One of the essential difficulties in believers vs. sceptics confrontations is that each side has significantly different conceptions of what constitutes “evidence.” Thus, they will agree that evidence is indispensable but not on what counts as proof and what doesn’t. The believers tend to accept anything that appears to give support to their views, regardless how flimsy, tangential or ephemeral it might be, whereas the sceptic demands evidence up to a minimum scientific standard: repeatable, demonstrable and objectively assessable. Votes: +21

Yes I do agree that personal experience is powerful. It can be quite persuasive. Even the religious hold them up as evidence. As for embracing believers as fellow truth seekers, there may be a chasm--those who accept scientific ways of finding out what's real and what's plausible/probable and those who put an inordinate value on anecdotal evidence and who don't take probabilities into account.

In my own dealings with believers I've noticed that there is a rather poor awareness of which methods of knowing are productive and reliable. And so I have to a lot of time in my discussions trying to pass on what I myself had to learn--clear and critical thinking. It's not that these people are anti-science. Rather it's that they know science only as a collection of discoveries--merely the end results of a process. Revealing the innards of this process of thinking and analyzing and showing people how useful and rewarding it is in our everyday lives is I think the way to make believers develop the skeptical attitude. Votes: +8

The woo-meisters may well be 'backing off', as they can clearly see the rise of those willing to *robustly* counter, (if not entirely demolish), their pathetic superstitions with demonstrable, scientifically repeatable FACTS.

I like to see this as a result of the JREF actually having an impact, and being successful in the "E" part of the acronym: Education! Votes: +4

I was at D*Con this year, and wanted to attend SvsB. I heard it was a great show the past two years and was sad I had missed it. I'm glad I didn't miss anything, but still feel sad that it didn't occur.

I've been on both sides of the argument, (I was a believer for most of my early life, but now I'm a skeptic) but I feel that there's something more than just a threshold of evidence. I think that there is a biological component to belief. I don't have any solid evidence, but it seems to me that if a brain can be so dysfunctional that it tricks someone into seeing things, (visual and audible delusions) than it could also make someone believe in them, even without any concrete evidence.

Squid Votes: +3

Why not invite Dave Mabus to the next Dragon*Con to debate on the side of the believers? It should be entertaining and unsettling at the same time. Votes: +1

>Maybe Dave Is Available
>written by TDjazz, October 06, 2009
>Why not invite Dave Mabus to the next Dragon*Con to debate on the side of the believers? It should be entertaining and unsettling at the same time.

Or the Syfy ("Ghosthunters") Channel? Votes: +0

My conclusion is that it might be best for skeptics to embrace believers as fellow seekers of the truth, and rather than castigate them for poor science or premature credulity. We should exchange ideas on how best to explain phenomena, whatever it may be. If any of these things are real, we all want to know about it. And of course I lean to the side of incontrovertible evidence, I'm just suggesting that a softer approach might be more productive.

But all too often, the believers are not seekers of the truth. They are seekers of evidence and confirmation for an already established belief. They will ignore all evidence and explanations to the contrary. They stack the deck in their favor, cherry picking whatever supports their position and dismissing anything that does not. They are not interested in explanations other than the ones they already have, and are only interested in a one directional conversation about those explanations.

When dealing with true believers who are not thinking critically, and are not interested in a legitimate investigation of the issue/ phenomenon, the "softer" approach frequently gets you nowhere, and could often be thought of as accommodation.

Indeed the soft approach can often lead to a manufactoversy and lend credibility to the perception that there is legitimate debate on issues where there often isn't one. (Vaccines and autism, holocaust denial, homeopathy, etc) Votes: +17

True believers are going to believe in whatever they truly believe in until they don't. duh... Perhaps many will never get to the point that their beliefs don't make sense to them but maybe they'll get to a point where they'll STFU about it because they'll realize that they have no *real* proof. I've had difficult to explain experiences but most, if not all, have been explained (through education, through my wanting the truth)to my satisfaction. The truth *is* out there for many hard to explain phenomena. You simply need to want/need the truth and for many truth seekers it is a process. And as long as the faithful are apologizing to me for having to have faith, I'll forgive them. Votes: +0

Hi there!

