An internet oasis of open discussion without personal attacks
ignoranceizbliss wrote:Actually you can talk to the dead.
Hobo wrote:ignoranceizbliss wrote:Actually you can talk to the dead.
Why, of course you can talk to the dead! But they just won't respond to you. How could they...? They're are dead. Just like you can talk to a wooden chair...but "it" won't respond.
Meleagar wrote:Scientific research has demonstrated for 150 years that we can talk to the dead.
Yahadreas wrote:Meleagar wrote:Scientific research has demonstrated for 150 years that we can talk to the dead.
I'm pretty certain that reliable scientific research has demonstrated that mediumship is fraudulent and that mediums use a combination of cold reading and clever tricks.
Yahadreas wrote:Druckman, D. and Swets, J. A. eds. (1988). Enhancing Human Performance: Issues, Theories and Techniques. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C.. ISBN 0-309-07465-7
"Nothing approaching a scientific literature supports the claims for psychometric weaponry, psychic metal bending, out-of-body experiences, and other potential applications supported by many proponents."
(Not focused on mediumship specifically but addresses the issue of psychic powers in general).
Moulton ST, Kosslyn SM (January 2008). "Using neuroimaging to resolve the psi debate". Journal of cognitive neuroscience 20 (1): 182–92. doi:10.1162/jocn.2008.20.1.182. PMID 18095790.
"Abstract Parapsychology is the scientific investigation of apparently paranormal mental phenomena (such as telepathy, i.e., "mind reading"), also known as psi. Despite widespread public belief in such phenomena and over 75 years of experimentation, there is no compelling evidence that psi exists. In the present study, functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) was used in an effort to document the existence of psi. If psi exists, it occurs in the brain, and hence, assessing the brain directly should be more sensitive than using indirect behavioral methods (as have been used previously). To increase sensitivity, this experiment was designed to produce positive results if telepathy, clairvoyance (i.e., direct sensing of remote events), or precognition (i.e., knowing future events) exist. Moreover, the study included biologically or emotionally related participants (e.g., twins) and emotional stimuli in an effort to maximize experimental conditions that are purportedly conducive to psi. In spite of these characteristics of the study, psi stimuli and non-psi stimuli evoked indistinguishable neuronal responses-although differences in stimulus arousal values of the same stimuli had the expected effects on patterns of brain activation. These findings are the strongest evidence yet obtained against the existence of paranormal mental phenomena."
Cordón, Luis A. (2005). Popular psychology: an encyclopedia. Westport, Conn: Greenwood Press. ISBN 0-313-32457-3.
books(dot)google(dot)co(dot)uk/books?id=Uy1gmwcAgg4C&printsec=frontcover&dq =Popular+psychology:+an+encyclopedia&source=bl&ots=XAgUvkk9XZ&sig=2JKqWxcFe lEONmIaj-3-9l1b1V8&hl=en&ei=mJYgTM_zN5aI0wTx07XqDw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=r esult&resnum=9&ved=0CDUQ6AEwCA#v=onepage&q&f=falseThe essential problem is that a large portion of the scientific community, including most research psychologists, regards parapsychology as a pseudoscience, due largely to its failure to move beyond null results in the way science usually does. Ordinarily, when experimental evidence fails repeatedly to support a hypothesis, that hypothesis is abandoned. Within parapsychology, however, more than a century of experimentation has failed even to conclusively demonstrate the mere existence of paranormal phenomenon, yet parapsychologists continue to pursue that elusive goal.
Hansen, George P.; Utts, Jessica; Markwick, Betty (1992-06). "Critique Of The Pear Remote-viewing Experiments". Journal of Parapsychology 56 (2): 97–113
"The PEAR remote-viewing experiments depart from commonly accepted criteria for formal research in science. In fact, they are undoubtedly some of the poorest quality ESP experiments published in many years. The defects provide plausible alternative explanations. There do not appear to be any methods available for proper statistical evaluation of these experiments because of the way in which they were conducted."
(Critique of the PEAR remote-viewing experiments which supported the hypothesis of parapsychological phenomena).
Oh, and do you have any evidence to support your claim that "scientific research has demonstrated for 150 years that we can talk to the dead."?
After all, the burden of proof is on you. I don't have to prove a negative.
Yahadreas wrote:If I were to make the positive claim that "unicorns(/dragons/fairies) do not exist", how am I supposed to prove this to be the case? All I can do is point to the lack of evidence which supports the claims that they exist. How can I prove that the American Government are not really alien lizards in disguise?. All I can do is point to the lack of evidence which supports the claims that they are.
It does not follow from me not being able to prove that unicorns do not exist that I ought to simply dispense with a belief either way; a lack of evidence in favour is sufficient evidence against.
Not being able to find evidence to support the existence of unicorns is rational grounds for a belief in their non-existence. Simple as.
Although the articles I provided do not deal specifically with mediumship, they do deal with the extra-sensory faculties which mediums, psychics, clairvoyants, etc. claim to have.
There has been no reliable evidence in favour of "psi", as it is called.
If it had been reliably shown that an afterlife exists -- that mediums can talk to departed souls -- then there would be as much challenge to mediumship as there is to evolution, i.e. very little.
It is only because it is impossible to prove a negative that there is still believe in the afterlife (and Yahweh, and Allah, and witchcraft). If positives were proven, as is the case with gravity, the orbit of the Earth, and evolution, then a belief in mediumship (and the lizard-alien politicians) would be the common view.
The fact that Derren Brown, for example, can emulate mediums and psychics using cold reading and clever techniques shows that the same results achieved by claimed mediums and psychics can be explained by cold reading and clever techniques.
It is much more reasonable to explain mediumship with reference to these tricks than to paranormal activity.
Only if they can achieve impossible results can we resort to impossible explanations.
Users browsing this forum: BelieveNothing and 5 guests