Spiderman
Veteran Member
It was vision of a reality
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Your thoughts on ''mediums?''
- Thread starter Deidre
- Start date
There is no point in having a discussion with someone whose mind is already made up. The only goal appears to be to discredit or even ridicule people who claim such abilities (hence the wish to know 'names'). It is ok if you believe that such things impossible - we can leave it at that.
I could make some guesses at your goals, but I'm not going to do that.
What's her name?
Sure go ahead make some guesses. In any case, we should discuss the concepts around such phenomenon, not accuse specific persons of fraud. You don't need to believe anything I said. I have no wish to convince you.
I think characterizing them ALL as mentally ill isn't intellectually honest, although I'd agree that you can't really talk talk to the actual dead, being dead and all.
I've been a conduit for spirits I was aligned with but I don't suppose that I was having some kind of supernatural experience but rather something deeply personal, spiritual and mystical. The source might of been internal and the spirits facets of my own conciousness/a collective mythos but that doesn't make it any less real. People sometimes try to define "real" as just what you can touch, feel, taste and see but the truth is a lot of attributes and aspects of our world are not physical in of themselves even when they might define the physical and yet very few people would say those attributes are not real. This more comes down to a problem of language and ontology but essentially even IF it's "all in our heads" and there is no supernatural (for the record I don't believe in the "supernatural", doesn't mean it isn't any less real than many other things we take for granted in daily life and treat as real as the ground beneath us. We even base entire social structures and economics on these things. In fact, those things themselves are entirely imaginary by the same standards if applied across the board not just to spirits but to anything that isn't physical.
What's her name?
So there are mainly three types of people who don't believe that such things (communication with the dead) are possible:
1. Secular atheists who believe that there is no life after death, that death of a person is the end of his existence
2. Strict believers in their own faith (usually Abrahamic) who believe that after death a person goes immediately to heaven or hell (or purgatory) and that there is no way for that person to communicate with someone on Earth from these places (which are far away - high up or way below).
3. People who are convinced that nobody else in the world can possibly have any abilities beyond what they themselves have. The idea that some other person may be in some way superior to them (with some extraordinary mental or otherwise supernatural abilities) is anathema to them.
Which of these categories do you belong? Or is there a fourth one?
There is a fourth one. Believers who trust that Ecclesiastes 9:5-6 is true about everything that dies.
The spirit of people and animals do not go anywhere when they die and their brains shut off.
The life goes back to God, the personality does not.
So, why does the Bible show an appearance of dead ones speaking? It can be through time.
Does no one understand that?
Perhaps the spirit of a person is able to transverse time.
Time is actually relative, and flexible and, according to Albert Einstein himself, "the dividing line between past, present, and future is an illusion".
I'm a believer in mediums and have been around this group 11,000 posts longer than you so I can tell you the answer for one such as our friend is 1). All the anecdotal and experimental evidence can be obfuscated into forever with that mindset. In the end, we each have to do our own homework and move on. There becomes a certain type of skeptic that becomes emotionally entrenched in their position and it becomes such that 'truth' is no longer their real goal, but defense of a worldview (materialism) becomes their goal. And their defense becomes no-holds-bar meaning attacks on the integrity and competency of claimants and experimenters are always the available last step.
What does that have to do with anything? Do you think this medium you refuse to name must be genuine if real mediums exist?
I believe money exists, but that doesn't mean I assume that every bill I'm given isn't counterfeit.
So let's assume - for argument's sake - that real mediums exist. What justification can you give that your particular medium is one of the real ones?
BTW: if you don't give me anything to corroborate what you're saying - which would start with her name - then all I would really have to go on is your word, but based on your behaviour so far, I don't trust you any farther than I can throw you, so your word isn't much good to me.
It is OK if you think this particular medium is fake. And you don't need to trust me either or take my word for anything.
jonathan180iq
Well-Known Member
Did I miss the part of this thread where it was admitted that it was an April Fool's joke?