I know that when I believed in Woo, I actually admired the efforts of Randi and other skeptics, because I used to believe that they were getting rid of all the fakes, frauds and phonies so that all of the REAL psychics could run their honest businesses. I believed that Woo was REAL, but that there was a lot of fakery out there. A lot of true believers are probably the same way. They believe that the truth is out there, and if the skeptics would just come out with them on an actual investigation, they'd be just as convinced! Even on Ghost Hunters, they claim to "de-bunk" certain things, so that they can get to the "actual ghosts". I think a lot of woo believers think of themselves as skeptics, just because they skew a hundred times more skeptical than Shirley McClaine or Madonna. They assume that it's those OTHER woo believers that are crazy. Votes: +6

I am what one would call a "believer" and am usually happy to discuss that. As a potential panel participant, the question that I would have, most naturally, would be "is anyone listening?" And, by listening, I don't mean necessarily agreeing.

The wise are those who speak not unless they obtain a hearing. Potential participants on the "believer" side of the panel might have assumed, correctly or incorrectly, that they would not actually get a hearing. Votes: +1

Jeff -

I don't know if you saw my comments on your earlier article on faith. Thanks for relenting a bit on the "bunker mentality" that I see so often on this site. The articles and, particularly, the fora, are often mostly self-congratulatory ("Isn't it great how much smarter we are than almost everyone else?"); there seems to be litte interest in actual debate between people with truly different ideas. (Note: I'm not for a moment suggesting that all ideas are equally vaild). At any rate, this is a very encouraging post for someone used to being loudly derided on this site. Votes: +4

...one could take a look at this funny debate which was on German television in 2007. It features German scientist Joachim Bublath, para"psychologist" Walter von Lucadou and Nina Hagen, who strongly believes in Aliens.
It is indeed interesting how she resists any arguments and forces Mr. Bublath to leave.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lOXcKcSQD9w

Sorry folks, it's German :-) Votes: +1

Steven Novella has a nice post today regarding the Shroud of Turin and how many people insist in believing in its authenticity despite all the overwhelming evidence to the contrary. There's really no honest debate or quest for truth there, just the facts vs ideological belief.

http://www.theness.com/neurologicablog/?p=1041 Votes: +3

Wasn't Obama's birth certificate wrapped in the shroud of Turin?

It's curious what people believe with no evidence at all, and what they believe despite voluminous evidence to the contrary.

Votes: +1

I just listened to the radio show you referenced and I see what prompted your article. It was one of the better/encouraging one of these types of "paranormal" shows that I've heard. Everyone was so reasonable. These are not typically the people that I end up in a debate with. Then again, I'm a psycho magnet so.... You and Alison did great and you two make me proud to be associated with the JREF. Paddle on my friends. :-) Votes: +0

Anyone who does a bit of research on the Internet will find the facts. Now all what is left of the believers are people who are deluded, people who do not do the proper research and the frauds. They all make poor debaters.

Slowly the followers will slowly cease to exist. However this will take generations. If you want examples look at history. People used to believe in blood letting, being left handed was wrong and witches. Not to mention many other things. Now those are no longer beliefs held by many educated people. Votes: +0

It's not the educated people I'm afraid of. Why debate when you can just shout down your opponent?

Not disagreeing, just being a cynical atheist type. Votes: +0

There are ways and means to deal with people who shout you down. Makes them look like **** (which they are). Votes: +0

Unfortunately not everyone can be a university graduate or the like, and researching on the net is in my view actually quite difficult unless you know how to evaluate research quite well - for every good debunking site there can be 5 woo sites which can look quite authoritative to the average person. In my view what we're seeing is more and more factionalisation of views, with people staying in 'their' part of the internet and a similar thing is playing out with debates and the like.

