pilgrim.1:

@huxley2,

Lol, you seem to be making things even more difficult for yourself. But I'll oblige and then seek to contextualize this for you us so that we can move on beyond this stage - I'm receiving indications that the Zammit case is being dragged on longer than necessary.

On the contrary, Randi owes much to his fawning crowd - for that his is boasted credential: a 'paranormal-debunker'. He has tried to "replicate" some of the claimed paranormal occurences or operations of some 'paranormalists'; why then is he shying away from this particular challenge? I don't think making excuses for him will do a nice pat on his back. He thinks he has the birthright to set at nought the pain-staking research of people well-versed in their fields; and yet when called upon (even publicly challenged), he has dawdled forever on this case.

What do you think Zammit is hiding from the public after publishing his findings in a book for the public to read? What do you think other scientists were doing when they rose to the challenge of participating in the séance sessions to see things for themselves? What names were included in Zammit's list? Here again -

          Senior scientists and investigators who participated in the Scole materialization experiments:

                  Professor David Fontana

                  Professor Arthur Ellison

                  Montague Keen

                  Dr Hans Schaer [a lawyer]

                  Dr Ernst Senkowski

                  Piers Eggett

                  Keith Mcquin Roberts

                  Dr Rupert Sheldrake

                  Professor Ivor Grattan-Guiness

                 - all with scientific or other relevant background and a host of other highly credible
                 witnesses who have had years of experience in dealing with the paranormal. In the
                 United States sessions were also attended by a number of scientists. There were a
                 number of senior scientists from the space agency NASA and others from the Institute
                 of Noetic Sciences . .[          ] near San Francisco as well as representatives from
                 Stanford University.

If people like James Randi are serious, would he claim that anyone prevented him from also attending the séance sessions as these respected names above? Is Randi a science institution all by himself that researchers owe anything to him for verification? The guy is cheap, drop him. It was specifically people like him I had in mind in references to 'dunce' (my apologies, as I don't mean this personally against you). Randi hasn't discharged himself credibly in Zammit's challenge - so who owes Randi any submissions?

And who might that be, precisely - James Randi? Puhleease! I'm not aware of any of the listed names above discrediting Zammit; and if they actually attended the sessions to see things for thmeselves, could other enquirers not do the same?

I'm sorry to say, but that is a huge minus on his part. He ought not to be deceiving the public as if he meant what he was stating in that challenge. This is even more reason why no one owes him anything and should roundly ignore him.

Don't kid yourself, huxley2. I'll take it for granted that you don't know James Randi. Could I remind you again of what I highlighted? here:
[list][/list]
Submit however one may, and comply with or act according to the instructions on his offer, he would still not respond credibly. Is that the sort of "scientist" who discharges himself as seeking to establish 'truth' free from bias?

Yes, people are doing that in one way or another - some for a fee that does not reap them net profits. However, let me quickly say here that such is not the raison d'être of my Christian worldview. We have a legitimate claim of the existence of supernatural entities such as ghosts, spirits, etc - and it is not just about this world that such knowledge could be useful. The bigger question is this: what is the implication for a naturalist who only discovers such a reality when it's too late? If we left this enquiry to the likes of James Randi et al, are we not flirting with a dangerous gamble?

Please consider these matters carefully, and much regards.

When you say these scientists "participated" in these seances, do you know what role they play?  Or were they just sitters.  I suspect they were just sitters and had no way of influencing or controlling the conduct of the seance.  I have just read a report of one of these seances here . The scientist present are not reported as influencing or control the event. On the contrary, if sounded as though some of their request were turned down.

It was a source of considerable anxiety and regret that we were unable to get them to accept the introduction of infrared video cameras at this stage. Page 169

If I was a scientist who was prevented from using my tools to investigate an event, I personally would not give it any endorsements

BTW,  I have been familiar with Randi for about 20 years and I had one of his books (Faith Healers), the one in which he investigates Christian Faith Healers.  I have sent it to my brother in Cameroon.  So, I am familiar with his work and I also subscribe to his channel on YouTube.


Now, what do you make about his claims that Uri Geller's suppose gifts were simply magic tricks?  Randi has been saying this for nearly 30 years, only for Geller himself to only recently admit it.  Did you ever think Geller had supernatural powers?

huxley2:

When you say these scientists "participated" in these seances, do you know what role they play? Or were they just sitters. I suspect they were just sitters and had no way of influencing or controlling the conduct of the seance. I have just read a report of one of these seances here . The scientist present are not reported as influencing or control the event. On the contrary, if sounded as though some of their request were turned down.

It was a source of considerable anxiety and regret that we were unable to get them to accept the introduction of infrared video cameras at this stage. Page 169

Please refer - Zammit addressed that same complaint in your repost from his website.

huxley2:

If I was a scientist who was prevented from using my tools to investigate an event, I personally would not give it any endorsements

I anticipated you and have already replied to this idea. This was summarised earlier under three simple outcomes:

● I don't see something - therefore that is "evidence" it does not exist

● Something does not turn out my way - therefore that is "evidence" it's not possible

● I reject the arguments of some people - therefore that is "evidence" for my disbelief

You're obviously making the same fallacious logicum type of argument, huxley2.

huxley2:

BTW, I have been familiar with Randi for about 20 years and I had one of his books (Faith Healers), the one in which he investigates Christian Faith Healers. I have sent it to my brother in Cameroon. So, I am familiar with his work and I also subscribe to his channel on YouTube.

Lol, good point - does it disprove Zammit? I take that probably as a side-kick to the 'diversionary' thingy. Sadly, won't work for James Randi - the guy's not a serious undertaker, I can guaranttee you that. Doesn't matter how long he's been on his 'trade', when publicly challenged he always dawdles - "always", without exception!

huxley2:

Now, what do you make about his claims that Uri Geller's suppose gifts were simply magic tricks? Randi has been saying this for nearly 30 years, only for Geller himself to only recently admit it. Did you ever think Geller had supernatural powers?

The Uri Geller vs James Randi issue is controversial. I already perused them at length, and some sources have it that Uri was led to make such retractions because he was into huge debts for lawsuits against Randi's false assertions against him. Yes, it was said in some of those lawsuits that "Randi's claim was technically false" [here].

I don't know either way; however, I had tried to scale Uri's claims under the 'Committee for Skeptical Inquiry' criteria. Since I had a lower score from my own perspective for him, I didn't think it wise to refer you or NL atheists to his research as a viable example in my discussions. However, from the same controversy report above, here's an entry on the Randi-Uri saga:

Randi once commented that Uri Geller's tricks are of the same quality as those Randi
read on the backs of cereal packets as a child. Geller sued both Randi and CSICOP.
CSICOP disavowed Randi, pleading that the organization was not responsible for Randi's
statements. The court agreed that including CSICOP was frivolous, and they were dropped
from the action. Geller was ordered to pay substantial damages to CSICOP. The order
specifically excluded Randi from receiving any of the damages. At this time, Randi and Geller
had both run up huge legal bills amounting to hundreds of thousands of U.S. dollars. In a
private meeting they achieved an out-of-court settlement , the details of which have been kept
private. This case was largely responsible for the mutual decision of Randi and CSICOP to part
company. [see here].

However, this Uri-Randi saga by no means should be transferred to affect Zammit's public challenge to James Randi. The latter doesn't not seem to have the plunk to throw words carelessly around at Victor Zammit (not only because he's a retired professional lawyer, but probably also for the fact that Randi knows he cannot face up to any credibility in such a challenge). Why do I think so? Let me post you two examples of such public challenges in my next post (I know of about 13 of such public challenges).

pilgrim.1:

Let me post you two examples of such public challenges in my next post (I know of about 13 of such public challenges).

