James Randi Is A Pompous Twit

[euphgeek]

We've been down this path earlier and we know where it leads. You mention a bunch of supposedly successful studies but provide no actual usable information. Such as a link to some website that provides books for sale but nothing more specific is not a link to a study nor is it a review of that study. You may as well link to Amazon. Maybe I can stumble upon something useful there? Maybe here? Who knows what's useful?

So you're saying that scientists are not allowed to sell books? Although it's interesting that you link to Allison Dubois' former website. As far as I know, all the time her TV show "Medium" was on, the police department she volunteered time for never denied that they used her talents to help them solve cases.

If aircraft were as reliable as psychics they would be the most unreliable mode of transportation ever devised.

Yes, if anyone who claimed to be able to build an aircraft was allowed to build one.

And where might this "objective proof" come from? Skepdic is apparently out. Any others I should know about before I begin your wild goose chase? I need to know the parameters so that I do not waste my time. It would appear that only skeptics have addressed some of these so no one, at all, from anywhere has bothered to look at these items or at least publish on them so I do have my work cut out for myself. It would be easier if the unbiased studies and reviews, from your "authorized" sources were placed here but that doesn't happen. Mentions of this information abounds but the actual objective and unbiased information is about as rare as the phenomenon it claims to report upon.

Well I guess neither one of us is going to be convinced by the other. As I said, you're not convinced by my evidence and I'm not convinced by yours. Nothing wrong with that, as long as we recognize that they're beliefs.

Perhaps you can enlighten me to which of the criticisms were valid then so I can understand?

For example, in the Ganzfeld experiments, Susan Blackmore's observation that the protocol had not always been followed closely. Or Hyman's that the controls were not as tight as they could have been.

What?

What part of that confuses you?

You were intentionally deceptive. If you saw a "trap" you could have simply answered the questions fully instead of being so careful with your words. Go reflect on said "trap." You were asked to list what your issues were with Randi. You could have listed them. You settled on putting them out one-by-one until there was nothing left. I asked to clarify if that was all. It wasn't. You had opportunity. Plenty of it. You are the one that squandered it. And you have done as much for nearly ever single thing I have asked of you. Don't move your poor behavior onto me. If you have a list of issues then list them when asked. When asked if that is the entire list then don't say "yes" when you mean "no" and go onto to mention other items elsewhere. You "trap" yourself in your own set of games.

Give it up. You were intentionally trying to trap me into saying that there was nothing else I had any complaints about. I answered honestly while avoiding your trap.

If you've got the skills then you can put up a little money, in a test you take part in designing, in order to demonstrate your ability. The rules are stringent, and certainly not to the applicants favor, but the FAQ makes it pretty clear in a general overview and the application (here) makes this clear as well. The whole of everything rests on the applicant.

 

So why should Randi foot the bill? If you *know* you have the abilities then put your own money where your mouth is. Doesn't Rico have friends (fans)? Where were all those people who rattled their internet cages in favor of Rico? They *knew*/*know* he's real. No outpouring of funds for Rico? Just claims that he's got the skills but he can't pay the bills apparently.

I'm sure Rico does have fans and I'm sure he probably could hire a doctor by promising him a percentage of the reward if he were successful. But even if he did, couldn't Randi claim that the person wasn't unbiased and could surreptitiously give Rico food? Better it be someone who doesn't have a motivation to cheat, wouldn't you say?

Define "belief." I think you are using that differently that I do. I am pretty certain I mentioned your use of equivocation before but this time I'll give an longer explanation (from here):

<snip>

mwc

My definition of "belief:"

Something one accepts as true or real; a firmly held opinion or conviction.

 

I am pretty sure that I've been consistent in my use of that term. You can't "know" something is false just because you don't accept the evidence for it, but you can "believe" that it's false.

[mwc]

So you're saying that scientists are not allowed to sell books? Although it's interesting that you link to Allison Dubois' former website. As far as I know, all the time her TV show "Medium" was on, the police department she volunteered time for never denied that they used her talents to help them solve cases.

Nothing you've said here is useful.

 

Yes, if anyone who claimed to be able to build an aircraft was allowed to build one.

Another useless answer.