Votes: +5

Regarding the "Ghosthunters"... actually, they were panel participants about two years ago, according to what I've heard. It was a lively debate. Votes: +0

A continuum is a good way to describe the situation and I'm a little turned off by the overuse of the term "woo" to put down and trivialize the paranormal believers. Without years of education that I don't care to obtain at this time, my belief in quarks and gamma rays and germs and the Copernican solar system amount to little more than faith that somebody else has done the math and figured it all out. A few less years of education and it would be pretty easy for someone to convince me that they were doing science when they weren't. Votes: +2

I'm a believer in EVPs, not Franks' box, orb photos, psychic mediums, etc., so please don't over generalize so-called "believers." I, too scoff at people who claim to be performing paranormal investigations in the name of science, but in all actuality, recording and analyzing EVPs is a crude form of science, much like looking at a plant leaf through a toy microscope or dissecting an earthworm in middle school. I became a believer in EVPs by simply buying a quality digital voice recorder, going to an allegedly haunted place, controlled the environment and simply recorded a couple of 20 minute sessions, where I asked questions. I heard no responses at the time and made note of all noises (stomach growling, traffic, adjusting position in a chair, etc.) And I was able to capture voices, sometimes clear, other times, less clear, when I played the recordings through my speakers on my computer. Some of these voices I have had to apply mild to medium filtering (Adobe Audition) to try and remove the hiss of standard recorded room noise so I can make out what is being said. And these recorded voices at times answered questions not in choppy words or whispers, but in complete sentences. I also stand by what I find and the more I do it, the more questions it raises rather than solves.

I think it is unfair to jump to the conclusion that paranormal believers are cherry-picking what they believe or are so caught up in their superstitious belief system that they can't critically examine their own flimsy evidence. What a load of hooey. There are huge internal fights among paranormal believers as to what is acceptable as evidence. In fact, the field is very "wild, wild West." For instance, people are finally beginning to understand that "orbs" are a result of a defect in digital point and shoot cameras (ie. the flash is so close to the lens, that dust particles, moisture or flying insects can cause a soft, glowing sphere or streak in the picture. Ironically, it's the paranormal community that is doing most of the work to squash the "orb" belief, albeit, they created the belief in the first place. And controlled experimentation has been able to recreate the orb effect repeatedly, which is great at shooting down evidence, not supporting it.

I think EVPs would be fraud if everytime I asked a question, I got the same answer in the same way. If ghosts do exist, then theoretically ghosts would have human personality characteristics, if the longstanding belief that ghosts are the souls of someone who once lived are being the subject of an investigation. Try sitting another human in a chair and, without telling him you are conducting an experiment, ask the same mundane questions over and over again. At some point, you are likely to provoke emotional responses (anger, apathy, silence, combatativeness). So this notion of repeated results in a controlled environment is absurd on its face in proving the existence of paranormal EVPs.

I am Deist by nature and share many of Jefferson's views on religion. I probably would be an atheist altogether if not for EVPs, which comvinced me that there is more than meets the eye.

Rather than frame your opinions based on other people's untested opinions or the belief that when you repeatedly mix hydrogen and oxygen, you get water, I suggest you conduct your own experiments. Recording EVPS is perhaps the simplest way to test your theories as to whether something unknown exists out there and it is really the best way of forming an argument either for or against other people's belief system. Testing is what James Randi has done quite marvelously through the years and what gives his findings credibility.

You don't believe in ghosts or EVPs? I've read countless articles on EVPs being really radio signals and I would love to experiment with that theory by recording under a radio tower. I have also read and heard examples as to how filtering can turn sounds of moved clothing into false EVPs.

Based on my own experience and evidence. I am not ready to write the whole thing off as radio signals. And I try to be mindful of filtering, preferring less to more. Plus I always keep the original recordings unaltered to preserve the integrity.

So, go out and "dissect your own earthworms." Prove to me that EVPs don't exist or that they are 100% radio signals or a chemical reaction through repeated testing. Go ahead. Don't expect to find answers at paranormal convention panels or by intimidating people who are trying to present the best evidence they have. There is some pretty good evidence out there, enough to turn a non-religious person's head around in ways that the Bible could only dream of. Votes: +0

"Prove to me that EVPs don't exist "

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qWJTUAezxAI

Votes: +0

I watched the video and not only do I think Randi's argument suffers from philosophical semantics and overintellectualization about "not being able to prove a negative," he launches into funny, yet over simplistic examples, which ultimately leaves me with the impression that he defeated his own argument. I'm not challenging any skeptics to put their tea down and get up from their nice comfy chair to prove the existence of ghosts based on their own skeptical belief system. I'm talking about EVP, ie. electronc voice phenomena. Going out and trying to record them is not proving a negative because they can and are recorded every day, either on prurpose or accidentally. I would think a skeptical approach is the perfect one for investigating this phenomena, since skeptics will be looking for ways to throw out their own evidence. I got into recording EVPs because I was skeptical...and it changed my position.

