ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Religion and Philosophy
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags Allan Kardec , life after death , spiritism , spiritualism

Reply
Old 25th August 2019, 09:45 AM   #721
Ricardo
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2019
Posts: 484
Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim View Post
Ricardo, when you said you "want to seriously debate", were you lying? If not, then why are you continuing to ignore the discussion of the things you have posted as evidence, and of the evidence that you requested from other people?
here in Brazil the spiritist doctrine is very well known. I thought that the spiritist doctrine in the United States was known. And I joined this skeptical forum to debate about the spiritist doctrine but I think almost everyone in this forum doesn't know the spiritist doctrine that is based on the existence of the spirits, so it was almost impossible to debate.

you asked for proof so I recommended the books which to me are proof of the existence of spirits! the name of the book is "The Spirits' Books" only the name of the book is already evidence of the existence of spirits!
Ricardo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th August 2019, 09:47 AM   #722
Squeegee Beckenheim
Penultimate Amazing
 
Squeegee Beckenheim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 25,266
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
I'm just trying to figure out how a unicorn can be simultaneously pink and invisible.
Depends what you mean by "pink". If it can see itself and nobody else can see it, then it can be pink. It could be considered pink if it was only intermittently invisible and was visibly pink at all the times when it was not invisible - in the same way that if a clean-shaven man is asked "what colour is your beard?" he can honestly answer "ginger".

Or it could be made out of pink noise, somehow. Or be a member of Pink Floyd. Or have the last name Pink.
__________________
I don't trust atoms. They make up everything.
Squeegee Beckenheim is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th August 2019, 09:49 AM   #723
Steve001
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,513
Originally Posted by Ricardo View Post
Invisible Pink Unicorn doesn't exist! spirits exist because they prove their existence through effects even though they are invisible!
Likely true pink unicorns don't exist, but it is a very big universe. Have you looked?
Space aliens are invisible. Maybe it was space aliens.
Steve001 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th August 2019, 09:51 AM   #724
Ricardo
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2019
Posts: 484
Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim View Post
I read what you directed me towards, and you have repeatedly refused to debate me - even after admitting that you had started off only wanting to preach but had since developed a desire to "seriously debate" the subject.
in the book talks about the proof of the existence of spirits. It is only about the proof of existence found in this book that I can debate with you. did you read about the rotating tables?
Ricardo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th August 2019, 09:51 AM   #725
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 17,572
Originally Posted by Ricardo View Post
here in Brazil the spiritist doctrine is very well known. I thought that the spiritist doctrine in the United States was known. And I joined this skeptical forum to debate about the spiritist doctrine but I think almost everyone in this forum doesn't know the spiritist doctrine that is based on the existence of the spirits, so it was almost impossible to debate.
You seem to be an expert in doing absolutely everything except what was asked of you. Instead of proceeding according to the premises I've outlined, you have simply presented reasons why you believe you can continue under your wrong assumptions.

Do as I ask. Do not keep foisting the notion that your critics disagree with you because they do not know the particulars of your claim, or that they are generally uninformed. Your critics disagree with you because you cannot provide evidence to support your claims. When you misstate the reasons for disagreement, you do your critics a great disservice that has culminated in this thread you started merely to call them names. It is unfair and childish. Further, when you insist on posturing the debate as between things you know that your critics do not, it tempts you keep falling into the trap of accusing your critics of being somehow intellectually inferior or immature. And then you proceed further from that assumption.

Now kindly do as I ask. You have failed to answer almost every single question I've put to you. These questions are intended to identify to you the flaws in your reasoning. The more you evade them, the more you convince your critics that you have no intention of debating in good faith. Answer them under the premise that your critics are informed about what your claims are.
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th August 2019, 09:52 AM   #726
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 17,572
Originally Posted by Ricardo View Post
in the book talks about the proof of the existence of spirits. It is only about the proof of existence found in this book that I can debate with you. did you read about the rotating tables?
I'm not interested in what is written books you have read. I am interested in what empirical exercise you undertook, if any, to prove the existence of spirits before you started attributing effects to them as potential causes.
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th August 2019, 09:59 AM   #727
Ricardo
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2019
Posts: 484
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
I'm not interested in what is written books you have read. I am interested in what empirical exercise you undertook, if any, to prove the existence of spirits before you started attributing effects to them as potential causes.
but what kind of evidence do you want? You are very demanding! You are demanding the impossible! Please explain to me what kind of evidence you want?
Ricardo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th August 2019, 10:00 AM   #728
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 17,572
Originally Posted by Steve001 View Post
Likely true pink unicorns don't exist...
The whipping boy I used to use for this was "transvestite space cows." It was the most absurd thing I could think of in the moment.