[list]
[size=14pt]A LAWYER ON THE SKEPTICS[/size]
by Victor Zammit
Retired Lawyer of the Supreme Court of New South Wales,
and the High Court of Australia


WHY NOBODY CAN WIN THE SKEPTIC'S REWARD - A LAWYER'S PERSPECTIVE

It is my professional view that the existing offer by J. Randi (hereinafter called the offeror) is impossible to win. Underneath the facade of a legitimate offer no gifted psychic has a chance of being successful.

Also, I had complaints that applicants were given the run around when they tried to apply to meet the offeror's challenge. A reasonable conclusion is that the offeror has no intention of allowing legitimate applicants to meet the challenge - has no intention of parting with any monies he is allegedly offering.


A fraudulent offer?

If the complainants are genuine - and as far as I know they are willing to substantiate their complaint by way of an affidavit - then it is not unreasonable to say the skeptic's offer is a technically fraudulent offer.


Who Is Conning the American People?

Considering the offer has allegedly been made since 1987 it is most suspicious that the offerer boasts that nobody has passed the initial test. Evidence from many parts of the world shows that the evidence for the afterlife is abundant, proven, definitive and conclusive. Complaints about the skeptic's offer show that any requests for the challenge are met with reticence, hostility and refusal to co-operate by the offeror.

Conduct shows that there is something fundamentally wrong with the offeror's offer - can the offer be construed to be an attempt to fool the American people? Judge for yourself.

The offerer has unilaterally manipulated the proposed procedure to suit his own particular set of circumstances. It is only fair, equitable and reasonable that in any demonstration conditions be conducive for a psychic to perform without unnecessary encumbrances.

The reward has had a lot of propaganda value for skepticism and the offerer but it is not only difficult, it is utterly impossible to fulfil his prescribed most fundamental condition - successful demonstration of psychic phenomena.

From the psychic's perspective, the offerer physically exudes too much negativity which interferes with the psychic's powers. The offerer will cause the experimenter effect. He should not be physically present during the psychic demonstration. He of course could watch and conduct the proceedings through closed circuit television.


Minimal changes needed

For a realistic and practical challenge the following minimal conditions have to be observed:

the challenge be absolutely and unqualifiedly subject to the jurisdiction of the courts (some acceptable redrafting of the skeptic's offer would be essential).

the offerer's initial test (before the main psychic demonstration) be dispensed with in the case of accredited psychics.

that on successful completion of a psychic demonstration the monies be handed over to the psychic demonstrator forthwith ie, immediately after the applicant has fulfilled the fundamental condition of the challenge.

that the offerer not be anywhere where the psychic phenomenon is being demonstrated. This is because the offeror is technically an intruding negative extraneous variable and will inevitably make nugatory otherwise successful psychic tests - he exudes too much negativity for sensitives to operate properly. The offerer to appoint his agent acceptable to the applicant. He of course could watch and conduct the proceedings through closed circuit television.

that at the time of meeting the challenge the conduct of the agent be neutral - specifically, no gratuitous aggression, no hostility or any other socially unacceptable conduct that would be construed to be an intrusion to the testing. Aggression precipitates negative vibrations which interferes with optimum psychic activity.

that the challenger allows agents of the applicants to negotiate on behalf of the applicant at all times.

that any envisaged changes to any of the agreed procedures or conditions be given in advance with 21 days notice in writing.

that any experimentation be jointly controlled and agreement reached that there will be absolutely no interference whosoever during the performance of the psychic.

that written agreement as to what will constitute a successful demonstration of psychic phenomenon be made at least three weeks prior to any demonstration.
-- Victor Zammit (May 2001)


source: http://www.victorzammit.com/skeptics/reward.html

[/list]

pilgrim.1:

Let me post you two examples of such public challenges in my next post (I know of about 13 of such public challenges).

[list]

Montague Keen
Journalist, agricultural administrator, magazine editor and farmer. A member of the Council of the Society for Psychical Research for 55 years, chairman of its Image and Publicity Committee and secretary of its Survival Research Committee, he was principal investigator of the Scole Group of physical mediums, and author of the Scole Report, published in the Proceedings of the SPR (Vol 54 Pt 220) in 1999 with his co-investigators Professors Arthur Ellison and David Fontana.

[size=14pt]The Ultimate Psychic Challenge - A Challenge to James Randi[/size]


Unethical treatment

A PRELIMINARY comment on Mr. Randi's ethics - and those of Fulcrum TV's producers: When he practices as a stage illusionist, the audience know they are being entertained and deceived: they suspend their disbelief and enjoy the show. To pretend to be a genuine psychic, and to connive with the TV staff without the knowledge or consent of the victims to garner details about members of the audience, their friends and their sitting positions, with a view to misleading them - even though the ruse is later acknowledged - is to employ deception in what was claimed to be a serious programme about a very serious subject.


Three Randiesque escapes

I should first note that Mr. Randi may consider himself fortunate on at least three counts: (1) The edited version omitted his first futile but extended attempts at cold reading which was so unsuccessful that the embarrassed floor manager had to announce a technical fault and stop the show. (2) The editing omitted what was probably the single most impressive piece of evidence, told to me beforehand in the Green Room and later to the audience, of an anonymous and untraceable booking made by a grieving father for a private reading with Keith Charles, the medium, who described to him the detailed contents and design of a sealed letter that had been placed, unbeknown to the father, in the coffin of his daughter by her sister. When Mr Randi asserted what he has since reiterated on his website, that all such messages could be attributable to cold reading as evidenced in Ian Rowland's instruction book, it was lucky for him that no-one had an opportunity to challenge this insult to our credulity. Even with hot reading prior research at his disposal, a stage illusionist could not have struck oil this rich. Charles himself, exceptionally restrained, was shut up, doubtless because of the severe time overrun. Finally, (3), it was lucky for Mr. Randi that Charles was given no opportunity to say why the $1m challenge was both misleading and worthless, an omission I hope to remedy below.

I need hardly say that the excision of the very brief comment I was allowed to make, explaining that serious scientists had long been fully aware of the cold and hot reading techniques, and had safeguarded against them by single or double-blind or proxy sittings, constituted a serious breach of trust by the producers, as well as letting Mr. Randi off the hook. Some idea of the sort of evidence Mr. Randi escaped answering is contained in a letter [click here] to the Glasgow Herald from one of the principal experimenters in a major investigation into the authenticity of mediumship.



A fraudulent insult

The "very obese" and "unattractive" Mrs Veronica Keen. Photograph taken one day after the show.
(As an aside, and to illustrate Mr. Randi's dedication to objectivity, I must also provide a more accurate account of the incident to which he devotes so much spleen on his website: his encounter in the exit corridor with a "very obese, unattractive woman" and his reaction to her "direct affront, a rude insult and an uncalled-for accusation" who "stabbed her finger at me, her face red and contorted with hatred" who called him a fake and a fraud, to which he calmly retorted in his best Churchillian manner, "Madam, you are ugly, but I can reform."

I am sure this is how Mr. Randi would like to remember the episode, but since I was alongside the lady at the time, and observed what went on, as did Dr. Parker and Dr. Puhle who were immediately in front of me, I should say that she takes (USA) size 10 clothes at Macy's, which is way down the obesity scale, is regarded as attractive for her age, smiled at Mr. Randi and said quite politely but firmly, with no finger stabbing, and to his obvious astonishment, "Mr. Randi you're a fraud", whereupon he staggered back and stammered, "And you, you, you, you're ugly," to which the lady responded as he disappeared backwards through the double doors, "But at least I'm honest". There was no Churchillian suffix. The classic Churchillian riposte, by the way, occurred when Mrs Bessie Braddock, a Labour MP of vast dimensions, accused him of being drunk; to which Churchill responded, "Yes, Madam, and you're ugly, but I shall be sober in the morning." This sets the standard for Mr. Randi's dedication to factual reality.)


