miracles

[Audie]

So then the question becomes what is wrong with my approach of analyzing a large body of anecdotal evidence for quantity, quality and consistency and forming a judgment?

Uh, just that you are, like, not very good at it?

And BTW, you did in no way acknowledge how far off you were
in your beliefs expressed in the post to which I responded.

What might those gross errors possibly reflect about your analytical talents?

Are you going to say something,, or just breeze on past?

 

[George-ananda]

Uh, just that you are, like, not very good at it?

How so?

 

[Audie]

How so?

And BTW, you did in no way acknowledge how far off you were
in your beliefs expressed in the post to which I responded.

What might those gross errors possibly reflect about your analytical talents?

Are you going to say something,, or just breeze on past?

 

[Audie]

How so?

Lets start here-identify something for which you have
what you might call convincing anecdotal evidence, but
which cannot be confirmed by any evidence that might
be recognized as "science".

Shall we do mermaids? Lots of anecdotes on those.

 

[George-ananda]

Lets start here-identify something for which you have
what you might call convincing anecdotal evidence, but
which cannot be confirmed by any evidence that might
be recognized as "science".

Ghosts

 

[Audie]

Ghosts

Hm. Not much to say about those. Some people believe, some dont.

Lets try a different tack, on "anecdotal evidence, but
which cannot be confirmed by any evidence that might
be recognized as "science".

Do you think that "Noah" built an "ark", filled it with animals and survived a world wide flood?

And BTW, you did in no way acknowledge how far off you were
in your beliefs expressed in the post to which I responded.

What might those gross errors possibly reflect about your analytical talents?

Are you going to say something,, or just breeze on past?

 

[George-ananda]

Lets start here-identify something for which you have
what you might call convincing anecdotal evidence, but
which cannot be confirmed by any evidence that might
be recognized as "science".

Shall we do mermaids? Lots of anecdotes on those.

Actually to keep this thread more on track. instead of ghosts, I'll select 'miracles'.

 

[George-ananda]

Do you think that "Noah" built an "ark", filled it with animals and survived a world wide flood?

No

 

[George-ananda]

And BTW, you did in no way acknowledge how far off you were
in your beliefs expressed in the post to which I responded.

What might those gross errors possibly reflect about your analytical talents?

Are you going to say something,, or just breeze on past?

I don't want to skip anything, Can you be more specific as to what post you are talking about?

 

[Audie]

No

Miracles, them. Just not that one. (the "flood")

hm

Earlier is was "paranormal".

What is wrong with mermaids as a thing made real by anecdotal evidence?

 

[Audie]

I don't want to skip anything, Can you be more specific as to what post you are talking about?

Seriously??

↑
So, how does your approach to truth differ from scientism?

Wikipedia: Scientism is belief in the universal applicability of the scientific method and approach, and the view that empirical science constitutes the most "authoritative" worldview or the most valuable part of human learning-to the exclusion of other viewpoints.

I established that I believe we can learn about our reality through means other than physical science.
Click to expand...


I dont do "truth".

Besides that, none of scientism reflects anything about me.

You did not establish that we can learn about (some aspects of) reality thro means other than science.

Everybody knows that!!!


What about this was not clear the first time I said it?
Very very simple. Here it is again

Of course science has limits.
Nobody here does "Scientism".


I wonder if you have it in you to recognize you got a couple of things dead wrong, there.

 

[George-ananda]

Miracles, them. Just not that one.

hm

Right that is called logical analysis. Believing everything or nothing is not logical.

BTW, you did in no way acknowledge how far off you were
in your beliefs expressed in the post to which I responded.

What might those gross errors possibly reflect about your analytical talents?

Are you going to say something,, or just breeze on past?

I already asked: What post?

 

[George-ananda]

Seriously??

↑
So, how does your approach to truth differ from scientism?

Wikipedia: Scientism is belief in the universal applicability of the scientific method and approach, and the view that empirical science constitutes the most "authoritative" worldview or the most valuable part of human learning-to the exclusion of other viewpoints.