 

Many people build their own arircraft and they are perfectly safe. See ultralights and other small aircraft. They are statistically better than your psychics.

 

Well I guess neither one of us is going to be convinced by the other. As I said, you're not convinced by my evidence and I'm not convinced by yours. Nothing wrong with that, as long as we recognize that they're beliefs.

So you cannot provide your own evidence of your own claims? This is why you give such poor responses when pushed to back-up the very claims you make time and again.

 

For example, in the Ganzfeld experiments, Susan Blackmore's observation that the protocol had not always been followed closely. Or Hyman's that the controls were not as tight as they could have been.

But people like Hyman is a critic and we can't use him since he's a no-no person that says bad things.

 

What part of that confuses you?

Exactly.

 

 

Give it up. You were intentionally trying to trap me into saying that there was nothing else I had any complaints about. I answered honestly while avoiding your trap.

Don't worry. I'm very close to taking your advice.

 

I'm sure Rico does have fans and I'm sure he probably could hire a doctor by promising him a percentage of the reward if he were successful. But even if he did, couldn't Randi claim that the person wasn't unbiased and could surreptitiously give Rico food? Better it be someone who doesn't have a motivation to cheat, wouldn't you say?

You're the psychic. This is exactly what would happen. You've outsmarted us all.

 

My definition of "belief:"

Something one accepts as true or real; a firmly held opinion or conviction.

 

I am pretty sure that I've been consistent in my use of that term. You can't "know" something is false just because you don't accept the evidence for it, but you can "believe" that it's false.

You can take comfort in your belief.

 

I am now taking your advice from above and giving up. I can't go around in circles with you yet again.

 

Contact me if you ever come up with some actual evidence.

 

mwc

[Dhampir]

Your hypothesis is flawed, that's why it can't be tested properly, that's why there's no evidence. Fix that, and maybe we'll get somewhere. The very core of what you believe is broken.

[euphgeek]

Nothing you've said here is useful.

Likewise.

Another useless answer.

 

Many people build their own arircraft and they are perfectly safe. See ultralights and other small aircraft. They are statistically better than your psychics.

Yes, by people who have actually studied how to make them and are following other people's instructions. Not by people who are experts in, for example, macramé or animal husbandry.

So you cannot provide your own evidence of your own claims? This is why you give such poor responses when pushed to back-up the very claims you make time and again.

Again, you're confusing "evidence" with "evidence that will convince you." Just because the Venn diagram of those two things do not intersect doesn't mean that evidence doesn't exist.

But people like Hyman is a critic and we can't use him since he's a no-no person that says bad things.

This is why atheists fail to convince religious people. Every time you get into a discussion about beliefs you always bring out the mockery and the strawmen. You think your beliefs are so much better than mine, yet yours are just as supported by science as mine are.

You're the psychic. This is exactly what would happen. You've outsmarted us all.

So since you don't have a response for that, I guess you agree?

You can take comfort in your belief.

And you in yours.

I am now taking your advice from above and giving up. I can't go around in circles with you yet again.

 

Contact me if you ever come up with some actual evidence.

 

mwc

If you're looking for evidence that will convince you, look for it yourself. I never claimed to have such evidence.

[euphgeek]

Your hypothesis is flawed, that's why it can't be tested properly, that's why there's no evidence. Fix that, and maybe we'll get somewhere. The very core of what you believe is broken.

Your claims of "no evidence" are just that--claims. If you're claiming that something can't exist because it can't be reliably measured in a laboratory, well, all I can say is good luck with that.

 

My only argument here was that the agnostic approach is the most logical one for phenomena you have no direct experience with.

[Dhampir]

My only argument here was that the agnostic approach is the most logical one for phenomena you have no direct experience with.

What part of what I've said... indicates... that I am not taking an agnostic position? I DON'T know, and never claimed to. Take any statement I've made and try to make me say otherwise if you want. I'm merely dismissing the proposition based on the preponderance of no evidence.

 

 

Your claims of "no evidence" are just that--claims. If you're claiming that something can't exist because it can't be reliably measured in a laboratory, well, all I can say is good luck with that.

I'm not making that claim. You're the one providing labratory studies that simply show nothing one way or the other. And while we're at it, Why would you quote lab studies/experiments, then saying in a roundabout fashion that the phenomena can't be measured in such a setting?

