|
Attention: Year 2009 is here
Wishing a very Happy New Year to all members of FFI. Our new and improved site is ready. To visit main site, click at faithfreedom.org and to visit our new forum, click at forum09.faithfreedom.org and register again. Do not worry about your old forum posts and PM, everything is saved here till 31st December, 2008 for future references.
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Ali Sina
Joined: 13 Feb 2004
Posts: 4607
|
 Posted: Mon Mar 15, 2004 6:55 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
Dear Atheist
You wrote:
| Quote: |
| Unfortunately I consider your position is more gullible than Randi's |
One could even deny something and be gullible. Say those who deny the evolution or those who still deny that the Earth is round. What do you think? Are they less gullible?
I think gullible is one who accepts anything blindly. In this case I believe gullible are the pseudo rationalists who reject the possibility of any immaterial world off hand without even trying to be skeptical about it or analyze the evidence.
You talk about the limitations of the psychics saying they have to go to dentist and call a plumber and hence they are not psychic.
I am afraid you are not even attempting to understand what I am saying.
A great number of people who run a business with such claim are mentalists like James Randi. Randi is honest enough to say he is only a mentalist. These guys try to use their dexterity to make a buck. A friend of mine was irate to find out that his marriage break down was the work of a psychic. His gullible wife used to go to psychic classes and one day the so called psychic asks how are you doing? She responds, oh not very well. “Problem at home?” questions the psychic. “Yeah”, responds the woman. “You are going to divorce in one year” was the response of this psychic. Sure enough a marriage that by all standards was normal ended up in divorce in one year.
This is what I call self fulfilling prophecy. This wicked impostor sows the seed of divorce in the gullible mind of this woman and the woman prepares herself for the “inevitable” for one year and nurtures the idea of divorce in her subconscious mind. She subconsciously provokes her husband, causes alienation, and eventually leaves the good husband exactly one year after the psychic sets her up. This man was devastated and could not figure what hit him. Until somehow by accident he realized what!
He confronted this wicked woman disguised as psychic and pleaded to intervene and undo the harm. Her response was: "But I was right, wan't I?"
This psychic charges $100 dollars per hour of consultation. A senor architect in this country earns $60 dollars. You don’t require any training, to set shop as a psychic. All you need is to master some tricks and there you go. There is no accountability, no responsibility and you are your own boss.
Most so called psychics are of this genre.
The real psychics are just as you described. They have no extraordinary powers. Just as you and I have dreams, they can often have these dream-like images while awake. Just as you and I have no control over what we dream, they have no control over what they perceive.
Now, I believe we are all psychic. I don’t recall an experience such as what Piggy described but I sure had dreams that later came true. My dreams do not exactly correspond to reality but I get the hint and that is how dreams work. In some strange way they send you a hint. For example I am in the middle of some problem struggling and then I dream I am driving a huge truck which is stuck in a narrow alley. Then somehow I manage to drive is out with no harm to the truck. Sure enough the next day or days after that something unexpected happens and I resolve my real life problem.
We all can say hundreds of stories like this. What is going on hear? How come our subconscious mind was aware of the things that are going to happen? Sometimes we get premonition of a loved one’s death. Some times we dream of an accident that involves us.
I recall when I was a teenager, one day my mother told us, she dreamt a giant had fallen from a height and its pieces were shattered all around. The dream left her traumatized. That very day, the big and overweight maid of our neighbor went to the roof to shovel the snow off. She fell from the third floor and her brain had scattered all over.
That is how psychic power works. It is clear that my mothers dream was a premonition to what happened that very day but how in the world we could have known what that dream meant?
The psychic can see thing like this. What they perceive is dream like. It is a feeling of things.
This is not something materialist can accept. If they accept this their whole house of card comes down. They will have to admit that matter is not an end to itself and there are some, yet unknown realities that control this world. Materialism is a belief system. Whether you like this or not, materialists are just as close minded as religionists. Uncritical acceptance or denial of anything is not what a rational person would do. This is the essence of gullibility.
All we heard so far from the materialists who debated with me on this issue is that psychics are not capable of reading what lottery numbers will win and similar childish arguments to dismiss this faculty. Psychic ability is not about guessing the lottery number. They simply can’t do that. It is not about predicting the future. It is about dream-like impressions that psychics get while awake.
| Quote: |
| So what should we common people do? Believe those all charlatans who claims mystic power? Dont you think we should follow the path of skepticism rather than blind faith in abnormal phenomenon? |
I am not familiar with any of those names and stories you mentioned. But I read something about Edgar Cayce. The stories about him were fascinating. A doctor worked with him and sought his input in diagnosis of their patients. In some cases, this ordinary untrained man, would prescribe treatment procedures that were never performed before. Once he instructed the doctor to perform a knee cap surgery that was never performed before. Thousands benefits from his healing ability. Unless you want to tell me all these people were hallucinating, or Edgar Cayce is a mythical figure created by some fiction writer, Edgar Cayce by all recorded accounts was an extraordinary man.
You say this is all media hype. As a rational person have you ever thought why the whole media picks one person to hype and not another person? There are many self proclaimed psychics who receive no media attention. Why some do and others don’t?
I read what James Randi wrote about Van Praagh. If I had never seen Van Pragh I would have probably agreed with Randi. But I saw Van Praagh and hence know what Randi is saying is pure bull. I see a phenomenon with my own eyes. I have to use my own judgment not someone else’s to explain what has happened. I am afraid Randi is living in lala land and denials. He thinks by repeating the same nonsense, people will eventually believe. It only takes a person to listen carefully to Van Praagh’s show to see this guy has some ability that is not pure trick.
| Quote: |
| In fact, I find it quite reasonable to use as a guide when an implausible, incredible claim the advice of David Hume and Thomas Huxley: ask yourself what is more likely, that the claim is true or that one making the claim deceived, in error or intentionally trying to deceive you? And another quote for you: |
I did that and I came to believe that psychic power is not implausible or incredible. It is a reality. How it works and why is now what I would like to learn. I have no doubt that it exists. Even if I had to believe all those who claim something extraordinary happened to them are lying. Even if I believed Piggy and the other person who wrote me the above notes I posted here are lying, I can’t dismiss my own experiences.
The most plausible, the most logical and the most rational conclusion therefore is that there is some reality beyond the matter.
Now why this sounds to be implausible and impossible for materialists? Because materialists are believers! Just as we can make it absolutely clear to a Muslim that Muhammad and his Allah were fake yet we can’t change his mind. We can give all the proof that matter is not everything but a materialist will not be able to agree. Just as a religionist is convinced he is right, a materialist is convinced he is right. Just as the former thinks if he repeats his absurdities eventually people will come to see that Islam is truth, materialists think by repeating the same tired arguments eventually people will see materialism is truth.
Denial is not critical thinking. Whether you agree or not there is a hidden world which is spiritual in nature. We see the effects of that all around us. I do not see any problem in accepting that the reality does not begin and end with matter. I think matter is a manifestation of the reality and this reality has other manifestations too.
| Quote: |
| Well I found it rather opposite. In this gullible world, Randi is making a significant and bold step towards rationalism. |
Your opinion of Randi is as much valid as the opinion of a believer of his pastor. I find Randi to be a biased person. I respect him when he is critical of the absurd but withhold that comment when he exaggerates to make his point. He often borders irrationality and cannot be trusted as an impartial man.
What is the explanation of Piggy and my friend’s story? Are they anecdotal? You must do better than that to impress a skeptic. With that kind of argument you only convince the believer.
There are millions of stories such as these from honest people. In fact, almost every one has several stories to tell. Ironically, even the deniers will tell you their paranormal stories and then they try to downplay it. A good example of that was that Iranian scientist who claimed having seen himself fallen a few yards ahead with broken leg and proceeded to fall exactly in the same spot and break his leg, while insisting this is nothing. How can it be nothing? Or take the example of Aparthib who claims the milk drinking of Ganesh was “scientifically evidenced” and yet he says there is an explanation for that but fails to tell us what that explanation is.
