with the second person to produce the anomalies. Which you would have known, if you'd read the excerpt I provided. I also highly doubt that the observers were all identical as well.

 

[Oli]

Have you seen the movie The Illusionist? In the movie, I believe there's an immensely important point that's never quite said but rather implied: what's important is not how some things are done; it's why.

But the truly important point is - were they in fact done at all?

There is also another issue; sarcasm can and at times does get to a point where it's hard to distinguish what a person really means vs. what they're only pretending to mean.

Presumably this is a reference to the switch to fiction.
I'd agree except people's names in both books (fiction and, *cough*,non-fiction) are the same: and the fiction book incorporates the disclaimer "Any reemblance etc etc" i.e. the people in the non-fiction book (claimed to be real and non-pseudonymous) aren't in fact real...

No, it doesn't mean that we should stop looking, but there are times when people really can't handle it, atleast temporarily.

And some people are so blind to the truth they deny it and go on looking for something to support their [del/ill]usions.

Believe what you wish, but I happen to know that material without citations, or with citations that the wiki powers that be don't like, is frequently taken out in wikipedia. This can, at times, work to its disadvantage; not all information isn't reported in the mainstream media and wikipedia hesistates when a citation doesn't come from such a source.

And if there's no source quoted then how do establish the veracity?

 

[Oli]

When you first spoke of the evidence, you didn't mention that it was in that book; I meant an article or 2 online.

Actually I did mention that it was a book: I gave author and title.
And FYI, I've posted a link twice to other material.

Just because -you- believe they have been thoroughly shown to be wrong doesn't make it so.

Correct: and vice versa.
Except for the little problem of: results, verification, duplication, mechanism etc etc.

Some works of fiction are also works of great philosophical import. I wouldn't call Star Wars the best in this genre

Philosophy is one thing.
Actuality is another.

For a wealth of philosophical discussions in fictional works, I suggest reading some of Frank Herbert's novels, particularly the Dune Series. Here's an excerpt from the link on Frank Herbert

Teaching your grandmother to suck eggs?
I read Dune before you were born.

Oli, when you insert your own material (blah blah blah etc.), don't make it appear as if I said it. What you did is misleading.

No, all I did was indicate an extensive amount of material had been cut. With the added bonus of indicating its value.
Swann's testimony on his own work isn't exactly corroboration.

I've gone over this same point with shaman_ in the past. I've read a fair amount of what -you- have said and you definitely don't support my view. I notice that you have ignored the entire excerpt I provided to back up my claim, which, I believe, speaks volumes for -your- ability to listen to opposing views.

Again you misunderstand: ALL OF THIS IS OLD NEWS.
I've already read both sides, many years ago.

The same person was -not- used to produce effects on the magnetometer. The protocols were also more stringent with the second person to produce the anomalies. Which you would have known, if you'd read the excerpt I provided. I also highly doubt that the observers were all identical as well.

Different instances. Your excerpt talks about the pilot: my quote was about the final presented results.

 

[shaman_]

Please. If I simply discarded such material, all the 9/11 threads in sci forums would have died long ago. I remind you again of a certain post of yours, in the WTC collapses thread, post 394. You spent little time writing it; you essentially provided a brief intro to a link you provided, an article written by Gregory Ulrich. I, on the other hand, spent a very long time responding to Gregory Ulrich's article: posts 544, 551, 567, 580, 597, 608, 614, 616, 618-626 and 628 are all dedicated to my response on that article from Gregory Ulrich. Even psikey made a response, in post 627.

Your response to all those posts on the subject? 0. Given this, I think I'm in a much better position to casually state that you discard any material that is critical to your views. But I don't, because I know it's untrue. You -did- respond to many other posts of mine and spent a very long time defending your views. Unlike how you treat me on the matter, I respect you for it.

When you keep resorting to this response, I have no respect for you.

Out of hundreds of posts I addressed to you there were some that I missed because I was busy for a while. This was months ago. If you desired a response you could have requested one when I starting responding to all the others. You didn’t. Then many months later you decided that this was your all-purpose defence when you can't think of a response. You missed plenty of my posts as well, I would guess nearly as many as those Gregory Urich ones.

**Edit. I just looked at some of your responses. How many of your responses (which took you such a long time) are just you asking for headspin or psikehacker to do it for you?


Lol you refuse to acknowledge evidence unless someone writes a two page summary for you.

But missing posts is not the same as the accusation you made! You are accusing people of refuting material they haven’t even read. (You don't seem to be aware of how much reading some of the regulars here have done on the paranormal). So did you watch SLC? You refused to. Did you visit the 911 sceptical sites? No, you already know they are all ‘fluff’. This is not the same as missing some posts. You probably won’t understand this. Scott I don’t want to discuss 911 in this thread but I’m not going to ignore your bull$&#t either.

Interestingly you ignored the rest of my post to accuse me of missing your posts, again. Nice work.

 

[Crunchy Cat]

Why do you believe that?

I am already familiar with most of what he linked of course and can demonstrate those claims as being false.

Well, I'm glad that you can atleast believe that the U.S. did indeed fund some projects. I believe it contains a great deal of evidence concerning the phenomenon of psychic powers as well.

