[Glenn.]

No one can prove the existence of an afterlife, just likewise, no one can prove there isn't one. It's up to the individual's beliefs.

Originally Posted by Shasown

Intersting, you can put up links to "back up" your claims, but you get hacked off and try to belittle mewhen I put up links to rip your claims apart? If you want to sit in the corner with your fingers in your ears chanting I am right and you are wrong because I cant hear you, thats fine with me.

Angered? Not angered or angry old chap, merely pointing out the fact you used the Institutes challenge that mediums are obvious frauds because none have passed a non scientific challenge instigated by a publicity hungry showman.



No its not, its like Randi insisting any person undertaking the challenege has to undergo one sided media interviews, sign over all rights to the tests and results, oh and accept the fact that Randi's institute can change the test requirements any time they feel the challenger is getting close to beating the challenge.

As for psychics etc might be beneficial for you to read up on the definitions mediums and psychics used to define themselves.

I haven't put up any link to back up my claim. My opinions are the claims that I made. I think I've posted 2 links in this thread, one was, as I explained, the result of googling a medium that I knew nothing about, the other, was to emphasise the point that these fraudsters are happy to take money from vulnerable people, but don't want (does Dr. Evil impression) 1 million dollars for doing the same thing.

Lets take Randi out of it for a second, those academics questioning the prize would still be able to win a nobel prize. A prize that isn't run by a skeptic, but is perhaps the highest known accolade. They would win the prize for making discoveries unknown to science.

I have no idea why you think you've ripped my claims apart. Have your own opinion by all means, but you can't have your own facts. You've done no such thing, and here's why; it's not my responsibility to prove that fraudsters have special magical powers to communicate with humans whose brain and body are dead and decomposing. In the words of Carl Sagan - "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."

It's up to these people to put their claims to the test. The default position for any rational person should be "the supernatural is unproven".

You also need to explain why people who know they are not psychics/mediums (like Derren Brown), can perform exactly the same routines, and using the same techniques, that these people with supernatural abilities use.

If people trained in cold reading can pass themselves off as communicating with the dead, perhaps it's not the watertight discipline you make out.

Originally Posted by Glenn

No one can prove the existence of an afterlife, just likewise, no one can prove there isn't one. It's up to the individual's beliefs.

You can't prove a negative, it's the sole responsibility of people who postulate the existence of an afterlife to prove it exists.

If I say I'm playing cards with a leprechaun and a goblin, in my flat, it's not your responsibility to prove me wrong, it's mine, to prove that it's true.

You may not agree with this post, but it's the truth.

[Livia]

Or... we could just accept that other people's beliefs, however ridiculous someone else may find them, are their own affair. However, "mediums" making money from the sad and the heartbroken are not included in those described in the first sentence.

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by Jesus.H.Christ

You can't prove a negative, it's the sole responsibility of people who postulate the existence of an afterlife to prove it exists.

If I say I'm playing cards with a leprechaun and a goblin, in my flat, it's not your responsibility to prove me wrong, it's mine, to prove that it's true.

You may not agree with this post, but it's the truth.

But there is one big, fat problem with all this. Among professional logicians, guess how many think that you can’t prove a negative? That’s right: zero. Yes, you can prove a negative, and it’s easy, too. For one thing, a real, actual law of logic is a negative, namely the law of non-contradiction. This law states that that a proposition cannot be both true and not true. Nothing is both true and false. Furthermore, you can prove this law. It can be formally derived from the empty set using provably valid rules of inference. (I’ll spare you the boring details). One of the laws of logic is a provable negative. Wait... this means we’ve just proven that it is not the case that one of the laws of logic is that you can’t prove a negative. So we’ve proven yet another negative! In fact, ‘you can’t prove a negative’ is a negative  so if you could prove it true, it wouldn’t be true! Uh-oh.

http://departments.bloomu.edu/philos...eanegative.pdf

[Glenn.]

Answer me this Jesus(that's a sentence I never thought I would ask)

Taking Sally Morgan as example, why she was able to ask a complete stranger about a wardrobe, to be told that's where the urn, containing the remains of the person that gave her the image?