Our local transit authority sponsors art exhibits that change every few months at our city rail stations. It's art, so the contributions run quite a gamut. Sure enough, a few years after I first starting using that example of a thing almost certain not to exist, there appeared a fiberglass sculpture of a Holstein cow in a pink tutu with a Buck Rogers style rocket pack strapped to its back. Not only was it proven that transvestite space cows actually exist, I was able to supply a picture of one. (Which I have subsequently misplaced.)
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th August 2019, 10:02 AM   #729
Ricardo
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2019
Posts: 484
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
I'm not interested in what is written books you have read. I am interested in what empirical exercise you undertook, if any, to prove the existence of spirits before you started attributing effects to them as potential causes.
When a skeptic who first denies there is any evidence is confronted with this evidence, the skeptic will say that he meant he is not convinced by that evidence. However, if a skeptic is going to say there is no convincing evidence for something when there is evidence that is widely considered to support it, rather than deny any evidence exists, he should explain why that evidence is not valid. In some cases the skeptic may be referring to a purely philosophical argument, for example a philosophical argument that God exists. But if a skeptic is going to dismiss a philosophical argument, he should also know what the argument is and be able to explain what part of the argument he disagrees with and why
Ricardo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th August 2019, 10:04 AM   #730
Ricardo
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2019
Posts: 484
The argument that "there is no evidence" or "it doesn't convince me", is actually a rhetorical device and not appropriate in a supposedly rational debate. If a skeptic can't explain why the evidence doesn't convince him, if he can't explain what is wrong with the evidence, then he probably doesn't really know what the evidence is, or he is not really trying to understand the evidence, or he has no valid argument against the evidence.
Why do skeptics insist on denying the evidence exists? Because if they actually discuss the evidence it becomes much harder to maintain that their belief in materialism is true. It is so much easier for the skeptic to deny the existence of evidence. It is easier for him to mislead than to explain why he believes in materialism when there is so much evidence against it.
Ricardo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th August 2019, 10:06 AM   #731
Ricardo
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2019
Posts: 484
When trying to provide evidence to convince pseudo-skeptics, believers in paranormal phenomena often observe that the skeptics keep moving the goal post. For example, after a parapsychologist improves an experimental design and repeats an experiment in response to a criticism of a skeptic, the skeptic always seems to come up with a new objection. This can be easily understood if one considers why skeptics raise objections to evidence. When skeptics raise objections to evidence, it is not because they would actually believe the evidence if you satisfied their objection. Skeptics raise objections because they don't want the phenomenon to be proven. They raise objections to maintain their disbelief. That is why if you satisfy their objections, they will not change their minds and give up their disbelief, they will just come up with another objection to allow them to maintain their disbelief.
This is why it can be pointless to discuss the evidence with a pseudo-skeptic or to let a pseudo-skeptic dictate what evidence you should obtain. They are not sincerely interested in evidence, they are interested in maintaining their prejudice and they will invent as many new hypothetical problems with the evidence as necessary. Any hypothesis that supports his world view no matter how tenuous will be preferable to a to a pseudo-skeptic than any non materialist explanation no matter how much evidence there is supporting it. Repeated observations and repeatable experiments haven't convinced skeptics. Statements by Nobel prize winning scientists who were convinced by evidence hasn't convinced skeptics. When pushed to the limit, the skeptic always has recourse to the last bastions of skepticism: accusations of fraud, incompetence, and self-delusion.
Ricardo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th August 2019, 10:06 AM   #732
wasapi
Philosopher
 
wasapi's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 8,192
Originally Posted by Ricardo View Post
in the book talks about the proof of the existence of spirits. It is only about the proof of existence found in this book that I can debate with you. did you read about the rotating tables?
So, the book is your proof? Anecdotes are your truth? I think you are out of your league here. Those who have had patience replying to you have done so with intelligence and evidence to support them. You are like a broken record.
__________________
Julia
wasapi is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th August 2019, 10:10 AM   #733
Squeegee Beckenheim
Penultimate Amazing
 