Since you believe that all mediums are fake, then it does not matter which particular one this medium is.
Koldo
Outstanding Member
It's not about 'need to believe' as far as I see it. It's more about whether there is a justification to believe in it. Whether it is reasonable to remain skeptical about the matter.
Actually I don't expect anyone who has not witnessed such an event themselves to believe that it is possible, even if the witness who told you about it was your best friend or close relative.
I would not believe it myself if you told me about it. So there is really no expectation that you would believe me. Most people assume that they are smarter, less gullible and less easily fooled than others.
However I would suggest that you keep an open mind and attend such an event yourself and then decide. Of course there are many frauds, so you definitely have to be skeptical and choosy.
I would not believe it myself if you told me about it. So there is really no expectation that you would believe me. Most people assume that they are smarter, less gullible and less easily fooled than others.
However I would suggest that you keep an open mind and attend such an event yourself and then decide. Of course there are many frauds, so you definitely have to be skeptical and choosy.
This one?
Sorry - it took me a while to have enough time to look at it.
Going through the report:
- the paper doesn't say that anyone peer reviewed it. All it says is that two other PhDs provided "helpful comments on this manuscript." In fact, if the authors did know who the peer reviewers were, this would be an issue, because "Explore" claims to keep its reviewers anonymous:
Guide for authors - Explore: The Journal of Science & Healing - ISSN 1550-8307
- despite the authors' claims that their experimental setup was wonderful, until such time as someone replicates the experiment's results, this will be in doubt. From the paper, the experimental setup seems to be far from wonderful - details below.
- The description leaves a lot to be desired, but as far as I can tell, the ratings in Figure 3 include not only the ratings by the intended sitters, but also by the "proxy sitters", which makes no sense. In any case, I don't see how a valid experimental setup would have given anything other than whole number values in Figure 3, but there are half values. This suggests to me that there results may be 50% noise.
- a line on page 3 raises alarm bells for me: "Discarnate descriptions were then paired to optimize differences in age, physical description, personality description, cause of death, and hobbies/activities of the discarnate." The "mediums" were given the names of the deceased, and the sitters were a mix of people who had lost parents and who had lost peers. In this situation, merely giving the deceased's name provides a fair bit of information for cold reading purposes: for instance, if I hear that the deceased's name is "Braden", this will suggest young age, sudden and shocking death (e.g. by injury or unexpected illness), no kids, and a good likelihood of using a Playstation, while if I hear that the deceased's name is "Hubert", I'll lean towards older age, maybe chronic disease, parenthood, a good likelihood of playing golf, etc. This approach won't be 100% accurate, but it could certainly be enough to cause a significant effect in the overall averages.
- a sample size of 8 is ridiculously small, and the fact that they had to screen through 1,600 sitter candidates to get 8 pairs raises p-hacking alarm bells for me.
- another major problem with the experimental setup: they didn't compare results for the purported mediums to results for a control group of non-mediums.
So... overall, this looks to be a poor study that doesn't demonstrate what you claim it does. And that's even giving the benefit of the doubt that the researchers were honest (which, like I said, shouldn't be assumed until the results are replicated).
Did you write all of the above or how much was cut/paste?
Secondly, I have seen Schwartz's response to questions/criticisms and he seemed to have responded articulately to all such issues. Have you looked for his responses to any questions/criticisms?
Cut and paste from where?
I wrote all of it. Which parts do you disagree with?
No, I haven't. I only looked at the specific thing you asked me to look at.
What are your responses?
I would have to defer the details to a Schwartz response.
I do defer to experts on all technical subjects on which I do not claim expertise. Schwartz has impressed me with his knowledge and integrity. After decades of looking into the paranormal, I have also formed the strong opinion that some so-called skeptics have a driving emotional bias against parapsychologists and my judgment in this case considers that.
At any rate, the issues you raise are only alleged imperfections in the work.