 

I'm not the one not doing the experiments. The scientific community is the one not doing the experiments, because they can't seem to find a valid reason to. It seems that the only ones that can, are the ones that already think there's something there, and that's wrong. Like I said before, the real reason these experiments CAN'T conclusively find in favor of psychic activity, is probably along the lines of the hypothesis being untestable. I'm NOT saying what part of that hypothesis is flawed, but, in much the same way as the hypothesis of the IPU, it simply can't be tested. Fix your hypothesis, then maybe we can get somewhere.

 

Psychic power is like ghosts. No one can say with any authority what they're made of, how they're produced, or what properties impact or are impacted by them. Likewise, any explanation that affirms it, can be countered by any number of explanations that put it off. Like I've said numerous times in this thread, which seem to go ignored, there COULD be something to it, just like there could be something to GOD, but nothing presented as evidence thus far has amounted to evidence. You yourself keep admitting as much when you say things like "the studies are inconclusive", "there needs to be new paradigms", "I was talking about this ONE study in particular that for no other reason than being the only study I'm speaking of particularly demonstrates my confirmation bias" (the last part of that last statement may have been interpolated somewhat), then backtrack by saying "just because you don't accept it blah blah blah"

 

Again, I'M not the one that needs to accept it. It appears that the people in position to do something about it, agree that there's no merit, thus far, to pursuing this. YOUR people need to show something, consistent, conclusive, and repeatable. Then, and only then will something get off the ground. But my inference from this is, being that we've been at this for millennia and found nothing means that there's probably nothing to find.

[Dhampir]

Shorthand: falsifiability. Your proposition lacks it. THAT'S why your position can't be demonstrated. That's why EVERY test can be shown to be inconclusive.

[SleeplessGhost]

I'm going to go ahead and say that there is no definitive proof for psychic abilities, therefor the most logical course to take is the skeptical one.

[euphgeek]

What part of what I've said... indicates... that I am not taking an agnostic position? I DON'T know, and never claimed to. Take any statement I've made and try to make me say otherwise if you want. I'm merely dismissing the proposition based on the preponderance of no evidence.

My apologies if I'm misunderstanding you, but if instead of "no evidence," you said "weak evidence" or "evidence that I don't accept as proof of psychic abilities," then I feel that would be more accurate.

I'm not making that claim. You're the one providing labratory studies that simply show nothing one way or the other. And while we're at it, Why would you quote lab studies/experiments, then saying in a roundabout fashion that the phenomena can't be measured in such a setting?

You're still acting like I'm trying to convince you that psychic abilities are real. I'm not. I simply gave you the reasons I believe, the experiments being some of them. Why is it so important to you that I stop believing?

I'm not the one not doing the experiments. The scientific community is the one not doing the experiments, because they can't seem to find a valid reason to. It seems that the only ones that can, are the ones that already think there's something there, and that's wrong. Like I said before, the real reason these experiments CAN'T conclusively find in favor of psychic activity, is probably along the lines of the hypothesis being untestable. I'm NOT saying what part of that hypothesis is flawed, but, in much the same way as the hypothesis of the IPU, it simply can't be tested. Fix your hypothesis, then maybe we can get somewhere.

 

Psychic power is like ghosts. No one can say with any authority what they're made of, how they're produced, or what properties impact or are impacted by them. Likewise, any explanation that affirms it, can be countered by any number of explanations that put it off. Like I've said numerous times in this thread, which seem to go ignored, there COULD be something to it, just like there could be something to GOD, but nothing presented as evidence thus far has amounted to evidence. You yourself keep admitting as much when you say things like "the studies are inconclusive", "there needs to be new paradigms", "I was talking about this ONE study in particular that for no other reason than being the only study I'm speaking of particularly demonstrates my confirmation bias" (the last part of that last statement may have been interpolated somewhat), then backtrack by saying "just because you don't accept it blah blah blah"

 

Again, I'M not the one that needs to accept it. It appears that the people in position to do something about it, agree that there's no merit, thus far, to pursuing this. YOUR people need to show something, consistent, conclusive, and repeatable. Then, and only then will something get off the ground. But my inference from this is, being that we've been at this for millennia and found nothing means that there's probably nothing to find.