What is characteristic about dogmatic people is that they are absolutely oblivious of their inconsistencies. This is not insincerity; this is faith. The attitude of the materialists makes us earn some respect for the Muslims and some insight into their minds. The problem of denial and belief is deeply rooted in our subconscious. Skepticism is not easy to achieve.
| Quote: |
| Why Randi' is important for us ? Because he is a famous magician. He knows the basic tricks of fake psychics better than us. |
Randi is a magician alright! But he is not a psychic. He may be able to tell us spoon bending is magic. I never heard any credible psychic claim to bend spoons or lift things with mental power. So we are grateful to Randi to expose these charlatans. However, Randi cannot understand things that are beyond his ability as magician. Psychic power is not magic. It is about perceptions.
A curious story I heard from my brother who said one day when he was visiting Pakistan he noticed a stray dog noticeably distressed. He said the dog's behavior caught his attention. She seemed to be worried, agitated and confused. He said I watched the dog and wondered why she is acting this way. A minute later, a truck stopped by, someone came out of it and shot that dog. That was SPCA Pakistani style. Then dropped the dead body of the animal in his truck and drove away. My brother is convinced this animal knew something is going to happen to her. But the poor animal did not know what? Had she known, probably she would have run away.
So psychic ability exists, unfortunately it comes so encrypted that we often can’t decipher it and hence it is not always useful.
Anecdotal.
Since I hear this as a major argument of the materialist in denial of the psychic ability, I’d like to say something about it.
Most crimes are solved through anecdotes. People who witnessed the crime are called to give their testimony of what they witnessed. It is known that not all those testimonies are 100% accurate. There is always a margin of error that is not intentional. However, generally those testimonies lead to convictions. If you think all the millions of people who have reported strange and unexplainable phenomena are hallucinating, would you say our entire court system is founded on hallucinations?
I find it hypocritical and self serving when the materialists deny so many evidences dismissing them as “anecdotal”.
As for Randi’s list of the excuses of people not presenting themselves for test please sent him this one as well.
Your methodology of testing psychic power is not appropriate. Just as you can’t measure the temperature with a measuring tape, you can’t measure the psychic ability with tests created to catch the magicians. Magic and psychic ability are two different things. Some magicians can make believe that they are mind reading when in reality they are playing tricks. Like for example if I tell you think of an animal that stars with K and then tell you, you are thinking of Kangaroo, I am not a psychic. I know that most known and common animals do not start with K. So it is a safe bet to say you thought of kangaroo. Randi can catch mentalists. This is his expertise. But he can’t detect psychic power because he has no clue what it is. Can he explain Piggy’s experience?
Many mentalists can make you belive they are psychic reading. That does not mean all psychics are mentalists.
Many magicians can make you believe they are cutting someone in three pieces. That does not mean this is what they really do. Meanwhile this magic does not prove that a human being cannot be cut in three pieces.
He has posted that "ridiculous list of excuses" in his site to make himself look good but I bet he is not going to post this one. Frankly, I do not regard James Randi to be sincere and in good faith.
Last edited by Ali Sina on Tue Mar 16, 2004 12:00 am; edited 6 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
piggy
Joined: 13 Feb 2004
Posts: 6372
Location: Godwana
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 15, 2004 8:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
With regard to the two experiences that I reported earlier in this thread.
Should anyone seek to know more, I can provide witnesses to the before and after of both experiences,i.e. my wife, when I had the dream with the word "elan", and the following events as to the proposal to bet, etc.
It may also be possible to get old records of the horse-race names and results.
I can also supply the witnesses that were present the time that I was at the hotel and discussed and pondered the name of the "other williams" and my subsequent, continued struggle to remember his name, also the friend I was with at the Australia day festivities when I ran into Mark Williams.
I can also get in touch with Mark Williams and ask if he recalls the event when we walked into each other, it was 2000 or 2001 and I with a search of my friend's diary I can confirm the date.
I suspect Mark might remember as I did make it clear to him that I was amazed at the encounter, briefly mentioning tohim the lead-up to the event.
Another interesting thing is that when I was In New Zealand, 1985-86 I bought a house with a small flat attached which I rented out to tenants.
The tenant was Mark William's aunty.
I had never met her (the aunt) before that time or Mark Williams ever, until I ran into Mark at the Australia day festivities, and I have not been in contact with these people in any way since.
I have still to write about a few other experiences that I have had, which I will post in this thread. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
atheist
Joined: 11 Mar 2004
Posts: 33
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 16, 2004 3:43 pm Post subject: James randi rsponds to Ali Sina |
|
|
FYI:James randi responds to Ali Sina again
FYI: http://www.mukto-mona.com/Special_Event_/rationalist_day/rationalist_debate.htm
| Quote: |
Re: - James Randi responds again to Ali Sina and Sina responds back.
By James Randi
E-mail: randi@randi.org
I’m far too busy with my real work – challenging the paranormalists – to try explaining reality to Sina. I’ll spend a few minutes on two points in his latest tirade, then after one more posting next week, I’ll check out of this pissing match. He wrote:
| Quote: |
| Where I learned about the stories that I quoted does not invalidate those stories. If those claims are false, you should be able to prove them irrespective of where those stories are reported. |
To the first point, I agree. He has chosen – as so many choose – to assign opinions, statements, and attitudes to me that are simply wrong. The source of his data does not invalidate the data. However, it does not in any way validate it, either. I was only pointing out that TV programs are not known for their dedication to truth.
His second point is another that is constantly – wrongly – thrown up to me. I am not making any claims about the supernatural, the paranormal, or the occult – except that those who believe in any of it have not provided evidence to support that belief. I challenge them to do so. It’s not my position to have to prove any claim false; I challenge the claimants to prove that a claim is true, that’s all. That proof is not being presented.
Sina offers the only three explanations he can think of to explain one of my performances of “mentalism” done many years ago, the one that he quotes:
| Quote: |
a- That woman was your aunt or an associate of you and you both staged that stunt to impress your audience.
b- You fabricated that story or simply “sexed it up” to prop your beliefs. Believers often invent stories to validate their faith. This is how the followers of Muhammad and Jesus reported so many miracles about their prophets. They think it is okay to lie if the cause is a good one.
c- You occasionally have psychic power. |
Typically, he’s wrong on all three guesses, made from a position of ignorance of this art of mentalism. I did not know that woman, nor was I related to her. The only time I ever spoke to her was at the performance, the exchange described by myself and quoted by Sina. The story is 100% true, and took place exactly as described. And no, I do not have any psychic powers that I know of, though I knew with absolute certainty all of the facts that I related to that woman on that occasion.
In a week, I’ll be back to tell readers the trick that was used, during which time Sina and others can try other approaches. The solution has appeared in my writings before, though I cannot recall where – perhaps in one of my books. After I describe that process next week, I will retire from this fruitless exchange, since it’s of no benefit to argue with a zealot who refuses to offer evidence to prove his stance, though I do.
James Randi. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
atheist
Joined: 11 Mar 2004
Posts: 33
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 16, 2004 4:00 pm Post subject: Randi reveals his trick today.... |
|
|
FYI: randi reveals his trick:
http://www.mukto-mona.com/Special_Event_/rationalist_day/rationalist_debate.htm
| Quote: |
Re: - James Randi responds again to Ali Sina and Sina responds back. - The trick
By James Randi
E-mail: randi@randi.org
Avijit: I’ll give you’re the piece for next Monday, now, for convenience. I’ll be too busy next week….
……………………
Sina’s three guesses regarding my trick – the one he quoted – were quite wrong. In order to show that he has no knowledge of conjuring techniques, I’ll reveal the modus here. Now, I don’t expect Sina to have conjuring/mentalism expertise, but at least he should admit to that lack, rather than assuming that he can figure out these puzzles just by considering that ordinary factors apply. They don’t. There are aspects about which he could not know, but which supply the data that show how I knew what I did – not through psychic powers, but through reason and deception. Read on.
The tickets to the theater where I appeared, were being sold weeks before the show, and only at the box office, and the seats were assigned by row and number. My very presentable confederate, Terry Lawson, was two years older than I. And, he had a car, which I did not. He waited around the lobby of the theater and observed ticket-buyers coming in. One was a single elderly lady who bought one ticket, on the aisle, in the third row. She did not notice Terry, who stayed out of sight and then, since he was well-known at the theater, asked at the box-office for the ticket-number after the woman had left. He now knew her face, and her seat number.