The only evidence the U.S. government has found on psychic phenomena is an absence of evidence. It's the only evidence anybody will ever find. Reality is a funny thing... everything that is not forbidden is comulsory. The reason psyhic phenomena doesn't exist is because it's forbidden by reality.

 

[scott3x]

Have you seen the movie The Illusionist? In the movie, I believe there's an immensely important point that's never quite said but rather implied: what's important is not how some things are done; it's why.

But the truly important point is - were they in fact done at all?

Was -what- in fact done at all? Magic? As my father once said, magic is simply science that is not yet understood. Once we understand it, we'll look on our ancestors as simply not having the information to understand certain phenomena, just as we do today when it comes to things such as alchemy (the kind that was actually scientific; chemicals can indeed go 'boom') and lightning.

There is also another issue; sarcasm can and at times does get to a point where it's hard to distinguish what a person really means vs. what they're only pretending to mean.

Presumably this is a reference to the switch to fiction.
I'd agree except people's names in both books (fiction and, *cough*,non-fiction) are the same: and the fiction book incorporates the disclaimer "Any reemblance etc etc" i.e. the people in the non-fiction book (claimed to be real and non-pseudonymous) aren't in fact real...

Ever consider the possibility that sometimes when authors state "Any resemblance, etc., etc.", they're (a) doing so to cover legal issues and/or (b) doing so atleast in part sarcastically?

No, it doesn't mean that we should stop looking, but there are times when people really can't handle it, atleast temporarily.

And some people are so blind to the truth they deny it and go on looking for something to support their [del/ill]usions.

Sure. Deviating from the topic at hand (I'll transfer this part of the thread over to the 9/11 thread over in Formal Debates if it continues), but there's always the case of those who believe the 9/11 official story, for instance:
(Cartoon Physics) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XWN7T5ryljU

Believe what you wish, but I happen to know that material without citations, or with citations that the wiki powers that be don't like, is frequently taken out in wikipedia. This can, at times, work to its disadvantage; not all information is reported in the mainstream media and wikipedia hesistates when a citation doesn't come from such a source.

And if there's no source quoted then how do establish the veracity?

I didn't say no source, I said source that's not part of the mainstream media establishment. In truth, however, the mainstream media hasn't always shied away from reporting that goes against the official story. Here's an interesting article which,while making it clear that in general the mainstream media does support the official story line, it doesn't always do so:
Why the media's conspiracy theory is better than yours

 

[Oli]

Was -what- in fact done at all?

Whatever it that has been claimed to have been done.

Magic? As my father once said, magic is simply science that is not yet understood. Once we understand it, we'll look on our ancestors as simply not having the information to understand certain phenomena, just as we do today when it comes to things such as alchemy (the kind that was actually scientific; chemicals can indeed go 'boom') and lightning.

Depends upon what you mean by "magic".
Pulling a rabbit out of an empty hat won't become science, some things will always remain sleight of hand, misdirection and willing suspension of disbelief.

Ever consider the possibility that sometimes when authors state "Any resemblance, etc., etc.", they're (a) doing so to cover legal issues and/or (b) doing so atleast in part sarcastically?

If they're referring to characters previously referenced in a book claimed to be factual to the extent that, to give one example, Whitley Streiber's threat of taking a bookstore to court for stacking his rubbish on the fiction shelves, then in law claiming claiming later the character is a fiction is somewhat dodgy to say the least.
"I didn't actually mean it your honour, I was being sarcastic" would hardly constitute a defence. And speaks volumes about the reliability of the author to me...

I maintain there is much more wonder in science than in pseudoscience. And in addition, to whatever measure this term has any meaning, science has the additional virtue, and it is not an inconsiderable one, of being true.

Carl Sagan, The Burden Of Skepticism

You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe.

Dr. Arroway in Carl Sagan's Contact New York: Pocket Books, 1985

 

[scott3x]

When you first spoke of the evidence, you didn't mention that it was in that book; I meant an article or 2 online.

Actually I did mention that it was a book: I gave author and title.
And FYI, I've posted a link twice to other material.

I never intended to imply that I'd read a book of yours. As to links, please post excerpts, as I do on request.

Just because -you- believe they have been thoroughly shown to be wrong doesn't make it so.

Correct: and vice versa.
Except for the little problem of: results, verification, duplication, mechanism etc etc.

I'm certainly not saying that parapsychology is something that's been widely accepted. There is evidence that it exists, including results, verification and duplication. I have already mentioned the case of Ingo Swann and the magnetometer, and the duplication of the experiment in a more controlled environment, with someone else. Mechanisms don't need to be shown in order to know that something exists.

Some works of fiction are also works of great philosophical import. I wouldn't call Star Wars the best in this genre

Philosophy is one thing.
Actuality is another.

Sure. I would argue that the best philosophy describes aspects of the real world that are hard to prove but logically sound.

For a wealth of philosophical discussions in fictional works, I suggest reading some of Frank Herbert's novels, particularly the Dune Series. Here's an excerpt from the link on Frank Herbert:

The Dune saga, set in the distant future and taking place over millennia, deals with themes such as human survival and evolution, ecology, and the intersection of religion, politics and power. Dune itself is the "best-selling science fiction novel of all time," and the series is widely considered to be among the classics in the genre.[2][3]

Teaching your grandmother to suck eggs?
I read Dune before you were born.