Scientists have been trying to understand the recording of unexplained voices for years. Thomas Edison, not a scientist, wanted to build a machine to test this concept. Science can prove electronic voice phenomena exists, but cannot explain why it exists. Science isn't as negative toward the possibility of ghosts, or dimensions, or parallel universes, etc., like in the past. Too many cases leave them baffled and, if we are dealing with something with human characteristics, then you dealing with a side of humanity, which science and medicine struggles to understand.

I applaud scientists when they can solve a paranormal claim. There was a case of so-called ghost voices at a certain location that were recorded. Scientists were brought in and after many hours of experimentation, they were successfully able to recreate the sounds consistently. It did involve adjusting temperatures, measuring atmospheric conditions, etc. So, in this case, it was paranormal or supernatural.

Other cases, they have failed miserably, which leads to a theory of intelliegent hauntings Vs. residual hauntings.

Another interesting experiment in trying prove that ghosts are a figment of the mind was conducted in the 1970s. Check it out: http://paranormal.about.com/od...-ghost.htm

There is a science assigned to trying to come up with answers. There are people testing negatives (as Randi calls it)and you need this approach because if everybody sat on their hands and said, "Show me," nothing would ever get done and the "world is flat" mentality would continue to bask in its own self-righteousness.

Believers move the world forward--not always in the right direction, albeit, and that is why skeptics are needed. But to be too close-minded and smug is not a healthy approach to anything. My grandparents were skeptical of the Internet and could not be convinced otherwise because they were so sure they were right and that the Internet was full of garbage. Today, they still have no Internet and as a result, cannot keep in touch with family or see photos of their grandchildren as often as they would like to. They can't look up prescriptions, much less a recipe. Their source of news is almost exclusively Fox and a little CNN. As a result, they are horribly misinformed. There skepticism has hurt because they refused to alter their belief system or think outside of their box; instead, they rejected new ideas, fresh ideas because these ideas threatened them in some way or another, whether it be psychologically. ideologically or technologically. And they feel justified in their decision because the Internet does have a lot of garbage on it. So, they're argument is as correct as it is incorrect.

Votes: -1

I see this same mistake going on on message boards here. People are falling into the same trap of embracing a flawed ideology in order to defraud another. And they are not willing to think outside their boxes to even see how unrealistic their own arguments sound.

For Randi to say that you can't prove a negative, then proceed to expose psychics as frauds is hypocritical on its face--because he is attempting to prove a negative. Sure, I agree with him--I think Yuri Gellar and 99% of psychics are fakes or have faked information in the past. Yet Randi is saying that while psychics are fake, he cannot disprove psychic ability. So when Randi speaks out of both sides of his mouth, he runs the risk of sounding irrelevant.

You can take his argument about testing whether reindeer can fly and apply it as to whether people have brains. He can argue that he can look at a person, but cannot actually see their brain, because it is presumably located inside their head, hidden from view. He can argue that he can take a thousand people and put them through an X-Ray, which would present evidence of a brain, but it still wouldn't take away from the fact that he cannot literally see the brain while looking at them without the aid of a machine. He can argue that these 1000 people could be sliced open and, lo and behold, he can see a brain. He can argue that cognitive functions like speech and eye/body movements are circumstantial evidence that seems to confirm the existence of a brain. But then he would have to argue, by his own rationale applied to flying reindeer, that he cannot prove that all people are born with brains because of the size of the sampling, barometric readings of the experimental environment, etc., so he can only express a strong opinion that all people are likely to have brains. Because, you see, proving people have a brain would be, by his rationale, proving a negative.

See how ridiculous it all sounds after a while? It's over-intellectualized and ultimately irrelevant.