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by Glenn

Answer me this Jesus(that's a sentence I never thought I would ask)

Taking Sally Morgan as example, why she was able to ask a complete stranger about a wardrobe, to be told that's where the urn, containing the remains of the person that gave her the image?

Very interesting interview about what goes on in these shows of hers...

Youtube video

And just for a laugh...

Youtube video

Youtube video

"What with her toe stuck?"

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by 08marsh

But there is one big, fat problem with all this. Among profes- sional logicians, guess how many think that you can’t prove a negative? That’s right: zero. Yes, you can prove a negative, and it’s easy, too. For one thing, a real, actual law of logic is a negative, namely the law of non-contradiction. This law states that that a proposition cannot be both true and not true. Nothing is both true and false. Furthermore, you can prove this law. It can be formally derived from the empty set using provably valid rules of inference. (I’ll spare you the boring details). One of the laws of logic is a provable negative. Wait... this means we’ve just proven that it is not the case that one of the laws of logic is that you can’t prove a negative. So we’ve proven yet another negative! In fact, ‘you can’t prove a negative’ is a negative  so if you could prove it true, it wouldn’t be true! Uh-oh.

My head hurts....

[bbfan1991]

I do not believe in ghosts, never have done.

Originally Posted by 08marsh

But there is one big, fat problem with all this. Among profes- sional logicians, guess how many think that you can’t prove a negative? That’s right: zero. Yes, you can prove a negative, and it’s easy, too. For one thing, a real, actual law of logic is a negative, namely the law of non-contradiction. This law states that that a proposition cannot be both true and not true. Nothing is both true and false. Furthermore, you can prove this law. It can be formally derived from the empty set using provably valid rules of inference. (I’ll spare you the boring details). One of the laws of logic is a provable negative. Wait... this means we’ve just proven that it is not the case that one of the laws of logic is that you can’t prove a negative. So we’ve proven yet another negative! In fact, ‘you can’t prove a negative’ is a negative  so if you could prove it true, it wouldn’t be true! Uh-oh.

Thank you for the link. I will have a read of it properly, although after skimming it, I saw some linguistic tricks and at least one fallacy, but I'll read the whole thing before commenting fully.



But just to highlight a glaring hole in his argument:



1. If unicorns had existed, then there is evidence in the fossil record.
2. There is no evidence of unicorns in the fossil record.
3. Therefore, unicorns never existed.



Not every animal that has existed we have evidence for, yet we know about their existence due to the fact that they are intermediary species, and through biology. Also, I'm fairly sure that there are, as of yet undiscovered fossils of animals that have existed in the past. Does the fact we are yet to find them, mean that they didn't exist? Of course not.


Finally, when people say " you can't either prove or disprove....." they are generally about to make a claim that is outrageous, such as heaven/religion/magic etc, so it's one thing attempting to use fossil evidence to disprove unicorns, but it's another thing entirely to make claims that can't be tested, and then say it's a draw.

[Glenn.]

The allegations in that radio interview doesn't make an sense whatsoever. It wouldn't be possible to to get personal information from someone in the audience, then convey the information on stage.

Is ridiculus

[Glenn.]

Jesus you haven't answered my question.

Originally Posted by Glenn

Answer me this Jesus(that's a sentence I never thought I would ask)

Taking Sally Morgan as example, why she was able to ask a complete stranger about a wardrobe, to be told that's where the urn, containing the remains of the person that gave her the image?

Because they know what they are doing. I've seen Derren Brown pick out an audience member, and then tell her that her mom had a thing for "hats" and was known as "the hat woman". The woman broke down as these things were completely true. Now how could he have known that about a stranger?

[Glenn.]

So it was common knowledge that the woman had her dead husbands remains in the wardrobe? And it was something that good old Sally jus happened to be from the conversation?

Your completely ridiculus.

Youtube video

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by Glenn

The allegations in that radio interview doesn't make an sense whatsoever. It wouldn't be possible to to get personal information from someone in the audience, then convey the information on stage.

Is ridiculus

Not ridiculous. Many of Sally Morgan's shows have "pods" where people are asked to share their stories of what they hope to get from Sally, or fill out a card with their information on.