As she left the theater, Terry followed her in his car to her home and thus determined her address. The next day, carrying a briefcase, he went to her neighborhood and began knocking on doors acting as a college student who was doing a survey of political opinions for a research paper at the University of Toronto, for which he presented proper student identification. (In those days, this was much more common than it would be today, and he had good response to his asking for interviews.) At the home of the lady living next door to the ticket-buyer, he casually asked about the name of the ticket-buyer. The neighbor obliged, and commented, “We call her, Rose.” I recall that she was a Mrs. Leslie.
When he went to Mrs. Leslie’s door, he knocked and of course recognized the lady when she answered, though she didn’t know him. He was admitted to the living room, where Mrs. Leslie offered him tea, and he began asking her the list of questions. He also noted that she had an antique porcelain clock on the mantel above the fireplace, and the hands were dislodged, lying at the bottom of the face behind the glass covering “crystal.” There were three roses painted on the face.
The rest should be very clear. I must add that Terry made sure to contact Mrs. Leslie later, to inform her of the trick and how it was done.
As another, very brief, example of this technique at work, I’ll describe this: at that same performance, I was in a toilet stall when two young fellows entered the room and got into conversation while using the facilities. They spoke about a used automobile that one of them was considering buying, and gave details about model, color, and condition of the vehicle. I peeked out from under the stall and saw that one of them was wearing sneakers of two different colors, one red and the other green. They never saw me, nor knew that their conversation had been overheard. Before my performance, I saw that distinctively-shoed man going upstairs to the balcony. I followed him a bit, and saw him take his seat in the very back row. During my performance, I pointed up to that man in the balcony and referred to the car, advising him to have the transmission examined carefully, and mentioning the color as well. He was astonished, especially when I asked him, “Where’s the other green shoe?” I could not possibly have seen his shoes from where I was on the stage. He slipped off his sneakers, held them up, and showed them to the audience, who were very impressed with my mental “powers.” |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ali Sina
Joined: 13 Feb 2004
Posts: 4607
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 16, 2004 5:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Dear Avijit,
Please make available the following links in you site.
http://www.faithfreedom.org/Articles/sina40316.htm
http://www.faithfreedom.org/Articles/sina40315.htm
Also please send these notes to Mr. Randi. You may also want to publish it as my response to his latest message.
Thank you Mr. Randi for explaining your technique. Of course a mentalist is a magician and magicians have techniques. The point (a) that I suggested is very much the same thing. You got the information prior to the show and that is what I tried to say in poit (a). How you got that information is your business.
I gave three possibilities:
a) You had prior information. (Forget about the aunt. That was just to add a touch of humor)
b) You are making up or sexing up the story.
c) You are psychic.
Now I hope you do not want us to believe that Van Praagh has some friends who go all around America and Canada to pry information about the people who may call in his show.
Also your explanation that he pries the information by questioning the callers does not match my observation of him in the only show I saw of him while he was a guest in Larry King Live. But that is not difficult to find out. All we have to do is to order a tape of that show and analyze it carefully. If you are right then Van Praagh is a fraud. Even then it is no proof that psychic power does not exist. I personally have had premonitions and dreams that I can't dismiss as coincidence.
The point is that demonstrating through magic one can deceive others does not prove that all the unexplainable phenomena are magic. If you get time read the last part of my response to Aparthib where I talk about a hypothetical crime and the police handling of it. It is number (3)
http://www.faithfreedom.org/Articles/sina40316.htm
Sorry if this discussion has kept you away from you busy schedule. I too have been dragged into it without wanting. I was asked to write an article for the Day of Rationalism. I knew writing that article will open a Pandora box. It is like shouting in Mecca that Allah is not God. However what I overestimated was my own will power to stay out of the controversy.
Kind regards
Ali
Last edited by Ali Sina on Tue Mar 16, 2004 7:45 pm; edited 2 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
marky
Joined: 11 Mar 2004
Posts: 2947
Location: England - the world's oldest democracy
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 16, 2004 7:22 pm Post subject: Prize is unfair |
|
|
James Randi giving a prize for anybody that can prove psi ability seems unfair to the psi phenomena itself: As people who have it know that it does not always operate when requested and as requested. It is not like turning on a light.
I have seen James Randi cheat on television (Discovery channel actually) and I will explain:
A man said that he could tell what is in a persons hand by holding their other hand and asking them questions. The person holding the object must know what it is, but the man of course will not. James Randi cheated by denying knowledge of the person holding the object of what it was: He broke the premise of the experiment.
Therefore, either deliberately or accidentally James Randi did not set up his own experiment correctly.
Now, I would like scientists to work out how psi stuff operates like everybody else. However, when the person who runs the experiment breaks their own rules in order to disprove some phenomena it is no wonder that nobody can be bothered with this sort of prize.
I do not think that it is very helpful for debunking scientists to go "balls out" to disprove psi phenomena. What I would like to see is a more constructive approach sort of like,
"Well, it did not work that way, but lets try it this way. Lets see if there might be some effect here",
rather than the usual,
"Right. We've tried it and disproved it. Good. We won't bother to try it another way because there is no point."
_________________
No need to hide behind slogans of deceit, Claiming that you're a religion of peace, We just don't believe you, We can clearly see through, The madness that you're feeding your people, Jihad ... (Stuck Mojo - Open Season) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ali Sina
Joined: 13 Feb 2004
Posts: 4607
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 16, 2004 7:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Now, I would like scientists to work out how psi stuff operates like everybody else. However, when the person who runs the experiment breaks their own rules in order to disprove some phenomena it is no wonder that nobody can be bothered with this sort of prize. |
That is the point I tried to make in my response to Aparthib.
Here is what I wrote:
Your point 3 is the claim that all the reports of paranormal are anecdotal. I already talked about this in my response to Avijit Please refer to it.
You also said:
"The last part of the above is an example of the fallacy of complex question, there is a built in assumption that paranormal event HAS occurred, and since there is no scientific explanation, then why not call it as paranormal, right?. But before something is declared as paranormal due to lack of scientific explanation, it must be proven beyond reasonable doubt to have actually occurred. Again anecdotes do not qualify as proof beyond reasonable doubt to a rationalist. "
In your previous message you however wrote:
“For example, the case of Hindu Lord Ganesh oozing milk was a real occurrence. Here the occurrence was scientifically measurable.”
Of course the story was that Ganesh was drinking milk not oozing it. But I had not paid much attention to this story until I read your statement that this phenomenon was “scientifically measurable”. If that was scientifically measurable, is it still anecdotal? How can something be scientifically measurable and anecdotal at the same time?
Do you realize that all human history is also anecdotal? The fact that the Earth is round for Sheik Abdel-Azi Ibn Baaz, Saudi Arabia ’s top cleric and the Flat Earth Society is also anecdotal? In fact since you and I have not gone to the space personally, it is also anecdotal for us. Are you going to deny this too?
Once you decide not to accept something, any excuse will do and everything becomes “anecdotal”. If I have a pain and I go to a doctor, I can’t show my pain. There is no proof of it. All I have is my words. Is that hallucination? Is that anecdotal?
Anecdotes do not prove the existence of something beyond doubt. I am not also advocating we should accept the immaterial world uncritically either. It would be unwarranted to believe in anything without evidence. However it is equally irrational to deny all those claims and dismiss them as "anecdotes" because they cannot be proven.
Sometimes examples can explain things better.
Say Sheriff Joe Dandi is a police officer. Several people report to him that a woman is missing. Several of them say they saw the husband beating or may be stabbing her. They also say they saw him wrapping something that looked like a body in a blanket putting it in his car and drove away. Since that day they did not see the woman. According to other rumors the husband had told others that he wanted his wife dead, etc. etc. However no “body” is found and the husband denies any foul play. His story is that he and his wife had a fight and she fled to live with her secret lover in South America .
What do you think officer Dandi should do? Should he charge the man or should he let him go? That is a hard decision. If you said he should not charge him I understand and do not blame you even though my gut feeling say he is guilty. After all no body has been found and eye witnesses could be mistaken. Those who say he planned to kill his wife also could be lying or he could have said this when he was angry and did not mean it. All these numerous eyewitnesses, although compelling are “anecdotal” after all.
However, what if this police officer starts attacking the credibility of the witnesses, mocking them, accusing them of hallucinating things and saying they are liars? What if Officer Dandy claim categorically that all the witnesses are anecdotal and he is not going to believe in anyone unless they can produce the body?