Squeegee Beckenheim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 25,266
Originally Posted by Ricardo View Post
in the book talks about the proof of the existence of spirits. It is only about the proof of existence found in this book that I can debate with you. did you read about the rotating tables?
I've asked you several times to direct me towards specific pages if there's something specific you wanted to discuss. You have repeatedly ignored me when I have asked you to do so. If there's something specific you want me to discuss, tell me the specific page in the specific book, I'll read it, and we can discuss it in the appropriate thread.

I'm not psychic myself, though, but I will predict that you will not do this.
__________________
I don't trust atoms. They make up everything.
Squeegee Beckenheim is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th August 2019, 10:11 AM   #734
Jack by the hedge
Safely Ignored
 
Jack by the hedge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 9,691
Originally Posted by Ricardo View Post
Please explain to me what kind of evidence you want?
Do you receive messages from the spirits you imagine visit you?

Ask them to tell you something you could not already know.

Ask them for my phone number and the password I thought up some years ago in another discussion on this forum. Call me and tell me the word and I will give you a thousand pounds, just as I promised whichever psychic it was I originally proposed this to.
Jack by the hedge is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th August 2019, 10:13 AM   #735
Squeegee Beckenheim
Penultimate Amazing
 
Squeegee Beckenheim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 25,266
I'm not going to bother googling, but the change in formatting and grammar means I'm very sure that the last 3 posts by Ricardo are yet more unattributed quotes.
__________________
I don't trust atoms. They make up everything.
Squeegee Beckenheim is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th August 2019, 10:16 AM   #736
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 17,572
Originally Posted by Ricardo View Post
When a skeptic who first denies there is any evidence is confronted with this evidence, the skeptic will say that he meant he is not convinced by that evidence. However, if a skeptic is going to say there is no convincing evidence for something when there is evidence that is widely considered to support it...
There is no evidence that is "widely considered" to support the existence of spirits. You simply rewrite the definition of evidence to include attribution and speculation. Your critics help you understand that you are doing this.

Quote:
...he should explain why that evidence is not valid.
This has been done for you plenty. You simply don't want to address it.

Quote:
But if a skeptic is going to dismiss a philosophical argument, he should also know what the argument is and be able to explain what part of the argument he disagrees with and why
No. A skeptic properly rejects a philosophical argument as not being a substitute for evidence. Word games are not evidence, and skeptics properly respect the difference. You want your inept sophistry to take the place of evidence. That won't do.
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th August 2019, 10:17 AM   #737
8enotto
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: Mexico
Posts: 1,040
I have a book titled " La muerte de Superman " and another " El mundo sin Superman ". One documents an epic battle of two powerful characters where one is beat and the other dies of his wounds. The other describes the deep grief the world felt without Superman.

Both are dependent on existence of this Superman so he is a verifiable factual and historical person. It has sold multiple millions of copies and is sought after by the Superman faithful.

It has to be superman is real. Exactly by your logic. I have the books to prove it! The titles alone give evidence to Superman.
8enotto is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th August 2019, 10:17 AM   #738
Pixel42
Schrödinger's cat
 
Pixel42's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Malmesbury, UK
Posts: 11,129
Originally Posted by Ricardo View Post
but what kind of evidence do you want? You are very demanding! You are demanding the impossible! Please explain to me what kind of evidence you want?
Objective evidence. It is easy to design a simple test whereby a medium can provide information obtainable only from the supposed spirits (what number has just been rolled on a dice behind a screen, say). No medium has ever passed such a test.
__________________
"If you trust in yourself ... and believe in your dreams ... and follow your star ... you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things" - Terry Pratchett
Pixel42 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th August 2019, 10:18 AM   #739
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 17,572
Originally Posted by Ricardo View Post
When trying to provide evidence to convince pseudo-skeptics...
More plagiarism.