I agree with you that there has to be something more conclusive. Although I don't think that all of the experiments were done by people who were believers before doing them. But just because it's hard to find evidence in a laboratory setting doesn't mean something doesn't exist. How does someone who believes they were abducted by aliens go about proving it? Or someone who thinks they saw a ghost? You can't tell people who have had direct experiences to just stop believing them without giving them some sort of credible alternative that explains all aspects of their experience. Weak explanations like "imagination" or "lucid dreaming" just don't cut it for them, just like "cold reading" and "lucky guesses" don't cut it for me.

[euphgeek]

I'm going to go ahead and say that there is no definitive proof for psychic abilities, therefor the most logical course to take is the skeptical one.

Yes, thank you. That's what I've been trying to say.

[Dhampir]

I'm going to go ahead and say that there is no definitive proof for psychic abilities, therefor the most logical course to take is the skeptical one.

Yes, thank you. That's what I've been trying to say.

No the fuck it's not! That's what We've been saying this whole time!

[euphgeek]

I'm going to go ahead and say that there is no definitive proof for psychic abilities, therefor the most logical course to take is the skeptical one.

Yes, thank you. That's what I've been trying to say.

No the fuck it's not! That's what We've been saying this whole time!

Sounds like there's been some miscommunication then, because that is indeed what I've been trying to say. Skeptics keep an open mind and do not dismiss evidence just because it's inconclusive.

[florduh]

Skeptics keep an open mind and do not dismiss evidence just because it's inconclusive.

After 50 years of inconclusive study by private and governmental researchers, yes they do. During the Cold War, the US and Soviet governments wanted psychics to be real just as much as you do. Didn't happen.

 

Inconclusive means that during all those studies, no evidence was found. Proving things absolutely don't exist is impossible. You reach a point where you can say with pretty much confidence, "there's nothing there."

[euphgeek]

Skeptics keep an open mind and do not dismiss evidence just because it's inconclusive.

After 50 years of inconclusive study by private and governmental researchers, yes they do. During the Cold War, the US and Soviet governments wanted psychics to be real just as much as you do. Didn't happen.

 

Inconclusive means that during all those studies, no evidence was found. Proving things absolutely don't exist is impossible. You reach a point where you can say with pretty much confidence, "there's nothing there."

Inconclusive means that the results could not be fully explained one way or the other. Skeptics keep an open mind and reserve judgment until the evidence can be satisfactorily explained. Inconclusive results do not mean it was satisfactorily explained. You can believe that "there's nothing there," just like you can believe there's something there, but that's not skepticism.

[Dhampir]

You said agnostic, not skeptic. Skeptics DEFINITELY dismiss claims when the supporting evidence is insufficient, or as you said, inconclusive. By the by, since you keep saying this one thing: Just because you don't accept the evidence---" I'll introduce you to the corollary to that rule: Just because there MIGHT BE something to it, doesn't mean that what you put forward as evidence IS evidence.

 

The way you talk, you would almost seem to think that atheists flat--out reject the possibility of god, or that it's impossible to be both atheist and agnostic. Do you not understand that dismissal of a claim due to lack of evidence is not wholesale rejection of that claim, nor is it a refusal to look at new information when presented? Do you really not understand this? Because every post you've made, wherein you mentioned our motives seems to... indicate... as much. The evidence is unconvincing at best, the tests are inconclusive. You've admitted as much repeatedly, however many times you've also gone on to contradict that admission. So far, nothing any real psychic does has been distinguishable from anything that fake psychics and the delusional can do. Those are the facts, incontrovertibly. Real skeptics have little time for accepting notions as probable that repeatedly fail to match known reality. Maybe you should learn a little about Real skeptics

[Godless Dave]

The reason to believe there isn't something there is the lack of evidence for something being there.

 

There's nothing there.

[euphgeek]

You said agnostic, not skeptic. Skeptics DEFINITELY dismiss claims when the supporting evidence is insufficient, or as you said, inconclusive. By the by, since you keep saying this one thing: Just because you don't accept the evidence---" I'll introduce you to the corollary to that rule: Just because there MIGHT BE something to it, doesn't mean that what you put forward as evidence IS evidence.