Wouldn’t that make you raise an eyebrow? Something must be fishy here. A police officer should not take side. Don’t you agree? Not only he is not searching for the body, which is his duty, he is actually denying that the body exist.
This is what is happening with our case. We have no proof that an immaterial world exists. However we have millions of witnesses who come forth and tell us their stories that point to the fact that such a world MAY exist. We know many of those stories are fake and many of them are hallucinations. But are all of them fake and hallucinations?
In any police investigation, when public is asked to cooperate, thousands of tips pour in. Of course not all of them are related to the case. Should the police attack the program and say it is a waste of time to ask for tips because we verified that most of them are not related and discredit those who call? Should they say all those who call to give tips are hallucinating and their stories are anecdotal?
I am not saying we should accept that an immaterial world definitely exists. No “body” has been found after all. But should we attack and ridicule the people who come forth to witness? The idea seems to be silencing those who make such reports and making them ashamed. The materialists immediately attack this person and question his sanity.
Now why the materialists are so adamant to deny and dismiss all those reports? It is because they are not impartial. They actually deny any crime has ever taken place. They do not want you to find any "body" that might destroy their credibility. Asking the materialists to verify the existence or inexistence of a world beyond the Matter is like asking the Vatican to research the claim of the virginity of Mary. the conclusion is foregone.
My point is not that we should believe that an immaterial world exists. Personally I believe it is a possibility that something exist. The “anecdotal” evidences are too many to ignore and my own experiences make me believe this is the most likely scenario. However, if solid evidence is provided against this belief, I will stand corrected. After all a theory is a theory. It does not have to be proven to be believed. If a theory is proven, it is no more a theory it is a fact. As long as a theory is not irrational and unscientific, like those attributed to Muhammad, Jesus and Moses for example, as long as they are possible, there is no harm in believing them. After all the theory of evolution was just a theory until it was proven and became a fact. When a theory is proven, then we do not have to believe in it anymore. Facts are things that we KNOW they are not things that we doubt and hence BELIEVE.
What I want to establish is that the materialists and the pseudo rationalists are not objective or impartial. They are not the people who can tell us the truth about the other worlds. These people are believers in materialism. Their god is Mater. It is not that they lie or they are insincere all the time. They are most of the time genuine. Nevertheless, they are believers and like other believers they are the last people who can tell us the truth.
We need objective people, rational people, impartial people and skeptics to find the truth. When it comes to the question of the immaterial world, the materialists are not the people we should rely upon. They are not to be trusted because they are not impartial. They have already made their mind that all those millions of people who report paranormal are liars or are hallucinating. Materialism should be treated like any other religion.
The "million-dollar-challenge", not only underlies the fact that these people have no understanding of the nature of the spiritual world, it also proves that they have already made their minds. Imagine a judge claiming impartiality and at the same time offering a million dollar to the witnesses CHALLENGING them to prove their case? Would you say this judge is impartial? Mr. Randi might be a mentalist but as Abraham Lincoln said, you can’t fool all the people all the time. The materialists are not investigating the paranormal phenomena, they are helping in the cover-up and the reason is obvious. Any notion of an immaterial world, shatters their belief in materialism.
http://www.faithfreedom.org/Articles/sina40316.htm |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
piggy
Joined: 13 Feb 2004
Posts: 6372
Location: Godwana
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 17, 2004 2:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
If this is of any interest.
Reporting another "paranormal?" experience.
Back in the mid-seventies I used to go to a hotel on Saturdays to meet friends in the beer-garden.
Most times of my visits to the hotel, I would go through the public-bar to get to the beer-garden.
The public-bar was where the race-betting facilities where located and there was most always the older regular punters in the bar studying the race-forms and placing their bets.
One one particular occasion I was passing through the bar and upon passing a few regular punters, I stopped at the bar to buy a beer.
I noticed the race-form the punters were browsing and asked to see the race-form which the punters obligingly permitted.
Then without any expertise I had an unusual urge or impulse to, and "confidently" offered a "tip". (prediction of a horse that would be likely to win a race)
I don't know why I had this "strange confidence" to do this and it was not usual for me to impose upon others in such a way.
I just had a feeling of "knowing".
I did this without having studied the race-form and without any knowledge whatsoever about the horse or race-meeting.
I did not place a bet on the horse.
I then proceeded through the bar to the beer garden to meet with my friends.
I sat in the beer-garden with my friends and after a few minutes a radio announcement of and pre-amble to the particular horse-race was audible over the the radio.
In the pre-amble to the horse-race the race commentators were commenting on the horses that were being paraded in a pre-race enclosure.
The particular horse that I had "confidently" predicted to win was being discussed and ridiculed by the expert race commentators and the commentators observations of the horse were very critical of the horses appearance, saying that the horse looked like a "nag", had all its ankles wrapped with bandages, was scruffy, overly hairy, looked like it came from a country back-yard, did not look like it was a race-horse and had no hope of winning compared to the other well-groomed and professional looking horses.
Eventually the race was run and the horse that I had this "strange confidence" would win, even in the face of the ridicule that was espoused by the race commentators, won the race at odds of 600 to 1. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
atheist
Joined: 11 Mar 2004
Posts: 33
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 17, 2004 5:47 pm Post subject: Response to Ali Sina |
|
|
FYI: http://www.mukto-mona.com/Special_Event_/rationalist_day/
Re: - There is a Hole in Materialism .
By Avijit Roy
E-mail: charbak_bd@yahoo.com
The first part of my response can be found here
The objective of this part of the article is to focus on the scientific method that is characterized by skepticism and mistrust of human nature. Of course there is no such thing as A Scientific Method of Discovery (which Meeker tried to point out in his piece), but there is a method to scientific thinking and it includes being constantly vigilant against self-deception and being careful not to rely upon insight or intuition in place of rigorous and precise empirical testing of theoretical and causal claims.
Before starting, I would like to state one term clearly - "Self Deception". Self-deception is the process or fact of misleading ourselves to accept as true or valid what is false or invalid. Self-deception, in short, is a way we justify false beliefs to ourselves. Here is one example of self deception from Ali Sina's piece:
| Quote: |
| I read what James Randi wrote about Van Praagh. If I had never seen Van Praagh I would have probably agreed with Randi. But I saw Van Praagh and hence know what Randi is saying is pure bull. I see a phenomenon with my own eyes. I have to use my own judgment not someone else’s to explain what has happened. I am afraid Randi is living in lala land and denials. |
The most probable explanation of the above event is that Ali Sina wanted to "trust" Van Praagh's psychic power without critically examining it. This is what I call self-deception. But there are many experts who will not agree with Sina. For e.g, Michael Shermer of Skeptic magazine calls Van Praagh "the master of cold-reading in the psychic world." Sociologist and student of anomalies, Marcello Truzzi of Eastern Michigan University, studied characters like Van Praagh for more than 35 years and he describes Van Praagh's demonstrations as "extremely unimpressive." ("A Spirited Debate," Dru Sefton, Knight Ridder News Service, The San Diego Union-Tribune, July 10, 1998, p. E1.) Truzzi says that most of what Van Praagh gives out is "twaddle," but it is good twaddle since "what people want is comfort, guilt assuagement. And they get that: Your parents love you; they forgive you; they look forward to seeing you; it's not your fault they're dead." I am sure Ali Sina does not have any expertise like Randi or Michael Shermer to know how to critically test Van Praagh just as Randi has less expertise to critically see Quranic verses than Ali.
It is known that Van Praagh can’t get a good bite, he reminds his audience that sometimes the message is in fragments, sometimes he doesn’t understand it, sometimes he misinterprets it, etc. If he’s wrong, don’t blame him since he never claimed to be perfect. In "Why People Believe Weird Things" Michael Shermer describes Van Praagh's success and how he wowed audiences on NBC's New Age talk show The Other Side. Shermer also tells us how he debunked Van Praagh on Unsolved Mysteries. Yet, no one in the audience was sympathetic to Shermer. One woman even told him that his behavior was "inappropriate" because he was destroying people's hopes in their time of grief!!!