https://www.google.com/search?client...utf-8&oe=utf-8

Kindly either make your own arguments or properly cite when you have quoted another person's argument.
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th August 2019, 10:20 AM   #740
Squeegee Beckenheim
Penultimate Amazing
 
Squeegee Beckenheim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 25,266
Originally Posted by Pixel42 View Post
Objective evidence. It is easy to design a simple test whereby a medium can provide information obtainable only from the supposed spirits (what number has just been rolled on a dice behind a screen, say). No medium has ever passed such a test.
I've pointed Ricardo towards meta-analyses that not only demonstrate that one of his claimed bits of evidence (that of being healed by prayer) is scientifically testable, but that it has been scientifically tested and no effect has been found. He ignored this.
__________________
I don't trust atoms. They make up everything.
Squeegee Beckenheim is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th August 2019, 10:22 AM   #741
Dr.Sid
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Olomouc, Czech Republic
Posts: 2,000
What happens when guy who won't listen meets people who don't care if he does ? This thread (and the other one).
Dr.Sid is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th August 2019, 10:28 AM   #742
Squeegee Beckenheim
Penultimate Amazing
 
Squeegee Beckenheim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 25,266
Originally Posted by Ricardo View Post
here in Brazil the spiritist doctrine is very well known. I thought that the spiritist doctrine in the United States was known. And I joined this skeptical forum to debate about the spiritist doctrine but I think almost everyone in this forum doesn't know the spiritist doctrine that is based on the existence of the spirits, so it was almost impossible to debate.

you asked for proof so I recommended the books which to me are proof of the existence of spirits! the name of the book is "The Spirits' Books" only the name of the book is already evidence of the existence of spirits!
Can I take the fact that you are again avoiding debate as an admission that you were lying when you said you wanted to "seriously debate" the topic?
__________________
I don't trust atoms. They make up everything.
Squeegee Beckenheim is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th August 2019, 10:32 AM   #743
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 31,334
Originally Posted by Ricardo View Post
here in Brazil the spiritist doctrine is very well known. I thought that the spiritist doctrine in the United States was known. And I joined this skeptical forum to debate about the spiritist doctrine but I think almost everyone in this forum doesn't know the spiritist doctrine that is based on the existence of the spirits, so it was almost impossible to debate.

you asked for proof so I recommended the books which to me are proof of the existence of spirits! the name of the book is "The Spirits' Books" only the name of the book is already evidence of the existence of spirits!

No, it really isn’t.
__________________
"You got to use your brain." - McKinley Morganfield

"The poor mystic homeopaths feel like petted house-cats thrown at high flood on the breaking ice." - Leon Trotsky
Mojo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th August 2019, 10:35 AM   #744
Jack by the hedge
Safely Ignored
 
Jack by the hedge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 9,691
Flip a coin and quickly cover it with your hand so you don't see which way up it landed.

Ask the spirits to tell you if it's heads or tails.

When they get it right 8 times in a row, get back to us.
Jack by the hedge is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th August 2019, 10:36 AM   #745
Pixel42
Schrödinger's cat
 
Pixel42's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Malmesbury, UK
Posts: 11,129
Personally I do care if he listens, I just don't hold out much hope that he will. It's always worth a try, though, surely.
__________________
"If you trust in yourself ... and believe in your dreams ... and follow your star ... you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things" - Terry Pratchett
Pixel42 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th August 2019, 10:43 AM   #746
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 17,572
I'll grant you this one. But I notice that you still do not answer any questions from anyone else, but rather simply pepper your critics with your own questions. You need to start answering my questions in good faith or I will have to conclude you're just here to troll.

Originally Posted by Ricardo View Post
but what kind of evidence do you want?
I've already answered this several times. In general, the kind of evidence required is
  1. repeatable,
  2. objectively observable,
  3. testable, and
  4. reliable.

