Licking Our Wounds

When I was in my mid-twenties I would have bitterly resented being thought of as a "youth". If a grown man like Tommy joins a discussion forum and puts forward views which others disagree with, why shouldn't those others disagree, and why shouldn't the grown man defend his views if he can? I don't believe any of the discussions started with someone saying something like "there is no such thing as the supernatural" and then continued with Tommy refuting the original argument. All the arguments were started by Tommy stating his belief in this or that and then continued with others disagreeing. In such a case it was up to Tommy to defend his views, not up to skeptics to hold back for fear of hurting his delicate ego. This wouldn't be much of a discussion forum if nobody disagreed with anything.

[CreepingJesus]

I say that Tom won because his points of view were based on evidence,

perhaps I missed this "evidence".

Perhaps you'd do me the courtesy of identifying where, in all of his ramblings, the boy ever presented a shred of verifiable evidence.

Or is it the case that, like Tom, you make unprovable statements which you cannot substantiate?

[Thales404]

This is what C.S. Lewis says, in "Miracles,"

"What we learn from experience depends on the kind of philosophy we bring to experience...Many people think that one decide whether a miracle occured in the past by examining the evidence 'according to the ordinary rules of historical inquiry.' But the ordinary rules cannot be worked until we have decided whether miracles are possible, and if so, how probable they are. For if they are impossible, then no amount of historical evidence will convince us. If they are possible but immensely improbable, then only mathematically demonstrative evidence will convince us: and since history never provides that degreee of evidenve for any event, history can never convince us that a miracle occured. If, on the other hand, miracles are not intrinsically improbable, then the existing evidence will be sufficient to convince us that quite a number of miracles have occured." (p. 2)

If you like, you can substitute the word 'miracle' for the word 'ghost' or 'poltergeist.'

As we know, poltergeist-cases have physical evidence and, more importantly, human testimony. Tom went over this. Remember what Colin Wilson said, "The evidence for ghosts and poltergeists is as sound as the evidence for atoms and electrons." Wilson wrote that in 1988 and i don't know what's happened with atoms since, but i had a prof three years ago who admitted that some physicists don't believe in atoms because you can't see them.

So to answer your question, there isn't really "verifiable" evidence, because by verifiable evidence you mean 'mathematically demonstrative evidence.' History doesn't allow that. Other than historical evidence, there are modern cases. In short, there's too many witnesses and that's awfully suggestive and suspicious. They're educated and trustworthy (and this can be shown). Tom's point was that there are good reasons to believe in aspects of the paranormal: not that he, himself, can prove them. That was his point. Early on he said they're proven to exist, but he meant they were proven "collectively" and for you to ask for "verifiable" evidence reveals a misunderstanding, on your part, of what is meant by the word "collectively." You are asking for a single proof: he's talking generally. He even referred you to the research which i doubt you've taken into consideration. If there was no evidence, there would be no debate in the first place.

[CreepingJesus]

Right>

There's no evidence in your Lewis quote, just worthless musing on the nature of proof.

As we know, poltergeist-cases have physical evidence

I'm still waiting to see that.

All Tom could come up with was some tale about a team of investigators whose results I could explain as being consistent with common artifacts caused by recording machinery.

He didn't quote any specific or referenced cases.

Do you have any better ones?

Remember what Colin Wilson said, "The evidence for ghosts and poltergeists is as sound as the evidence for atoms and electrons."

Remember another thing that Colin Wilson said...

Almost without exception they would not take the trouble to go and see a psychic surgeon even if one lived round the corner: they tell you wearily that they know nothing will happen, or that if it does it will be trickery

Wilson's credibility is well and truly tainted by his lack of proper research.

He can be dismissed as next to useless.

but i had a prof three years ago who admitted that some physicists don't believe in atoms because you can't see them.

That's an intertesting concept. I'd like to see which physicists held that opinion, and the journal abstracts for the work. You see "some" is no good, it's third hand hearsay.

So to answer your question, there isn't really "verifiable" evidence, because by verifiable evidence you mean 'mathematically demonstrative evidence.

Here's what you need to start:

1. The research.

2. A description of the methodologies used, including double blind testing.

3. Measures which were taken to rule out anomalies, artifacts, and cheating in the investigative procedure.

4. Independent verification and assessment of the results.

5. Results which can be repeated by independent testers.


Other than historical evidence, there are modern cases. In short, there's too many witnesses and that's awfully suggestive and suspicious. They're educated and trustworthy (and this can be shown)

Educated and trustworthy men were easily convinced that Uri Geller could work psychical magic.

"too many witnesses" to what exactly?

Go and examine some of these accounts in detail, come back to me with witness accounts of what happened and I'll tell you why none of them are convincing.

[ScabbyDouglas]

but i had a prof three years ago who admitted that some physicists don't believe in atoms because you can't see them.

Now... I know this is going to sound sort of nit-picky and suspicious. But.. didn't you tell us that *you* were a "prof"? And if you had a prof, three years ago, wouldn't that have made you a student three years ago? Hey, well done for getting to be a "prof" so soon!

So, what particular field of study was this professor's specialism, that he suggested that physicists don't believe in atoms? I'm just curious.

But I'm guessing that he wasn't a physicist. I think it'd be fairly difficult to be a physicist if you don't believe in atoms.

[ScabbyDouglas]

(sigh)

Frankly, I'm sorry I responded to your brother, anyway. He said he didn't know you, which was evidently a lie.
He also said that *he* was a professor, and since you haven't sprung to his defence, I must suppose that was a terminological inexactitude as well.

I have no reason to trust any other remarks from that source and think that you should be cautious about it as well. I know he's your brother, but he could be lying to you too.

I'm only saying this for your own benefit.