I do like him. He gives great food for thought and I love the experiments he has done on TV and on YouTube clips. The man does research and when he sees fit, he conducts experiments, which is more than I can say for most of his followers.

EVPs do not prove the existence of ghosts per se, but it does present circumstantial evidence pointing to that direction.

I was given the opportunity to have a private walkthrough of a reputed haunted location in downtown Los Angeles. The owner of the building said that one of the ghosts was a woman named "Helen," who died in a fire in the basement of the building. You can argue that this was planting a pre-conceived thought in my head.

As I walked through the basement, I carried a digital recorder. Without asking any questions other than making comments about the room. I captured a name spoken by no one present who said very clearly "Celeste." Furthermore, library research was unable to prove that there was no fire in that location.

The story of Helen is likely false. Did I catch a ghost voice? Likely so, but, as I point out--any information I gather usually raises more questions rather than gives answers. If there is a ghost, is the name "Celeste?" Who frikkin' knows without really deep research.

So, I find it absolutely ridiculous when I hear so-called skeptics saying EVPs, or the possibility of ghosts, doesn't exist because they've never seen one. Or hauntings are matters of auto-suggestion. Or that it doesn't exist because God doesn't exist. Likewise, I find it equally ridiculous hearing from so-called believers that all things supernatural are demonic in nature and by researching, you are opening up "portals' or to hell or other completely unfounded claims, probably pulled from a science fiction novel and poor interpretations of religious texts or Alistair Crowley.

My EVP is simply what it is--an unexplained voice that I did not hear as I walked through a room.

For people like me, looking for answers is an enjoyable journey. I make no bones about the fact that I am not a scientist, but I think technological advances have made it easier to collect information for scientists and non-scientists alike. You have to use common sense as to which devices you think will collect the purist data. And, guess what, the information gathered by these devises seems to support at least one belief (or superstition, if you will)that is almost as old as man itself: the existence of ghosts. And by the same token, the same technology has been used to permanently put to rest other superstitions that have also been handed down from century to century.

Votes: +0

"For Randi to say that you can't prove a negative, then proceed to expose psychics as frauds is hypocritical on its face--because he is attempting to prove a negative."

No. When Randi exposes frauds he is proving a positive, that they are frauds. He exposes the means and the tools that they use, or may use, to engage in fraud. More of your reasoning is a bit off kilter but I'll let you figure that out.

EVP, in many cases, is audio pareidolia.

http://www.ted.com/talks/michael_shermer_on_believing_strange_things.html

http://www.skepdic.com/pareidol.html

"You have to use common sense as to which devices you think will collect the purist data."

You ever use high end recording equipment in an extremely controlled environment? Perhaps used high end digital recording software (industry standard studio quality) along with 30 IPS high end analog tape recorders simultaneously and compare data? Votes: +0

EVPs can be easily misheard or misinterpreted. I'll go one up on you:
http://www.assap.org/newsite/a...unds.html

Assap is an excellent site for skeptics, because they are skeptical as well.

My point still remains, that speptics of the paranormal should try and record EVPs. It would not be proving a negative, but rather, a positive, because (like proving the existence of brains) it is possible to gather information.

BTW, analog tape is more prone to picking up radio signals, so I try and go with digital, which is almost impossible to pick up radio signals.

That being said, your suggestion is interesting and worth exploration. What I try to do is record on two digital recorders in different parts of the room.

But we have long debates on the definintion of a controlled environment, setting guidelines and primeters. Sometimes, you can have complete control, othertimes, you can't (freeway noise, etc.)

The point is--before you can write off something completely, despite countless unexplained evidence, I urge you to conduct experiments any way you feel is correct. "Stairway to Heaven" being played backwards is a poor example for dismissing EVPs and once again you are relying on someone else to form and influence your opinion rather seeing it for yourself. Intellectual pareidolia, if you will. Votes: +0

I don't answers to my questions regarding personal experience. You don't know me--you don't if all the facts I have given you are real, or whether they have been amplified or downplayed. I will say that they are more on the downplayed side but you have no way of proving that.

So one solution would be to attack my credibility. You can't do that in all honesty because you don't know me.