These factors all dance around the central concept of being susceptible to practical empiricism. There is some overlap among them, so let me elaborate in a more roundabout way.

Evidence is repeatable when it can be invoked at will to serve the needs of multiple trials attempted by multiple investigators. For existential questions this is less rigorous but still important. For example, proof that the coelacanth was not extinct was provided by a single specimen, which sadly expired while being collected. Its survival as a species is evidence by several repeatable observations. This is not to say that every attempt to observe something must be successful. But there must be a reasonably causal connection between the empirical stimulus and the hypothesized outcome. What it really means is that each expedition intended to observe a coelacanth should have roughly the same probability of success, for reasons that are purely circumstantial and not speculative.

Convincing evidence is objectively observable. It may not, as you have desired, be subject to personal interpretation or inward sensation. Evidence must ideally be measurable by an apparatus that entirely obviates the influence of effects other than that to be observed. I can see a fish with my own eyes. That's objective enough. Identifying it as the species in question is usually a matter of analysis of its topographical anatomy, with objective measurements of features conforming to a norm to some statistical degree of certainty. Photography is a way of preserving visual observations. Science uses instruments to detect the presence of "observable" phenomena that are not directly perceptible by human senses. This too is reasonably objective observation.

Evidence is testable when it can be subject to empirical methods that distinguish between several potential hypothesis by means of observed outcome, behavior, or conclusive side effect. Its behavior must be well enough understood to strongly attribute observations to one hypothesis to the exclusion of others. This subsumes repeatability to a certain extent. The evidence we want to test must be made to appear when we're ready to execute the test. And it must occur often enough to make error or uncertainty in the testing method insignificant.

Evidence is reliable when its behavior under examination is stable. This subsumes objectivity and repeatability, but envisions it in a way that makes it easier to reject some hypotheses in favor of others. A coelacanth doesn't transform itself into a reef shark spontaneously. It remains as it is. And variations among individuals aside, a coelacanth fits a certain description every time.

I'm sure you want me to suggest specific tests we could perform that conform to these requirements. But I cannot do that until you start answering my questions. You must provide information regarding testable factors. Vaguely referring to book-length doctrinal treatises does not suffice.

Quote:
You are very demanding!
Yes, science is very demanding on what it accepts as evidence. If you are unwilling to provide evidence to that degree of rigor, you cannot expect skeptics to agree with your conclusions. And when that's the case, it is unfair and childish of you to call them names in return. They are being proper skeptics when they refuse to lower their standards to admit your desired beliefs.

Quote:
You are demanding the impossible!
Why is it impossible to provide evidence of the existence of spirits?
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th August 2019, 10:48 AM   #747
Squeegee Beckenheim
Penultimate Amazing
 
Squeegee Beckenheim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 25,266
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
Why is it impossible to provide evidence of the existence of spirits?
One of the books he's pointed to claims that spirits lie outside the domain of science.

That book is demonstrably wrong about a great many things, and I have managed to provide counter-evidence to things posted by Ricardo being claimed as proof, but Ricardo chooses to ignore this and instead to cherry-pick things he believes support his beliefs.
__________________
I don't trust atoms. They make up everything.
Squeegee Beckenheim is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th August 2019, 10:53 AM   #748
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 17,572
Originally Posted by Ricardo View Post
The argument that...
Plagiarized again, likely from:

http://ncu9nc.blogspot.com/2012/09/w...-evidence.html

Quote:
If a skeptic can't explain why the evidence doesn't convince him, if he can't explain what is wrong with the evidence, then he probably doesn't really know what the evidence is, or he is not really trying to understand the evidence, or he has no valid argument against the evidence.
All the skeptics who have disputed your claims have explained in excruciating detail why they don't find your evidence conclusive. Authors such as the one you have dishonestly quoted without attribution fall into the same trap you have. They present a tortured, inaccurate straw man of science so that they can demonize and dispel it. It all boils down to the same sour-grapes excuses for a lack of rigor.