I established that I believe we can learn about our reality through means other than physical science.
Click to expand...


I dont do "truth".

Besides that, none of scientism reflects anything about me.

You did not establish that we can learn about (some aspects of) reality thro means other than science.

Everybody knows that!!!


What about this was not clear the first time I said it?
Very very simple. Here it is again

Of course science has limits.
Nobody here does "Scientism".


I wonder if you have it in you to recognize you got a couple of things dead wrong, there.

That was your answer to a question I asked: So, how does your approach to truth differ from scientism?

 

[Audie]

That was your answer to a question I asked: So, how does your approach to truth differ from scientism?

I was wondering, as so oft now repeated-

I wonder if you have it in you to recognize you got a couple of things dead wrong, there.

I guess I can quit wondering now.

 

[viole]

I think there is through controlled testing fantastic odds against chance. When I hear people like Dr. Dean Radin speak about this I can no longer accept the argument that parapsycholgists are all incompetent in running rather simple experiments. Experimental techniques is one of the disciplines of parapsychology.

I have come to believe the ‘there is no evidence’ crowd is either uninformed or has a pathological dislike towards belief in the paranormal.

You know, that is the funny thing: if there were a shred of evidence for the paranormal, then "belief in the paranormal" would not be required.

But there is not, so your ESP movement is not distinguishable form other beliefs. Like belief in the Blue Fairy, Jesus, Xenu, Santa, or similar. At least for what concerns the evidential record.

Come back when you have some of this evidence, and I might reconsider.

Ciao

- viole

 

[viole]

Well the gifted mediums in Dr. Gary Sceartz’s testing for instance, were blinded from the subjects being read (eliminating hot and cold reading techniques) and performed to fantastic odds against chance.

As for technical matters I have heard cases where scientists on the other side have provided technical materials.

In your Einstein example, a medium may not be able to interpret a telepathic message involving concepts the medium is not familiar with. But I have heard even this happenning on occasion. Simpler things being more easily communicated and understood is consistent with what I would expect if spirit communication was a real thing.

Simpler things being more easily communicated and understood is consistent with what I would expect if spirit communication was not a real thing.
Obviously.

Do you think we can make a test online? Arrange a meeting with Einstein, or Feynman, Dirac, ..., or even Newton and let's post the chat with those souls live there on this forum. I will only ask questions with binary answers [yes/no] so that the medium will understand.

Can you arrange that?

Ciao

- viole

 

[George-ananda]

You know, that is the funny thing: if there were a shred of evidence for the paranormal, then "belief in the paranormal" would not be required.

But there is not, so your ESP movement is not distinguishable form other beliefs. Like belief in the Blue Fairy, Jesus, Xenu, Santa, or similar. At least for what concerns the evidential record.

Come back when you have some of this evidence, and I might reconsider.

Ciao

- viole

The evidence is there in repeatable controlled experiments on five continents as Dr. Dean Radin and others have shown. The opposition is either uniformed of the data or science deniers at this point in the game.

There are still people that don’t believe in evolution. The rest of us move on from them.

 

[George-ananda]

Simpler things being more easily communicated and understood is consistent with what I would expect if spirit communication was not a real thing.
Obviously.

Do you think we can make a test online? Arrange a meeting with Einstein, or Feynman, Dirac, ..., or even Newton and let's post the chat with those souls live there on this forum. I will only ask questions with binary answers [yes/no] so that the medium will understand.

Can you arrange that?

Ciao

- viole

I can’t arrange anything myself.

But I have heard alleged interesting afterlife communication from multiple famous people including scientists Including technical stuff. I think there is likely something real going on.

 

[gnostic]

Well, I have no doubts as to the existence of miracles (paranormal events). The cumulative evidence to me is overwhelming. I believe so-called miracles to be actually natural but involving forces and entities beyond the physical affecting the physical. There is no violation of natural law but the application of new laws and forces beyond our physical realm.