Also members of the crew stand around the foyer before the show starts where you are more likely to overhear all kinds of conversations the audience have before entering the show. I suggest you listen to the entire discussion.

A window open where she can hear someone in the projection room saying exactly what Sally says on the stage mere seconds before she does. Certainly not a coincidence.

Derren Brown has done many shows where he's predicted things or read people's minds to get information he couldn't have known. Yet he's openly admitted he's not a psychic and it's all a trick.

Originally Posted by Glenn

So it was common knowledge that the woman had her dead husbands remains in the wardrobe? And it was something that good old Sally jus happened to be from the conversation?

Your completely ridiculus.

You've completely misinterpreted what I said there. I don't know how she did it. Maybe the medium did her research, but people without these powers can also achieve the same results

Youtube video

Watch this from about 35 minutes in.

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by Jesus.H.Christ

Thank you for the link. I will have a read of it properly, although after skimming it, I saw some linguistic tricks and at least one fallacy, but I'll read the whole thing before commenting fully.



But just to highlight a glaring hole in his argument:



1. If unicorns had existed, then there is evidence in the fossil record.
2. There is no evidence of unicorns in the fossil record.
3. Therefore, unicorns never existed.



Not every animal that has existed we have evidence for, yet we know about their existence due to the fact that they are intermediary species, and through biology. Also, I'm fairly sure that there are, as of yet undiscovered fossils of animals that have existed in the past. Does the fact we are yet to find them, mean that they didn't exist? Of course not.


Finally, when people say " you can't either prove or disprove....." they are generally about to make a claim that is outrageous, such as heaven/religion/magic etc, so it's one thing attempting to use fossil evidence to disprove unicorns, but it's another thing entirely to make claims that can't be tested, and then say it's a draw.

But making a broad statement "You can't prove a negative" is incorrect.

Originally Posted by 08marsh

But making a broad statement "You can't prove a negative" is incorrect.

Not as far as I'm aware. You've produced one piece of evidence that I picked holes in immediately. It just means I need to research more. At the moment, I'm happy with the previous statement I made, if that turns out to be wrong, I'll have no problem looking at my words. That's how science works. It updates and improves. It should never be seen as a weakness when you change your mind on something.

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by Jesus.H.Christ

Not as far as I'm aware. You've produced one piece of evidence that I picked holes in immediately. It just means I need to research more. At the moment, I'm happy with the previous statement I made, if that turns out to be wrong, I'll have no problem looking at my words. That's how science works. It updates and improves. It should never be seen as a weakness when you change your mind on something.

I'm not saying your particular example is wrong. I'm saying that it's not always the case. Many negatives have been proven, "You can't prove a negative" is, by definition, a negative.

Originally Posted by 08marsh

I'm not saying your particular example is wrong. I'm saying that it's not always the case. Many negatives have been proven, "You can't prove a negative" is, by definition, a negative.

Whether it boils down to my example or a broader explanation, I'm not changing my opinion on the statement "you can't prove a negative" on the basis of that link you gave me. I will look into it further before I change my mind to being able to prove a negative.

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by Jesus.H.Christ

Whether it boils down to my example or a broader explanation, I'm not changing my opinion on the statement "you can't prove a negative" on the basis of that link you gave me. I will look into it further before I change my mind to being able to prove a negative.

I know you won't change your mind. I've noticed your stubborn nature all over the forum already. Not that that's a bad thing but you can prove negatives.

For example, I can prove there is no milk in my cereal bowl by showing an empty cereal bowl.

[Glenn.]

I know a man called Steve who owns the local Gym who's psychic. He goes to sleep and wakes up with a message from someone who has passed away. He forgets about it and he eventually comes into contact with the person the message is for. Whether its in the street or in the gym.

I asked him once how he does it and he said he was woke up one night with these voices talking in his head.

He doesn't earn money from it, and doesn't want to. He resents it.

I know its the real deal because of stuff he's told me. It's too personal to guess.

[Kizzy]

It should work the same way justice rystem(should) work, innocent till proven guilty...Its not up to me to prove i did see a ghost....Its up to you to prove i Couldn't possibly see one.

[Roy Mars III]

you didn't see one because they do not exist. case closed