You persist in the pattern of completely ignoring the reasons your critics give for not being convinced by your evidence, ignoring the rational principles for why those reasons are valid, and the attempts they make to illustrate to you why you might find your arguments convincing while others do not. You seem to have started from the position that your critics are uninformed and irrational, and have devolved into mere name-calling to maintain this belief.

When you have cured yourself of this arrogance, then perhaps you can have an intelligent debate.
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th August 2019, 10:55 AM   #749
JesseCuster
Muse
 
Join Date: May 2016
Posts: 964
Originally Posted by Ricardo View Post
spirits exist because they prove their existence through effects even though they are invisible!
Wizards exist because they prove their existence through effects even though they are invisible!

Provide empirical evidence that I am wrong about invisible wizards!
JesseCuster is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th August 2019, 11:07 AM   #750
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 17,572
Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim View Post
One of the books he's pointed to claims that spirits lie outside the domain of science.
I expect that will be the answer he gives. It was the answer Jabba gave when he debated the same principles using the same books, and when two or three other claimants here tried the same arguments using the same sources.

Proponents make this claim in hopes of placing a refutation of some supernatural belief beyond the capacity of science. Ricardo hasn't made that argument explicitly, but his argument does seem to say, "Science doesn't know enough to refute me."

The problem, of course, is that the claim that some supernatural phenomenon is "outside the domain of science" inherently contradicts the later claims that the phenomenon is responsible for some effect in our world. To the extent that something has an effect in the observable world, it is within the domain of science. If someone claims to be healed in his body by the action of a spirit, then that is a scientifically testable claim. Science can speak reasonably about what factors result in physiological effects and which do not. It may not know the causality in any specific case, due to having failed to collect or preserve evidence. But it is not something science intrinsically cannot examine.

If Ricardo wants to argue that it's impractical for him to collect empirical evidence, or impossible due to some deficiency in measurement, then that's a different kettle of (no-longer-extinct) fish. But we still have to contend with basic things like the anticorrelation of purported causes to observable effects.
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th August 2019, 11:12 AM   #751
Squeegee Beckenheim
Penultimate Amazing
 
Squeegee Beckenheim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 25,266
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
I expect that will be the answer he gives.
It is. He quoted it in the other thread.

Quote:
If someone claims to be healed in his body by the action of a spirit, then that is a scientifically testable claim. Science can speak reasonably about what factors result in physiological effects and which do not. It may not know the causality in any specific case, due to having failed to collect or preserve evidence. But it is not something science intrinsically cannot examine.
Yup. That is a claim Ricardo has made, and I have explained to him how it's empirically testable, and linked him to meta-analyses of studies where it has been tested empirically. He has ignored this.
__________________
I don't trust atoms. They make up everything.
Squeegee Beckenheim is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th August 2019, 12:01 PM   #752
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 17,572
Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim View Post
It is. He quoted it in the other thread.
I'm ignoring the other thread for the time being. I've hoped that his proof for spirits could live in that thread and that his charges of pseudo-skepticism against his critics could live here. That makes this a discussion about how to investigate, rather than the execution of some particular investigation. Those many not be severable, hence I wouldn't be surprised to see the two threads merged.

Existence without scientifically cognizable effect is no better philosophy than it is science. Operative existence is meaningless without effect. And where there is effect, there is science to measure and characterize it. Now it would be one thing to say science is unsure what to observe or measure in this case. But it's another thing altogether to claim that spirits are inherently inscrutable to science. That's a desperate ploy to avoid an unfavorable verdict.

These proponents complain that a scientific level of rigor is not something they should be expected to meet. They complain that skepticism reaches conclusions harshly. But the problem is that when they ask for "respect" for their beliefs, what they seem to want is an acceptance commensurate with scientific rigor. They want a shortcut. Sentiments like, "You're not a true skeptic if you don't believe me," or "You must respect me as having superior maturity for believing in spirits," then the equation changes. Respect for someone's beliefs does not mean they are entitled to the benefits of their truth claims being affirmed. "Respect my beliefs" seems to be a code for just that.
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th August 2019, 12:20 PM   #753
JesseCuster
Muse
 
Join Date: May 2016
Posts: 964
Originally Posted by Ricardo View Post
the name of the book is "The Spirits' Books" only the name of the book is already evidence of the existence of spirits!
That's the worst argument I've ever heard.
JesseCuster is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th August 2019, 12:23 PM   #754
Axxman300
Illuminator
 
Axxman300's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 3,960
Originally Posted by Ricardo View Post
In this case you need the people who have psychophonic medium or psychography!
BS.