That $1million offer

Now for the more serious bit: first, the $1million prize. Loyd Auerbach, a leading USA psychologist and President of the Psychic Entertainers Association (some 80% of the members of his Association believe in the paranormal, according to Dr. Adrian Parker, who was on the programme, but given no opportunity to reveal this) exposed some of the deficiencies in this challenge in an article in Fate magazine.

Under Article 3, the applicant allows all his test data to be used by the Foundation in any way Mr. Randi may choose. That means that Mr. Randi can pick and chose the data at will and decide what to do with it and what verdict to pronounce on it. Under Article 7, the applicant surrenders all rights to legal action against the Foundation, or Mr. Randi, no matter what emotional, professional or financial injury he may consider he has sustained. Thus even if Mr. Randi comes to a conclusion different from that reached by his judges and publicly denounces the test, the applicant would have no redress. The Foundation and Mr. Randi own all the data. Mr. Randi can claim that the judges were fooled. The implicit accusation of fraud would leave the challenger devoid of remedy.

These rules, be it noted, are in stark contrast to Mr. Randi's frequent public assertions that he wanted demonstrable proof of psychic powers. First, his rules are confined to a single, live applicant. No matter how potent the published evidence, how incontestable the facts or rigorous the precautions against fraud, the number, qualifications or expertise of the witnesses and investigators, the duration, thoroughness and frequency of their tests or (where statistical evaluation is possible) the astronomical odds against a chance explanation: all must be ignored. Mr. Randi thrusts every case into the bin labelled 'anecdotal' (which means not written down), and thereby believes he may safely avoid any invitation to account for them.

Likewise, the production of a spanner bent by a force considerably in excess of the capacity of the strongest man, created at the request and in the presence of a group of mechanics gathered round a racing car at a pit stop by Mr. Randi's long-time enemy, Uri Geller, would run foul of the small print, which requires a certificate of a successful preliminary demonstration before troubling Mr. Randi himself. A pity, because scientists at Imperial College have tested the spanner, which its current possessor, the researcher and author Guy Lyon Playfair, not unnaturally regards as a permanent paranormal object, and there is a standing challenge to skeptics to explain its appearance.


The Randi/Schwartz episode

That these doubts about the genuineness of Mr. Randi's dedication to objective research are far from theoretical may be concluded from the efforts made by Professor Gary Schwartz of Arizona University in designing his multi-centre, double-blind procedure for testing mediums. Schwartz was not interested in the prize money: he merely sought to obtain Mr. Randi's approval for his protocol for testing mediums - and he duly modified it to met Mr. Randi's suggestions. Having falsely declared that the eminent parapsychologist Professor Stanley Krippner had agreed to serve on his referee panel, Mr. Randi ensured that the other judges would be his skeptical friends Drs Minsky, Sherman and Hyman, all well-known and dedicated opponents of anything allegedly paranormal.

As the ensuing Randi/Schwartz correspondence (which Mr. Randi declined to print on his website) makes clear, when the outcome of the experiment proved an overwhelming success, Mr. Randi subsequently confused a binary (yes/no) analysis with the statistical method required to score for accuracy each statement made by a medium, and falsely accused Dr Gary Schwartz and his colleagues of selecting only half the data for analysis. He then derided the publication of Professor Schwartz's findings in the Journal of the Society for Psychical Research, the world's oldest scientific peer-reviewed publication devoted to the paranormal, and in which Mr. Randi himself has published contributions. He criticised the fact that the Schwartz findings appeared in neither Nature nor Science, although he must have been aware of the long-standing refusal of these two leading scientific journals to publish anything touching on the paranormal. He then reported that one of the gifted mediums, John Edward, could have seen the sitter through a 2" curtain gap, regardless of the facts that the crack was about quarter of an inch, was subsequently sealed from ceiling to floor, and that readings were later done long distance. Mr. Randi declined an invitation to see all the raw footage for himself, while protesting that he would never [be allowed to] see it. Yet all the media representatives who visited the Arizona laboratory saw the raw footage, as did magicians and visiting scientists. Mr Randi specifically declined an invitation to be videoed viewing the data and commenting on it.

Equally, despite his confident assertions that cold reading can produce results as impressive as any from a platform medium, he declined an offer to prove it by comparing his performance with that of a genuine medium, surely a crucial test. Similarly, Mr. Randi accused the experimenters of "blatant data searching", i.e. remembering the hits and forgetting the misses. This was false, and could readily have been shown to be so. He thereafter publicly declined to read any of Professor Schwartz's emails, having confined himself to deriding the Professor for believing in the tooth fairy, making wild claims and being a "doctor who embraces bump-in-the-night theories without a trace of shame". Further, that he had been a colleague at Harvard of Dr John Mack, "the man who has never met anyone who hasn't been abducted by aliens", and similar abuse. This is the language and conduct of the gutter, not of an honest difference of opinion expressed in civilized and restrained terms about scientific issues.

Mr. Randi notoriously failed to fulfil his boast to be able to replicate Ted Serios' "thoughtography" tests (as described by his investigator, Dr Jule Eisenbud in The World of Ted Serios, Jonathan Cape, 1968) and has consistently ignored efforts by Mr. Maurice Grosse, the principal investigator of Britain's most famous recent poltergeist event, the Enfield Case[1], to examine the recorded visual and aural evidence to support a claim of paranormality and apparent veridical messages from a discarnate entity.

[1] See Guy Lyon Playfair's book This House is Haunted, Souvenir Press, 1980.

Worse still are the multiple errors of fact, admixed with derision, abuse and misrepresentation, which Mr. Randi makes in his book Flim-Flam (1980) about a number of distinguished scientists, notably Russell Targ, Harold Puthoff and Charles Tart and their roles in the remote viewing experiments with Ingo Swann and the clairvoyant claims of Uri Geller. That Randi's denunciations turned out to be mainly a tissue of lies is apparent from the penetrating account given by parapsychologist D. Scott Rogo in Psychic Breakthroughs Today[2], and devastatingly amplified in a recent website publication by Michael Prescott (http://michaelprescott.freeservers.com/FlimFlam.htm)

[2] Aquarian Press, 1987, pp.216-226.



[size=14pt]The challenge to Mr. Randi and friends[/size]

I am not applying for Mr. Randi's $1 million but only for some evidence that his challenge is genuine. I give underneath my comments on the television programme a list of some of the classical cases of paranormality with most or all of which Mr. Randi will be familiar. I know he will be because he has been studying the subject for half a century, he tells us. And just as I would not pretend to authority and expertise in conjuring unless I could perform some party tricks to bedazzle a troop of intelligent ten year olds, or apply for an assistant professorship in physics while admitting I had never heard of Boyle's Law or the Second Law of Thermodynamics, nor seek admission to the bar without first having some familiarity with the leading cases, so I would not imply that Mr. Randi is ignorant of these cases, many of which have long awaited the advent of a critic who could discover flaws in the paranormality claims. For me to suggest this would imply the grossest hypocrisy on Mr. Randi's part. But to refresh his memory, and help him along, and despite the refusal of some of his colleagues like Professor Kurtz, Professor Hyman and Dr. Susan Blackmore to meet the challenge, I list the requisite references. They are based on (although not identical to) a list of twenty cases suggestive of survival prepared by Professor Archie Roy and published some years ago in the SPR's magazine, The Paranormal Review as an invitation or challenge to skeptics to demonstrate how any of these cases could be explained by "normal" i.e. non-paranormal, means. Thus far there have been no takers. It is now Mr. Randi's chance to vindicate his claims.