I also believe there are those that perceive beyond the physical that can tell us much about these things.

And I without doubt hold Sai Baba to be a so-called miracle worker beyond all reasonable doubt. A must read supporting my position would be Erlendur Haraldson Ph.D.'s book Modern Miracles: Sathya Sai Baba The story of a Modern Day Prophet. This is an honest open scientifically educated mind considering the evidence.

You know very well my stance that I think the paranormal activity and the so-called “studies” of the paranormal and supernatural phenomena are nothing more than pseudoscience.

There have been no evidences, and nothing you have presented in the past, were ever scientific.

And if Sai Baba is genuine as you say he is - the “miracle worker”, and all of it were scientific explored, then there wouldn’t be so many criticism of his practices, which included sleight of hand and fraudulent acts on his part.

And sorry, but I know enough about you don’t understand what scientific evidence mean.

If you did know what it mean, then you would know that scientific evidences, being able to verify it with other evidences, REPEATEDLY.

If it was scientific, then any scientist and every scientists should be able to repeat Sai Baba’s miracle themselves, independently and repeatedly.

In any case, no I haven’t read Erlendur Haraldson, but just because he has a PhD, doesn’t mean squats, especially those who move from psychology to parapsychology, and since “parapsychology” isn’t a scientific field.

If they (scientists) are not able to repeat the miracle in the lab or in the field, then it isn’t “scientific”.

Empirical evidences is all about the number of evidences that can be found, tally up, to find if the premise made and predicted, to be true or false, or even inconclusive.

The more evidences that back up the premise, the more probable it is true.

But science is not just about verifying what is true, but also to refute the stated premise. So if the evidences go against the premise, then the premise is highly improbable, hence the hypothesis is false, and therefore it has been debunked.

Sorry, mate, but you concept of science and evidences are not the same things as what other people do.

And science is not so much as about open mind, as it is about testing any premise, regardless of what they believe or don’t believe.

And yeah, you believe that something are beyond physical, and some of that made be true, but none of the claims that you believe in, have been verified with evidences.

 

[George-ananda]

You know very well my stance that I think the paranormal activity and the so-called “studies” of the paranormal and supernatural phenomena are nothing more than pseudoscience.

If you say I know it, then you needn't keep repeating our differences.

There have been no evidences, and nothing you have presented in the past, were ever scientific.

And if Sai Baba is genuine as you say he is - the “miracle worker”, and all of it were scientific explored, then there wouldn’t be so many criticism of his practices, which included sleight of hand and fraudulent acts on his part.

And sorry, but I know enough about you don’t understand what scientific evidence mean.

If you did know what it mean, then you would know that scientific evidences, being able to verify it with other evidences, REPEATEDLY.

If it was scientific, then any scientist and every scientists should be able to repeat Sai Baba’s miracle themselves, independently and repeatedly.

In any case, no I haven’t read Erlendur Haraldson, but just because he has a PhD, doesn’t mean squats, especially those who move from psychology to parapsychology, and since “parapsychology” isn’t a scientific field.

If they (scientists) are not able to repeat the miracle in the lab or in the field, then it isn’t “scientific”.

Empirical evidences is all about the number of evidences that can be found, tally up, to find if the premise made and predicted, to be true or false, or even inconclusive.

The more evidences that back up the premise, the more probable it is true.

But science is not just about verifying what is true, but also to refute the stated premise. So if the evidences go against the premise, then the premise is highly improbable, hence the hypothesis is false, and therefore it has been debunked.

Sorry, mate, but you concept of science and evidences are not the same things as what other people do.

And science is not so much as about open mind, as it is about testing any premise, regardless of what they believe or don’t believe.

And yeah, you believe that something are beyond physical, and some of that made be true, but none of the claims that you believe in, have been verified with evidences.

I actually do understand how science works. I also believe that science is limited in what it can know about the spiritual at this time. Not being a follower of scientism, I consider anecdotal evidence and other wisdom traditions that I respect beyond just science.