I decided to assume that you didn't know about it, so as not to take another post telling you about it. Anyway, since you've read Dune, do you agree with me then? Did you read the rest of the saga as well?

Oli, when you insert your own material (blah blah blah etc.), don't make it appear as if I said it. What you did is misleading.

No, all I did was indicate an extensive amount of material had been cut. With the added bonus of indicating its value.

Your insulting, subjective value. I believe that if you're going to criticize something, it's best to do so constructively, saying what you disagree with in it, not to just insult it.

Swann's testimony on his own work isn't exactly corroboration.

You're right. Dr. Puthoff's testimony is, though. He gave his testimony in the excerpt I provided as well; did you realize this? Also, how familiar are you with Dr. Puthoff? I'll give you a bit of his biography:
Dr. Hal Puthoff is Director of the Institute for Advanced Studies at Austin. A theoretical/experimental physicist, his research ranges from theoretical studies of gravitation, inertia, cosmology and energy research, to laboratory studies of innovative approaches to energy generation. A graduate of Stanford University in 1967, Dr. Puthoff's professional background spans more than four decades of research at General Electric, Sperry, the National Security Agency, Stanford University, SRI International, and, since 1985, as Director of the Institute for Advanced Studies at Austin. He has published numerous technical papers and a textbook (Fundamentals of Quantum Electronics, Wiley, 1969) on electron-beam devices, lasers and quantum zero-point-energy effects; has patents issued in the laser, communications, and energy fields; and is co-author of Mind Reach: Scientists Look at Psychic Ability, Delacorte Press, 1977, and co-editor of Mind at Large: IEEE Symposia on the Nature of Extrasensory Perception, Hampton Roads Publ. Co., 2002.

I've gone over this same point with shaman_ in the past. I've read a fair amount of what -you- have said and you definitely don't support my view. I notice that you have ignored the entire excerpt I provided to back up my claim, which, I believe, speaks volumes for -your- ability to listen to opposing views.

Again you misunderstand: ALL OF THIS IS OLD NEWS.
I've already read both sides, many years ago.

If you know so much concerning this issue, why didn't you respond to what I wrote? You apparently simply ignored it. Perhaps that's what you did for much of the material you read on the subject so many years ago as well.

The same person was -not- used to produce effects on the magnetometer. The protocols were also more stringent with the second person to produce the anomalies. Which you would have known, if you'd read the excerpt I provided. I also highly doubt that the observers were all identical as well.

Different instances. Your excerpt talks about the pilot: my quote was about the final presented results.

Alright, so you accept that the second instance was valid then?

 

[Oli]

I never intended to imply that I'd read a book of yours. As to links, please post excerpts, as I do on request.

But you have no quibbles with suggesting I read the books you recommend?
http://www.jonronson.com/goats_04.html

I'm certainly not saying that parapsychology is something that's been widely accepted.

Widely accepted?
It's not even real...

There is evidence that it exists, including results, verification and duplication.

Spurious evidence.

Mechanisms don't need to be shown in order to know that something exists.

But it needs to be shown that the phenomenon really exists.

Sure. I would argue that the best philosophy describes aspects of the real world that are hard to prove but logically sound.

Agreed.
Unfortunately logic doesn't always apply to reality.

I decided to assume that you didn't know about it, so as not to take another post telling you about it. Anyway, since you've read Dune, do you agree with me then?

Agree with you about...?

The Dune saga, set in the distant future and taking place over millennia, deals with themes such as human survival and evolution, ecology, and the intersection of religion, politics and power. Dune itself is the "best-selling science fiction novel of all time," and the series is widely considered to be among the classics in the genre.

Those are established facts.

Did you read the rest of the saga as well?

I've read everything Frank Herbert published.

Your insulting, subjective value. I believe that if you're going to criticize something, it's best to do so constructively, saying what you disagree with in it, not to just insult it.

Have you considered that I've been insulted?
That this topic comes up again and again and again, raised by people who have only read the latest "NEW SECRET INFORMATION REVEALED" potboiler...
It is OLD news.
This was gone into 30 years ago and found to have no basis whatsoever in the real functional world.

You're right. Dr. Puthoff's testimony is, though.

Puthoff is also a widely-recognised crank.

He gave his testimony in the excerpt I provided as well; did you realize this? Also, how familiar are you with Dr. Puthoff? I'll give you a bit of his biography:

For some reason physicist tend to go off the deep end in later years.
Parapsychology is Puthoff's "thing".
Living forever is Tipler's.
Etc.

If you know so much concerning this issue, why didn't you respond to what I wrote?

Because it took me a long to realise how little you've investigated this subject.

You apparently simply ignored it. Perhaps that's what you did for much of the material you read on the subject so many years ago as well.

You like making self-supporting assumptions don't you?

Alright, so you accept that the second instance was valid then?

Er, the second instance was the one that was being criticised so heavily in my references.
The whole subject is baloney.