Again, many famous scientists even do not understand how psychics use techniques such as warm and cold reading just like many of us do not know how good magician's magic works. Even a famous scientist is also a human being like you and me. When s/he fails to figure out the tricks behind, s/he may think as a scientist like him/her could not come out with the answer, it must be paranormal. It might sound like Ali's statement - "I see a phenomenon with my own eyes. I have to use my own judgment not someone else’s to explain what has happened." We forget our mind can deceive, our vision can deceive, that is the technique magicians use to play always. Again, the accuracy of prophecies is also grossly exaggerated because of lack of understanding of "confirmation bias" and "The Law of Truly Large Numbers"; their accuracy is also exaggerated because of ignorance about how memory works, especially about how premonitions are often filled in after the fact etc.
Again when Ali Says-
| Quote: |
| I am not familiar with any of those names and stories you mentioned. But I read something about Edgar Cayce. The stories about him were fascinating. A doctor worked with him and sought his input in diagnosis of his patients.... |
It shows again his complete surrender towards psychic claims without investigating. It is true, however, that many people considered themselves cured by Edgar Cayce and that's enough evidence for true believers. Cause it works! Again the fact that thousands don't consider themselves cured or can't rationalize an erroneous diagnosis won't deter the true believer. For example, Gardner notes that Dr. J. B. Rhine, famous for his ESP experiments at Duke University, was not impressed with Cayce. Rhine felt that a psychic reading done for his daughter didn't fit the facts. Defenders of Cayce claim that if a patient has any doubts about Cayce, the diagnosis won't be a good one. Yet, what reasonable person wouldn't have doubts about such a man, no matter how kind or sincere he was?
Frankly speaking, the support for his accuracy consists of little more than anecdotes and testimonials. There is no way to demonstrate that Cayce used psychic powers even on those cases where there is no dispute that he was instrumental in the cure.
Let's examine another statement of Ali:
| Quote: |
I recall when I was a teenager, one day my mother told us, she dreamt a giant had fallen from a height and its pieces were scattered all around. The dream left her traumatized. That very day, the big and overweight maid of our neighbor went to the roof to shovel the snow off. She fell from the third floor and her brain was scattered all around.
That is how psychic power works. It is clear that my mother's dream was a premonition to what happened that very day but how in the world we could have known what that dream meant?
The psychic can see things like this. What they perceive is dream-like. It is a feeling of things. |
This is an example of selective thinking. Selective thinking is the process whereby one selects out favorable evidence for remembrance and focus, while ignoring unfavorable (common) evidence for a belief. Having vague feelings that something bad is going to happen followed by something bad happening is not "dumb luck" but highly probable, as a rational person like Ali should know. One reason scientists follow rigorous methods of testing claims is because many claims are so vague or ambiguous that the kinds of things that could count as confirmation of those claims becomes almost limitless.
Anxieties about one's loved ones--parents, children, spouses--are very common. Some people are anxious to a fault. They are forever contemplating what could go wrong, what harm could befall someone. Such people are likely to have one or more of their fears realized. Again, the vagueness of the anxiety allows for numerous kinds of things to count as confirmation.
You sensed something wrong and focused in on details most people would ignore. I would be willing to bet that you are a very observant person, and frequently see and remember details that others don't pay attention to. You may also be so observant that you implicitly recognize when something is "not right."
We use to have bad dreams hundreds of times in our entire life, but how many times our dream comes true? And most importantly, why we need to give so much importance if once a bad dream comes true? This can be explained by law of truly large numbers (coincidences). For example, you might be in awe of the person who won the lottery twice, thinking that the odds of anyone winning twice are astronomical. The New York Times ran a story about a woman who won the New Jersey lottery twice, calling her chances "1 in 17 trillion." But is it a paranormal event? No. But certainly a rare incident. I can understand why this experience of your mother seems like a dream come true to you. But the explanation for this does not seem to demand a paranormal account. May be there is no correlation either. Your mother dreamt about a giant but incident happened to a innocent maid. Are they Proof of psychic phenomenon? May be simply selective observation or coincidence. Moreover, this experience is not uncanny. She might have warned your neighbor about the impending disaster. But she did not. Why? Because she did not know that it would happen to her neighbor's maid. Let's assume the incident did not happen to that maid. Would she remember the episode of her bad dream even then? Certainly not. Again, the incident could happen to any of his good friends, relatives or anyone she knew instead of the neighbor, and then she would have again tried to correlate the incident with her dream, isn't it? Was this a coincidence? Wishful thinking? or May be both? I have no idea. But human mind works in that way.
Ali Said:
| Quote: |
| I did that and I came to believe that psychic power is not implausible or incredible. It is a reality. How it works and why is now what I would like to learn. I have no doubt that it exists. |
"I have no doubt" - is not a process of critical thinking, Ali. You have to have doubt in mind, unless you have already came to your own biased conclusion. How can you be so sure that psychic power exists? Just like those believers who are quite certain that God exists because of their religious experience? When we think critically, we use our knowledge and intelligence effectively to arrive at the most reasonable and justifiable position possible. When we're thinking uncritically, no matter how intelligent or knowledgeable we are, we'll make unreasonable decisions and arrive at unreasonable beliefs or take unjustifiable actions--unless we are lucky and end up making the right choice for the wrong reasons!
Ali Said:
| Quote: |
| Psychic ability is not about guessing the lottery number. They simply can't do that. It is not about predicting the future. It is about dream-like impressions that psychics get while awake. |
Why? Just because they can't do? If they could, it is you who would put such example in favor of existence of psychic power. In either case, you want to keep your position in a wining situation.
Ali Said:
| Quote: |
| Even if I had to believe all those who claim something extraordinary happened to them are lying. Even if I believed Piggy and the other person who wrote me the above notes I posted here are lying, I can’t dismiss my own experiences. |
The testimonial of personal experience in paranormal or supernatural matters has no meaningful value. If others cannot experience the same thing under the same conditions, then there will be no way to verify the experience. If there is no way to test the claims made, then there will be no way to tell if the experience was a delusion or was interpreted correctly. If others can experience the same thing, then it is possible to make a test of the testimonial and determine whether the claim based on it is worthy of belief.
It's however, quite valid to use personal experience to illustrate a point; but such anecdotes don't actually prove anything to anyone. Your friend may say he met Elvis Priestly or Mahatma Gandhi in the supermarket, but those who haven't had the same experience will require more than your friend's anecdotal evidence to convince them.
Anecdotal evidence can seem very compelling, especially if the audience wants to believe it. This is part of the explanation for urban legends; stories which are verifiably false have been known to circulate as anecdotes for years.
Ali objected to Meeker's explanation of the orange globe of light because he believed it 'behaved intelligently'. If he could think critically, he could have searched more just sticking in paranormal explanation. Regarding Piggy's experience, I am sure there are some explanation which need some good research. Please check this site and responses made on such experiences without invoking supernatural phenomenon:
http://www.skepdic.com/comments/psi1com.html
It's irony that by believing in the paranormal without substantial proof (only testimonial of personal experience is provided), you are claiming to be a true critical thinker or a true skeptic. Anyone can extend his or her beliefs to the wildest paradigms imaginable, but that only means they have a wild imagination. It does not imply they are thinking critically. Just because you can't or won't come up with an explanation for whatever happened to you, doesn't mean it was paranormal.
Ali said:
| Quote: |
| Randi is a magician alright! But he is not a psychic. He may be able to tell us spoon bending is magic. I never heard any credible psychic claim to bend spoons or lift things with mental power. |
Remember, you said, "We are all psychics". So by your definition Randi has to be a psychic too! But in my definition psychic refers to a medium or a person who has paranormal powers in which Randi shows his profound doubt just as you show doubt on the term "Islamic Scholar" :-). I am surprised to know that you haven't heard about those spoon blending psychics! One example is Uri Geller. Uri Geller is a Hungarian/Austrian is most famous for his claims to be able to bend spoons and keys with his mind. Geller claims he's had visions and may get his powers from extraterrestrials. He calls himself a psychic. If you doubt his great powers or my account of them, you can read about them on the WWW by tuning in to Uri-Geller .com. The interactive part of his site is where you get to try to bend a spoon Geller has placed somewhere with a video camera on it, transmitting to his home page.
