Does paranormal exist?

SuperFrog

What's your point in both cases?

1) You are not using scientific reasoning here, at least not in any conventional manner. Reading a book written by a scientist and saying "I agree!" does not make you a scientifically-minded person. At most, it means you have faith in that institution. That's not research.

2) Someone in the JREF entourage has been involved in identity theft. James Randi possibly knew it all along. Not a convincing track record for an organisation which has the stated goal of exposing frauds. I'm not trusting someone if I have reasonable doubt that he could be deceiving me. This is reasonable doubt IMO.

Especially coming right after the Carlos story, which is all about how easy it is to deceive people...

Cathcart
1) You are not using scientific reasoning here, at least not in any conventional manner. Reading a book written by a scientist and saying "I agree!" does not make you a scientifically-minded person. At most, it means you have faith in that institution. That's not research.

So, 'research' in your opinion means I have to try it on my own. Strange, it appears all research papers I did in college were not scientific because I referenced different papers in them, without me reinventing wheel... Thank you for explaining what word 'research' means.

Merriam-Webster Dictionary

re·search

: careful study that is done to find and report new knowledge about something

: the activity of getting information about a subject

Cathcart
2) Someone in the JREF entourage has been involved in identity theft. James Randi possibly knew it all along. Not a convincing track record for an organisation which has the stated goal of exposing frauds. I'm not trusting someone if I have reasonable doubt that he could be deceiving me. This is reasonable doubt IMO.

Especially coming right after the Carlos story, which is all about how easy it is to deceive people...

I was quite surprised that he did not ask for all papers from Jose and validate his SSN with US immigration services. I am sure you do that for all your friends, co-workers and people you meet.

I have a friend who's origin are from Mexico, he is US citizen and thanks to IRS he found that someone in NY is using his SSN. He notified police, they said it is out of their jurisdiction - call police in NY. Police in NY said that they can't do anything, call feds. Feds said that it is up to local police... he was running in circles for couple of years until someone suggested to him to call local TV station. Thing got resolved over weekend.
Point of story is that there was someone in NY using his papers who otherwise look like legal alien, but it was illegal. There is no way to figure that out and even immigration services are having issues.

Sure, we can blame Randi and debunk him, as that makes sense...

Carlos experiment was done in 88, Jose was arrested in 2011, just 'after' Carlos as you suggested.

SuperFrog
So, 'research' in your opinion means I have to try it on my own. Strange, it appears all research papers I did in college were not scientific because I referenced different papers in them, without me reinventing wheel...

Depends. Did all the data in your papers come from your references, with zero testing from your part? If that's so, then I can't say you used the scientific method. Doesn't mean the content was unscientific, though. I don't see your point.

I still stand by what I said. If you can say with a straight face that it is of no importance to have first-hand experience of your subject matter, then I'd say you aren't being scientific about it.

However, it does fit with your second defintion of "research", so you got me there.

SuperFrog
I was quite surprised that he did not ask for all papers from Jose and validate his SSN with US immigration services. I am sure you do that for all your friends, co-workers and people you meet.

He lived with Randi for decades. Hard to buy that he knew nothing about his real identity the whole time, though I guess it's possible. Who knows?

SuperFrog
Sure, we can blame Randi and debunk him, as that makes sense...

Not debunk him, more like doubt him. His work with JREF rests mostly on his professional credibility. This organization is known for fighting fraud. And then comes this story of identity theft, which is a type of...well, you know, fraud. Kind of a large stain IMO. Of course, this relates to personal context and not to the activities of his foundation. Call it ad hominem if you want, that's ok. But to me, that's like seeing a patrol officer drunk driving after his shift is over. It doesn't necessarily mean he's incompetent at work, but it gives you matter for some serious doubt. That's just my opinion, though. Take it for what it is.

SuperFrog
Carlos experiment was done in 88, Jose was arrested in 2011, just 'after' Carlos as you suggested.

What I meant was that you brought up that issue right after talking about the Carlos story, as if it was some kind of funny tidbit and not an admission of crime. That's all.

Cathcart
Depends. Did all the data in your papers come from your references, with zero testing from your part? If that's so, then I can't say you used the scientific method. Doesn't mean the content was unscientific, though. I don't see your point.

Point is that research, as viewed in my previous post is exactly what you describe as not being scientific. You don't have to enter lab for a day, but you can still research data/findings of others in field.

Cathcart
I still stand by what I said. If you can say with a straight face that it is of no importance to have first-hand experience of your subject matter, then I'd say you aren't being scientific about it.

Exactly, there is no science in that field. So far I have not experienced anything apart from what Randi calls conjuring. Some of tricks even I could reproduce. (or did)

Cathcart
However, it does fit with your second defintion of "research", so you got me there.

That is not my definition - it is your as well - meaning of the word according to Mariam-Webster dictionary.

Cathcart
He lived with Randi for decades. Hard to buy that he knew nothing about his real identity the whole time, though I guess it's possible. Who knows?

There are secrets that people are scared to even think about... this imho should be one of them. Last thing if I was on his place would be to let others know, as more people knew, likely he would be caught.