___________________________________


[size=14pt]And here are the cases from which Mr. Randi may wish to select a handful to answer:[/size]

1. The Watseka Wonder, 1887. Stevens, E.W. 1887. The Watseka Wonder, Chicago; Religio-philosophical Publishing House, and Hodgson R., Religio-Philosophical Journal Dec. 20th, 1890, investigated by Dr. Hodgson.

2. Uttara Huddar and Sharada. Stevenson I. and Pasricha S, 1980. 'A preliminary report on an unusual case of the reincarnation type with Xenoglossy'. Journal of the American Society for Psychical Research 74, 331-348; and Akolkar V.V. 'Search for Sharada: Report of a case and its investigation'. Journal of the American Society for Psychical Research 86, 209-247.

3. Sumitra and Shiva-Tripathy. Stevenson I. and Pasricha S, and McLean-Rice, N 1989. 'A Case of the Possession Type in India with evidence of Paranormal Knowledge'. Journal of the Society for Scientific Exploration 3, 81-101.

4. Jasbir Lal Jat. Stevenson, I, 1974. Twenty Cases Suggestive of Reincarnation (2nd edition) Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia.

5. The Thompson/Gifford case. Hyslop, J.H. 1909. A Case of Veridical Hallucinations, Proceedings American Society for Psychical Research 3, 1-469.

6. Past-life regression. Tarazi, L. 1990. 'An Unusual Case of Hypnotic Regression with some Unexplained Contents'. Journal of the American Society for Psychical Research, 84, 309-344.

7. Cross-correspondence communications. Balfour J. (Countess of) 1958-60. 'The Palm Sunday Case: New Light On an Old Love Story'. Proceedings of the Society for Psychical Research, 52, 79-267.

8. Book and Newspaper Tests. Thomas, C.D. 1935. 'A Proxy Case extending over Eleven Sittings with Mrs Osborne Leonard'. Proceedings of the Society for Psychical Research 43, 439-519.

9. "Bim's" book-test. Lady Glenconnor. 1921. The Earthen Vessel, London, John Lane.

10. The Harry Stockbridge communicator. Gauld, A. 1966-72. 'A Series of Drop-in Communicators'. Proceedings of the Society for Psychical Research 55, 273-340.

11. The Bobby Newlove case. Thomas, C. D. 1935. 'A proxy case extending over Eleven Sittings with Mrs. Osborne Leonard'. Proceedings of the Society for Psychical Research 43, 439-519.

12. The Runki missing leg case. Haraldsson E. and Stevenson, I, 1975. 'A Communicator of the Drop-in Type in Iceland: the case of Runolfur Runolfsson'. Journal of the American Society for Psychical Research 69. 33-59.

13. The Beidermann drop-in case. Gauld, A. 1966-72. 'A Series of Drop-in Communicators'. Proceedings of the Society for Psychical Research 55, 273-340.

14. The death of Gudmundur Magnusson. Haraldsson E. and Stevenson, I, 1975. 'A Communicator of the Drop-in Type in Iceland: the case of Gudni Magnusson', Journal of the American Society for Psychical Research 69, 245-261.

15. Identification of deceased officer. Lodge, O. 1916. Raymond, or Life and Death. London. Methuen & Co. Ltd.

16. Mediumistic evidence of the Vandy death. Gay, K. 1957. 'The Case of Edgar Vandy', Journal of the Society for Psychical Research 39, 1-64; Mackenzie, A. 1971. 'An Edgar Vandy Proxy Sitting'. Journal of the Society for Psychical Research 46, 166-173; Keen, M. 2002. 'The case of Edgar Vandy: Defending the Evidence', Journal of the Society for Psychical Research 64.3 247-259; 'Letters', 2003, Journal of the Society for Psychical Research 67.3. 221-224.

17. Mrs Leonore Piper and the George "Pelham" communicator. Hodgson, R. 1897-8. 'A Further Record of Observations of Certain Phenomena of Trance'. Proceedings of the Society for Psychical Research, 13, 284-582.

18. Messages from "Mrs. Willett" to her sons. Cummins, G. 1965. Swan on a Black Sea. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.

19. Ghostly aeroplane phenomena. Fuller, J.G. 1981 The Airmen Who Would Not Die, Souvenir Press, London.

20. Intelligent responses via two mediums: the Lethe case. Piddington, J. G. 1910. 'Three incidents from the Sittings'. Proceedings of the Society for Psychical Research 24, 86-143; Lodge, O. 1911. 'Evidence of Classical Scholarship and of Cross-Correspondence in some New Automatic Writing'. Proceedings of the Society for Psychical Research 25, 129-142.



source: http://www.survivalafterdeath.org.uk/articles/keen/randi.htm
[/list]

Would you like the other 11 public challenges to James Randi et al? Would he be pretending that he has never seen ANY ONE of these? What has been his response (as some of us are not aware he has at any time attempted to credibly apply himself to face up to those challenges)? What is James Randi really dawdling about for?

@huxley2,
If I were you, I would not even try to shlepp on about Randi. I promised you the guy's not worth the publicity credited to him from his theatricals. I hope these few would help you come round to some objective appraisal.

Perhaps, after you've satisfied your curiosity, I'd have the happy occasion to move on to more engaging examples that atheists rarely talk about. Cheers.

__________________________

addendum:

Some of the researchers whose names appear above have already been mentioned in my early posts in this thread. Note the following:

[list]

Senior scientists and investigators who participated in the Scole materialization experiments:

Professor David Fontana

Professor Arthur Ellison

Montague Keen

Dr Hans Schaer [a lawyer]

Dr Ernst Senkowski

Piers Eggett

Keith Mcquin Roberts

Dr Rupert Sheldrake

Professor Ivor Grattan-Guiness

[/list]


[list]

1. Montague Keen

Journalist, agricultural administrator, magazine editor and farmer. A member of the Council of the Society for Psychical Research for 55 years, chairman of its Image and Publicity Committee and secretary of its Survival Research Committee, he was principal investigator of the Scole Group of physical mediums, and author of the Scole Report, published in the Proceedings of the SPR (Vol 54 Pt 220) in 1999 with his co-investigators Professors Arthur Ellison and David Fontana.

[/list]

[list]

2. Victor Zammit
Retired Lawyer of the Supreme Court of New South Wales,
and the High Court of Australia

[/list]


[list]

3. [img]http://tbn3.google.com/images?q=tbn:JL-jp_tlRa040M:http://www.cbc.ca/ideas/features/science/images/ep-9-sheldrake.jpg[/img] Dr. Rupert Sheldrake, Ph.D
Rupert Sheldrake is a biologist and author of more than 75 scientific papers and ten books. A former Research Fellow of the Royal Society, he studied natural sciences at Cambridge University, where he was a Scholar of Clare College, took a double first class honours degree and was awarded the University Botany Prize. He then studied philosophy at Harvard University, where he was a Frank Knox Fellow, before returning to Cambridge, where he took a Ph.D. in biochemistry. He was a Fellow of Clare College, Cambridge, where he carried out research on the development of plants and the ageing of cells. At Clare College he was also Director of Studies in biochemistry and cell biology.

source: http://www.sheldrake.org/About/biography/

[/list]

pilgrim.1:

Would you like the other 11 public challenges to James Randi et al? Would he be pretending that he has never seen ANY ONE of these? What has been his response (as some of us are not aware he has at any time attempted to credibly apply himself to face up to those challenges)? What is James Randi really dawdling about for?