So the best answer would be-- I have no way of proving or disproving your personal experience. If what you say is true, and taking into consideration the information you are presenting as fact, it sounds as though what happened to you is unusual. But I have no way of ascertaing what you say to be true, so I cannot comment one way or the other because I have not experienced anything of that nature.

The wrong response would be -- it is probably easily explained. Since there is no proof of an afterlife or proof that ghosts exist, I cannot take what you say seriously. It's all superstition and its amazing how people fall for this kind of crap. When will people see the truth?

Get my drift? This all ties back to original thread. There are tons of skeptics within the paranormal community and many agree with skeptics who aren't, but there are almost no skeptics who will put their egos on the line to agree with paranormal investigators depite being given evidence to the contrary. Talk about cherry picking!


There is no set standard to paranormal research, so everything is "wild, wild west." The beauty of it all is that anyone can collect evidence and make their own informed opinion, if they choose. Another advantage is that ghost hunting has raised the awareness that certain phenomena, whether it be supernatural, preternatural, etc., needs more investigation by real scientists.

Hopefully, real standards can be put in place, once we can all start agreeing on a protocol. This would eliminate the charlatans or the quick to jump to conclusions because they see an orb (dust particle) in their photo.

There are a lot of good amateur researching going on and a lot of debunking by these amateurs. For instance, across America there are "Gravity Hills" which always seem to have the same storyline: a school bus filled with children crashes and the children die. Now, when you drive up the hill near the site where the accident happened, put your car in neutral, ghostly hands will push your vehicle up the hill to safety. Blah, blah, blah.

L.A. County has two of them. Austin, TX, has a similar story attached to a railroad track, etc. These stories are all over.

In every case that I've come across, the investigative results are the same. The surrounding terrain creates an optical illusion of an uphill incline, but when a vehicle is put in neutral at the chosen point, the vehicle actually travels downhill. And on top of all this, research suggests that there usually isn't a school bus crash at the given location.

So, there is a value to ghost hunting. And by debunking gravity hill stories by no means conclusively proves that there is no such thing as the paranormal in general. Just that location.

The paranormal people I associate with are skeptics like myself, but even we disagree on methods used. A couple of them are complete atheists. But all of us have found things we cannot easily explain and we all challenge ourselves to keep it honest.

My biggest complaint is that I have repeatedly asked skeptics who don't believe to come out on an investigation with me--to see for themselves. I want their feedback and suggestions. I want them operating the equipment and asking questions. I want them hearing the playback. I cannot get anyone to leave their comfort zone. I get this Barbara Bush "why should I bother my beautiful mind" type response, which further makes me think that the skeptics are becoming as "phony" as those they seek to defraud.

So, I think it is only fair that I be a little skeptical of the skeptics. I think it is healthy. Votes: +0

"but there are almost no skeptics who will put their egos on the line to agree with paranormal investigators depite being given evidence to the contrary."

Where is there credible evidence? You have some then apply for the million dollars and prove it.

Most "skeptics" realize that "researching" what is currently considered popular paranormal is probably a waste of time that could be spent doing something productive, at least, that's my way of thinking. You've credible evidence, you get a million bucks. http://www.randi.org/site/inde...ation.html Votes: +0

I am not talking about psychic ability. I stand right alongside Randi's belief on that subject. Unless I misunderstand the million dollar challenge.

Funny little aside. How I found out about James Randi was through a "psychic" Facebook friend, who charges for readings done by phone and FB. She apparently was in an email exchange with Mr. Randi and complained to all of her friends that he was not listening to her argument. She was calling for some kind of boycott, I guess. Anyway, I checked him out and found myself liking what he had to say regarding psychics. He convinced me. Plain and simple. But he didn't need to try that hard because I was already was of that opinion. He simply made it more understandable.

That's the folly of pursuasive argument--it really doesn't convert so much as it nudges people that are already forming, or have formed, a similar conclusion. Occasionally, it works at convincing someone from the other side, but not as often as anyone would like one way or the other.

And we all have better things to do, especially when it comes to protecting our intellectual comfort zone.