Cathcart
Not debunk him, more like doubt him. His work with JREF rests mostly on his professional credibility. This organization is known for fighting fraud. And then comes this story of identity theft, which is a type of...well, you know, fraud. Kind of a large stain IMO. Of course, this relates to personal context and not to the activities of his foundation. Call it ad hominem if you want, that's ok. But to me, that's like seeing a patrol officer drunk driving after his shift is over. It doesn't necessarily mean he's incompetent at work, but it gives you matter for some serious doubt. That's just my opinion, though. Take it for what it is.

IMHO it goes well with what Randi is trying to show - everyone can be fooled.

Cathcart
What I meant was that you brought up that issue right after talking about the Carlos story, as if it was some kind of funny tidbit and not an admission of crime. That's all.

Sorry it sounded like that. It is irony that I tried to show, that even he was fooled.

SuperFrog
Point is that research, as viewed in my previous post is exactly what you describe as not being scientific. You don't have to enter lab for a day, but you can still research data/findings of others in field.

Yep, that kind of research is good for background study of a subject, but it is insufficient for scientific inquiry. You cannot confirm an hypothesis using only data from other experiments. You cannot skip the testing part. That would be absurd to say the least.

SuperFrog
Exactly, there is no science in that field. So far I have not experienced anything apart from what Randi calls conjuring. Some of tricks even I could reproduce. (or did)

That's precisely the viewpoint of mainstream scientists. They don't deem this subject worthy of scientific research, so of course they don't adress it that way. The few who do are largely viewed as crackpots.

SuperFrog
IMHO it goes well with what Randi is trying to show - everyone can be fooled.

If you believe he wasn't involved, that is. You do, I don't. Whatever floats your boat.

However, I worry that we might be derailing the thread a bit too much right now, so maybe we should just stop arguing and call it a day.

Cathcart
Yep, that kind of research is good for background study of a subject, but it is insufficient for scientific inquiry. You cannot confirm an hypothesis using only data from other experiments. You cannot skip the testing part. That would be absurd to say the least.

First of all, let's investigate word research. It also means the collecting of information about a particular subject.
So, to probably your big surprise, you can do research and manage data without spending a day in lab.

Cathcart
That's precisely the viewpoint of mainstream scientists. They don't deem this subject worthy of scientific research, so of course they don't adress it that way. The few who do are largely viewed as crackpots.

Thing is that those claiming paranormal are not much innovative. It is mainly the same technique used since 16th century. Even here, on this topic people personally affected by cold reading claim for it to be 'true' paranormal ability. They abuse people on emotional bases and make money by selling thin air... (now, that is a magic)

Cathcart
If you believe he wasn't involved, that is. You do, I don't. Whatever floats your boat.

However, I worry that we might be derailing the thread a bit too much right now, so maybe we should just stop arguing and call it a day.

So you think that Randi was conspirator before he even met Jose. Sure, it is possible, but if proven true he would be charged by now, wouldn't he?

As for topic, sure, as far as we can tell - paranormal does NOT exist.

SuperFrog
As for topic, sure, as far as we can tell - paranormal does NOT exist.

One last question, bear with me for a moment. If you already came to that conclusion, if you were set on the subject long ago, then why did you create this thread? What was the point?

This is the elephant in the room, and I thought it would be adressed at some point in the discussion, but nothing so far, so we might as well do it now.

reply to post by SuperFrog

So you think that Randi was conspirator before he even met Jose.

Yes.

Sure, it is possible,

Thanks.

but if proven true he would be charged by now, wouldn't he?

No. Because the MSM Science community is behind him to IGNORE the facts and studies already done and confirmatory.

As for topic, sure, as far as we can tell - paranormal does NOT exist.

Erm...mmmmmm

no.

Why have you not responded to my posts on suggested reading?

Head ----> sand?

reply to post by wildtimes

I have book on hold, it should be in my library right after holiday and in time for me to finish what I am reading atm. I will post more about it once I start reading.




reply to post by Cathcart

As I said, I am open minded, would love for paranormal 'powers' to exist, but so far there is no evidence for any.

So far couple of ATS-ers had some experience with cold reading, and that is about it...

reply to post by SuperFrog

I have book on hold, it should be in my library right after holiday and in time for me to finish what I am reading atm. I will post more about it once I start reading.

Oh!! Well, that's really cool to know! Of you!! I'm happy about it!

Okay, I'll look forward to hearing your responses (I'll put on my armour first, though )....
I'm onto his second book now....
come to think of it, I'm a few days behind in reading.

Talk to you soon!

Only the material universe exists. No such thing as the paranormal.

I view most paranormal reports skeptically. I had some very compelling experience growing up but a paranormal encounter can also have a lot in common with parasomnia...night terrors, hypnogagic hallucinations...the mind can do amazing things to a person. There are reasonable and far less exotic explanations out there. I think genuine experiences exist but its one in a million. One day maybe science could explain the paranormal, but that's a ways off. Scientifically-minded people who do entertain the idea of the paranormal (like Brian Josephson, a nobel prize winner, some of his ideas are here) they'll be called a quack right away! As for it being safe? I think nothing is safe in a psychologically unbalanced mind, whether its real or not.

wildtimes
Oh!! Well, that's really cool to know! Of you!! I'm happy about it!

