Message #3357

[Jan]

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.

keep your hair on now Martin - you should have been clearer in what you were asking for - and no you didn't predict correctly at all. If you truly want personal evidence/validation I think you would go and get it. As it stands I don't believe you do.

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. 

no Martin - I don't believe you would be convinced. I have given you links and told you to go and do some investigating yourself, but it would seem that is too much trouble.
 

'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.

well as you are unfamiliar with what goes on in a spiritualist church you would not know.

When you are given incredible and accurate information from a medium who does not know you yet he comes out with information about your life, your loved ones in spirit, names, places, events, shared memories, little details too - and all you can say is 'wow'  - that is 100% better evidence than any online video can offer!

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.

you seem to be rather obsessed with a teapot orbiting between Mars and Jupiter - and yes I have given you a website with impartial analysis by qualified people - have you looked at it properly yet. My guess is no you haven't!

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.

would he really?

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.

I don't think you live near me but if you did you would be welcome to tag along. How would you know if you were or were not exercising poor judgement if you didn't go to check it out? Simple - you would not. No experience so all you can do is assume.

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!

http://www.windbridge.org/publications.htm

send them an email with your concerns - and let me know what they say won't you? Their email addy is on their site.

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.

have I? really?

and what is the 'evidence' against my beliefs please?

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

I think you know that I was giving you a taste of your own medicine (your rudeness). Why would my posts prove your point? For someone who is supposed to be scientific you do have quite an imagination with all the assuming going on in your head.

All I have tried to do is show you that there is much out there, but you don't really have any intention of digging further (apart from burying your own head a little further in the sand with each post you make!). I think you would rather have a dig at me instead eh Martin - you seem to delight in that, but it is water off a ducks back to me as I have seen it all before. Not to worry. Like I said - if you go and investigate further with an open mind it would really be of benefit to you (not me - I have already investigated - properly).

There was a video clip I was trying to find which I had received in an email newsletter. I think it is in one of these but I can't be 100% certain as it could have been shared on a facebook group.

http://www.victorzammit.com/archives/index.html

The clip did show an experiment done with a number of mediums who had to each give a reading to a person behind a screen. The mediums were 'wired up' to monitoring equipment whilst the experiment took place. If I manage to find the clip I will share it as it probably comes under the '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'
title. I say probably because for you Martin - I do have my doubts on whether or not you would accept it as such.  I would probably be wasting my time and energy!

And again we have a thread that was meant for sharing information derailed by Martin. Are you happy now Martin?