@huxley2,
If I were you, I would not even try to shlepp on about Randi. I promised you the guy's not worth the publicity credited to him from his theatricals. I hope these few would help you come round to some objective appraisal.

Perhaps, after you've satisfied your curiosity, I'd have the happy occasion to move on to more engaging examples that atheists rarely talk about. Cheers.

You are getting me wrong again and we have discussed this before. I am not a disciple of anybody. I look at the material they produce and see if that matches some objective standards. So although I have tended to agree with the standard of Randi's test, if I find any evidence of inadequacy I would be the first to shout out.

I just cannot read the voluminous cut & paste job you are doing about Randi. If you could summarise tha salient points, all 13 of them and post links to the main text, then I shall take a look. Since you have read all of them, I would expect you to know the main points enough to post a concise summary of them all.

huxley2:

You are getting me wrong again and we have discussed this before. I am not a disciple of anybody. I look at the material they produce and see if that matches some objective standards. So although I have tended to agree with the standard of Randi's test, if I find any evidence of inadequacy I would be the first to shout out.

I just cannot read the voluminous cut & paste job you are doing about Randi. If you could summarise tha salient points, all 13 of them and post links to the main text, then I shall take a look. Since you have read all of them, I would expect you to know the main points enough to post a concise summary of them all.

I think I've made the point:

[list]

On the contrary, Randi owes much to his fawning crowd - for that his is boasted credential: a 'paranormal-debunker'. He has tried to "replicate" some of the claimed paranormal occurences or operations of some 'paranormalists'; why then is he shying away from this particular challenge? I don't think making excuses for him will do a nice pat on his back. He thinks he has the birthright to set at nought the pain-staking research of people well-versed in their fields; and yet when called upon (even publicly challenged), he has dawdled forever on this case.

[/list]

Reason why I cut-and-pasted those two examples is simply to flesh-up the case that James Randi's challenge is inconsequential. That's all. My response was to this point in yours:

[list]

Well, strictly speaking, the onus is NOT on Randi to replicate the results of Zammit & Thompson. There is an infinite number of ways in which Z&T are able to produce the result there get. To expect a challenger to pick the right one out of a sample space of infinity is unreasonable.

[/list]

The reason why I don't waste my time on Randi is simply that he has the uncanny flare to assume that all claims to the paranormal and supernatural are frauds. To this end, he set up a $1million prize challenge, but he's not objective enough to follow throw. Those who are keen to present such evidence are summarily dismissed (at least we know that's what happened between Dr. Rupert Sheldrake and Richard Dawkins). It is not as if these researchers have not tried to dialogue and present their findings to the skeptic "scientists" - it turns out that the skeptics are simply not serious about their claim to be objective and open to such evidence. That is the whole point that has brought us to this page.

I remember being impress by some of the research by Rubert Sheldrake about 16 years ago, when he was promoting the idea of morphic resonance.  From what I saw and have read about his methods, he was quite rigorous and that was why I was impressed. Although all the test came out not to favour his theory, the methodology seem scientific and excellent.  Of course, that does not mean that morphic resonance does not exist - it simply means that there is no evidence for it using current scientific tools.

Recently, about 3 years ago, another of Sheldrakes experiments was performed on UK TV (I think the BBC).  This time he theory was aimed at explaining how it is that some bird like pigeon could navigate vast distances, finding their way home from distant lands.  This hypothesis was that these birds navigate some sort of morphic field.  Again, he openly invited scientists to look at his methods and they were put to the test.  The experiments were not able to prove the existence of these field navigated by these birds.

Yet again, I have respect for his approach.  If only Z&T could be as open as RS.

huxley2:

Yet again, I have respect for his approach.  If only Z&T could be as open as RS.

I simply want to burst out laughing, Is it that you are just wishing Zammit and Thompson are not open? I wonder what you make of this:

However, David Thompson would take him on but not on the unilateral conditions set by Randi.

We would be confident to take the medium to anyplace – of your choice - where trapdoors – floors, walls and ceilings do not exist. That the room, floor, walls and ceilings are solid concrete with no windows and only one door which would be secured, sealed and guarded all the time by any independent party.

Do these sound like people who are not open? I wonder also that Dr. Rupert Sheldrake would be identifying with people who are having something to hide - for such unconventional attitudes are not in his books.

pilgrim.1:

I simply want to burst out laughing, Is it that you are just wishing Zammit and Thompson are not open? I wonder what you make of this:

Do these sound like people who are not open? I wonder also that Dr. Rupert Sheldrake would be identifying with people who are having something to hide - for such unconventional attitudes are not in his books.

Why would that make you laugh? When something appears fair and unbiased, I say it. What I saw in the RS experiments appeared open and objective. Alas for him, it did not prove his point, but it was scientific. Check this out on RS site http://www.sheldrake.org/experiments/pigeons/

Does openness entail putting restrictions on the types of equipements that may be allowed in the "test"?

huxley2:

Why would that make you laugh? When something appears fair and unbiased, I say it. What I saw in the RS experiments appeared open and objective. Alas for him, it did not prove his point, but it was scientific. Check this out on RS site http://www.sheldrake.org/experiments/pigeons/

I'm aware of Dr. Sheldrake's experiments - and I would have used them if they were germane to my discussions so far. I wonder that this is deviating from the specific examples I offered to now about whether one particular experiment from Sheldrake fills the cloud. The example I proffered is from Zimmat - can we focus on that and cut the distractions?

huxley2:

Does openness entail putting restrictions on the types of equipements that may be allowed in the "test"?

Possibly. If otherwise, could you please answer why Randi et al are not open to consider any such evidence unless on their own terms? Why so? Is that objectivity in enquiry?

pilgrim.1:

I'm aware of Dr. Sheldrake's experiments - and I would have used them if they were germane to my discussions so far. I wonder that this is deviating from the specific examples I offered to now about whether one particular experiment from Sheldrake fills the cloud. The example I proffered is from Zimmat - can we focus on that and cut the distractions?

Possibly. If otherwise, could you please answer why Randi et al are not open to consider any such evidence unless on their own terms? Why so? Is that objectivity in enquiry?

Well, from what I have seen of Z&T so far, am afraid, I am no longer interested as their methods are unscientiffic (ie putting restrictions on what tools could be used by investigators. That is simply not science). When they have opened up to unrestricted scrutiny, then we can talk.

As per you question about Randi, can you show me any elements of their conditions (and I mean material aspects to the test, not financial or contractual or personal) which you think are not objective, then I may be able to respond.

Remember, I look for methodology and not personalities.

huxley2:

Well, from what I have seen of Z&T so far, am afraid, I am no longer interested as their methods are unscientiffic (ie putting restrictions on what tools could be used by investigators. That is simply not science). When they have opened up to unrestricted scrutiny, then we can talk.

I would say you're not being objective, because you expect that if certain criteria do not assume your ideas, then it is not "science". That's not being objective. The 'restrictions' were for control measures - the very thing that scientific enquiry allows. If such restrictions and controls are unfair, the atheist who places such restrictions to open enquiry is also not doing science.

huxley2:

As per you question about Randi, can you show me any elements of their conditions (and I mean material aspects to the test, not financial or contractual or personal) which you think are not objective, then I may be able to respond.

What conditions did you assume about Randi before you thought anyone should submit to him? Quoting you: "I would submit myself to Randi for absolutely nothing" - on what criteria?

huxley2:

Remember, I look for methodology and not personalities.

