Message #3356

[Martin]

Oh I thought that you wanted to actually see what was being studied regarding supernatural events...
...Your prediction as far as I understand was to do with me 'presenting a website' and you 'predicting that I wont' - when actually I did. I gave you what I understood you were looking for.

No I wanted to see stuff studied under scientific conditions, that means with verified controls and proper peer review,  I wanted to see repeatable evidence that could be taken by any laboratory and verified.  But it isn't there.  Please don't suggest that this is not what I've been asking for!  My prediction was proved correct. You gave it your best shot and it wasn't up to scratch.

Firstly Martin - its not for me (or my 'case') that you would be visiting a spiritualist church - it would be for your own benefit.

No it wouldn't be! Why should I go somewhere where controlled conditions are not possible to verify something that could only be proved by controlled conditions? What would convince me is if  such things were studied, peer reviewed and repeated, by people who are properly critical of the techniques used. 
 

Secondly - what do you mean by 'set up'? It is just a church environment. The people that go to a spiritualist church - there are a mixture of them....

'Just a church environment' can cover a multitude of meanings. I'm sure those who claim their fillings are turned to gold and those who claim their legs are lengthened could refer to their churches as 'just a church environment'.  But here's my point again - just in case you missed it.  If it is somewhere where supernatural events are supposed to happen and there are no controls in place, then it is worthless as evidence for the supernatural.  I could go and watch Paul Daniels, I probably wouldn't be able to explain any of his tricks, but it would not convince me that he can do magic.  If someone is going to present a 'phenomenon' then such a presentation is worthless unless they are prepared to submit to scientifically controlled conditions.  Nobody can be certain that it isn't a trick because nobody can properly examine it.

The people who go to your church may be very nice people.  I don't doubt that they are kind and considerate. But, because they are presenting supposed 'phenomena', and attempting to convince others, those claims need to be examined, and a church environment is not the place to do that.  Until they subject their claims to impartial analysis by qualified people, those claims are only as good as claims that a teapot orbits between Mars and Jupiter - completely unverifiable. Oh yes, you may get people coming to your church who are  initially sceptical and leave convinced, and that is undoubtedly why you want to encourage others to come, but no amount of people, convinced in uncontrolled demonstrations, is of any consequence to the facts. If Paul Daniels didn't say his 'phenomena' were  tricks, he'd be able to convince people they were supernatural too.
Even if I were to come to your church and I became convinced, it would only show that I was exercisising poor judgement.  The only way those claims ought to be taken as convincing is if they are repeated by people with the qualifications to properly and critically examine them like any other phenomenon.

This is what you don't seem to be getting, Jan.  You are pretending that these 'phenomena' conclusively exist, but whenever they are properly studied they are shown to be unreproducible.  The Windbridge institute that you pretend is a scientific institute, publishes its material in it's own journals, not in scientific journals.  The creationists do the same, they can't actually produce material that will stand up to scrutiny, so they publish their own journals to give their lies the semblance of authenticity!  Those journals are there in order to avoid critical analysis, not to encourage it!

being at a spiritualist church is nothing like what is shown on TV of evangelical rallies - but then how would you know - you haven't been - not even once!

I wasn't commenting on the style of presentation - they may be entirely different, what I'm commenting on is the nature of the claims - they are quite comparable.

Martin - I have to be open minded, to actually keep an open mind about not being sure about something when that is the case.

You have shown and admitted that you are not open minded.  If you were, you would admit the possibility that you are mistaken, and, given the evidence against your beliefs, you would want to investigate under more controlled conditions. QED.

ah I see you don't like it when someone gives you a taste of your own medicine

I have never told you not to post.  I wouldn't want to, because your posts just prove my points.