BTW, it is James Randi, who has written a book and numerous articles aimed at demonstrating that Geller is a fraud, that he has no psychic powers and that what Geller does amounts to no more than the parlor tricks of a conjurer [For a detailed account of how easy it is to demonstrate incompetence and to commit fraud in this area, read James Randi's account of the Uri Geller experiments designed and executed by Russell Targ and Harold Puthoff of the Stanford Research Institute. See either chapter 7 of Flim-Flam! or The Magic of Uri Geller.] |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
piggy
Joined: 13 Feb 2004
Posts: 6372
Location: Godwana
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 17, 2004 10:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| bread wrote: |
| This is getting riduculous. So what if you predicted that a long shot horse will win. This is no proof that paranormal events are real. (nor is it proof of th opposite by the way.) |
Hi Bread,
There is not an intention on my part to prove anything to anyone.
I agree, the incident does not prove anything.
These reports are posted for information.
The main point is the overwhelming feeling of confidence and knowing that was present at the time. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
R_Nelson
Joined: 17 Feb 2004
Posts: 583
Location: West of the North Pole
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 17, 2004 11:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
------------On the Million Dollar Paranormal Challenge
In THIS POST and THIS POST Ali Sina said:
| Ali Sina wrote: |
| The "million-dollar-challenge", not only underlies the fact that these people have no understanding of the nature of the spiritual world, it also proves that they have already made their minds. Imagine a judge claiming impartiality and at the same time offering a million dollar to the witnesses CHALLENGING them to prove their case? Would you say this judge is impartial? |
In THIS POST James Randi says:
| James Randi wrote: |
| We offer the million dollars to anyone who can demonstrate or prove any paranormal, supernatural, or occult power or ability under proper observing conditions. Those observing conditions are decided upon by both the claimant and the JREF, and to their mutual satisfaction. The tests are NOT done by the JREF, but by an independent party or parties mutually agreed upon by the claimant and the JREF. All the details are defined on our web page: www.randi.org |
The determination as to whether the paranormal challenge is met is done by the independent party mutually agreed upon by the claimant and the JREF. Randi is not involved in this. Also, the protocol for the claim being tested is designed to make the judgement objectively obvious - such as "the blindfolded archer shoots the arrow through a 6 inch diameter hole at a distance of 50 yards" or "one correctly guesses a coin toss at least 65% of the time out of a total of X number of tries."
Whatever partiality James Randi may have is irrelevant.
------------On the Problem With Anecdotal Evidence
Declaring that evidence is anecdotal is not denial that the anecdote happened, nor is it an insult to the person telling the anecdote - it's simply that the evidence is beyond the reach of exploration and testing.
For example, if I tell you "Three years ago I had a battery which I measured to have a voltage of 1.333 volts." that is an anecdote that you can't verify. You can't go back in time to measure the voltage - it's beyond the reach of scientific exploration.
There's no shame or insult about having anecdotal evidence, it's simply that there's nothing a skeptic can do to check such evidence.
In THIS POST Ali Sina said:
| Ali Sina wrote: |
| Do you realize that all human history is also anecdotal? The fact that the Earth is round for Sheik Abdel-Azi Ibn Baaz, Saudi Arabia ’s top cleric and the Flat Earth Society is also anecdotal? In fact since you and I have not gone to the space personally, it is also anecdotal for us. Are you going to deny this too? |
The fact that the Earth is round may be anecdotal, but it's not merely anecdotal. It can be checked at any time.
Every time a satellite tracking station tracks the international space station, it is exactly where it should be based on a spherical earth with a Newtonian gravitational field. This would not be the same if the earth were flat.
Every time a global positioning satellite correctly tells you where you are, the spherical earth is verified. Every time a jet airliner navigates based on spherical surface geometry and arrives at its destination without going off course, the spherical earth is verified.
The ability to verify at any time in many different ways makes it so much more than a mere anecdote. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ali Sina
Joined: 13 Feb 2004
Posts: 4607
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 19, 2004 2:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
Dear Avijdit,
I believe we have come to the end of our discussion since all I read now is repetition of the same old arguments which has been already discussed.
You wrote:
| Quote: |
| “but there is a method to scientific thinking and it includes being constantly vigilant against self-deception and being careful not to rely upon insight or intuition in place of rigorous and precise empirical testing of theoretical and causal claims.” |
Naturally no one can see that he is deceiving himself. I debate with Muslims who in my opinion are the most self deceived people and yet they are the most convinced people you can find.
Bertrand Russell said: "The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts."
The core of my philosophy is doubt. I am afraid I can’t allow myself the luxury of certitude. I do not say I admire your certitude, because I do not see it as a virtue.
Unlike you I do not think it is my duty to be “careful not to rely upon insight and intuition”. Insight and intuition are not substitutes to rigorous and precise empirical testing of theoretical and causal claims as you seem to believe.
Intuition and insight are powerful human faculties that provide hints at a subconscious level. The next stage is for the conscious mind to verify and test those hints. They are complementary therefore and not mutually exclusive.
I am afraid you did not read my long article on Rational Spirituality where I laid the crux of my philosophy. There I published examples of scientific discoveries that were revealed through dream. If you do not wish to read the whole article, (which I think if you did perhaps we would not be having this discussion) I strongly recommend you to read the heading:
“If here is no intelligent being running this Universe, what is the source of consciousness?”
It is at the middle of the article.
There you can see how some household names, scientist, inventors and musicians claimed having received their inspirations through dreams. What they received were in the form of hints. For example Elias Howe dreams of being attacked by a group of savages with a hole at the tip of their spears. This is all he needed to resolve if he placed the hole at the tip of the needle he can solve the problem of sewing machine that was occupying his mind.
The dreams per se are meaningless. They do not provide direct solutions. They however provide hints. It takes then critical thinking to decipher those hints and understand their meaning.
In the above article I also named a few musicians who have claimed having heard their music prior to composing them.
Insights and intuitions are great human faculties. We only disregard them to our own loss.
However, intuitions are not rational. Sometimes they come to us in bizarre ways. In dreams they use images to express themselves. Sometimes those images seem unrelated, but they convey the feeling anyway.
My mother’s dream of a giant’s fall and its scattering everywhere was very poignant. Our neighbor’s maid may have been innocent, but her innocence was not the subject that mattered in my mothers dream. My mother saw her as a big oversize woman. In her dream this feature was exaggerated and a giant represented her. The rest of the story was identical. The point is that the elements of the size of the person, the fall, the scattering of the body all around and more importantly the trauma associated with the experience were all present. This is how our intuitive power works. For most of us this happens during our dreams. I can tell you countless stories of my own. I often do not have a clue what these dreams mean but when the occurrence happen, I often realize it was forewarned. Now why the dreams are so cryptic? I don’t know. Are they useful? Sometimes they are, especially in the stories I mentioned in the Rational Spirituality, but most of the time they are not or at least they are so confused that they can’t be understood.
It is also an art to be able to interpret the dreams. Someone wrote and said he dreamt that his friend was smoking and since he does not like smoking in his dream he started shouting at him. The next day he asked whether his friend smokes and he said no. To this person this was indication that dreams are false. The problem is that this person did not know how to interpret his dream. The message of the dream was not whether his friend smokes or not but rather his inability to control his temper. I told him the meaning of his dream and I was proven right since this person turned to be an obnoxious person and his consequent letters were full of mockeries and insults. I am ignoring him but you are posting the emails of this individual in your site and they stand as proof.
The point is not to prove that psychic ability is useful. That is another discussion. If we could understand it, perhaps it would be useful. The point here is to show that it exists. And if it exists the implication is that there is a reality beyond the matter and this world as we see it is not all there is.
Once again I urge you to read that section of Rational Spirituality where I talk about how many useful discoveries were done with the help of dreams.
You gave a very valid definition self deception. You wrote:
| Quote: |
| Before starting, I would like to state one term clearly - "Self Deception". Self-deception is the process or fact of misleading ourselves to accept as true or valid what is false or invalid. Self-deception, in short, is a way we justify false beliefs to ourselves. Here is one example of self deception from Ali Sina's piece: |
The example you gave to prove that I am self deceiving was your mere opinion. Since you have never seen Van Praagh you logically can’t say anything about him or me deceiving myself by saying his demonstration impressed me. You base your opinion of him on what Randi, Michael Shermer and Marcello Truzzi have said. My observation of Van Praagh was different from these gentlemen. Now may I ask you why you chose to believe them and not me? The answer is clear. These people validate your bias and I don’t. What if these people are wrong? They are not prophets of course and even if they were they could be wrong. So how as a rational person you explain your blind faith of the observation of others? If your answer is that these people are some sort of authorities, then why you blame the Muslims for following Muhammad whom to them was the ultimate authority?