Who told you that? No, wait, it was probably a psychic medium (scam artist).

This claim isn't even consistent with the collected anecdotal evidence. You are failing on both sides of this issue.
__________________
Disingenuous Piranha
Axxman300 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th August 2019, 12:32 PM   #755
Ricardo
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2019
Posts: 484
Originally Posted by Axxman300 View Post
BS.

Who told you that? No, wait, it was probably a psychic medium (scam artist).

This claim isn't even consistent with the collected anecdotal evidence. You are failing on both sides of this issue.
I read in the book. the name of this book is "Allan Kardec's BOOK OF MEDIUM"
Ricardo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th August 2019, 12:39 PM   #756
Ricardo
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2019
Posts: 484
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
I'm ignoring the other thread for the time being. I've hoped that his proof for spirits could live in that thread and that his charges of pseudo-skepticism against his critics could live here. That makes this a discussion about how to investigate, rather than the execution of some particular investigation. Those many not be severable, hence I wouldn't be surprised to see the two threads merged.

Existence without scientifically cognizable effect is no better philosophy than it is science. Operative existence is meaningless without effect. And where there is effect, there is science to measure and characterize it. Now it would be one thing to say science is unsure what to observe or measure in this case. But it's another thing altogether to claim that spirits are inherently inscrutable to science. That's a desperate ploy to avoid an unfavorable verdict.

These proponents complain that a scientific level of rigor is not something they should be expected to meet. They complain that skepticism reaches conclusions harshly. But the problem is that when they ask for "respect" for their beliefs, what they seem to want is an acceptance commensurate with scientific rigor. They want a shortcut. Sentiments like, "You're not a true skeptic if you don't believe me," or "You must respect me as having superior maturity for believing in spirits," then the equation changes. Respect for someone's beliefs does not mean they are entitled to the benefits of their truth claims being affirmed. "Respect my beliefs" seems to be a code for just that.
Clearly, the scientific method is a powerful tool, but it has its limitations. These limitations are based on the fact that a hypothesis must be testable and falsifiable and that experiments and observations are repeatable. This puts certain topics still out of the reach of the scientific method. Science cannot yet prove or disprove the existence of spirits!

https://science.howstuffworks.com/in...c-method10.htm

Last edited by Ricardo; 25th August 2019 at 12:41 PM.
Ricardo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th August 2019, 12:40 PM   #757
Axxman300
Illuminator
 
Axxman300's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 3,960
Originally Posted by Ricardo View Post
When trying to provide evidence to convince pseudo-skeptics, believers in paranormal phenomena often observe that the skeptics keep moving the goal post.
Not true. And in your case you've just been standing mid-field whining that the goal posts be moved to you. You have provided no evidence.

Quote:
For example, after a parapsychologist improves an experimental design and repeats an experiment in response to a criticism of a skeptic, the skeptic always seems to come up with a new objection. This can be easily understood if one considers why skeptics raise objections to evidence. When skeptics raise objections to evidence, it is not because they would actually believe the evidence if you satisfied their objection.
Not true. This is part of the scientific method and takes place across the scientific spectrum. A thesis is made, experiments are performed and logged, and a paper detailing those experiments with the results is written, and submitted for review. Other scientists take that paper and recreate those experiments and the results are either confirmed, modified, or discounted. The original scientist goes back to work using their critiques to perform better experiments. This is repeated until there is success or all avenues are exhausted. This is how we got Aspirin and jet engines.



Quote:
Skeptics raise objections because they don't want the phenomenon to be proven. They raise objections to maintain their disbelief. That is why if you satisfy their objections, they will not change their minds and give up their disbelief, they will just come up with another objection to allow them to maintain their disbelief.
This is a lie.