And if you've followed the thread, I've made plenty of confusing typos (lol) but I have tried to state that I am interested in EVPs, but that I cannot prove that it is paranormal beyond a shadow of doubt. I did, however, say that evidence of EVPs can be viewed as circumstantial evidence of the paranormal and based on my personal experiences, I believe it leans that way. Not always. And I don't agree with every EVP. I also cannot speak for all EVPs, some are convincing, others aren't. And I think I've tried to be balanced by inluding links to sites that are skeptical in nature or at least show the pitfalls of paranormal research.

EVPs need more study. It cannot be adequately compared to Led Zepellin's "Stairway to Heaven" being played backward, nor can it be written off as pareidolia if the voice is clear enough and needs no filtering whatsoever. And what if there is a human voice and it does say anything that can be understood? Can it still be considered pareidolia?


If you want me send an example(s), let me know. I've got plenty of EVPs and I don't catch them everytime I try. But I don't want a million dollars one way or the other. This isn't "The Magic Christian" and I'm not into contests or games. If you want to hear, let me know where and who to send them to.

Votes: -1

I also need to add that one of my earlier posts seems to be completely missing. I know it had to go before the moderator. I guess it did not pass for whatever reason. It wasn't angry or obscene. I won't repeat it again because I don't have time for this discussion anymore and I'm sure you are all tired of me by now--the gist was that I explained why I thought Mr. Randi's "proving a negative" was a flawed argument.

I gave another personal experience story and asked how a skeptic would interpret such events. These were mostly rhetorical questions. If you notice, one of my posts began with answers to questions and a big glaring typo which is sure to make you think: "what the heck is he rambling on about now?"

So apologies for any confusion. The omission of my post, intentional or not, must surely make me look worse than intended. Lol.

But someone has to take up for the believer here. It's too bad I'm also a fairly opinionated skeptic as well. Still, my offer is on.

Votes: -1

"I am not talking about psychic ability."

I don't think I mentioned psychic ability. ???
The MDC is for proof of supernatural existence, homeopathy, faith healing, ghosts, dowsing, any number of fantastic claims. You've got proof that EVP is from dead peeps, you qualify.

Personally, I've heard enough "EVP's". If you believe that you can prove that they're anything other than natural or what it currently considered natural phenomena, then I urge you to take the MDC. Other than that, thanks for the offer but unless you've some very serious scientific study going on, in which you should probably submit a paper for publishing, I've really heard enough.

"Proving a Negative
(The Objectivist Newsletter, April 1963) "Proving the non-existence of that for which no evidence of any kind exists. Proof, logic, reason, thinking, knowledge pertain to and deal only with that which exists. They cannot be applied to that which does not exist. Nothing can be relevant or applicable to the non-existent. The non-existent is nothing. A positive statement, based on facts that have been erroneously interpreted, can be refuted - by means of exposing the errors in the interpretation of the facts. Such refutation is the disproving of a positive, not the proving of a negative.... Rational demonstration is necessary to support even the claim that a thing is possible. It is a breach of logic to assert that that which has not been proven to be impossible is, therefore, possible. An absence does not constitute proof of anything. Nothing can be derived from nothing." If I say, "Anything is possible" I must admit the possibility that the statement I just made is false. (See Self Exclusion) Doubt must always be specific, and can only exist in contrast to things which cannot properly be doubted."
http://www.ozarkia.net/bill/anarchism/Fallacies.html#Proving a Negative

"But someone has to take up for the believer here."

What is it that you believe? Votes: +0

I wasn't planning on really responding further, but --

As for the Challenge, I will tell yet another personal experience to explain where I'm coming from and where I'm going.

When I was 14, I wanted to go to the carnival with a friend. Not having much money, my mother gave me $5 to last the whole night long. When I was dropped off at the carnival, the first thing that grabbed our attention was a carnival game. It looked easy. And the barker gave me his most sincere, honest line that I could win. With prizes hanging all around the stand, I naively tried throwing a ball thru a hoop. But the game was rigged and it took my entire $5, leaving me with absolutely nothing to do or buy for the next four hours.

Another memory pops into mind, I once had a college prof who taught sound design theory. We had a college textbook and we were given reading assignments. Then in class, he would criticize the text and say not to follow it and then proceeded to give his side of the argument, which we were told to follow instead.