I haven't swivelled the discussion on personalities, but rather kept it on its own merits.

pilgrim.1:

I would say you're not being objective, because you expect that if certain criteria do not assume your ideas, then it is not "science". That's not being objective. The 'restrictions' were for control measures - the very thing that scientific enquiry allows. If such restrictions and controls are unfair, the atheist who places such restrictions to open enquiry is also not doing science.

What conditions did you assume about Randi before you thought anyone should submit to him? Quoting you: "I would submit myself to Randi for absolutely nothing" - on what criteria?

I haven't swivelled the discussion on personalities, but rather kept it on its own merits.

Just ask yourself the question - why would Z&T put restriction on the type of equipment that could be used?  Science demands that all its process be fair, open and repeatable. Hiding some parts of the experiments to the scrutiny of observer does not smack of openness and objective.   Compare this with the methods of Sheldrake whose experiments (at least the ones I have seen and read about) are open for all to see.

What did you mean by the following statement.

pilgrim.1:

Possibly. If otherwise, could you please answer why Randi et al are not open to consider any such evidence unless on their own terms? Why so? Is that objectivity in enquiry?

I asked you what these terms are and you are unable to show them.  So how could we judge if the terms are fair or unfair?

PLEASE, PLEASE show me the terms.  How do you expect me to answer if you do not show me the terms.  You seem to be fixated on personalities rather than the method.  To assume the terms are unfair just because they are from Randi is called Personality Fixation or Personality Bias.  Let us look at the terms and let the terms speak for themselves. ( I suspect this is one of those things you are going to evade, as is your wont)

@huxley2,

huxley2:

Just ask yourself the question - why would Z&T put restriction on the type of equipment that could be used? Science demands that all its process be fair, open and repeatable. Hiding some parts of the experiments to the scrutiny of observer does not smack of openness and objective. Compare this with the methods of Sheldrake whose experiments (at least the ones I have seen and read about) are open for all to see.

This again is beginning to tend to the fallacious logic I highlighted earlier. The point first and foremost is to investigate at the preliminary level whether such entities as 'spirits' exist. One way they have approached that is within preliminary control and adequate precuations against fraud and sensory leakage. You talk about 'smack' this and that and keep sounding like you desperately rushed off to Zammit's website without even reading what you reposted from there! Zimmat has take the time to answer these kinds of questions, and you just keep harping on about some 'openness and objectivity' that you are not willing to find in atheist attitude to enquiry. Are the findings from Zimmat et al not "open for all to read"? The findings were "published in the Proceedings of the SPR (Vol 54 Pt 220) in 1999" - does that sound like it was locked up in a rabbit hutch? This circular unyielding logic you're assuming is wasting and weakning your arguments.

huxley2:

What did you mean by the following statement.

I meant precisely what I said: the very same critical approbation you demand from Z&T should no less be required of Randi et al.

huxley2:

I asked you what these terms are and you are unable to show them. So how could we judge if the terms are fair or unfair?

Okay, I hear. YOU show them and let's critique them for you. For once put your money where your mouth is.

huxley2:

PLEASE, PLEASE show me the terms. How do you expect me to answer if you do not show me the terms.

Did you not boast you were familiar with Randi for over 20 years (correct me if I'm wrong). Such familiarity is what I'd like to see demonstrated.

huxley2:

You seem to be fixated on personalities rather than the method. To assume the terms are unfair just because they are from Randi is called Personality Fixation or Personality Bias. Let us look at the terms and let the terms speak for themselves. ( I suspect this is one of those things you are going to evade, as is your wont)

I'm not fixated on personalities - at least you should not be hung up on Randi and co to the point of almostt slaving to submit yourself to him without first objectively critiquing his antics. I'm not evading anything - you have a penchant for this fallacious logic and you're not getting off on the cheap bus. I said seevral times that the moemnt you seek diversionary tactics, you will surprise yourself. Dress well.

Let me give you another example for the moment about other studies in this regard. They are not precisely the same things; but I want you to compare the sort of rubrics one encounters in typical atheist deductions (ala  Dr. Stanley Krippner) for what they won't objectively investigate, and the simplicity in method of an objective enquirer (ala Dr. Charles Tart).

These are basic enquiries that many people are seeking answers to:


        [flash=320,265]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v1RZRh8wbEI&hl=en&fs=1[/flash]

        Dr. Charles Tart, Prof. of Consciouness Studies,
        University of Nevada.
        Is there a consciousness that may survive the death of a person?
        Would his 'metholodogy' be credible?
        Would the criticism of skeptics like Dr. Stanley Krippner [at 3:19min]
        be intelligent and credible? Was it not rather far-fetched?

        _______________________________________________


        [flash=320,265]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pFv5UcxQ7Xs&hl=en&fs=1[/flash]

        Documentary about scientific and phenomenological evidence
        of the Afterlife, and that the personality does not die. (Part 1)
        Some have tried to explain these phenomena through some
        permutations of Quantum Mechanics - not to disprove or deny
        their existence of reality; but to find a way of putting these things
        in scientific language.



        Part 2 - 9 available online:

       
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WkdrW-JQnjI&NR=1

Have a look at what these mediums so:

In July 1960, the spiritualist world was rocked by an explosion that sent shock waves through every seance room in the country and shivers up every medium's spine.
It has become known as the Great Camp Chesterfield Expose. What happened was so crazy, so zany, that apart from a Peter Sellers movie it could only happen in the weird and wacky world of the psychic.
The sympathetic researchers, Tom O'Neill and Dr. Andrija Puharich, had tried to get the first motion pictures ever of the materialization of a spirit. O'Neill was a believer spiritualist, editor of the monthly newspaper Psychic Observer, and ordained minister of the Indiana Association of Spiritualists (the legal entity which owns and runs Chesterfield), and a close friend of Marble Riffle and other stalwarts at the camp. Puharich was a physician and psychical researcher whom O'Neil had recruited to give the project scientific credibility.
With the enthusiastic support of the Camp Chesterfield authorities, O'Neill and Puharich went into a dark seance room equipped with infrared lights and film (and a snooperscope, a device developed by the United States Army for making night vision possible on the battlefield) and shot the materialization of a ghost.


The researchers were not underhanded in the least (after all, they believed in psychic phenomena, especially O'Neill, and both Edith Stillwell and Mable Riffle were told exactly what the infrared film would do -- make any figures in the totally dark room stand out as clearly as in the light of day -- and were allowed to take a peek for themselves through the snooperscope. The should have alerted them, but unaccountably they went ahead with the project.)
The experiment was a disaster for the spiritualists. Peering through the snooperscope in the dark, Puharich saw that what were supposed to be spirit forms of shimmering ectoplasm materializing out of thin air, were actually figures wrapped in chiffon entering the seance room through a hidden door from and adjacent apartment.
The infrared motion picture confirmed Puharich's observations. There, etched unmistakably on the film, were the familiar faces of camp mediums, dressed up in gauze, impersonating departed spirits. Tom O'Neill, the devout spiritualist, was devasted by the revelations.

The Psychic Mafia, pages 39 and 40.

huxley2:

Have a look at what these mediums so:

In July 1960, the spiritualist world was rocked by an explosion that sent shock waves through every seance room in the country and shivers up every medium's spine.
It has become known as the Great Camp Chesterfield Expose. What happened was so crazy, so zany, that apart from a Peter Sellers movie it could only happen in the weird and wacky world of the psychic.
The sympathetic researchers, Tom O'Neill and Dr. Andrija Puharich, had tried to get the first motion pictures ever of the materialization of a spirit. O'Neill was a believer spiritualist, editor of the monthly newspaper Psychic Observer, and ordained minister of the Indiana Association of Spiritualists (the legal entity which owns and runs Chesterfield), and a close friend of Marble Riffle and other stalwarts at the camp. Puharich was a physician and psychical researcher whom O'Neil had recruited to give the project scientific credibility.
With the enthusiastic support of the Camp Chesterfield authorities, O'Neill and Puharich went into a dark seance room equipped with infrared lights and film (and a snooperscope, a device developed by the United States Army for making night vision possible on the battlefield) and shot the materialization of a ghost.