Okay, I'll look forward to hearing your responses (I'll put on my armour first, though

)....
I'm onto his second book now....
come to think of it, I'm a few days behind in reading.

Talk to you soon!

Finally got book and enough time to read it.

First of all, let me tell you, reading it with open mind, but checking all facts from book as well, and so far I find it unimpressive.

Book starts with 'strange trials of Henry Slade', but not from his earlier incident where he was being caught in fraud in New York in 1872 *, but rather in 1876 after he moved to London and continued with his fraudulent activities. Even event from trial were not represented as it happened, but rather painted to show as science vs. paranormal. Not to mention that even Slate himself later in his life confessed that he was using tricks, which everyone at the time already knew **.

This brings me to Chris Carter who clearly can sell this book to someone who is not willing to do any investigation.

Can you please give me couple of reasons why should I continue reading? Is rest of book similar to its start, well put together to point that science and scientist have conspiracy against paranormal?!

* - The Case for and Against Psychical Belief - John E. Coover
** - A Magician Among the Spirits - Harry Hpudini

reply to post by SuperFrog


Keep reading it. The early part is to establish the dubious "Randi" crew - but then Carter gets into actual experiments and facts/results that are very compelling and substantiated by replicated efforts.

I'm glad you decided to look at it!

I'd say, for your own background knowledge - that even if you decide it's all bunk, it will still give you food for thought and perhaps help you to understand why those who allow for the possibility of paranormal are reasonable in doing so.

Thanks for getting back to me!!

Superfrog, I do believe you owe me. You weaseled out of watching this vid in another thread, when the pdf you tried to use against me actually helped my case. So here it is again.

wildtimes
reply to post by SuperFrog

 

Keep reading it. The early part is to establish the dubious "Randi" crew - but then Carter gets into actual experiments and facts/results that are very compelling and substantiated by replicated efforts.

I'm glad you decided to look at it!

I'd say, for your own background knowledge - that even if you decide it's all bunk, it will still give you food for thought and perhaps help you to understand why those who allow for the possibility of paranormal are reasonable in doing so.

Thanks for getting back to me!!

Wait,

books starts by falsifying facts to well known fraudulent medium and you telling me this is to establish the dubious 'Randi' crew?!

Carter starts book by laying and that does not bother you?!

Sorry, but no, there is no single good possibility of paranormal, and the way lies are put in the beginning, I really can't see how I am supposed trust those 'later experiments'. I will continue with reading, but so far, book is just not as good as I was hopping it would be. Not showing all evidence and avoiding mentions of Slade having issues in past, much before 'trial' that was mentioned just because those who got him in fraud were scientist, who by the way claimed that he had already pre-writen slate. Not very impressive.

reply to post by SuperFrog

Carter starts book by laying and that does not bother you?!

I don't think he's lying. What; did you just read one chapter?

You least you can do is read the entire book - if not all three - they build upon each other.

Why do you assume Randi isn't "lying"? Did you know Slade? Do you not realize how information is tweaked and suppressed when it challenges the "agenda" of those with power?

Randi is a charlatan. He is a fraud. Keep reading.

BlueMule
Superfrog, I do believe you owe me. You weaseled out of watching this vid in another thread, when the pdf you tried to use against me actually helped my case. So here it is again.

BlueMule,

What are you talking about? What PDF helped your case, or for that matter, case of Michael Persinger and his God Helmet?

Don't be funny, I have already told you that I watched that video. Can you specify why do you persist to ask me to do something I have already said I did? I really don't get what got you impressed in that video.

reply to post by SuperFrog


www.abovetopsecret.com...

I just went over our exchange again, and nowhere do I see you saying you have watched this vid. If you say you have, please show me where.

If you've watched it, then prove it. Give us an overview.

I do see you beginning to ignore me and talk to Gard instead, after pointing out to you how the pdf you posted helps my case.

wildtimes
reply to post by SuperFrog

 

Carter starts book by laying and that does not bother you?!

I don't think he's lying. What; did you just read one chapter?

You least you can do is read the entire book - if not all three - they build upon each other.

Why do you assume Randi isn't "lying"? Did you know Slade? Do you not realize how information is tweaked and suppressed when it challenges the "agenda" of those with power?

Randi is a charlatan. He is a fraud. Keep reading.

Just as I said, I started with book, but it fails to show correctly its first case. I posted 2 links that completly show that Carter did not do good job at showing everything about Slade, who was well known fraud.

Randi has nothing to do with this, and from reading your last post, either you or Carter knew Slade very well, to believe he was not magician, where even he later confessed to use magic tricks.

This case is not going well, is it?

At the moment reading about 'new quantum controversy', today more parapsychologist seems to be interested in quantum mechanics than real theoretical physicist.