 

The way you talk, you would almost seem to think that atheists flat--out reject the possibility of god, or that it's impossible to be both atheist and agnostic. Do you not understand that dismissal of a claim due to lack of evidence is not wholesale rejection of that claim, nor is it a refusal to look at new information when presented? Do you really not understand this? Because every post you've made, wherein you mentioned our motives seems to... indicate... as much. The evidence is unconvincing at best, the tests are inconclusive. You've admitted as much repeatedly, however many times you've also gone on to contradict that admission. So far, nothing any real psychic does has been distinguishable from anything that fake psychics and the delusional can do. Those are the facts, incontrovertibly. Real skeptics have little time for accepting notions as probable that repeatedly fail to match known reality. Maybe you should learn a little about Real skeptics

Show me any dictionary definition of "skeptic" that says that skeptics throw out any evidence, no matter how weak. I think you may be confusing the definition of a skeptic with what many people who call themselves skeptics believe. My point is, and has always been, that evidence that can't be sufficiently explained should not be tossed out. If you don't want to believe that psychic abilities are real because the evidence is unconvincing, that's one thing, but to deny the evidence even exists is wrong. There is a difference between "no evidence" and "unconvincing evidence," "inconclusive evidence" or "insufficient evidence." That's all I'm saying.

[florduh]

If you don't want to believe that psychic abilities are real because the evidence is unconvincing, that's one thing, but to deny the evidence even exists is wrong. There is a difference between "no evidence" and "unconvincing evidence," "inconclusive evidence" or "insufficient evidence." That's all I'm saying.

It seems to me you're saying that since no conclusive evidence has been forthcoming over half a century of inquiry, it must now be proven that psi doesn't/can't exist or you still want to hold the door open.

 

People have sworn they were attacked by the Incubus and Succubus. They even drew pictures of what these sexual demons looked like. That, by your definition, is evidence. How long should that claim be studied before it is dismissed? We can't PROVE they don't exist; do we really have to? Isn't it up to the one claiming the existence of something supernatural to prove it? How long should they have to provide real evidence? Ten years? Fifity? A hundred?

[euphgeek]

If you don't want to believe that psychic abilities are real because the evidence is unconvincing, that's one thing, but to deny the evidence even exists is wrong. There is a difference between "no evidence" and "unconvincing evidence," "inconclusive evidence" or "insufficient evidence." That's all I'm saying.

It seems to me you're saying that since no conclusive evidence has been forthcoming over half a century of inquiry, it must now be proven that psi doesn't/can't exist or you still want to hold the door open.

 

People have sworn they were attacked by the Incubus and Succubus. They even drew pictures of what these sexual demons looked like. That, by your definition, is evidence. How long should that claim be studied before it is dismissed? We can't PROVE they don't exist; do we really have to? Isn't it up to the one claiming the existence of something supernatural to prove it? How long should they have to provide real evidence? Ten years? Fifity? A hundred?

Let me ask you this, what would you tell a person who believed they were attacked by the Incubus and Succubus and no psychologist or neurologist could find anything wrong with them? What would you tell someone who believed they had been abducted by aliens or saw Bigfoot? Would you tell them that their experiences didn't really happen to them? Would you accuse them of lying? How could you be sure of that? The point of science is to explore things that we don't know the answers to. The things that have solid evidence are the things that are "easy" to study. Should scientists only study the easy things and just give up on things without solid evidence, dismissing the people who claim experiences as "delusional," "mistaken" or "liars?"

[florduh]

As long as there is a discoverable explanation for odd experiences, why assume the "real" answer could still be "magic?"

 

Electrical and chemical brain episodes demonstrably do exist and totally explain spooky experiences. Our perception and memories are notoriously unreliable, so recounting some mental flight of fancy does nothing to explain what's really going on. We dream, we hallucinate, we can experience sleep paralysis, we naturally see the world in images that are not necessarily accurate, but are familiar to our brain. We strive to explain everything, even if we don't have enough information.

 

Given that sleep paralysis is not uncommon, would you consider that the likely cause of an alien abduction experience (and in earlier history, the incubus/succubus experience) or would you still want to reach for the most unlikely explanation possible? To me that's like saying that though gravity does explain why objects fall to the ground, that doesn't rule out the possibility that invisible gnomes are actually pushing everything down - you can't prove that they aren't.