Quote:
This is why it can be pointless to discuss the evidence with a pseudo-skeptic or to let a pseudo-skeptic dictate what evidence you should obtain. They are not sincerely interested in evidence, they are interested in maintaining their prejudice and they will invent as many new hypothetical problems with the evidence as necessary.
And yet somehow science has moved forward. Why is that? There are people who believe humans with one skin color are superior to humans with different skin colors, yet science proves this is false. There are men who think women are inferior, yet science has proved this to be a lie. There are people who don't believe in evolution yet the science has only been reinforced by DNA & RNA.

Science always wins.


Quote:
Any hypothesis that supports his world view no matter how tenuous will be preferable to a to a pseudo-skeptic than any non materialist explanation no matter how much evidence there is supporting it.
Another lie.


Quote:
Repeated observations and repeatable experiments haven't convinced skeptics.
In the case of psychics and spiritualism there have been no successful experiments.

Quote:
Statements by Nobel prize winning scientists who were convinced by evidence hasn't convinced skeptics. When pushed to the limit, the skeptic always has recourse to the last bastions of skepticism: accusations of fraud, incompetence, and self-delusion.
Winning a Nobel Prize and being human are two different things and a Nobel Prize winning physicist is just as susceptible to delusional thinking as the town drunk.
__________________
Disingenuous Piranha
Axxman300 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th August 2019, 12:41 PM   #758
bruto
Penultimate Amazing
 
bruto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Way way north of Diddy Wah Diddy
Posts: 24,458
Originally Posted by Ricardo View Post
here in Brazil the spiritist doctrine is very well known. I thought that the spiritist doctrine in the United States was known. And I joined this skeptical forum to debate about the spiritist doctrine but I think almost everyone in this forum doesn't know the spiritist doctrine that is based on the existence of the spirits, so it was almost impossible to debate.
It has been stated by more than one person that several of us are at least a little bit familiar with the spritist doctrine (though not accepting of it). If you demand belief as a prerequisite to debate, of course there can be no actual debate. You are, in effect, saying you will enter a debate only if debating is redefined to mean not debating. Honest argument is dead on arrival.
__________________
I love this world, but not for its answers. (Mary Oliver)

Quand il dit "cuic" le moineau croit tout dire. (When he's tweeted the sparrow thinks he's said it all. (Jules Renard)
bruto is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th August 2019, 01:09 PM   #759
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 17,572
Originally Posted by Ricardo View Post
Clearly, the scientific method is a powerful tool, but it has its limitations. These limitations are based on the fact that a hypothesis must be testable and falsifiable and that experiments and observations are repeatable.
Correct. Because science applies considerable rigor to its methods of obtaining and reasoning about observations, it has the power to reliably predict outcomes. You cannot achieve this rigor, but you seem to want to be respected as if you had. Calling people names for doing no more than noting this state of affairs is childish.

Quote:
This puts certain topics still out of the reach of the scientific method.
You haven't explained why spirits are one of those topics. You've just declared them to be impervious to scientific inquiry and pretended that this ends the debate.

Quote:
Science cannot yet prove or disprove the existence of spirits!
False. You claim that spirits have an effect in the natural world. For example, you claim that they can cause and cure pain. That makes it a testable proposition. Your problem is not that the existence and purported effect of spirits are not scientifically testable. Your problem is that your hypothesis fails the test.

But if you now believe that science cannot disprove the existence of spirits, then I take you concede that your critics are not obliged to attempt to do so, as you demanded yesterday.
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th August 2019, 01:15 PM   #760
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 17,572
Originally Posted by Ricardo View Post
I read in the book.
What did you do to test whether what you read in the book was factually correct? What intellectual exercises have you done to determine that the supernatural phenomena you believe in are actually capable of the properties you attribute to them?

Even that has the cart before the horse. You're still stuck in circular reasoning. One can't be sure that something has the properties attributed to it until it is known to exist and, ideally, submits itself for examination. Jumping over the question of existence per se to assert that the appearance of certain properties proves existence is a non-starter from a logical position.
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Religion and Philosophy

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:54 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.