He was boisterous and berated students often. One day, a student asked privately what I thought of the professor. Very tactfully, I described him as "intimidating." He overheard me and made a big lecture the next class period on how he had heard someone refer to him as intimidating and demanded examples to prove why he was intimdating, which the class, including me, listened to in silence. It was quite funny, in hindsight. He intimidated everyone to speak out as to why he was intimdating. I should have spoken up, but in hindsight, it wouldn't have made a difference.

My grade that year dropped from an A- to a C- and I failed the class. The only class in my entire lifetime that I ever failed. You know how he got me?

When I answered the questions with the information he provided in his lecture, I was marked incorrect because it conflicted with what was in the book. When I answered with the answer found in the book, I was marked incorrect because it differed with what he said in the lecture.

I took my test results and notes to the professor and tried to get answers as to why questions were marked wrong when clearly I was following what he told me to follow. He wouldn't bend and as I left the class, he said, "See you next year."

It was a lose-lose situation.

I was able to take my notes and textbook and I filed an appeal. In my appeal, I was able to prove to the Dean that the test, though inncocent on its face, was rigged. I overturned the grade, partly because others had also made similar complaints with proof.

That's how I see your so-called challenge. A rigged game. Don't need to psychic to see it or smell it.

Greed is not my motivation for what I do and how I think. I live comfortable enough by financial means attained from non-paranormal work. So I am insulted by the challenge with all that it promises, and with no intention of delivering. Just like I am insulted by the cynicism implied by the challenge. It sounds sleazy. That's my opinion and I dare you to prove me wrong--but wouldn't that be proving a negative?

And "using your reindeer can fly" story, if you were hypotheically to drop a 1000 reindeer off the Empire State Building and one of those reindeer actually did fly once, I bet you still would not change your mind--you would instead remodify your argument.

So, no, I don't find your argument about proving a negative sincere, logical or anything other than words formed together to make a sentence. It caves in on itself.

The bottom line--you can prove that reindeer can't fly just like you can prove there is no Santa Claus, Tooth Fairy, Easter Bunny, etc. It's preposterous to say otherwise and a bit of a red herring to conceal how close-minded skeptics, like you, Mr. Randi, really are. Yes, you can prove a negative. It's common sense that you can; all the pretty dialectical words can't change that.

Seriously, now that I've written the harsh, opinionated stuff, I want to praise you for your work in the field of exposing phonies for profit. That is your greatest accomplishment and your lasting one, too.

Sylvia Browne deserves to be placed under the microscope. I, personally, wish you would go after David Wells and Kenny Kingston, too. If you've ever read Kenny Kingston's psychic readings inside L.A.'s historic "Musso & Franks" you would have a field day. Apparently, there is dead star night there and Kingston still seems to be paling around with Clifton Webb.

But I don't want you to think you are doing this to help me--even if you would be clearing the air for real research to come through.

This is my last and final post. Wish me luck on my answers and I'll wish you luck on finding yours. Votes: -1

You never answered my question.

As far as the MDC goes, the challenger agrees to the protocol. If one does not like the protocol then one does not have to take the challenge. It's very clear that you are afraid that you could not prove whatever it is that you believe. Votes: +0

The all MBT sneakers we sold are a little that far away from our previous scheme. Maybe it is a failure of me, and also it maybe be a good experience which can help me to get the success.
MBT shoes sale is the most popular sport shoe in 2010, you can buy the MBT shoes by the lowest price and the quality is guaranteed on MBT shoes store, stylish, soft, improve postrue and so on.
In the 21st century, with the spread of the Internet, marketing way of MBT shoes store has changed greatly, but many companies still remain in the last century,
Votes: +0

A great timberland boots sale in the timberlandbootsale.co.uk. but if you want to buy a good pair, designed strong and comfortable shoes.
Hi body, welcome to join MBT shoes clearance! Various styles and sizes of shoes are waiting for you.
Welcome to our web - a MBT shoes clearance online shop. The Latest Barefoot Technology from Swiss Masai will take you exercise everywhere in your walking.
Votes: +0