The researchers were not underhanded in the least (after all, they believed in psychic phenomena, especially O'Neill, and both Edith Stillwell and Mable Riffle were told exactly what the infrared film would do -- make any figures in the totally dark room stand out as clearly as in the light of day -- and were allowed to take a peek for themselves through the snooperscope. The should have alerted them, but unaccountably they went ahead with the project.)
The experiment was a disaster for the spiritualists. Peering through the snooperscope in the dark, Puharich saw that what were supposed to be spirit forms of shimmering ectoplasm materializing out of thin air, were actually figures wrapped in chiffon entering the seance room through a hidden door from and adjacent apartment.
The infrared motion picture confirmed Puharich's observations. There, etched unmistakably on the film, were the familiar faces of camp mediums, dressed up in gauze, impersonating departed spirits. Tom O'Neill, the devout spiritualist, was devasted by the revelations.

The Psychic Mafia, pages 39 and 40.

And your point is. . .? How does that discredit the open challenge that Zammit gave? I just posted you an incredible fantansy of the typical atheist/skeptic (Dr. Stanley Krippner) who went to great lengths to dream up just about anything just to preserve his naturalism. "She had a small torch, . . . blah-blah-blah" - and he called that a more plausible explanation - vacantly asserted like the typical armchair atheist. Dr. Charles Tart who at least followed some conventional simple testing methods was disfavoured - and yet none of the atheists or skeptics could fault his findings.

The logic behind posting excerpts from the Psychic Mafia is at best another attempt to dance away from the gist of the discussion here. When the New York lawyer brought up such kind of an objection, this was precisely what Zammit noted:

[list]

2. Are you aware that many magicians and their accomplices have confessed to putting on convincing performances like the one you described using nothing but trickery? http://www.prairieghosts.com/seance2.html

Victor: That website would be irrelevant and inadmissible because it states itself ‘TRICKS OF FRAUDULENT MEDIUMS.’ I am not involved with ‘tricks of fraudulent mediums’. There was never an empirically conducted materialization experiment where the mediums used tricks or fraud or deceit. The website given is a narrative, hearsay account of some of the séances and is inadmissible. The narrative, third party writer there does not identify just one specific materialization experiment, let alone just one séance conducted by a scientist.

The article [size=14pt]also concedes that whereas there have been many fraudulent séances, there must have been genuine séances as well[/size]. Relating to fraud, the writer of the same article concedes, “… [size=16pt]this was not the case with every medium[/size] …’ meaning that cheating and fraud did not happen with genuine mediums. My research is strictly empirical. I would be more interested if you cited an example where empiricists, who were able to perceive the paranormal with empirical equanimity, were in control and where they had a gifted materialization medium - and to see what the results were. That you conveniently chose not to report. (See end of article for relevant links on empirical materializations).

[/list]

What the Psychic Mafia does for you is beggar the discussion, not objectively appraise the research of every investigator.

I'll leave you to sort out the tangles in your concerns for now - hope to see some more substance in yours tomorrow. Do have a wunnaful evening.

pilgrim.1:

And your point is. . .? How does that discredit the open challenge that Zammit gave? I just posted you an incredible fantansy of the typical atheist/skeptic (Dr.  Stanley Krippner) who went to great lengths to dream up just about anything just to preserve his naturalism. "She had a small torch, . . . blah-blah-blah" - and he called that a more plausible explanation - vacantly asserted like the typical armchair atheist. Dr. Charles Tart who at least followed some conventional simple testing methods was disfavoured - and yet none of the atheists or skeptics could fault his findings.

The logic behind posting excerpts from the Psychic Mafia is at best another attempt to dance away from the gist of the discussion here. When the New York lawyer brought up such kind of an objection, this was precisely what Zammit noted:

[list][/list]

What the Psychic Mafia does for you is beggar the discussion, not objectively appraise the research of every investigator.

Absolutely NOT.  It shows what night-vison equipment can reveal.  These people were being fooled into believing that ghost were appearing in the room, when in actuality people were being let into the room from an adjacent room.  

Does this speak well for this particular medium?


Two things

1)  I still await the terms of the Randi tests.  Are we gonna ever get this,  my personality-obsessed debater?

2)  What claims and evidence did you video show?  Can you summerise their methods and results, please.

I'll answer this one quickly.

huxley2:

Absolutely NOT.  It shows what night-vison equipment can reveal.  These people were being fooled into believing that ghost were appearing in the room, when in actuality people were being let into the room from an adjacent room. 

Does this speak well for this particular medium?

Who's now operating on fallacious logicum?   I thought as much that sooner than later you'd be talking fantasy like Stanley Krippner!!

Huxley2, how do you know for certain that IN ACTUALITY people were being let into the room from an adjacent room? How do you know that for certain? This is the kind of logic that cheapens typical atheist skepticism - you ignore what has been stated, go round and round in circles . . . until you finally demonstrate the very same 10 points about typical atheist arguments, even after I'd simplified matters for you!

This is what you should have read about Zammit's adequate precuations against fraud and sensory leakage:

[list]

The critical importance of ectoplasm: ectoplasm, a whitish gaseous substance, can only function in total darkness and sometimes in low red light. When police raided the British materialization medium Helen Duncan 1956 in Nottingham, England (see chapter 11) and put the light on during a materialization experiment, the ectoplasm was quickly drawn back into the medium with great force, eventually killing her.

[/list]
[list]

3. Do you know that many magicians take great care to secure themselves to a chair (or in a locked trunk or something) specifically for the purpose of misdirection because their tricks do not depend on them being free?

Victor: Be that as it may, you are obviously implying that the medium has accomplices. I stated and will re-state, that it physically impossible for the genuine materialization mediums such as David Thompson to have had accomplices. With extreme care, I (and others) checked the security for fraud myself and guarantee, with absolute certainty, that it was physically impossible for accomplices to have participated in the materialization experiment.

[/list]

I wonder if you had taken the time to carefully examine these criteria before drawing vacant conclusions. Reading the above, what is the likelihood of a fraud and sensory leakage?

huxley2:

Two things

1)  I still await the terms of the Randi tests.  Are we gonna ever get this,  my personality-obsessed debater?

I'll tease you: since you're shifting responsibility after claiming to be familiar with him, please do us the favour and provide the test. I claim ignorance for the time being - you glory over me for now and cut the distractions. I'm eagerly waiting to set you and this Randi pride straight once for all.

huxley2:

2)  What claims and evidence did you video show?  Can you summerise their methods and results, please.

Did you watch it? Huxley2, if you keep wasting breathe with this antics, I seriously wonder about the atheism you pride yourself about. Did I note make any pointers right under the video? Haba!! What kind of childish antics are these? Here again:


         [flash=320,265]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v1RZRh8wbEI&hl=en&fs=1[/flash]

[size=14pt]
         Dr. Charles Tart, Prof. of Consciouness Studies,
         University of Nevada.
         Is there a consciousness that may survive
the death of a person?[/size]

         [size=16pt]Would his 'metholodogy' be credible?[/size]


         Would the criticism of skeptics like Dr. Stanley Krippner [at 3:19min]
         be intelligent and credible? Was it not rather far-fetched?         _______________________________________________

Are you ignoring these and desperately rushing to post reactive replies?    Lol, I still have the wonder that you seem to be running round in circles.    I'm still at awe that you'd draw this bias as above that "in actuality people were being let into the room from an adjacent room" - no research, no empirical cogency, nothing: just breezily asserted! Na wah O! Maybe I should add an 11th observation to my list:

     #11.  The 'Krippner' phantasma seems to be the atheist's last resort!