Do you see the similarity? You have never seen Van Praagh, you have no clue about his abilities, yet you have formed your opinion based on what others say. This is self deception.
You constantly repeat that all the claims of paranormal are anecdotal. Aren’t the opinions of the above gentlemen anecdotal? And you accuse me of having a selective mind?
Now let us analyze the statements of these gentlemen about Van Praagh.
You wrote:
| Quote: |
| “Michael Shermer of Skeptic magazine calls Van Praagh "the master of cold-reading in the psychic world." Sociologist and student of anomalies, Marcello Truzzi of Eastern Michigan University, studied characters like Van Praagh for more than 35 years and he describes Van Praagh's demonstrations as "extremely unimpressive." |
Shermer says Van Praagh is “the master of cold reading in the psychic world”. In other words Van Praagh is the finest and the greatest deceiver of all the decievers. He must be really impressive to deceive so many.
Now let us read what Truzzi says? He says Van Praagh’s demonstrations are “extremely unimpressive”.
I am not a Van Praagh's fan. I only saw him once. My first impression of him was that he is genuine. However if I have to be accurate I need to study his video tape more carefully. I need to study his tape a couple of time to be 100% sure. I am merely using him to make my point.
Let us say you never saw Van Praagh and can’t make any judgment of him based on your own observation. As a rational person what can you gather from the above two contradictory statements? Is Van Praagh’s demonstration impressive or is it not impressive? Why is it that two “rational” persons, both from the same school of thought, opine on the same person and their opinions are so contradictory?
This is the problem my dear Avijit First you pass judgment over a person whom you have never seen. That is not something a rational person would do. Then you believe the opinion of people who are not objective without ever occurring to you that their opinions about Van Praagh are contradictory. All they wanted to do is to discredit him. That is not an objective evaluation.
Then again one has to see what the credentials of these two gentlemen whom you believe are. Both of them are “anti paranormal activists”. Their opinion of Van Praaph is as much objective as the opinion of the Mullahs of the Bahai Faith. A rational person would not quote the opinion of those who are biased as if authoritative. I am biased against Muhammad. I do not expect anyone relying on my opinion. That would be a terrible mistake. I quote facts and bring evidences to back up my views. What are the facts quoted by these two gentlemen about Van Praagh? They stated their opinions, and though both of them are derogatory, those opinions are contradictory.
That is why I say materialism is just another religion. The beliefs are different but the methodology and the mindset is the same. Mankind will not evolve until we learn to be skeptics in the true meaning of the word. What now is claimed to be skepticism is a mockery of skepticism.
If the same methodology is used by the religionists and because of that they are mislead, what makes you believe this very same methodology leads you to discovery of the truth?
Atheist is one who does not believe in anything. Or at least that is how it should be. I think believing is demeaning and is an insult to human intelligence. Alas, old habits die hard. Today the atheists are those who believe in materialism. It is not that they do not believe in any god, they simply have a different name for their god.
You wrote:
| Quote: |
| I am sure Ali Sina does not have any expertise like Randi or Michael Shermer to know how to critically test Van Praagh just as Randi has less expertise to critically see Quranic verses than Ali. |
Are you sure? How can you be so sure? Well you are mistaken. I am less experienced in menal games and magic but far more knowledgeable in ESP than the gentlemen you mentioned.
Randi is not an authority on psychic power. As a mater of fact he does not understand it. He is a magician. These two are different. As I explained in my previous message, if a magician makes you believe that he is severing somebody’s head or arm it is no proof that all those who commit this crime are play games. Magic is the art of make believe. Manslaughter is totally a different thing. I think it is rather naïf to try to explain away the psychic ability with the art of a mentalist. Randi is an expert mentalist but he has no understanding of ESP. In fact in this field, without being an expert, I know much more than him. He basically knows nothing.
You wrote quoting your gurus:
| Quote: |
| “It is known that Van Praagh can’t get a good bite, he reminds his audience that sometimes the message is in fragments, sometimes he doesn’t understand it, sometimes he misinterprets it, etc. If he’s wrong, don’t blame him since he never claimed to be perfect.” |
If he is a fraud, then he has a good alibi. However, he is also right about the nature of psychic ability. Just as the messages conveyed to you in your dream come in fragments, some times you do not understand them, sometimes you misinterpret them, etc. so a psychic. If he had said anything different then we could suspect that he has some tricks off his sleeves. Psychic ability is never clear. It is like a dream, it is cryptic and in codes. Sometimes it is clear, sometimes it is confused.
| Quote: |
| “Shermer also tells us how he debunked Van Praagh on Unsolved Mysteries. Yet, no one in the audience was sympathetic to Shermer. One woman even told him that his behavior was "inappropriate" because he was destroying people's hopes in their time of grief!!! |
I saw Shermer in the same program I saw in Discovery Channel, also for the first time. I too felt he was talking nonsense, and denying the obvious. He was repeating the same old triad that we heard ad nauseam and I perfectly understand why the public was not sympathetic with him, although my reason for not siding with him are not the feel good factor. I was not sympathetic with him because I could see in him a religious zeal and denial that I am too familiar with by now. I was disappointed to see someone calling himself a skeptic act with so much devotion and faith. And contrary to your claim, I did not expect to see anything unusual in Van Praagh’s demonstration. As I said there are more charlatans around than the real psychics, so my natural reaction was to catch his bluff. I watched carefully and I was impressed. Now how in the world you diagnose the reason I think he is genuine when you never saw the man? And you call yourself a rational person? If your methods are irrational how can your conclusion be rational?
| Quote: |
Again, many famous scientists even do not understand how psychics use techniques such as warm and cold reading just like many of us do not know how good magician's magic works. |
That is not true at all. There is no magical act that cannot be understood upon scrutiny or test of the artifacts the magician uses. If scientists have not been able to understand the “techniques” of some of the psychics, it is because there is something they can’t understand. That is the impression I got from watching Van Praagh at Larry King Live. He was not prying the information as these gentlemen claim and you believed without even seeing the guy. Some times he was saying things that are commonsense, like “he sends you his love”. That is not what I paid attention to. I paid attention to things that were specific and he had not pried from the caller. There are only two explanations for that. Those callers were known to him or he has some unexplainable ability.
You also talked about The Law of Truly Large Numbers. The Law of Truly Large Numbers cannot explain someone being right 60 or 70 percent of the times on odds that are one in a thousand. It is wise not to accept anything until all possible explanations are explored, but when all of them are explored and you still insist to deny and claim there must be one that I can’t think of, then you are no more a freethinker but a dogmatic. This is precisely how the religionists behave.
About Edgar Cayce you wrote:
| Quote: |
“Gardner notes that Dr. J. B. Rhine, famous for his ESP experiments at Duke University, was not impressed with Cayce” |
It is interesting that you deny all the thousands of stories reported about Cayce’s extraordinary ability claiming all of them are anecdotal but rely on one person’s opinion whose views matches yours and that is the only view that is not anecdotal. If this is not self deception I don’t know what it is.
Ironically after that you wrote:
| Quote: |
“This is an example of selective thinking. Selective thinking is the process whereby one selects out favorable evidence for remembrance and focus, while ignoring unfavorable (common) evidence for a belief.” |
Isn’t your thinking selective? We have thousands of reports from very honest people, yet to you all that are lies or hallucinations. However, you state as facts the contradictory opinion (even among each other) of people who confirm what you already believe. Isn’t that selective thinking? Remember I said don’t call a kettle black if you are a pot?
You wrote:
| Quote: |
| We use to have bad dreams hundreds of times in our entire life, but how many times our dream comes true? |
I already explained this. If a detective collects a thousand clues and just one of them is related to the crime, one cannot say this is selective sampling.
We may have many dreams that may mean nothing. If we have just one that is “prophetic” that is proof that the mind is not limited to the world of matter. We have more than one such dream. Through the course of our lives we have hundreds of such dreams. This is clear proof that the material world is not all there is.
I wrote: “I came to believe that psychic power is not implausible or incredible. It is a reality. How it works and why is now what I would like to learn. I have no doubt that it exists.”