[Dhampir]

You said agnostic, not skeptic. Skeptics DEFINITELY dismiss claims when the supporting evidence is insufficient, or as you said, inconclusive. By the by, since you keep saying this one thing: Just because you don't accept the evidence---" I'll introduce you to the corollary to that rule: Just because there MIGHT BE something to it, doesn't mean that what you put forward as evidence IS evidence.

 

The way you talk, you would almost seem to think that atheists flat--out reject the possibility of god, or that it's impossible to be both atheist and agnostic. Do you not understand that dismissal of a claim due to lack of evidence is not wholesale rejection of that claim, nor is it a refusal to look at new information when presented? Do you really not understand this? Because every post you've made, wherein you mentioned our motives seems to... indicate... as much. The evidence is unconvincing at best, the tests are inconclusive. You've admitted as much repeatedly, however many times you've also gone on to contradict that admission. So far, nothing any real psychic does has been distinguishable from anything that fake psychics and the delusional can do. Those are the facts, incontrovertibly. Real skeptics have little time for accepting notions as probable that repeatedly fail to match known reality. Maybe you should learn a little about Real skeptics

Show me any dictionary definition of "skeptic" that says that skeptics throw out any evidence, no matter how weak. I think you may be confusing the definition of a skeptic with what many people who call themselves skeptics believe. My point is, and has always been, that evidence that can't be sufficiently explained should not be tossed out. If you don't want to believe that psychic abilities are real because the evidence is unconvincing, that's one thing, but to deny the evidence even exists is wrong. There is a difference between "no evidence" and "unconvincing evidence," "inconclusive evidence" or "insufficient evidence." That's all I'm saying.

You just quoted me, and yet you still can't say back to me what I said to you.Tell you what: When you actually read what I wrote, and ask me questions based on THAT, then I think we'll be on the path.

[euphgeek]

As long as there is a discoverable explanation for odd experiences, why assume the "real" answer could still be "magic?"

Who said I was assuming what the answer was? I never even used the word "magic."

Electrical and chemical brain episodes demonstrably do exist and totally explain spooky experiences. Our perception and memories are notoriously unreliable, so recounting some mental flight of fancy does nothing to explain what's really going on. We dream, we hallucinate, we can experience sleep paralysis, we naturally see the world in images that are not necessarily accurate, but are familiar to our brain. We strive to explain everything, even if we don't have enough information.

 

Given that sleep paralysis is not uncommon, would you consider that the likely cause of an alien abduction experience (and in earlier history, the incubus/succubus experience) or would you still want to reach for the most unlikely explanation possible? To me that's like saying that though gravity does explain why objects fall to the ground, that doesn't rule out the possibility that invisible gnomes are actually pushing everything down - you can't prove that they aren't.

Sure, some experiences could be chalked up to things like sleep paralysis or chemical reactions or other similar explanations. But what about experiences where more than one person experienced the same thing? Or where there was physical evidence left behind like an implant or scratches? This is what I mean when I say that so-called "skeptics" often come up with explanations that don't fully explain the phenomena. They may be satisfied with those simplistic explanations, but I'm not.

[euphgeek]

You said agnostic, not skeptic. Skeptics DEFINITELY dismiss claims when the supporting evidence is insufficient, or as you said, inconclusive. By the by, since you keep saying this one thing: Just because you don't accept the evidence---" I'll introduce you to the corollary to that rule: Just because there MIGHT BE something to it, doesn't mean that what you put forward as evidence IS evidence.