Ciao for now.

pilgrim.1:

I'll answer this one quickly.

Who's now operating on fallacious logicum?   I thought as much that sooner than later you'd be talking fantasy like Stanley Krippner!!

Huxley2, how do you know for certain that IN ACTUALITY people were being let into the room from an adjacent room? How do you know that for certain? This is the kind of logic that cheapens typical atheist skepticism - you ignore what has been stated, go round and round in circles . . . until you finally demonstrate the very same 10 points about typical atheist arguments, even after I'd simplified matters for you!

Funny, you ask this question. Let me turn it round to you.  How do you know for certain that the claims of Z&T are true and that the things they report really happened.  If you believe them, why should I not believe the others?

Lady, your thinking is so screwed and lopsided it is just not worth continuing?  You are obsessed with personalities, your methodology is wrong and there is really no point continuing until you sort out your methodology.

But wait a moment. . . why is it that it's only very few atheists that are in this thread, hmmmm? Apart from Tùdor, huxley2, William_C. . where are the 'typical atheists' on NL?


Just an observation though.

It is quite possible that they are put off by the excessive lengths of some of the posts.

OK, let me give you an idea.  Can you say natural or supernatural to each of the following according to what is commonly and standardly accepted ?

1)  An apple

2)  A rump of steak

3)  A ghost

4) A gorilla

5) crop circles

6) Angels

7) Jinn

8.)  Fairies

9)  UFO

10)  Light

11)  Stigmata

12)  ESP

13) Ectoplasm

14)  Thunder and lightening

15)  Mami water

You see Huxley, it seems that you are quite confused.  Pretty much everything that you've mentioned above it stuff.  When you talk about naturalism or supernaturalism are you talking about stuff or are you talking about PROCESSES.

Stuff is stuff.  It can undergo natural processes or it can undergo supernatural processes.  WAter is water.  If it runs down hill you might say that is natural.  If it runs uphill you might say that is un natural or supernatural. 

For example, Crop circles exist. That's a fact. The How they came to exist is what might rely on naturalistic or supernatural explanation.

That is why it is important to know what you are talking about when you talk about naturalism.  Are you referring to substances or processes? 

The terms are usually used to refer to processes and Causality.  So you have natural causes and you have supernatural causes. 

Is this what you mean when you talk about natural?  Is so then you will still have to define what makes a process natural as opposed to supernatural?  Perhaps by saying for example that Natural causes occur prior to an event in time.  That way we know that an event that occurs tomorrow cannot influence what happens today, if it did that would be supernatural.  That's just an hint.

Pastor AIO:

It is quite possible that they are put off by the excessive lengths of some of the posts.

That could be partly their own blame, for they cannot excuse the fact theirs are needlessly repetitious and lenghty.

Pastor AIO:

You see Huxley, it seems that you are quite confused. Pretty much everything that you've mentioned above it stuff. When you talk about naturalism or supernaturalism are you talking about stuff or are you talking about PROCESSES.

You must have read my mind!

Pastor AIO:

You see Huxley, it seems that you are quite confused.  Pretty much everything that you've mentioned above it stuff.  When you talk about naturalism or supernaturalism are you talking about stuff or are you talking about PROCESSES.

Stuff is stuff.  It can undergo natural processes or it can undergo supernatural processes.  WAter is water.  If it runs down hill you might say that is natural.  If it runs uphill you might say that is un natural or supernatural. 

For example, Crop circles exist.  That's a fact.  The How they came to exist is what might rely on naturalistic or supernatural explanation.

That is why it is important to know what you are talking about when you talk about naturalism.  Are you referring to substances or processes? 

The terms are usually used to refer to processes and Causality.  So you have natural causes and you have supernatural causes. 

Is this what you mean when you talk about natural?  Is so then you will still have to define what makes a process natural as opposed to supernatural?  Perhaps by saying for example that Natural causes occur prior to an event in time.  That way we know that an event that occurs tomorrow cannot influence what happens today, if it did that would be supernatural.  That's just an hint.

Like I said in the other thread, nature, in the commonsense view, is the stuff and processes that interact with stuff.  Stuff is matter, energy, time, experience, events(or process), and experience (or consciousness).  So far,, this is what WE know is nature, and using our senses we have consistently manipulated, interacted, harness, poked, this stuff of nature.

Now,, using the same sense, we have not being able to consistently and reliable to demonstrate that there is nonstuff outside this know field of stuff.  If we had been able to, then you would have two options;

1)  Bring that into the field of stuff

2)  Declare it non-stuff (or supernatural)

Now, that is my attempt at defining the natural.  Can I have you attempt of the natural and the supernatural to see if there is some common ground?

I'm going to answer your initial reply; but there's a need to clear up these few bits from yours:

huxley2:

So far,, this is what WE know is nature, and using our senses we have consistently manipulated, interacted, harness, poked, this stuff of nature.

1. What exactly do you mean by "our senses"?

huxley2:

Now,, using the same sense, we have not being able to consistently and reliable to demonstrate that there is nonstuff outside this know field of stuff.

2. How do you know that there is nonstuff outside your own known field of stuff?

pilgrim.1:

I'm going to answer your initial reply; but there's a need to clear up these few bits from yours:

1. What exactly do you mean by "our senses"?

2. How do you know that there is nonstuff outside your own known field of stuff?

Pilgrim, I don't know if your problem is with honesty or comprehension or both. Please, how could you ask question 2 above? Did my comment suggest that we knew that there was nonstuff? Look at it again;

Now,, using the same sense, we have not being able to consistently and reliable to demonstrate that there is nonstuff outside this know field of stuff.

What does this statement say?


PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE, Pastor, could you adjudicate on this? What do you understand by this statement and do you think Pilgrim's statement is a fair one. I am relying on your time-honoured sense of fairness here?

What qualities would 'non-stuff' have to distinguish it from stuff?  You're gonna have to do a lot better man.  you're just throwing words about without presenting a rigorous system.  

I'll help you out a bit again.  Would you say that stuff (natural stuff) would have to occupy space and time?  Ie would it have to be extended in Space and exist for a span of time?  Yes or no?  I just wanna help you define Nature.

huxley2:


PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE, Pastor, could you adjudicate on this? What do you understand by this statement and do you think Pilgrim's statement is a fair one. I am relying on your time-honoured sense of fairness here?

It is true that I am fair, . . . tall and handsome too, however I will leave you both to iron this out for yourselves as it leads away from my main bone of contention and I'd rather gnaw at that bone.

I need a definition of natural stuff. Otherwise how would you recognise the non natural when you saw it.

huxley2:

Pilgrim, I don't know if your problem is with honesty or comprehension or both. Please, how could you ask question 2 above? Did my comment suggest that we knew that there was nonstuff? Look at it again;

What does this statement say?


PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE, Pastor, could you adjudicate on this? What do you understand by this statement and do you think Pilgrim's statement is a fair one. I am relying on your time-honoured sense of fairness here?

Hey, I asked questions. If you didn't understand, you're welcome to ask for clarifications - it operates both ways. There's none of your questions that I haven't sought to answer - NONE. You keep turning around and making uninformed conclusions, and that's why I asked for clarifications. If question 2 is not to your understanding, fair enough. At least, that would leave the option open for question 1.