You were soon to exclaim:
| Quote: |
| "I have no doubt" - is not a process of critical thinking, Ali. You have to have doubt in mind, unless you have already came to your own biased conclusion. How can you be so sure that psychic power exists? |
Well, may I ask the same question from you? How can you be sure that such faculty does not exist? You apparently have never experienced it yourself but does that mean it does not exist? How can you be so sure? Please do answer that.
I can answer you why I am sure that the psychic faculty exists. It is because I experienced it myself. This is the same Descartes logic. Cogito ergo sum. If I experience something that thing must exist. Now what is the nature of that thing is to be studied. Is it hallucination, is it natural phenomenon or is it something different?
There is nothing illogical recognizing the existence of an experience. Whether the experience is real or imagined is something that can be discussed. However I see nothing logical in your stance. You simply deny the experience. You also “have no doubt” that the experience was imagined and not real.
My certainty of the occurrence of the experience is an acknowledgement of the experience based on my own observation. Your denial of it or your “knowing” that all such experiences are hallucinatory is dogma. Again we see the pot decrying the kettle.
I said psychic ability is not about seeing the winning lottery numbers and you asked why not. Actually I have to correct myself. You can even dream of winning lottery numbers. Basically you can dream of anything. However, the problem is that you are not in control of what you dream. In my essay, Rational Spirituality, I mentioned an experience I had while showering. I learned things that were not exactly my questions. I was just an observer. The experience was not interactive at all. When you dream you are not in control of what you dream. The images come to your mind without you having any control over them.
You wrote:
| Quote: |
| The testimonial of personal experience in paranormal or supernatural matters has no meaningful value. If others cannot experience the same thing under the same conditions, then there will be no way to verify the experience. If there is no way to test the claims made, then there will be no way to tell if the experience was a delusion or was interpreted correctly. |
As I said, this debate is exhausted. We are repeating the same things over and over without adding any thing new. I already said that this is a flawed logic. Can you prove that the history of mankind happened the way it was written?
Also if you already know that the claims of ESP cannot be tested then what is the meaning of the million dollar challenge? Isn’t this a clear attempt of deception? On one hand you say this cannot be tested, which is correct and on the other Mr. Randi offers one million dollars to anyone who can stand to his test.
The fact is that ESP cannot be tested. It is a feeling, a perception, an intuition or insight. However not because it can’t be tested it should be discarded as unreal. The experience is real. What we have to do is to understand it and make sense of it. The approach of the pseudo rationalist community is highly irresponsible and dogmatic.
| Quote: |
| It's however, quite valid to use personal experience to illustrate a point; but such anecdotes don't actually prove anything to anyone. Your friend may say he met Elvis Priestly or Mahatma Gandhi in the supermarket, but those who haven't had the same experience will require more than your friend's anecdotal evidence to convince them. |
We are not asking you to believe in things that you did not experience. That would be credulity and unreasonable. But it is also unreasonable to deny things that you did not experience.
On one hand you categorically deny that anything beyond matter exists. On the other hand you seem to say yes something might exist but since we can’t test it we can’t accept it. If the latter is your position, I am in agreement with you. But this is not what I gather from your writings. It seems that you deny such reality may exist at all. That is a dogmatic position.
Spoon bending is a magician’s art. This person you are talking about may call it psychic power or mind over the matter power but that is because in this way he can impress more people. In reality the mind has only the power over our own body. Of course our voluntary actions are originated in our mind. But also the involuntary function of our body is caused by our mind. We can even heal ourselves with mental power. That is how placebos or hypnosis work. However mind has no power over spoons or keys.
Last edited by Ali Sina on Fri Mar 19, 2004 8:14 pm; edited 10 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
piggy
Joined: 13 Feb 2004
Posts: 6372
Location: Godwana
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 19, 2004 4:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
Here is an example of "connectedness" beyond the "norm".
http://www.crystalinks.com/dogon.html
Quote:
http://www.sacredsites.com/africa/dogon.html
Dogon astronomical lore goes back at least 5000 years. This knowledge most likely dates back to the time of the ancient Egyptian priests - who stored their knowledge as their civilization was destroyed. This knowledge was too be part of our collective unconsciousness - to be remembered - to be brought to the public - when it was time for humanity to make great changes. These changes are reflected in all ancient prophecies. The information is about creation by Geometry - Mathematical patterns or formulas. We sense change in our thinking and our souls. We dream unusual dreams about changes and look for Magic in our lives, movies, books, TV shows. We experience beyond third dimension.
The souls of children, teens and young adults are often called Indigo Children - Children of the Blue Ray sense this. They are telekinetic sometimes moving objects - or bending objects with their minds.
This collective unconscious is a program of grids. The Dogon draw grids. They understand the nature of our reality, based on an electromagnetic grid program that stores memory - The Matrix is the grids.
Following the pattern of the grids ...... Dogon legend came with them from Egypt based on the ancient religions and the mystery school teachings of Isis and Osiris. It all begins in the area that was Sumer - The Cradle of Civilization - but in truth the area that surround the Great Pyramid. The Egyptian Goddess Isis is identified by the Egyptians with the star Sirius. The Dogons knew about Sirius long before modern man discovered the star system. Their religious tradition, dating back to their Egyptian roots, was later imparted through Greek migratory patterns. The name Sirius was given by the ancient Greeks.
Planet Earth has many metaphors, archetypes and symbols that help us understand the nature of our creation. To this end we study the heavens and celestial blueprints and the physical planet, to unravel secrets buried until it was time.....
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
More on the Dogons.
In the late 1940’s, Dogon priests greatly surprised the French anthropologists Griaule and Dieterlen by telling them of secret Dogon myths about the star Sirius (8.6 light years from the earth). The priests said that Sirius had a companion star that was invisible to the human eye. They also stated that the star moved in a 50-year elliptical orbit around Sirius, that it was small and incredibly heavy, and that it rotated on its axis.
All these things happen to be true (the actual orbital figure is 50.04 +/- 0.09 years). But what makes this so remarkable is that the companion star of Sirius, called Sirius B, was first photographed in 1970. While people began to suspect its existence around 1844, it was not seen through a telescope until 1862. The Dogon beliefs, on the other hand, were supposedly thousands of years old. The Dogon name for Sirius B (Po Tolo) consists of the word for star (tolo) and "po," the name of the smallest seed known to them. By this name they describe the star's smallness -- it is, they say, "the smallest thing there is." They also claim that it is "the heaviest star," and white. The tribe claims that Po is composed of a mysterious, super-dense metal called sagala, which they declare is heavier than all the iron on Earth. Not until 1926 did Western science discover that this tiny star is a white dwarf, a category of star characterized by very great density. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
R_Nelson
Joined: 17 Feb 2004
Posts: 583
Location: West of the North Pole
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 19, 2004 10:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Here's something from James Randi's latest commentary that seems appropriate to this topic.
| James Randi wrote: |
How often I hear that gleeful cry, "Science doesn't know everything!" or "Science isn't sure of anything!" thrown up to me as evidence of my abysmal naivety. The exultation and jeers increase when I freely admit that both those statements are very true, since that admission seems to establish the imperfection of science, while it does exactly the opposite. Science has never claimed to "know" everything, or for that matter, anything, to any absolute certainty. That is its glory, not its shame. It expresses statements, relationships, and measurements, it predicts outcomes of given circumstances, and it provides information — all of which are tentative though well-founded and dependable to definable degrees. We learn from what science reveals, how to handle and grow within the limitations of our world, how to survive, and how to convey to other generations what we have learned.
And that is beautiful. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Truthspeaker
Joined: 17 Feb 2004
Posts: 647
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 19, 2004 11:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
We become aware of things that are at the 'boundaries' of what we understand and are confident of referring to them as things that we do not 'know'. We are incapable of even talking about things that are way beyond the boundary between what we understand and what we do not know. Science by nature operates at this boundary, and hence by definition more or less cannot know everything or be sure of anything.
What is not clear and up for debate is whether all that can be understood can really be understood by 'Science' and its methods. Given its success in its very short history, one cannot rule that out. The limiting factor to the 'Scientific method' seems to be our own brains and its capabilities. We understand very little of it and hence it is nearly impossible to say how much of 'nature' can be understood eventually with this structure.
The amazing thing is how much we have been able to understand so far, and there is no good explanation of why that should be so. We do not know how much farther we can go in understanding nature, and it seems that we do not have an option to just stop and turn off the 'need' to know. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