 

The way you talk, you would almost seem to think that atheists flat--out reject the possibility of god, or that it's impossible to be both atheist and agnostic. Do you not understand that dismissal of a claim due to lack of evidence is not wholesale rejection of that claim, nor is it a refusal to look at new information when presented? Do you really not understand this? Because every post you've made, wherein you mentioned our motives seems to... indicate... as much. The evidence is unconvincing at best, the tests are inconclusive. You've admitted as much repeatedly, however many times you've also gone on to contradict that admission. So far, nothing any real psychic does has been distinguishable from anything that fake psychics and the delusional can do. Those are the facts, incontrovertibly. Real skeptics have little time for accepting notions as probable that repeatedly fail to match known reality. Maybe you should learn a little about Real skeptics

Show me any dictionary definition of "skeptic" that says that skeptics throw out any evidence, no matter how weak. I think you may be confusing the definition of a skeptic with what many people who call themselves skeptics believe. My point is, and has always been, that evidence that can't be sufficiently explained should not be tossed out. If you don't want to believe that psychic abilities are real because the evidence is unconvincing, that's one thing, but to deny the evidence even exists is wrong. There is a difference between "no evidence" and "unconvincing evidence," "inconclusive evidence" or "insufficient evidence." That's all I'm saying.

You just quoted me, and yet you still can't say back to me what I said to you.Tell you what: When you actually read what I wrote, and ask me questions based on THAT, then I think we'll be on the path.

I think what I said stands on its own. You seem to have added on characteristics of skeptics that no dictionary supports. And you keep saying that there's "no evidence" of psychic abilities when there is evidence, just not as strong as you'd like it to be. Unless, of course, your definition of "no evidence" includes evidence that is inconclusive or insufficient.

[Dhampir]

What I said, and what you responded to, are in no way related. I've been clarifying my posts in just about every subsequent post. As for skeptics, BE-ING one, I can't figure out how in the blue hells my description is in any way contrary to reality. I even went and looked it up just now, just in case something you said about skeptics and/or skepticism makes it into the definition. It does not.

 

Again, I'm not saying there's not evidence, just that you haven't shown any. Inconclusive evidence would never knowingly be admitted in trial.

 

Judge: Were there tests done?

Attorney: Yes, but they were inconclusive.

Judge: Alright then, what else have you got?

 

 

And, AGAIN, not to dismiss any real evidence there may be, but why can't I dismiss weak evidence? I can provide weak evidence for anything you care to name-- There comes a point where the evidence simply can't reasonably point to a particular conclusion. By your twisted logic, I should still be a believer, simply because some blood crying statue or pareidoliac grilled cheese sandwich exists somewhere. That I'm an atheist does not mean I dismiss the possibility of evidence. Likewise, that I dismiss your "evidence" by no means means I think there is none. Hell, everybody in science just about, up to and including some that were involved in these experiments, dismiss that evidence, or at least downplay it, based on its own lack of merit.

[euphgeek]

What I said, and what you responded to, are in no way related. I've been clarifying my posts in just about every subsequent post. As for skeptics, BE-ING one, I can't figure out how in the blue hells my description is in any way contrary to reality. I even went and looked it up just now, just in case something you said about skeptics and/or skepticism makes it into the definition. It does not.

 

Again, I'm not saying there's not evidence, just that you haven't shown any. Inconclusive evidence would never knowingly be admitted in trial.

 

Judge: Were there tests done?

Attorney: Yes, but they were inconclusive.

Judge: Alright then, what else have you got?

Of course, you know that things are rather different in a courtroom setting where guilt or innocence is the main goal of the proceedings, rather than the trial and error of the laboratory.

And, AGAIN, not to dismiss any real evidence there may be, but why can't I dismiss weak evidence? I can provide weak evidence for anything you care to name-- There comes a point where the evidence simply can't reasonably point to a particular conclusion. By your twisted logic, I should still be a believer, simply because some blood crying statue or pareidoliac grilled cheese sandwich exists somewhere.

I never said anyone should believe anything. In fact, I've said several times that I'm not trying to get anyone to believe any certain way.

That I'm an atheist does not mean I dismiss the possibility of evidence. Likewise, that I dismiss your "evidence" by no means means I think there is none. Hell, everybody in science just about, up to and including some that were involved in these experiments, dismiss that evidence, or at least downplay it, based on its own lack of merit.

OK, now that you clarified it that way, I think I can say that we mostly agree on this. From the way you were saying it before, it sounded to me like you were denying any evidence existed at all. If you don't find the evidence strong enough to believe, then don't believe. It's the same way with me and UFOs or Bigfoot. There's not enough evidence to get me to believe in them, but that doesn't mean that there isn't any evidence that's not explainable through known methods.