Psychics who solve crimes

  • #101
64
0
I'm sorry, but it appears that you haven't done any type of experiment at all based on what you just said.

Nothing even remotely close has been done in terms of the nature of the evidence of psychic phenomenon versus the properties of atoms. I mean, the fact that there is not even anything coming close to a quantitative measurement of a psychic phenomenon is my proof that there's no comparison. It is not even in the same galaxy.

The nature of a valid phenomenon is very clear. You start with showing that it exists, and as more and more studies are done, the properties and behavior of that phenomenon is known more and more. That is why something that started out to be something most people find skeptical later on gets accepted. This is common in science. What is NOT common is for something that goes on for years and years and still cannot make out of first base. For something that has been claimed to exists for that long of a time, psychic phenomenon is still battling the idea to proof that it exists. Forget about trying to study the behavior or trying to quantify any kind of parameters here. It is still trying to be convincing enough for people to accept that it exists.

Now show me how this is similar to the concept of atoms and how the knowledge in that field has evolved? Are we still stuck in trying to convince people that the atom is a valid concept? People who don't accept that can stop taking medicine and forgo all medical procedures. Considering that psychic phenomenon even predates the idea of atoms, and it STILL cannot prove itself to exist, that should ring plenty of warning bells for people who want to accept it. The fact that there are still people who think that it is as valid as any scientifically accepted phenomenon makes it even sadder.

Zz.
I feel like I am defending my self, and at this rate all that I am saying is getting lost in translation so I will attempt it one more time so that I don’t steal the subject matter away from the OP

I will try and answer in order of the post quoted,

I have done one experiment with numbers, statistic occurrence has been the most tangible thing sited so far and thus is the only thing at this time that one can do at this forum. Also the purpose of the experiment was not to prove psychic phenomena but to test the arguments against it. So in short I am not saying it exists I am just saying it cannot be so easily denied either.

The connection to the atom is in a philosophical sense to illustrate the population’s ignorance to reality and that it is based more on popular opinion then fact. To illustrate what I mean I did a short survey of 25 people here at work, they ranged in background from mechanics to petroleum engineers, none of them were qualified to profess on the existence of the atom yet all of them did. Why? Because they were told they exist and there for to them, it was based on popular belief not on fact. So in short I agree that PP cannot be compared to Atomism in terms of their ambiguity because as you stated there is no contest, but I wasn’t comparing them that way anyway.

As for the next point, you start with showing that it exists, and that is exactly what this thread is about, nothing more.

Here is a direct historical comparison to atomism (by labeling the knowledge of the atom atomism I in no way say it is unproven or ambiguous):

The philosophy (if you want to call it that) of the paranormal as we hold it today is very old. like today with the atom if you ask 25 people 700 years ago if psychic phenomena is valid they would laugh at you and say it was (if they weren’t to scared to acknowledge the question).so for many thousands of years mankind has known the paranormal to exist beyond question, even the early scientific philosophers were not willing to drop the idea. It was not until recently that the widespread disbelief set in.

The idea of the atom was very contradicting to the current philosophies of science that were strictly based on observable evidence much like today. Aristotle being one that vehemently denied its existence based on the character of void. After Democritus did his work on the subject in the late 5th century B.C. it faded into the background as nothing but speculation. It remained until the 16th century nothing but unfounded speculation, so it took around 2000 years for the idea of atomism to even start to fruit and produce what we have today. The history is very truncated here and is more complicated but should give an idea of what I am talking about.

Atomism was in doubt and lacked any shred of (what we would call today) evidence for around 2000 years (if I am thinking right)

Psychic phenomena has only been in doubt for a few hundred years at most.

And finally never once did I even suggest that me or any one I know did not believe that the atom exists, and if you have that mixed up then reread the post that I brought it up in. and try to understand the context in which it was used. Which was not in comparing our level of collective understanding or challenging the existence of atoms.

Does this satisfy your request to a comparison? I tried to make the comparison as close to possible to the nature of this thread. But I feel that further discussion of Atomism vs Psychic phenomena is counter productive to the thread. And respectfully ask that any further debate on this matter be handled via PM. of which if you find it interesting I would be glad to continue it there.



The references that I used for ease of fallow up can all be found on Wikipedia under witchcraft, Democritus, Atomism, Darwin, Gassendi and Descartes
 
  • #102
21
0
Ivan wrote:
They have already been cited in this thread beginning with the first post.

Name one, and we'll examine the evidence. If you do find any evidence. Perhaps we can have a lovely discussion about evaluating evidence.


Ivan wrote:
Also, your challenge is completely bogus.

A challenge is questioning a statement and demanding an explanation. I made no such claims.
I quoted a credible article which has merit. FBI and NCMEC (National Center for Missing and Exploited Children) maintain that psychics have never solved a single missing person's case. There is nothing Bogus. I made a humble quote issued by a government agency. I find my quotes to be more reliable then your statement.



Ivan wrote:
There is no conclusive test for psychic phenomena.

There is no test period. Mental phenomena are outside natural or scientific knowledge.
If science can’t test something or duplicate it, it does not exist.


Ivan wrote:
But so called psychics have found bodies.

That’s asserting the truth. Prove it. Name the person found dead or alive.
Cable TV shows seem to be documenting such world-shattering news Odd there's no mention of this stuff in the scientific community. Do ya think there's a conspiracy to silence the truth maybe?


Ivan wrote:
To simply deny the facts is dishonest.

I posted an article on Etta Louise, I quoted a Government statement. Are you saying the articles are in fact deceptive or fraudulent?



Ivan wrote:
It is evidence to support their claims. The first claim make by crackpot debunkers is that there is no evidence for any of this when in fact there is.

Crackpot Debunkers do not make claims. Crackpot Psychics make extraordinary claims. It is the psychics who make the claims, and it must be the psychics who must support the claims.
To make a claim is to assert the truth. Information that helps form a conclusion; A supreme reality and to have the ultimate meaning and value of existence.
To believe a Psychic is to suspend, principles of reasoning, all logic and common sense. You imply there is evidence to support a Psychic claim. Provide some evidence to support that claim.

Ivan wrote:
It is a crackpot claim to say that no proof exist as a form of argumentation when we don't have a test. The only real test for cases like this is whether or not a body was found.


Proof is evidence, evidence of proof. An argument is to determine who made the initial claim and is responsible for providing evidence why his/her position merits acceptance. Explain why argumentation is not a form to provide proof.

Ivan wrote:
If you feel that finding a body proves that psychic phenomena exist, that's your business. I personally don't consider that to be proof; just evidence for a claim.


The topic of this thread is Psychics who solve crimes. A psychic who finds a body with no prior knowledge of any information concerning intimate facts or details can only be defined as empirical To support the hypothesis that psychic ability exist. But you don’t think that’s important. You think it would just go to the weight of argument. And you don’t consider that proof, just evidence. So you’re saying, if someone makes a claim and provides evidence of that claim you don’t consider that proof. Can you clean this up for me?
 

Related Threads for: Psychics who solve crimes

  • Last Post
Replies
5
Views
3K
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • Last Post
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
8
Views
4K
  • Last Post
Replies
3
Views
5K
  • Last Post
Replies
20
Views
5K
  • Last Post
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
7
Views
2K
Top