Dbagdeluxe wrote:
Right, but one can cite reasons for indefinite suspension of belief.
I've never made an argument against neutral skepticism; my argument above concerned categorical claims of nonexistence.
Yahadreas never equivocated the two phenomena either.
Sure he did, and so did you, when you said:
On the other hand, one might posit one of many other possible explanations that, in general, necessarily establish the existence of psi, whatever psi may be.
Unless you're going to provide evidence of what non-fraudulent, non-psychological mediumship might entail, and compare that agains what psi might entail, then generalizing that they are the same, or that one requires the other, is unfounded.
We were talking about mediumship, not psi. His information regarding psi was not information about mediumship.
If one argues that mediumship involves non-physical interactions, then we can classify that position as aligned with the view that acknowledges psi phenomena.
As far as I know, nobody here was arguing that mediumship involves non-physical interactions. I certainly wasn't. You are yet again attempting to conflate psi with mediumship.
Most of us aren't psi researchers and do not have broad knowledge of the literature in that area. If you have evidence that psi do exist, please share.
Whether or not such evidence exists is not my point in this particular exchange; my point was that one cannot support such a universal, categorically negative assertion.
No, but it does sufficiently demonstrate that those who make claims to mediumship and psychic powers must show that their accomplishments are beyond what cold readers are capable of in order to rule out the possibility that they are just cold readers masquerading as people endowed with supernatural powers. People like Darren Brown have shown us just how much cold reading can accomplish.
What psi advocates or mediums would have to do, in order for there to be a scientific case for either, is to engage in rigorously controlled, repeated, wide-ranging scientific experimentation that set baselines and established clear criteria and an appropriate methodology.
Such evidence exists; whether or not one finds it convincing is up to them.
It is much more reasonable to explain mediumship with reference to these tricks than to paranormal activity.
Why is it "more reasonable", especially when you admit you don't have much knowledge about mediumship research?
The claim that the mind occupies an utterly non-physical psychic existence but somehow interacts with the physical world seems, on the face of it, to violate the conceptions of the physical provided by physicists.
Where did I make such a claim about the mind?
Nonetheless, that claim certainly is a much stronger claim than the claim that all psychics and mediums are just performing tricks.
By what means of evaluation have you concluded which is the "stronger" claim? Your personal view?
This of course does not show that the latter explanation is true and the former false, but it does establish a burden of proof for those who claim the that the former explanation is right - one which I don't believe has been met.
If one is going to claim that all such people are fraudulent, then they have their burden of proof to meet. Again, where did I make the claim that you are attributing to me?
I recognize that I am not very knowledgeable about the literature in the area of psi research generally, but nonetheless, my or anyone else's ignorance alone does not in any way imply justification for your assertion that your explanations are the best ones.
Where did I make such an assertion?
Just saying so-and-so says that mediumship is scientifically proven is not even slightly convincing considering that I can also say the same thing about very highly regarded scientists who argue that psychics and mediums are fraudulent.
It has been scientifically proven to many people for the past 150 years. As I said in a previous post: "Whether or not it has been "proven" depends on the individual who is assessing the evidence available."
You admit that you have little knowledge about any scientific literature and research into mediumship, yet here you are arguing against it. Why? Don't you think it is strange that you should argue against something you have little knowledge of? Don't you think it is strange that you consider it more likely that mediums are frauds than not, when you admit to not being informed of the pertinent research?
It seems like you are displaying an a priori bias against the idea that there is an afterlife.
If you want to make an assertion and be convincing, you must lay out your argument that your explanation is better than the alternatives. Until then, I will continue my indefinite disbelief in the existence of psi (non-physical mental substances or forces).
Well, for starters:
William Crooke's Research into mediumship., published in the Quarterly Journal of Science. Crookes was widely regarded as the greatest scientist of his time; his validation of spiritual mediumship cause and uproar in the scientific community.
A couple of his contemporaries said of his and other such research:
SIR WILLIAM BARRETT, (1844-1925) – Professor of physics at the Royal College of Science in Dublin for 37 years, “I’m absolutely convinced of the fact that those who once lived on earth can and do communicate with us. It is hardly possible to convey to the inexperienced an adequate idea of the strength and cumulative force of the evidence (for the afterlife).”
Dr. Alfred Russel Wallace (1823-1913) – Co-originator with Charles Darwin of the natural selection theory of evolution: " My position is that the phenomena of communicating with those who crossed over - in their entirety do not require further confirmation. They are proved quite as well as facts are proved in other sciences."
NDE research, published in the Lancet. An excerpt:
With lack of evidence for any other theories for NDE, the thus far assumed, but never proven, concept that consciousness and memories are localised in the brain should be discussed. How could a clear consciousness outside one’s body be experienced at the moment that the brain no longer functions during a period of clinical death with flat EEG?
Also, in cardiac arrest the EEG usually becomes flat in most cases within about 10 s from onset of syncope.29,30 Furthermore, blind people have described veridical perception during out-of-body experiences at the time of this xperience.31 NDE pushes at the limits of medical ideas about the range of human consciousness and the mind-brain relation.
Another theory holds that NDE might be a changing state of consciousness (transcendence), in which identity, cognition, and emotion function independently from the unconscious body, but retain the possibility of non-sensory perception. Research should be concentrated on the effort to explain scientifically the occurrence and content of NDE. Research should be focused on certain specific elements of NDE, such as out-of-body experiences and other verifiable aspects. Finally, the theory and background of transcendence should be included as a part of an explanatory framework for these experiences.
Veritas Project, mediumship research conducted by the Universtity of Arizona, which produced publications such as:
Beischel J, Schwartz GE. Anomalous information reception by research mediums demonstrated using a novel triple-blind protocol. EXPLORE: The Journal of Science & Healing. 2007;3(1):23-27.
and
Schwartz GER, Russek LGS, Nelson LA, Barentsen C. Accuracy and replicability of anomalous after-death communication across highly skilled mediums. Journal of the Society for Psychical Research. 2001;65(1):1-25.
Schwartz GE (with Simon WL). The Afterlife Experiments: Breakthrough Scientific Evidence of Life After Death. New York: Pocket Books (division of Simon and Schuster); 2002.
Abstracts of the 40th Parapsychology Foundation International Conference
“The Study of Mediumship: Interdisciplinary Perspectives”
The Scole Experiment
The Windbridge Institute, which has ongoing mediumship research, with many publications including "ANOMALOUS INFORMATION RECEPTION BY RESEARCH MEDIUMS DEMONSTRATED USING A NOVEL TRIPLE-BLIND PROTOCOL."
The point being, there is considerable evidence that an afterlife of some sort exists; there is no evidence (that I'm aware of) that an afterlife does not exist. There is no rational reason that I can think of, other than ideological bias, to believe that there is no afterlife.